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, A Freeman and K Melton declared an other registerable interest for any relevant items as appointed representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

AGREED      that the minutes from the meeting held on 12 March 2026 were agreed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Site Visit: 10.15am – 10.25am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use and ‘Self Build’ conversion and alterations of windmill and bakehouse to form a dwelling. The application proposed to demolish an outbuilding and erect a replacement garage and workshop and create a new driveway.

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

Mr A Northcote, the Agent spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application and welcomed the proposals which would protect a listed building and heritage site.  It was commented that the windmill would offer a safe space given the height of the building in the event of a flood.  Members also requested a flood evacuation plan if the Committee were minded to approve the application given that the site was in flood zone 3A.  Members also commented that the attenuation pond would also mitigate any flooding, although it was noted that the site to date had not flooded.  Members also sought clarification regarding the dualling of the A46 and whether the noise level impact on the property would be acceptable.  The Business Manager – Planning Development informed the Committee that National Highways, County Highways and the Environment Agency had all been consulted and there were no objections raised.  It was considered that the dwelling was a distance away from the A46, the trees surrounding the site would provide a buffer and the ability for good insulation would overcome any noise issues.

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed the Committee that Condition 10 required amendments to clarify custom self-build.

AGREED      (with 12 votes For and 1 vote Against) that:

(a)          Planning Permission be approved, subject to the conditions contained within the report;

(b)          an additional condition ensuring that occupation of the development hereby permitted shall be in accordance with an approved flood warning and action plan; and

(c)          delegated approval be granted to the Business Manager – Planning Development to amend condition 10 regarding custom self-build.

Site Visit: 10.15am – 10.25am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use and conversion and alterations of windmill and bakehouse to form a dwelling. The application included demolish outbuilding and erect replacement garage and workshop and create a new driveway.

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

Members considered the application, and it was commented that there were some iron caseworks that did not appear to be protected.  The original cap on the windmill was onion shaped, the proposed cap gave the appearance of a light house and was not in keeping with the original design, consideration was sought in terms of heritage for both the ironworks and capping arrangement.

The Business Manager - Planning Development confirmed that he had inspected the ironworks himself, and they were unlikely to be salvaged.  Effort could be made to retrieve them and use them somewhere else in the windmill.  There were also practicable problems, trying to do a timber onion shaped cap which was also expensive and would require regular maintenance.  The flat cap offered practicable solutions and was designed for water to drain off.  It was advised that to ask for the onion cap would be considered unreasonable.

AGREED      (with 12 votes For and 1 vote Against) that Planning Permission be approved, subject to the conditions contained within the report and a schedule of works prior to commencement of works.

Site Visit: 11.30am – 11.40am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought permission in principle for proposed residential development of a minimum of 4 dwellings and a maximum of 6 dwellings.

A Schedule of Communication was circulated prior to the meeting which detailed correspondence received from a local resident.

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

Mr J Holmes, spoke in objection to the application.

Mr N Baseley, the Agent spoke in support of the application.

Councillor T Thompson, Local ward Member spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the application, and clarification was sought regarding whether this site was in the Green Belt or Grey Belt as detailed within the report.  Members debated the loss of Green Belt sites and the Government’s objective of delivering 1.5 million new homes.  The Business Manager – Planning Development provided a detailed explanation regarding what constitutes Grey Belt.  There was debate about the location in terms of services and the suitability of the footpath, as well as general concerns about trees and ecology.  Members commented that the proposed site was too small for any form of housing given it was the edge of the woodland and that there were other available sites suitable for housing within the village.  There was debate about location and number of dwellings proposed, with concerns raised about development potentially being cramped with 4 to 6 dwellings.

A vote was taken and lost for approval with 1 vote For, 11 votes Against and 1 Abstention.

AGREED      Moved Councillor A Freeman and Seconded Councillor L Dales (with 9 votes For, 2 votes Against and 2 Abstentions) that Permission in Principle be refused.  Reason for refusal: inappropriate location for any housing.  The wording for reason of refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development.

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

Site Visit: 1.40pm – 1.50pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought two dwellings with attached garages.

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

Mr P Rowlands, South Scarle Parish Meeting Chair spoke in objection to the application.

