Agenda and minutes

Councillor M Skinner declared a Non-Registrable Interest regarding Application No. 22/02394/FUL – Green Bank Lodge, Barnby Road, Balderton, Newark On Trent, as he was known to the neighbouring property.

Councillor M Brock declared a Non-Registrable Interest regarding Application No. 22/02309/S73 – Pear Tree Cottage, Lower Kirklington Road, Southwell, as he had taken part in the debate at Southwell Town Council and would not take part in the debate or vote at the Planning Committee.

Councillors L Dales and I Walker declared Non-Registerable Interests 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.

Site visit: 9.20am – 9.30am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use to public space and construction of path.  A site visit had taken place before the commencement of the Planning Committee.

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

A schedule of communication was tabled at the meeting, which detailed correspondence received from the Local Residents and Agent.

Members considered the application and the local Ward Member commented that the field had previously been left unattended and there had been vermin reported on site.  It was considered that the application increased the benefits to the users of Phoenix Hall.  The objection from residents on Station Road regarding car parking was considered not accurate as there had not been any previous issues regarding the over-flow car park from Phoenix Hall.  The photographs provided to Members on the late Schedule of Communication were questioned as Members were unclear as to where the photographs had been taken and any Scouts events undertaken would be supervised.  Loss of privacy was also raised and it was suggested that the landscape buffer should be planted with mature trees.

A Member commented that he was on an adjoining site Monday of that week to watch a football match where 1,000 people were in attendance.  A car parking operation was put in place. It was considered that if the area could cope with that amount of car parking, the Hall would have no problem.  This application was considered as a form of devolution at its best.  The Parish Council would be accountable for this, and the local people could contact the Parish Council.  It was further commented that a condition to exclude any fires or BBQs on site could be included.  Other Members commented that they saw no reason for the site to be used for camping and considered the site ideal for young people to learn about living outdoors and the Parish Council would be answerable for any concerns raised.

AGREED             (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to the                conditions contained within the report, the amendment of Condition                       2 and deletion of Condition 3.

Site visit: 10.10am – 10.20am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the conversion of former joinery and kitchen workshop into two dwellings. A site visit had taken place before the commencement of the Planning Committee.

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 the Agent.

Members considered the application acceptable.

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

Site visit: 9.40am – 9.50am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the erection of a new dwelling; alteration of existing dwelling; demolition of existing garage and shed and the erection of new garaging.  A site visit had taken place before the commencement of the Planning Committee.

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

Councillor Davies, on behalf of Collingham Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Collingham Parish Council, as contained within the report.

Members considered the application.  The local Ward Member commented that she called this application to Committee as Collingham Parish Council opposed the application.  It was considered that there wasn’t a need for housing in this particular location.  If back land development was continued to be allowed, it would become the norm and change the character of the area.  It was felt that a large detached property behind a semi-detached property was not in character with the area and the density was being increased.  It was accepted that this application was finally balanced, but was contrary to DM5 and CP9, which was out of keeping with the density and character of the area.  Another Member commented that he had no concerns with the proposal and felt that the development would tidy up the plot.

A vote was taken to approve Planning Permission with 6 votes For and 6 votes Against.  The Chairman on using his casting vote, voted against approval.

AGREED      (with 8 votes For and 4 votes Against) (Moved by Councillor L Dales and Seconded by Councillor M Skinner),  that: contrary to officer recommendation planning permission be refused on the following grounds:  Contrary to Policy DM5 – backland development contrary to character of the area and Policy CP9 – inappropriate form and scale of development, design fails to compliment and respect the existing built environment and landscape character.  The size of the dwelling is too big, overbearing and over intensive, not in keeping with the area’s character, larger gardens are a characteristic of the locality and the density of development would be doubled if this were approved.

Site visit: 11.30am – 11.45am

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought a proposed shed, revised rooflights and new dormer window to rear elevation.  A site visit had taken place before the commencement of the Planning Committee.

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 the Agent.

Councillor Home, on behalf of Epperstone Parish Council, spoke against the application in accordance with the views of Epperstone Parish Council, as contained within the report. 

Councillor R Jackson, Local Ward Member for Dover Beck spoke against the application on the grounds that the development was in the conservation area and green belt and Epperstone had, had a number of applications turned down for that reason and expected consistency of decision making.  The building currently had storage, including six garages, it was questioned whether it warranted more.

Members considered the application and the Chairman commented on the state of the site and informed Committee that the Enforcement team would address that matter.  There was some debate regarding the red line drawn in terms of ownership on the application plan, the Chairman requested a deferral in order to investigate whether the red line was accurately drawn.

AGREED      (unanimously) that the application be deferred, due to the uncertainty of the accuracy of the red line shown in the plan attached to the report.

Site visit: 11.55am – 12.05pm

The application was withdrawn from the agenda.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought the change of use of land to residential, erection of a two-storey extension and alterations to the dwelling.

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

Councillor J Lee, Local Ward Member for Balderton North & Coddington, spoke in support of the application and informed Committee that there were no neighbour objections, the land was set back and the applicant had a growing family which wanted to live and work on the land.

Members considered the application acceptable.

The Business Manager – Planning Development informed the Committee that this application was still out to consultation and was subject to expiry of the notices and subject to no new material considerations.

AGREED      (unanimously) that planning permission be approved subject to the conditions contained within the report and subject to the expiration of the press notice/site notice advertising the application as a departure from the Development Plan and no new material considerations being raised.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought an application for variation of Condition 02 (approved plans) 05 (tree protection measures) and 09 (tree retention) to remove reference to T1 due to tree being removed, as attached to planning permission 22/00302/FUL; 3 new dwellings.

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

Members considered the application and asked that procedures  be put in place to prevent protected  trees by condition being felled.  The Business Manager - Planning Development confirmed that discussions would take place with the relevant Business Manager to ensure measures were in place to prevent this from happening in the future.

AGREED      (with 11 votes For and 1 vote Against) 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 the variation of condition 11 attached to planning permission 22/01089/FUL to amend the approved plans (original application was for ‘New dwelling and garage, relocation of garage to existing house and alterations to access and drive’)

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 would be limited visual impact as the development was behind Pear Tree Cottage, another Member commented that the change in materials would be visually out of character in the area.

Having declared a Non-Registrable Interest, Councillor M Brock took no part in the vote or debate regarding this application.

AGREED      (with 9 votes For and 2 Against) 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 the provision of a new shopfront.

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

Members considered the application acceptable and commented that it would enhance the street scene.

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 the provision of a new shop front.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the conditions contained within the report.

The Committee considered the report of the Business Manager – Planning Development, which sought alterations to reinstate the former traditional shopfront.

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

Members commented that the alterations would enhance the marketplace.

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 alterations to reinstate the former traditional shopfront.

Members considered the application acceptable.

AGREED      (unanimously) that Listed Building Consent be granted subject to the conditions contained within the report.

AGREED             that the report be noted.

AGREED that the report be noted.