Agenda and minutes

Councillor M Skinner declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 8 – Yorke Drive and Lincoln Road Playing Field, Lincoln Road, Newark on Trent (18/02279/OUTM), as the item had been considered by Newark Town council, the Member confirmed that he would keep an open mind.

Councillors J Lee and I Walker declared personal interests as they were Council’s appointed representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

The Chairman informed the Committee that the Council was undertaking an audio recording of the meeting and live screening on social media was being broadcast.

AGREED        that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 October 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought reserved matters approval for three dwellings on the site where outline planning permission had been granted upon appeal.  Matters to be considered were the appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from Southwell Civic Society; and the Agent.

Members considered the application and felt that the application was broadly acceptable, although the overall floor space had not been reduced much from 800sqm to 755sqm.  They were content with the design and appearance, but felt that the properties were large and intrusive and were a mass on the urban edge with a loss of environmental amenity. The Civic Society’s concerns regarding ecology considerations were noted.  It was also noted that the issue of flooding was a zone 1 site which was not considered high risk of surface water flooding.

However Members recognised a compromise needed to be found in line with the Inspector’s report. 

AGREED      (unanimously) that reserved matters be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought planning permission for fifty two dwellings and associated infrastructure which was a resubmission of 17/00865/FULM.

Members considered the application and it was commented that the additional fifty-two houses would put a strain on local services including GP’s and primary school places, would impact on local residents and the local community and the proposed access road onto the site was tight.  Other Members commented that they could see the need for affordable houses but raised concern that funding would not be submitted for extra primary school places.  It was commented that the design was good and improved the village but rejected the scheme on 100% affordable houses due to not enough primary school places in that area and there should be a mix of houses to secure Section 106 funding.  Members debated whether they should trade the education contribution of £131k for affordable housing.

A vote was taken to refuse the application on the grounds of lack of contribution on primary school education and health care, which was lost with 4 votes For, 6 votes Against and 1 Abstention.

A vote was taken to defer the application to negotiate a scheme with a mix of affordable and market housing if viable with the applicant, which was lost with 5 votes For, 5 votes Against and 1 Abstention.

AGREED      (with 5 votes For, 5 votes Against, 1 Abstention, the Chairman using his casting vote For the application) that full planning permission be granted subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought planning permission for the erection of a second storey extension providing two bedrooms above an existing ground floor footprint.

Councillor B Laughton, local Ward Member Farnsfield, spoke against the application and felt that there was minimal change to the original application.  The Committee was informed that Farnsfield Parish Council had objected to the application on the grounds of impact on neighbouring properties due to sunlight and amenity.

Members considered the application and felt that the proposal would have a massive impact on the local area and should be refused on the grounds of scale and design of the extension being inappropriate to non-designated heritage asset and to its setting.

AGREED      (unanimously) that contrary to Officer recommendation planning permission be refused on the grounds of scale and design of the extension being inappropriate to non-designated heritage asset and to its setting.

In accordance with paragraph 12.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was against officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought selective demolition and redevelopment of parts of the existing Yorke Drive Estate and the erection of new mixed tenure housing, community and recreational facilities on the adjoining Lincoln Road Playing Field site, resulting in the development of up to three hundred and twenty homes.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from the Planning Case Officer.

Members considered the application and felt that the application was acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that outline planning permission be granted subject to:

(a)          amendment to Condition 1 in relation to timescales for the commencement of development/subsequent reserved matters application;

(b)          amendment to Condition 4 omitting requirement for affordable housing;

(c)          an additional condition 28 requiring ecology mitigation; and

(d)          an additional condition 29 requiring the submission of an up to date noise survey at each subsequent reserved matters phase adjacent to Brunel Business Park.

AGREED           that the report be noted.

AGREED           that the report be noted.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development which presented the planning enforcement performance during the second quarter of 2019 from 1 July 2019 to 30 September 2019 and provided an update on cases where formal action had been taken.  The report also included cases which showed how the breaches of planning control had been resolved through negotiation.

It was also reported that Enforcement Ref: 18/00034/ENF and Enforcement Ref: 19/00194/ENF had both gone to appeal.

To consider resolving that, under section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involve the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

That, under section 100A (4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that they involved the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Paragraph 5 of part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.

The Committee considered the exempt report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought planning permission for applications 19/00779/FULM – Application for variation of condition 11 of planning permission 15/01295/FULM to allow the new access junction to be constructed wholly within highway land or that owned by the applicant; and 19/00689/FUL – Application for variation of conditions 02,03, 04 and 05 of planning permission 16/01369/FUL to allow the new access junction to be constructed wholly within highway land or that owned by the applicant (Retrospective).

(Summary provided in accordance with 100C(2) of the Local Government Act 1972.)