Mr J Halton, the Agent spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application, and it was commented that South Scarle was an unsustainable village, a car was required to get to any public transport.  The site location was outside the village envelope and in open countryside.  The Planning Committee had recently refused an application for planning in principle on a site across the road form this location, on the basis of SP1 and DM8 – being in the open countryside.  The residents of the village were against this development.  There however were still infill opportunities within the village.  Members considered the need to protect the open countryside.  The development was considered disproportionately large especially when entering the open countryside, a lower level would have been considered more appropriate.  If the development was for bungalows or affordable housing the scheme may have been supported.  The village was an old working farming village.  The development would have an impact on the conservation area and the listed buildings, with no public benefit. There was also an important strip of land for barn owls, it was commented that the development may have an adverse impact on the barn owls.

During the debate of this item, the Chair indicated that the meeting duration had expired therefore a motion was moved and seconded to continue the meeting.  A motion was voted on with unanimous agreement to continue for a further hour.

A vote was taken and lost unanimously for Approval.

AGREED      Moved Councillor L Dales and Seconded Councillor D Moore (unanimously) that contrary to Officer recommendation Planning Permission be refused.  Reason for refusal: SP1 – unsustainable location; DM8 – open space: DM9 – Character and appearance of the open countryside; and DM5 – over intensive.  The wording for reason of refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development.

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

Site Visit: 10.45am - 10.55am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought permission in principle for proposed residential development of a minimum of 1 dwelling and a maximum of 1 dwelling.

A Schedule of Communication was circulated prior to the meeting which detailed correspondence received from the Agent.

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

Mrs D Corah, the Applicant spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application, and it was commented that this application was in the open countryside, it was not a sustainable village and was not allocated site and therefore should not be supported.  Other Members commented that there had been no objection form Eakring Parish Council, there were no neighbour objections and the applicant already resided in the village and would move into this property, providing an additional property in the village.

AGREED      (with 10 votes For, 2 votes Against and 1 Abstention) that Permission in Principle be approved.

Councillor T Smith left the meeting.

Site Visit: 1pm – 1.10pm

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought part-demolition and rebuilding of dwelling, single storey extension, roof re-construction to a slightly higher ridge height, introduction of dormer windows and external alterations (part retrospective).

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

The Planning Committee Chair indicated that the meeting duration of an additional one hour had expired therefore a motion was moved by the Chair and agreed by Members to continue the meeting for a further hour.

Mrs H Richmond, spoke in objection to the application.

Members considered the application, and concern was raised regarding the amount of demolition that had taken place on the dwelling although the application was for part demolition and rebuilding of dwelling, single storey extension, roof re-construction to a slightly higher ridge height, introduction of dormer windows and external alterations, although part of the works were retrospective.  Members expressed concern that the proposal had not considered the impact on the conservation area and therefore had an overbearing nature on both the conservation area and the neighbouring property, Redean Lodge. 

After extensive debate, the key concern was detrimental impact on the special character and appearance of the conservation area.

A vote was taken and lost for approval with 4 votes For and 8 votes Against.

Councillor L Dales left the meeting during the wording for refusal.

AGREED      Moved Councillor K Melton and Seconded Councillor C Brooks (with 6 votes For, 4 votes Against and 1 Abstention) that Planning Permission be refused.  Reason for refusal: overbearing impact on the Conservation area.  The wording for reason of refusal: The increased roof height and addition of dormer windows would result in less than substantial harm to the character and appearance of Bleasby Conservation Area which would not be outweighed by public benefits.  The wording for reason of refusal to be delegated to the Business Manager – Planning Development.

In accordance with paragraph 18.5 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 provided an overview on the committee reforms proposed and fees for planning applications.

The Planning Committee Chair indicated that the meeting duration of an additional one hour had expired therefore a motion was moved by the Chair and agreed by Members to continue the meeting for a further hour.

It was reported that the government proposed to bring forward the regulations and statutory guidance for a national scheme of delegation and size of planning committees so that the reforms would be in place by the end of September 2026.  A consultation on the proposals had commenced and would last for 4 weeks from 26 March 2026, closing on the 23 April 2026. 

A discussion took place as to how the changes would affect Members and also how the Planning Committee would function.  Members raised their concerns that they would lose the opportunity to provide their local knowledge in the democratic process.

AGREED      that:

a)             the consultations on planning committee reform and fees for planning applications be noted; and

b)             the Council’s representations on planning committee reform and local fee setting be delegated to the Director for Planning & Growth in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of Planning Committee.

AGREED      that the report be noted.

AGREED      that the report be noted.