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 K Walker declared a personal interest in item 9, 9 Fisher Close, Collingham, as he lived on Fisher Close, but at the opposite end to the proposed development.

Councillor M Skinner declared a personal interest in items 5 and 6, as he was a Board Member of Active4Today.

The Chairman informed the Committee that the Council was undertaking an audio recording of the meeting which was to be webcast.

The minutes of the meeting held on 3 March 2020 were approved as a correct record, to be signed by the Chairman.

Prior to consideration of any applications, The Business Manager- Legal Services advised Members that the Government passed legislation last week enabling Regulations to be made for Councils to undertake committee meetings remotely. However, the regulations setting out the detailed provisions and the procedures to be followed are not yet published. Therefore, to ensure thatthe Council complies with proper decision-making requirements during this interim period, we will be utilising the Chief Officer Urgent Decision Making Powers provided for in the Council’s Constitution. This Committee will make recommendations to the Council’s Chief Executive who will effectively determine each application, relying on his delegated powers as set out in the Constitution and taking into account this Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the construction Residential development for 87 dwellings and associated works which had been previously considered by the Committee at its meeting on 4 February 2020 (resubmission of 19/01790/FULM). The current application was a re-submission of the previously refused scheme in an attempt to overcome the reason for refusal.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from Newark and Sherwood District Council Conservation Officer, Newark Town Council and the agent.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager- Planning Development, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development. In discussion, some Members still felt that the application before them did not sufficiently address their grounds for refusal regarding on-site parking, and maintained concerns regarding traffic congestion in the area, over intensification of the site and loss of green space which they felt was particularly relevant in the current climate. Members accepted that they were not able to raise further reasons for refusal, as the application had been previously considered, however, they maintained their reason for refusal due to on-site parking.

AGREED        (9 for, 5 against) to recommend to the Chief Executive, that contrary to Officer recommendation planning permission be refused on the grounds that previous objection relating to car parking has not been adequately addressed.

Despite the changes made since the previously refused scheme, the proposal would still fail to provide adequate off street parking to facilitate the development which in turn would lead to on street parking to the detriment of the safety and operation of the highways network. The proposal is therefore contrary to Spatial Policy 7 and Core Policy 9 of the Core Strategy as well as Policy DM5 of the Allocations and Development Management DPD and the NPPF which forms a material planning consideration.

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 an application to vary condition 3 attached to 17/01693/FULM to allow changes to building, minor changes to elevations and other substitute information to accommodate additional wellbeing facilities and associated offices, and revised landscape design at the Community and activity Village, Lord Hawke Way, Newark.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from Newark Town Council and NCC Highways. Members considered the report before them, and the presentation, from the Business Manager- Planning Development. The application was before the Committee as the District Council owned the land.

Members were in agreement that the activity village was very positive for the area, with a good design. Members agreed that the wording for Condition 013 should be amended to ‘shall be controlled’ rather than ‘should be controlled’ with regard to the security gate for the staff car park. The Business Manager- Planning Development confirmed that this would be amended.

AGREED (Unanimously) to recommend to the Chief Executive, that planning permission be approved in accordance with Officer recommendation with the conditions detailed in the report,subject to Condition 013 being amended to state ‘shall be controlled’ rather than ‘should be controlled’ with regard to the security gate for the staff car park.

The Committee considered an application for the development of one temporary construction access point off Ollerton Road, Edwinstowe. Members considered the report and presentation from the Senior Planning, Planning Development, including plans and photographs of the proposed site. In discussion, Members raised concerns around highways safety, as it was a busy road. It was also noted by Members that an alternative access route onto the site was already in place, and therefore they believed this application for an access was superfluous to requirement.

AGREED (Unanimously) to recommend to the Chief Executive, that Planning Permission be refused contrary to Officer recommendation on the grounds of highway safety and lack of need, given the width and adequacy of the existing access.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposed temporary construction access was considered likely to lead to conflicts between vehicles utilising it and other traffic using the highway, particularly given the speed of traffic along Ollerton Road. When considering this likely highway conflict and the lack of robust justification regarding the need for such a temporary construction access given the width and adequacy of the existing main access already in situ, it was considered that the application was unnecessary, harmful and contrary to Policies SP7 (Sustainable Transport), ShAP4 (Land at Thoresby Colliery) of the adopted Newark and Sherwood Amended Core Strategy (2019) and Policy DM5 (Design) of the Allocation and Development Management DPD, adopted 2013 which together form the relevant parts of the Development Plan.

The Committee considered an application to vary condition 02 to add extension to approved dwelling, attached to planning permission 17/01839/FUL and demolition of a shed and erection of 1 No. 4 bedroomed house, at 37 Easthorpe, Southwell. Members considered the report before them, and the presentation from the Business Manager- Planning Development. A Local Ward Member spoke in support of the application, stating that whilst the application was close to a conservation area, the plot for the development was not, and there were other properties within view with similar extensions.

Other members felt that the design was not appropriate, and also raised concerns around how the proposed development could negatively impact flooding in neighbouring properties.

AGREED (10 for, 2 against and 2 abstention) to recommend to the Chief Executive, that Planning Permission be refused, in accordance with Officer Recommendation, for the reasons set out in the report.

The Committee considered an application for a detached bungalow at 9 Fisher Close, Collingham. Members’ attention was drawn to the schedule of communication that was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the Agenda was published from Councillor Mrs Dales, Local Ward Member, and a letter from Collingham Parish Council against the application.

Members considered the report before them, and presentation from the Senior Planner, Planning Development, including plans and photographs. A Local Ward Member spoke raised objections to the application, due to the proposed size, design and orientation of the proposed development and detrimental effect on neighbouring properties and near-by community orchard. Members discussed the application, and considered deferral, to enable discussion with the applicant regarding design and orientation, however, on being put to the vote, this fell.

AGREED (11 For, 1 Against and 2 Abstentions) to recommend to the Chief Executive, that Planning Permission be refused, contrary to Officer recommendation on the grounds of its positioning and cramped appearance, uncomfortable relationship with host property, domination of parking to road frontage, all of which result in the proposal being out of character with the area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene

The proposed bungalow would, by reason of its positioning and its constrained layout on the site result in a cramped appearance; its positioning and proximity to the host property results in an uncomfortable and uncharacteristic relationship; and the resulting domination of car parking to the road frontage, results in a proposal that is out of character with the surrounding area and detrimental to the visual amenities of the streetscene.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development is thereby contrary to Core Policy 9 (Sustainable Design) of the Newark and Sherwood Amended Core Strategy (2019), Policy DM5 (Design) of the Allocation and Development Management DPD (2013) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2019), which is a material planning consideration.

AGREED that the report be noted.

AGREED that the report be noted.