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.

Councillors L Dales and K Melton declared an other registrable interest for any relevant items, as they were appointed representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

AGREED           that the minutes from the meeting held on 3 July 2025 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

AGREED           that the minutes from the meeting held on 21 July 2025 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the approval of a proposed detached dwelling.

Mr Pearson, spoke against the application.

Mr Grace, the agent, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members supported the call-in of the application, suggesting that there was no need for a 5 bed house in this location and raised concern that they had not been involved in pre-application discussions. Several Members stated that they were uncomfortable with the proposal but recognised the need to consider the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development whilst the Council has a shortfall of housing land supply. Members recognised the logic in following the building pattern of the cul-de-sac, but felt uncomfortable with the position of the new house in proximity with neighbours. One Member stated that the design was not innovative and not acceptable in the countryside. There was recognition that the reinstatement of the orchard was a positive feature.

A recorded vote was taken for approval with 4 votes For and 5 votes Against.

In accordance with paragraph 18.5 of the Planning Protocol, as the motion was for Officer recommendation, a recorded vote had been taken.

AGREED           with the Proposer Councillor P Harris and Seconder Councillor L Tift                         that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission had                         been refused and all voted for the reasons given for refusal:

                        a)  Proposal is outside the Southwell Urban Boundary where there is a                          presumption against new development (SP3 and DM8);

                        b)  Design is not of exceptional quality or innovative;

                        c)  Adverse impact on neighbour at 18 Handford Court.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought an application for reserved matters (all matters) pursuant to outline application 21/02094/OUTM (Outline application for the development of up to 50 dwellings (including affordable housing), open space, children's play space and associated infrastructure, including a new access).

Councillor Celia Brooks declared an interest as a resident of the adjacent estate.

The agent, spoke in support of the application.

Councillor Paul Peacock spoke against the application.

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

Members recognised the concerns from local residents regarding highways (Ollerton roundabout) and the impact of significant new development at Thoresby Vale. Members discussed the challenges of dealing with a site that has already been allocated for development and benefits from outline consent. Members recognised the positives of the scheme in terms of a good mix of 1, 2 and 3 bed properties. Members also recognised that there were already a significant number of bungalows locally.

Members encouraged the applicant to consider including solar panels and insulation in their project.

Concerns were raised about not meeting parking standards.

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

Site Visit: 11.10am – 11.30am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought for variation of condition 02 to replace approved drawings with revised to replace existing lean-to with minor extension attached to planning permission 22/01023/FUL; Proposed single storey extension to host dwelling and alterations, partial rebuilding and conversion of outbuildings for use ancillary to the enjoyment of the dwellinghouse.

A site visit had taken place earlier in the day of the Planning Committee for the following reasons:

There are particular site factors which are significant in terms of the weight attached to them relative to other factors if they would be difficult to assess in the absence of a site inspection;

The impact of the proposed development is difficult to visualise; and

The comments of the applicant and/or objectors cannot be expressed adequately in writing.

Ms Kerry Corden, the applicant, spoke in support of the application.

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

Members made positive comments about the quality of the annex conversion and broadly had no concerns with the design changes set out in the section 73 application. Nevertheless, Members did query whether the lean-to was subservient or whether the annex was of a suitable scale. Clarity was sought that the condition requiring the development to remain as an annex ancillary to the main house would be retained.

Concerns were raised about the nature of retrospective development proposals and potential enforcement matters outside of the scope of the application (fences and outbuildings).

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

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought internal and external refurbishment and repairs works, including new LED lights to the auditorium stairs of the Palace Theatre.

The application was referred for determination as the property is in the Newark & Sherwood District Council ownership.

Members considered the presentation from the Business Manager, which included a mock up example of the LED lights. The benefits of keeping an important historic building in a good state of repair were discussed, alongside the benefits of improving safety and wayfinding with lighting on the stairs.

AGREED           (unanimously) for approval.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development to update Members of the Planning Committee on the latest planning reform consultations.

The Business Manager explained that Member comments from the last Committee report on planning reform were considered and incorporated into the Council’s formal response to government. This included concerns about having a limit to Committee size and the need for call-in for smaller sites.

AGREED           that the Members of the Planning Committee noted the planning                         reform consultation responses.

AGREED           that the report be noted.

AGREED           that the report be noted.

Members raised concerns about the Greenaway appeal at Rolleston. The Business Manager agreed to reiterate those concerns to the Director and Chief Executive.

The Committee considered the report from the Planning Technical Support Manager relating to the performance of the Planning Development Business Unit over the three-month period April to June 2025 (Quarter 1), alongside a summary for the period April 2024 to March 2025.

The Business Manager talked through some of the key data sets for planning applications validated, planning decisions and appeals. 

AGREED           that the report be noted.

The Committee considered the report from the Senior Planner (Enforcement) to update Members as to the activity and performance of the planning enforcement function over the fourth quarter of the current financial year.

Members were also provided with examples of cases that have been resolved (both through negotiation and via the service of notices) and to provide details and explanations of notices that have been issued during that period.

AGREED           that the report be noted.