Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P Elliott. Councillor P Antcliff substituted for him. Apologies were received from Councillor K Rouse. Councillor B Hill substituted for her. Finally, apologies were also received from Councillor M Jones.

Members are requested to declare the existence and nature of any disclosable pecuniary interests and/or other interests, not already on their register of interests, in any item on the agenda and withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate time.

Councillor B Hill declared a Personal Interest in Item 4, NED/20/01005/FL - Calow and indicated that she would not be present in the meeting during the Committee’s consideration and determination of the application.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 20 April 2021.     

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 20 April 2021, were approved as a true record, subject to clarification on Min: PLA/95/20-21. The person who had spoken at Committee against the confirmation of Provisional Tree Preservation Order 272 was the owner of a property within Hardwick Wood and not the owner of the wood.

Hybrid planning application, comprising: full planning application for the construction of 73 dwellings, access and associated works (Phase 1) and outline planning application for the construction of up to a further 144 dwellings and associated works. (All matters reserved except access) (Phase 2). (Major Development/Affecting a public Right of Way), Dark Lane, Calow

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

Please note that the Committee is likely to consider adjourning following Item 4 and consider the rest of the agenda in the afternoon.   The afternoon session is expected to start at 12.30 pm, and comfort breaks will be taken between applications as and when required.

The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for outline planning permission for the construction of up to eighty dwellings at land from the east of Dark Lane and to the west of Oaks Farm Lane, Calow. All matters would be reserved, except for access. It would be a Major Development that would affect a Public Right of Way.

The Application had been referred to the Committee by local Ward Member, Councillor P Kerry, who had raised concerns about it.

Committee was recommended to grant outline planning permission, subject to the specific conditions set out in the report and the conclusion of a ‘Section 106’ Agreement, or an agreement reached between the Council as Planning Authority and the developer to carry out work that would help offset the impact on local people.

The report to Committee explained why Members were asked to approve the application. Committee was informed that the development would be in line with the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and that the development would not harm the landscape of the area. The report also highlighted the economic and social benefits of the scheme and especially the additional affordable housing for the District, proposed as part of the application.

Before Members discussed the application, those registered to speak were asked to address the Committee.  Derbyshire County Councillor J Woolley and R Renwick spoke in opposition to the application. .S Ellis, highlighted the Developer Benefits Levy to nearby Chesterfield Hospital if the application was approved and the Agent, D Abbott, spoke in support of it.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Planning issues. These included the Principle of Development on a green field site outside the settlement development limit for Calow and the possible impact on health, leisure and educational services in the area. Committee also considered the streetscene and landscape implications of the proposed development, whether there would be an impact on heritage assets and the possible impact on highways safety.

Members discussed the application. Members were informed about how the application differed from previous proposals, which would have resulted in far more extensive development on the site and adjacent fields. They reflected on the possible impact of the development on local traffic, especially at the one access point at Oaks Farm Lane. They heard about the improvements that would be made to address this.

Members discussed the location of the application outside of the development limit for Calow and considered whether the scheme would be appropriate for a Green Belt location. Concern was expressed by some Members that the development would have a detrimental impact on the character of the area. The report to Committee reminded Members that the Landscape Expert (LE) engaged by the Council had concluded that residential development on the current site area could be achieved without causing overall significant harm to the landscape.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor W Armitage and D Hancock moved and seconded a motion to reject the application against officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/4/21-22

Construction of two, 3 bedroom semi-detached affordable houses on the redundant car park (Amended Plans) (Amended Title), previously associated with the Fleur De Lys Hotel and Public House.   Fleur De Lys Hotel, Main Road, Unstone

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee reconvened. Councillor B Hill joined the meeting at this point.

The report to Committee explained that an application had been submitted for full planning permission to construct two semi-detached houses on the redundant car park, previously associated with the Fleur De Lys Hotel, Main Road which is in Unstone. The application had been referred to the Committee by Ward Member, Councillor A Dale, who had raised concerns about it.

Before Members discussed the application, those registered to speak were asked to address the Committee.   The Architect for the application, P Mills, spoke in support of the application. There were no other speakers.

Committee was recommended to grant outline planning permission, subject to the specific conditions set out in the report and the conclusion of a ‘Section 106’ Agreement, or an agreement reached between the Council as Planning Authority and the developer to carry out work that would help offset the impact on local people.

The report to Committee explained why Members were asked to approve the application. Members were informed that the proposal would develop a brownfield site for affordable housing. Although the car park area was within the Green Belt the report contended that it would be an appropriate development, which would not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. The report also contended that the development would not appear as an incongruous addition to the street scene and that it would have no greater impact highway safety.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the Principle of Development, the location of part of the site (the former car park) outside of the defined settlement limits for Unstone. It considered the circumstances when development could be allowed in the Green Belt. Committee also took into account the impact on the neighbouring environment and whether the development would be a prominent intrusion into the countryside. Committee considered the impact on neighbours and whether there would be any drainage or flood risks to the properties built there.

Members discussed the application. They discussed the potential drainage problems on the site, which it was explained had been flooded before as the result of poor maintenance of a drain. They heard about the access measures that would put in place to enable maintenance to take place. 

Some Members also expressed concern about the design of the proposed properties and suggested that they would not be in keeping with neighbouring buildings and would have a detrimental impact on the streetscape as a whole. Some Members expressed concern about an adverse impact on the Green Belt. They questioned whether the addition of affordable housing would offset this adverse impact.

