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.

The Chair advised the Committee of other registerable interests declared on behalf of Councillors L Dales and A Freeman as appointed representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board for any relevant items.

Councillor J Lee declared an other registerable interest as appointed representative on the Nottingham Fire Authority and Member for Nottinghamshire County Council.

AGREED          that the minutes of the meeting held on 14 March 2024 were                                approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use of unused land to garden and the erection of a Polycrub.

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

Some Members raised concern regarding the precedent that could be set if the application were to be approved. It was queried whether or not it would be necessary to remove permitted development rights by condition, but Officers confirmed that because the land was forward of the principle elevation, any additional structures would require planning permission in any case.

Members considered the application acceptable.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought to convert the existing first floor flat into two 1-bedroom flats.

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

A Schedule of Communication was circulated prior to the meeting which detailed correspondence received following publication of the Agenda from Southwell Civic Society.

Concern was raised in respect to parking issues in the area but this was acknowledged to be related to the enforcement of parking permits rather than due to the application itself. It was queried whether or not there was still an intention to plant a tree. Officers confirmed that this was understood to be the intentions of the applicant but that it would not be necessary to make the development acceptable and therefore had not been recommended to be secured by condition.

Members considered the application and welcomed the addition of two, one bedroomed flats in Southwell.

AGREED     (unanimously) that Planning Permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought to demolish the existing garage and erect an outbuilding to use as a Hairdressing salon, this application was a resubmission.

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

A Schedule of Communication was circulated prior to the meeting which detailed correspondence received following publication of the agenda from the applicant.  The information contained supporting information for the application including background to the business, detail regarding current parking provision and need as a result of the proposed development.

Members considered the application and whilst some Members raised concern regarding the car parking provision as there would already be two cars parked on the driveway due to it being a residential property, other Members commented that there was ample roadside car parking within Clipstone and also car parking at the Miners Welfare and the shops opposite the property.  It was also commented that the brick slip finish to the proposal would be more in keeping with the residential properties on the street rather than the current garage.  Members also welcomed the new business within the district.

A Member suggested a deferral in order for an answer to be sought from the Highways Authority regarding the car parking provision. The Council’s legal Officer advised the Committee that there was a potential risk for non-determination due to the time scale for the application if this was undertaken.

A vote for deferral was taken and lost with 2 votes For, 8 votes Against and 1 Abstention.

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

The Committee considered the report of the Director – Planning & Growth relating to a consultation by the Government and to consider the proposed response to be made.

On 6 March 2024, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (DLUHC) commenced a consultation on ‘An Accelerated Planning Service’.  The consultation would run for 8 weeks from the 6 March to 1 May 2024.  There were 35 consultation questions – attached at appendix A to the Report, together with the suggested response of the Council. 

The consultation followed on from recent interventions the government had undertaken including the increase in planning fees, range of funding streams, for example Skills Funding that Newark and Sherwood District Council was successful in being awarded and streamlining of the development management process a sum for skills for the Planning Enforcement team.  The consultation proposed new measures for an accelerated planning system.

The plans were to have a service that would allow local planning authorities (LPAs) to recover the full costs of major business applications in return for being required to meet guaranteed accelerated timescales.  If an LPA failed to meet the timescales, fees would be refunded automatically with the applications being processed free of charge, in other words a prompt service or your money back.

For major planning applications, the statutory timescale for deciding major planning applications was 13 weeks or 16 weeks when the application was subject to an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).  For non-majors, the timescale was 8 weeks.  The current performance in relation to meeting performance deadlines without extension of time agreements was shown in the table contained within the report.  This displayed performance figures over a 12-month period and included performance within statutory time limits, excluding extension of time agreements.

Members commented that the proposals appeared to be removing elected Member involvement in the planning process and felt that the current Democratic process provided good decisions for the district.  Concerns were also raised regarding flooding the system with large applications in an attempt by applicants/developers to beat the system.  It was further commented that the current system was not broken and therefore should not be changed.  It was suggested that “Don’t Know” should not be used and an unequivocal answer should be provided.

The Chair suggested with the permission of the Planning Committee that he work with the Business Manager – Planning Development and the Planning Committee Vice-Chair to remove the “Don’t Know” answers from the consultation and finalise the response.

AGREED           (unanimously) that:

(a)         the contents of the report and the proposal for an accelerated       planning system be noted; and

(b)         the Planning Committee Chair and Vice-Chair work with the       Business Manager – Planning Development to finalise the draft       Council response and on completion endorse the Council       response.  

AGREED          that the report be noted.

AGREED           that the report be noted.