Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor M. Skinner declared a personal interest in agenda Item 5 as he was a Director of Active4Today.

Councillor R. Holloway declared a personal interest in agenda Item 8 as she was a member of the Parish Council but had not attended the Parish Council meeting that had considered the application.

Councillor M. Dobson declared a non-pecuniary interest in agenda Item 11 as she was a Nottinghamshire County Councillor.

Councillor K. Walker declared a personal interest in agenda Item 11 as he was a Nottinghamshire County Councillor.

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 14 January 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought full planning permission for the erection of 87 market residential properties divided into 15 different house types as summarised in the report.

Newark Town Councillor Jane Olsen was in attendance to address the Committee in objection to the application in accordance with the views of Newark Town Council as detailed in the report to Members.

Members considered the application and were in general support of applications for housing development, due to the housing need within the District, however, they did not believe that this was an appropriate site or proposed design. Members echoed the concerns raised by Nottinghamshire County Council and Highways regarding a shortage of parking spaces on site and potential flooding and drainage issues. Members were also concerned about the cumulative impact the development would have on traffic in the area, and particularly on Bowbridge Road which they felt was already congested. It was therefore proposed and seconded that the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendation.

Other Members felt that it would be preferable to defer the application, to enable the applicant to address the issues highlighted and provide further information on the viability of the site in relation to the number of properties proposed. It was proposed and seconded that the application be deferred. On being put to the vote, and motion to defer the application fell.

AGREED      (10 for, 4 against) that contrary to Officer recommendation planning permission be refused due to the proposal resulting in on-street parking to the detriment of other users of the highway due to insufficient off-street parking spaces being provided.  In addition, the layout of the development would require soakaways under the carriageway as shown on drawing DR-C-0001-P1 which is not an acceptable system of drainage.  The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy DM5 of the allocations & Development Management Development Plan 2013.

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

Councillor J. Lee left after the consideration of this item.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the full planning permission for the variation of conditions 4 and 5 attached to 17/01268/FULM which related to planning permission for the erection of directional lighting (55 columns).  The purpose of the columns would provide floodlighting to the racecourse to allow races to take place until 21:30hours.  No additional meetings were proposed per year.

It was noted that Southwell Town Council had objected to the application due to the increased lighting pollution that the application would create. However, Members were minded to support the application, as the additional lighting was only a small proportion of lighting on the site that would be lit for a short time after events and was required for the health and safety of site users.

AGREED      (12 for, 1 Abstention) that full planning permission be approved subject to the conditions and reasons contained within the report.

Site Visit: 9.20am – 9.30am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development following a site inspection, which sought the erection of one, three bed detached dwelling.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from Eakring Parish Council who had no objections to the new plans.

Members heard that the application had been brought to Committee due to objections from the Conservation Officer which differed to the opinion to approve the application from the Planning Officer. Members agreed that the proposed design was of high quality and did not feel that the proposed development would harm the area.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions and reasons contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought full planning permission for the residential development of the site for one hundred and twenty, two storey dwellings.  The schedule of accommodation was contained within the report.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from Nottinghamshire County Council Highways which included comments on the proposed development and additional conditions to include should planning permission be granted.

Members heard that there was an extant reserved planning permission due to expire in December 2020. The revised scheme included 7 additional units and provision of ‘low cost housing’ rather than affordable housing. The Local Ward Member spoke in objection to the application, due to the design and density of the proposed application. Members also considered the provision of ‘low cost housing’ rather than affordable housing noting that many of the units did not comply with national space standards or the full parking/layout requirements of the Highways Officer.

AGREED      (7 for, 5 against and 1 abstention) that contrary to Officer recommendation planning permission be refused as the proposal does not provide for the necessary affordable housing contributions in a form promoted by the Development Plan. Alternately, low costs homes are proposed. 7 additional dwellings within the open countryside outside of the main built up area of Bilsthorpe, above and beyond a current fall-back position which currently exists up to December 2020 would also be contrary to the Development Plan. The proposal is therefore contrary to the aim of promoting a sustainable pattern of development within the District and is therefore considered to represent unsustainable development.

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

Site Visit: 11.10am – 11.20am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development following a site inspection, which sought one, one bed bungalow and associated tree works; removal of T1 and T2 and remedial pruning of crown up to 1.5 metres to T3.

The attention of Members’ was drawn to a revised plan for the site, which had been received just prior to the Committee meeting and was therefore not included on the schedule of communication. Members considered the revised plan as part of the Officer presentation and considered the impact on neighbouring dwellings to be more acceptable as a result.

The Local Ward Member supported Farndon Parish Council in objection to the proposed development due to loss of parking provision and risk of increased street parking which would be detrimental to the bus route through the village. Other Members felt that the proposed site was not suitable for development.

AGREED      (8 for, 4 against and 1 abstention) that contrary to Officer recommendation planning permission be refused due to the proposal failing to make adequate provision for the parking of vehicles off the public highway to mitigate the loss of a site that currently serves this purpose. Notwithstanding the views of the Highways Authority, an increased number of vehicles being parked on the public highway will result in an increase in the likelihood of danger to other users of the highway.

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 to ascertain the views of the Planning Committee to inform an appeal regarding a proposed residential development for eighty dwellings at land off Lower Kirklington Road, Southwell.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from the Planning Inspectorate and Marron Planning, on behalf of the appellant, relating to the date of the Hearing, timetable and amended plans submitted, removing the roundabout and replacing with a traffic light control signal junction.

Southwell Town Councillor Peter Scorer was in attendance to address the Committee representing the views of Southwell Town Council, querying the requirement from Highways to include traffic lights at the junction with Kirklington Road.

Members considered the report and presentation from Officers, and that the site had been allocated for an indicative 60 dwellings with the potential for two separate accesses from Lower Kirklington Road, whilst the application was for a significantly higher number of properties on just a part of the allocation site and with only one access on to Lower Kirklington Road. Members felt strongly that as the proposed site formed part of the gateway to Southwell, traffic lights would not be suitable to manage the transition from open countryside to an urban area. It was also noted that there were no other traffic lights anywhere in Southwell.

AGREED      (unanimously) that Members reaffirm the original decision and continue to object to the traffic light signal junction on the grounds of its harmful visual impact as a sole reason for objection/refusal.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which informed Members of an Order made by Nottingham County Council to divert part of Footpath 69 – Land between Shady Lane and Potwell Dyke, Lower Burgage, Burgage Lane, Southwell and invited representations and/or objections.  Only through a formal objection could the District Council be a party to any process relating to the proposals.  The report sought approval for the District Council to submit a formal objection.

The Committee discussed the proposed diversion but agreed that there did not appear to be a compelling reason to divert the footpath from the existing course.

AGREED      (11 For, 2 Abstentions) that the Planning Committee endorses maintaining an objection to the diversion of Footpath 69.

AGREED      that the report be noted.

AGREED      that the report be noted.