Agenda and minutes

Councillors R V Blaney and Mrs M Dobson declared a personal interest in Agenda Item No. 11 – 5 Oakdene Cottages, Station Road, Collingham 19/00537/FUL as the applicants were known to them.

Councillors L Dales, J Lee and I Walker declared personal interests in Agenda Item No. 11 – 5 Oakdene Cottages, Station Road, Collingham 19/00537/FUL as they were representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

The Chairman informed the Committee that the Council was undertaking an audio recording of the meeting.

AGREED           that the minutes of the meeting held on 4 June 2019 be approved as a                  correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, which sought planning permission for the creation of a Fish Farming facility at Wigsley from agricultural land as a farm diversification business (resubmission of 17/02043/FULM).

This application was presented for determination at the 4 June 2019 Planning Committee with a recommendation for approval. Members resolved to refuse the application for the same reasons as previously refused.  However following the committee meeting and before the decision was issued, it become apparent that a late item submitted by the applicant was not clearly presented to Members that could have influenced the decision. As such the matter was brought back to the Committee.

Councillor C Thompson representing Wigsley Parish meeting spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Wigsley Parish meeting as contained within the report.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the agenda was published from the Applicant.

The Chairman asked whether the noise levels for construction could be controlled by condition.  The Interim Business Manager Planning confirmed that acceptable noise levels could be sought through Environmental Health.

Members considered the application and felt that the development was not suitable for that area.  It was suggested that if the Committee were minded to approve the application that a construction traffic routing plan should be established.  It was further suggested that a noise assessment and ecological report should also be obtained before planning permission was granted.

The Chairman commented that the noise levels could be controlled by condition and agreed with Environmental Health prior to consent and the sports fishing could also be controlled by condition.  The construction traffic routing could be agreed with the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the two local ward Members to confirm the routing plan.  The Interim Business Manager Planning confirmed that there were a number of conditions which related to ecology.

A vote was taken to approve planning permission, which was lost with 5 votes For and 9 votes Against.

AGREED                     (with 9 votes For and 5 votes Against) that contrary to Officer                              recommendation planning permission be refused for the                                        following reasons.

The reasons for refusal of the application 17/02043/FULM in March 2019 had not been addressed, associated concerns about the vehicle movements, concerns regarding its implementation/phasing and impacts upon the landscape and failure to pass the sequential test in respect of flood risk.

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

The application was withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, which sought permission for the variation of condition 2 and removal of condition 7 attached to planning permission 18/00279/FUL.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the agenda was published from Gunthorpe Parish Council.

Councillor Mrs L Jeffery representing Gunthorpe Parish Council spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Gunthorpe Parish Council as contained within the Schedule of Communication.

Councillor R Jackson local Ward Member Dover Beck spoke against the application on the grounds that the amount of cars currently on site was not being enforced.  The visitor parking that had been identified was not available and visitors were parking on the pavements creating an obstruction for pedestrians, mobility scooters and pushchairs forcing them onto the road.

Members considered the application and felt that the business had outgrown the site and any future expansion was inappropriate.  The fact that the site was also in flood zone three was also taken into consideration.  A Member commented that if unrestricted use was granted there would become a saturation point were the business would not have any more storage space and therefore control the amount of cars on site. 

AGREED           (with 13 votes For and 1 Abstention) that:

(a)                contrary to Officer recommendation full planning                                      permission be refused on the grounds of over-intensification                      and design/layout and its impact on the green belt; and

(b)               enforcement action be undertaken to control the site to                              maximum fifty cars.

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 Director of Growth & Regeneration, which sought planning permission for the addition of four roof lights over the kitchen area.

Councillor R Jackson local Ward Member Dover Beck spoke in support of the application on the grounds that the barn was not listed and was attached to the man house which had seventeen existing roof lights.  The roof light on the barn would not be visible from the road and would improve the light in the kitchen area as the light was restricted from the main house into the kitchen.  It was commented that Manor Farm had got a satellite dish, TV aerial, security lights which did not improve the visual impact of a Grade 2 listed building.  The new development to the side of Manor Farm Barn had six buildings all with roof lights.

The applicant asked and it was agreed by the Chairman that a number of photographs be circulated to the Committee.

Members considered the application and a Member commented that the new build on Priory Farm was not listed, this application was listed and whilst it was a nice to have, it was not a need to have and this barn was the conservation of an agricultural building.  Other Members felt that the roof lights would not detract away from the character and appearance of the conservation area.

AGREED           (with 10 votes For and 4 votes Against) that contrary to Officer                              recommendation full planning permission be approved subject to                               reasonable conditions.

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 Director of Growth & Regeneration, which sought planning permission for the addition of four roof lights over the kitchen area.

Members considered the application as contained within the above minute.

AGREED           (with 10 votes For and 4 Against) that listed building consent be                             approved for the reasons contained within the report, subject to                                reasonable conditions.

The application was withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, which sought outline planning permission for the demolition of existing buildings and subsequent erection of up to 16 dwellings with associated highway access off Woodhill Road.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received after the agenda was published from an interested party.

Members considered the application and one Member commented that there was no problem in principle with the development of the site; the concern was protecting the layby.  It was requested that the local bus company be contacted to check that the size of the layby was significant for their needs.  Sixteen properties would increase car parking, which would spill out and may restrict the access to the layby.