Committee noted the planning history of the site. They reflected on the previous application for its development and the reasons why the Committee had rejected it. Some Members felt that the reasons for this rejection also applied to this application.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor M Foster and Councillor W Armitage moved and seconded a motion to reject  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/5/21-22

Two-storey side extension at 115 Snape Hill Lane, Dronfield

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that an application had been submitted for the construction of a two-storey side extension at 115 Snape Hill Lane in Dronfield. The application had been referred to the Committee by local Ward Member, Councillor P Parkin, who had raised concerns about it.

Before Members discussed the application, those registered to speak were asked to address the Committee.   Councillor P Parkin, Ward Member for Dronfield spoke against the application. J Dickinson, on behalf of G Tingle, also spoke against the application.

Committee was recommended to grant permission for the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The report to Committee explained why Members were recommended to approve the application. In particular, it contended that the proposed extension would not impact greatly on the amenity of neighbouring residents or result in significant demonstrable harm to the character of the surrounding Streetscene.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Planning Issues.  These included, the Adopted Local Plan requirement that new developments ought to respect the character and appearance of the local area and that they should not have a detrimental effect on the amenities of neighbouring occupiers and uses.

Members discussed the application. They discussed the concerns which had been raised about the possible adverse impact on the 1930s style streetscape of detached properties if the extension was allowed. Some Members also expressed concern about the ‘terracing’ effect if other, similar extensions, within the area were also permitted. Members reflected on the height of the extension and the proximity to the neighbouring property. Committee Members were reminded that the issue of maintenance arrangements was not a relevant planning issues on which to base their decision

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor M Foster and D Ruff moved and seconded a motion to reject the application, contrary to officer recommendations because of its adverse impact on the streetscape.

The motion was put to the vote and was approved.

RESOLVED -

(1)  That the application is rejected contrary to officer recommendations because of the unacceptable impact that it would have on the local streetscape

(2)  That the final wording of the reasons for the rejection be determined by the Planning Manager (Development Management) in consultation with the Chair of the Committee and Councillor M Foster as the mover of the motion.

Reasons

The application is considered unacceptable as by reason of it infilling the gap between two properties in an otherwise broken frontage and so creating a terracing effect it would unacceptably and adversely affect the streetscene and townscape and so the character and appearance of the area contrary to polices GS5, H5 and BE1 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, policies LC5 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan 2014-2034 (Publication Draft) and policy D3 of the Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan. 

Application for the demolition of former public house and erection of 4 no.  3-bedroom dwellings at Butchers Arms, Main Road, Marsh Lane, Sheffield

(Planning Manager  Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that an application had been submitted for the demolition of the former Public House, the Butcher’s Arms and the erection of four 3-bedroom dwellings with associated off street parking and garden area. It would also involve the closure of a footpath in the Moss Valley Conservation area. The application had been referred to the Committee by local Ward Member, Councillor Carolyn Renwick who had raised concerns about it.

Before Members discussed the application, those registered to speak were asked to address the Committee.   Councillor C Renwick, Ward Member for Eckington spoke against the application.  Eckington Town Team Member, P Wheelhouse, and C Gare, representing the Tenants and Residents Association, spoke against it.   The Agent, J Lomas spoke in support of the application.

Committee was recommended to grant permission for the application, subject to the conditions set out in the report.

The report to Committee explained why Members were recommended to approve the application. In particular, the report contended that it would represent a sustainable development. The site was within the settlement limit for Marsh Lane, with access to services by a range of transport means.  It was explained that the proposal was considered to comply with the Development Plan and that no other matters outweighed this conclusion.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Planning Issues. In particular, Committee considered the principles set out in the Development Plan. Committee took into account concerns that the loss of the former public house building would be harmful to the character of the area and whether the development would be in keeping with surrounding buildings in the Moss Valley Conservation Area. They also reflected on whether the parking would be satisfactory and the implications of this for road safety.

Members discussed the application. They discussed the impact of the proposal on the local area. Concern was expressed about the implications for the heritage and the character of the Conservation Area. Members heard that the former Public House building had been on the site since the mid to late nineteenth century and was a well-established part of the local streetscape. Members considered the design of the properties and whether the materials used and the design of the properties could be improved in order to help mitigate the impact on the streetscape of the loss of the building.

Some Members queried whether the properties might really have four bedrooms rather than three, given that the rooms designated as offices could be used as bedrooms. Concern was expressed that this could mean that a greater number of people might live there than projected and the potential impact which this might have on parking at the site and traffic safety at the road junction; especially if the development resulted in additional street parking close to it.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor W Armitage and H Liggett moved and seconded a motion to reject the application against officer recommendations because of detrimental impact which the development would  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/7/21-22

Proposed loft conversion with 2 front dormers, 1 rear dormer, and hips converted to gables. Single storey rear extension at 95 Windsor Drive, Wingerworth, Chesterfield

(Planning Management Development Management)

With the agreement of the Chair the application had been withdrawn from the agenda and would be considered by the Committee at its next meeting (20 July 2021).

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee informed Members that seven appeals had been lodged. One enforcement appeal had been lodged, no appeals had been allowed and three appeals had been dismissed.

To consider any other matter which the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency.

None