Agenda and minutes

The Chairman declared a Non-Registerable Interest on behalf of all Members of the Planning Committee regarding Planning Application Item No. 21/01830/FUL, Agenda Item No. 5 – Site Adjacent ‘The Old Grain Store’, Old Epperstone Road, Lowdham as one of the joint applicants was a district councillor and known to all Members of the Committee.

Councillors Mrs L Dales and I Walker both declared a Non-Registerable Interest regarding Planning Application Item No. 21/01830/FUL, Agenda Item No. 5 – Site Adjacent ‘The Old Grain Store’, Old Epperstone Road, Lowdham as appointed representatives on the Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board.

The Chairman advised that the proceedings were being audio recorded and live streamed by the Council.

AGREED      that the Minutes of the meeting held on 7 July 2022 were approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Site Visit: 10.50am – 11am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, following a site visit, which retrospectively sought a change of use of agricultural land and extension to the existing wood fuel production business, retention of earth bunds, retention of concrete retaining wall/clamp, retention of re-sited biomass boiler, wood drying kiln and roof cover over.  It was noted that the application was before Committee for determination as a District Councillor was one of the joint applicants.  The application had previously been deferred at its Planning Committee meeting in February 2022 to enable the applicant to undertake a noise impact assessment. 

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

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received from a neighbouring property after the Agenda had been published.

Councillor Tim Wendels, Local Ward Member was in attendance and spoke in support of the application. 

Prior to opening the application for debate, the Chairman read out to the Committee the advice from the Council’s Monitoring Officer in relation to determining an application submitted by a fellow District Councillor. 

Members discussed the application, considering the concerns raised in relation to the encroachment of development within Green Belt together with potential noise and emissions from the operation at the site.  They noted the proposed operations of the site in response to the noise impact report with the chipper to no longer be used and an acoustic barrier required to be used when the saw was in operation.  Members were evenly split in their support for rejection of the application.

AGREED      (with 6 votes for and 6 votes against) (following which the Chairman used his casting vote to vote for refusal) that planning permission be refused for the reason stated within the report.

Site Visit: 11.20am – 11.30am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, following a site visit, which sought the conversion of an existing stable building to one dwelling and the redevelopment of the remaining site with the construction of 4 dwellings.

Members considered the presentation of the Senior Planner, which included photographs and plans of the proposed development. 

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting which detailed correspondence received from the Applicant’s Agent after the Agenda had been published.

Parish Councillor Katie Chan, representing Thurgarton Parish Council, was in attendance and spoke in support of the application noting that support of the application by the Parish Council had been unanimous and that no objections had been received by local residents.

Councillor Roger Jackson, local Ward Member, representing Thurgarton Parish Council and local residents, also spoke in support of the application. 

Members discussed the application, considering the proposed development and commented how this might improve the current site. 

A vote was taken and lost for refusal with 5 votes for and 6 votes against with 1 abstention.

The meeting was adjourned under paragraph 13.5(ii) of the Protocol for Members on Dealing with Planning Matters to allow for reasons to be discussed.

AGREED      (with 6 votes for, 3 votes against and 3 abstentions) that contrary to Officer recommendations, planning permission be approved due to the proximity of the development to adjoining housing meaning it was not remote and therefore was considered as sustainable and the existing character and use of the site leant itself to improvement.  It was, therefore, considered to comply with the development plan.  Such approval be subject to appropriate conditions being agreed together with reasons for approval, as determined by the Business Manager – Planning Development, following consultation with the proposer and seconder of the motion to approve (Councillors Penny Rainbow and Malcolm Brock).

In accordance with paragraph 13.5 of the Protocol for Members on Dealing with Planning Matters, as the motion was against officer recommendation, a recorded vote was taken.

Site Visit: 10.30am – 10.40am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, following a site visit, which sought permission for the demolition of an existing dwelling and the erection of a replacement dwelling. 

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

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received from Epperstone Parish Council in support of the application after the Agenda had been published.

Parish Councillor Paul Bracegirdle, Chairman of Epperstone Parish Council was in attendance and spoke in support of the application and the proposed development of the site.

Councillor Roger Jackson, local Ward Member was in attendance at the meeting and also spoke in support of the application.

Members discussed the application, noting that agreement had been reached between Planning Officers and the applicant that the existing dwelling required demolition with the report outlining the reasons for the Officer recommendation of refusal in paragraph 10.

AGREED      (with 9 votes for, 2 votes against and 1 abstention) that planning permission be refused for the reason stated within the report.

Councillor M Skinner left the meeting room prior to discussion on the following item and therefore did not take part in the vote.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development which sought planning permission for the erection of agricultural livestock buildings.

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

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received from a neighbouring property after the Agenda had been published.

Councillor Sylvia Michael, local Ward Member, was in attendance and spoke in support of the application.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to conditions, for the reasons contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development which sought retrospective permission for a change of use from residential garden to leisure sports facilities and to change an area of leisure sports facilities to residential garden including the realignment of new boundary fencing.

Members considered the presentation from the Senior Planner which included photographs and plans of the proposed development.

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received from the parish council after the Agenda had been published.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved, subject to the conditions as set out in paragraph 10 of the report and subject to the expiry of the consultation period with no further material issues, not already considered, being raised.

Councillor M Skinner returned to the meeting room.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development which sought approval for the proposed changes to the Planning Committee Scheme of Delegation to Officers. 

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed Committee of the proposed amendments referring Members to the specific change in relation to applications supported by Town & Parish Councils/Meeting that are recommended for refusal by Officers.

AGREED      (unanimously) that Planning Committee:

a)            adopt the amended Planning Committee Scheme of Delegation to Officers. Such amendments to include the amendments relating to applications supported by Town & Parish Councils/meetings that were recommended for refusal by Officers.; and

b)            note the trial in relation to HRA applications.

AGREED      that the report be noted.

AGREED      that the report be noted.

The Committee considered a report presented by the Business Manager - Planning Development which related to the performance of the Planning Development Business Unit over the three month period April to June 2022.  In order for the latest quarter’s performance to be understood in context, in some areas data going back to April 2020 was provided.  The performance of the Planning Enforcement team was provided as a separate report.

AGREED      (unanimously) that the report be noted.

The Committee considered the report presented by the Business Manager – Planning Development which provided an update as to the activities and performance of the planning enforcement function for the first quarter of the current financial year.  The report also provided examples of cases that had been resolved through negotiation and Notices that had been complied with.

In considering the report, Members commented that many members of the public had limited knowledge of the planning process.  They agreed it could be beneficial if promotion of the planning system could be provided.

AGREED        (unanimously) that the report be noted.