The Senior Planning Officer confirmed that the clearway order prevented any parking in that layby.  At present there was no order of clearway on the current layby as there was no existing threat.  Nottinghamshire County Council would monitor that over twelve months and if the layby was being used for parking they would enforce that.

Another Member commented that the brown field site was not large enough for sixteen dwellings and asked that be reduced to ten.  It was commented that the Parish Council had objected to this development and that part of the site was in a flood zone.  It was further commented that the layby would only accommodate two small sized buses and therefore would not future proof the service offered should more people be encouraged to use public transport.

The Chairman commented that the application was for outline planning permission and was a maximum of sixteen dwellings.  It was also confirmed that Nottinghamshire County Highways had raised no objection in respect of the access.

A vote was taken to refuse the application on the grounds of traffic, impact and access, which was lost with 6 votes For, 7 votes Against and 1 Abstention.

AGREED           (with 8 votes For, 4 votes Against and 2 Abstentions) that outline                            planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained                        in the report and the signing and sealing of a S106 agreement to                                  agree all matters set out within table 1 of the report.

Site Visit: 11.10am – 11.20am

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, following a site inspection, which sought planning permission for a new two storey house with built in garage, new driveway from the existing access off Station Road to be shared with the existing house.

Members considered the application and felt that the design was not suitable in a conservation area and too many trees would be removed.

AGREED           (with 13 votes For and 1 Abstention) that full planning permission be                     refused for the reasons contained within the report.

Site Visit: 9.20am – 9.30am

The application was withdrawn from the agenda at the applicant’s request.

Councillor J Lee left at this point.

Site Visit: 10.40am – 10.50am

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, following a site inspection, which sought planning permission for the erection of four dwellings and associated garages, the application, was a re-submission of 18/00599/FUL.

Members considered the application and some Members felt that the development was not suitable for bungalows being in flood zone 2 and had poor access.  Other Members considered the layout with the court yard good, but felt that the access was poor.  The need for bungalows was also commented upon for an ageing society and also for people with disabilities.  Some Members considered that the comments of the Strategic Housing Officer on page 182 of the agenda cast doubt on whether those with a preference for bungalows would actually be able to afford these bungalows and felt that the need therefore may not be met. Consequently it was felt that the sequential test in terms of flood risk should not be restricted to just the village of Sutton-on-Trent.

AGREED           (with 8 votes For, 2 votes Against and 3 Abstentions) that contrary to                     Officer recommendation the application be refused on the basis that                     very limited weight should be attached to housing ‘preference’ in the                        Housing Needs Survey, given the date of the survey and that the                            market housing was unlikely to be affordable. Given the limited                             weight it attached to the survey it followed that the sequential test                  had not been passed in terms of flood risk.

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

Site Visit: 10.10am – 10.20am

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, following a site inspection, which sought planning permission for the erection of a new single storey bungalow with existing access and driveway from Archers Drive and erection of a new boundary wall.

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 not appropriate in accordance with the Officer recommendation.

AGREED           (with 12 votes For and 1 Abstention) that planning permission be                           refused for the reasons contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, which informed Members regarding the Noble Foods application for up to 136 dwellings which had been considered at the meeting of 4 June 2019.  Members resolved to approve the application but subject to delegated negotiations in respect to revising the affordable housing offer (10%) to other contributions.

For a scheme of 136 dwellings, 10% affordable housing would amount to 14 affordable units. There was a recent appeal decision in our District (February this year) which had accepted that it was reasonable to use a unit figure of £46,000 per affordable unit. That gave an overall contributions pot of £644,000 instead of the 10% affordable housing.

Following discussions between officers and the Parish Council to establish priorities etc, officers had provisionally apportioned contributions towards the following:

Ø  Education - £332,195,29 (full amount request);

Ø  Community Facilities (village hall including heritage museum) - £188,233.52 (full amount requested);

Ø  Open Space (outdoor sport facilities) - £100,329.92 (full amount requested);

Ø  Bus Stops (as requested by NCC Highways) - £17,000 (full amount requested);

Ø  Libraries - £6,062 (full amount requested).

The above would total £643,820.73 and thereby almost exactly meet the starting point for contributions above. The residual amount of £179.27 would go towards monitoring fees associated with the legal obligation. The only required contributions missing from the above list was affordable housing and health. It was worthy of note that there was another scheme in the village (Land at Oldbridge Way approved for 113 dwellings) with recent reserved matters approval (18/01971/RMAM) that had an associated legal agreement which secured health provision. The advice of Officers was therefore that the monies associated with the other application (acknowledging that this was completely separate to the current determination) would meet the healthcare provision shortfall in the village.

The above approach had been accepted by the agent acting on behalf of the applicant and therefore Section 106 was being drafted on this basis by the Council’s solicitors.

The Local Ward Member thanked the Committee for the outcome of this application as it had a good outcome for Bilsthorpe.

AGREED           (unanimously) that the report be noted

AGREED           that the report be noted.

AGREED           that the report be noted.

The Committee considered the report of the Director of Growth & Regeneration, which presented the quarterly planning enforcement performance for the quarter, from 1 January to 31 March 2019.  The report provided an update on cases where formal action had been taken.  It also provided case studies which showed how the breaches of planning control had been resolved through negotiation.

AGREED           (unanimously) that the report be noted.