Agenda and minutes

The Chair informed the Committee that the Council was undertaking an audio recording of the meeting and that it was being live streamed.

Councillors L Dales and K Melton declared an other registrable interest for any relevant items, as they were appointed representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

AGREED          that the minutes from the meeting held on 5 June 2025 were                                 agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the variation of condition 01 to use land as gypsy and traveller's site, erection of amenity blocks and associated works on a permanent basis and change occupier’s names attached to planning permission 21/02613/FUL.

Mr Smith, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development

Members considered the application and felt that a two-year extension would be more appropriate to allow the applicant more time and certainty.  It was hoped that an answer regarding the Examination of the Amended Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD) would have been received by that time.

AGREED          (unanimously) that Planning Permission be extended to 1 August                           2027, subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the removal of condition 01 to make temporary permission permanent and the personal permission general as attached to planning permission 21/00891/S73.

Members considered the presentation from the Senior Planning Officer, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development

Members considered the application and a Member commented that this was not an allocated site on the allocated plan, with that taken into consideration it was felt that only one year should be supported for this site. The Business Manager for Planning Development advised that the outcome of the Examination for the Amended Allocations and Development Management Development Plan Document (DPD) was not yet published, and that new content around Gypsy and Traveller provision had been emerging through this process. The Director for Planning Growth informed the Committee that the map considered in the presentation was what the emerging policy was based upon and that as this site was outside of that policy area, caution was advised whilst waiting for the Planning Inspectorate to determine the outcome of the DPD review.

A vote was taken and lost to extend the planning permission for a further two years, with 5 votes For and 6 votes Against.

AGREED          (unanimously) that Planning Permission be approved subject to the                         conditions, including the variation of Condition 1, as opposed to its                         removal, as contained within the report.                                        

Site Visit: 10.20 am – 10.30 am

The application was deferred pursuant to paragraph 21 of the Protocol for Planning Committee based on the late item identifying the additional consultation requirements effecting the application.

AGREED          (unanimously) that the application be deferred.

Site Visit: 11.25 am – 11.35 am

This application was removed from the agenda as it had been identified that there was a fundamental error in the officer report in respect of the description of development which effects material planning considerations in the report and therefore the planning balance. This amendment to the agenda was pursuant to the provisions of the Committee Procedure Rules in the Constitution.

Site Visit: 10.45 am – 10.55 am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought a proposed retail unit with associated parking.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee, for Members as there were particular site factors which were significant in terms of the weight attached to them relative to other factors if they would be difficult to assess in the absence of a site inspection and there were significant policy or precedent implications that needed to be carefully addressed.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed the Committee that further representation had been received from residents after the deadline, there however were no new material planning reasons raised.

Members considered the application, the Business Manager – Planning Development confirmed that there was a formal boundary between the site and the neighbouring site.  Access onto Kirklington Road was raised as an issue as that area had three sets of traffic lights and was already a very congested area.  There was also a lot of pedestrian activity including primary school children and students walking around that location to the local primary and secondary schools.  It was therefore felt that the level of movement from this site from both vehicular and pedestrians would make the situation worse.  Kirklington Road was also a diversion route when the MARR route was closed, the junction to the proposed site was already heavily congested and the proposal was considered unacceptable.

A Member commented that small electric delivery vans should be used for these sites.  Sustainable drainage was also raised and whether a condition could be placed to ensure this was undertaken by the developer.  The Business Manager confirmed that Building Regulations would be a regulatory process for ensuring a degree of sustainable design in construction terms. Concern was raised that adding conditions for sustainable drainage features at this stage could be considered unreasonable unless the developer was in agreement.  These issues would ideally need to have been considered earlier in the planning application stage.

The number of car parking spaces, nineteen in total, was also considered too many for such a small area.  It was felt that it was not safe for pedestrians to safely walk into the store, pedestrians would be walking behind parked cars and inadequate lighting.  Members questioned why this scheme was prioritising car parking and less about pedestrian access and their safety.  Some Members also felt that the gate was important to prevent cars from parking in the car park, outside of the stores opening hours, which would ensure the car park was empty in order for the delivery vans to reverse safely into the car park.  Members felt that the safety issues of this site had not been addressed. Members were unconvinced that the previous appeal decision concerns had been adequately addressed despite the introduction of a pedestrian entrance from Kirklington Road.

A  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Site Visit: 12.15 pm – 12.25 pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the variation of condition 08 to allow increase of deliveries for day and removal of Condition 09 to allow use of site permanently attached to planning permission 23/01604/FUL.

A site visit had taken place prior to the commencement of the Planning Committee, for Members as there were particular site factors which were significant in terms of the weight attached to them relative to other factors if they would be difficult to assess in the absence of a site inspection.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager – Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development

The majority of Members considered the application acceptable.  A Member suggested that further work could be undertaken to find a more suitable site as this was a lorry park and not a recycling centre. Other Members commented that further noise reduction could be achieved by planting a row of trees running along the railway line.

AGREED          (with 10 votes For and 1 vote Against) that Planning Permission be                         approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

.

The Committee considered the report of the Director for Planning & Growth, which informed the Planning Committee on the latest Planning reform consultations.

The report considered some of the key planning reform consultations, which were summarised in a table within the report.  Whilst the report briefly detailed all of the consultations, the focus of the update was the two key consultations which impacted on the Planning Committee functions – Planning Reform Working Paper: Reforming Site Thresholds and Reform of Planning Committees: technical consultation. 

It was reported that it was important to note that other actions the government had already signposted in the planning reform consultation, included:  A new local plan system; National Decision-Making Policies and a revised National Planning Policy Framework later in 2025; Local planning authorities to set their own planning fees to cover costs of delivering a good planning applications service.

There were several consultation deadlines in July 2025 as summarised in the report.  The Council’s representations on planning reform consultations would need to be delegated to the Director for Planning & Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Planning Committee.  The Council would also need to write to the relevant MHCLG or DEFRA address or otherwise complete the relevant online survey.

The Chair indicated that the meeting duration had expired therefore a motion was moved by the Chair and agreed by Members to continue the meeting for a further thirty minutes.

AGREED          that the Council’s representations on planning reform                                             consultations be delegated to the Director for Planning & Growth in                         consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee.

AGREED that the report be noted.

AGREED that the report be noted.