Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A Cooper, P Elliott and H Liggett.

Councillor N Baker attended as a substitute for Councillor P Elliott.

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.

There were no declarations of interest made.

Any Member who cannot determine an application solely on the information presented to Committee at the meeting today is asked declare that they are ‘Predetermined’ on that item on the agenda and to withdraw from the meeting at the appropriate time.

There were no declarations of predetermination made.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 20 May 2025.     

RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting held on 20 May 2025 were approved as a true record.

Application for change of use with no external alterations from Public House to mixed use Public House and Convenience Store (Amended Plans) (Amended Title) at The Corner Pin, Station Road, Morton.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for the change of use with no external alternations from Public House to mixed use Public House and Convenience Store (Amended Plans) (Amended Title) for The Corner Pin, Station Road, Morton.  Councillor A Cooper had requested that the application be considered at Planning Committee because of the loss of social infrastructure and public concern regarding the loss of a vital part of the community.

An update report had been circulated which set out a late representation regarding the application.

The recommendation of officers was to grant permission, subject to conditions.

The report set out the officer’s conclusion that overall it was considered that the proposal accorded with the Development Plan and there were no material matters that outweighed that conclusion.  Accordingly, it was recommended that permission be granted.

The Committee heard from two objectors Stephen Gregory and David McCabe.

The Committee considered the application.  It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies.  These included Local Plan Policy ID5 regarding the loss of existing Social Infrastructure.

Some Members expressed concern that the pub would not be viable if the proposed application was granted and therefore it amounted to a loss of infrastructure.  There were also concerns regarding the intensification of the site. 

At the conclusion of the debate Councillor T Lacey and Councillor K Rouse moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, in line with officer recommendation. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be conditionally approved, with the final wording of the conditions and legal agreement delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Manager).

Proposed 2 storey front extension (with potential [future] PD Right A, B, C, D and E removed), Rosings, Hundall, Apperknowle, Dronfield.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for a proposed 2 storey front extension (with potential [future] PD Right A, B, C, D and E removed) for Rosings, Hundall, Apperknowle, Dronfield, S18 4BS.  Councillor A Dale had requested that the application be considered at Planning Committee to test Council and National Policy around percentage increases in volume in Green Belt Locations.

It was reported at the meeting that one late representation had been submitted in support of the application.

The recommendation of officers was to refuse permission.

The report set out the officer’s conclusion that the proposal was considered to be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and there were no very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the harm.  The proposal was therefore contrary to policy SS10 of the Local Plan and the policies of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Committee heard from Unstone Ward Councillor Alex Dale, Hayden Stimpson, a supporter, the applicant Jane Johnson, and Antony Johnson, who spoke on behalf of the agent.

The Committee considered the application.  It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies.  These included Local Plan Policy SS10 regarding the Green Belt and LC5 regarding Residential Extensions.

Some Members of the Committee expressed sympathy to the circumstances of the applicant but concerns were raised about the precedent that would be set if this application were permitted, and also that there were no very special circumstances to outweigh the harm.

At the conclusion of the debate Councillor T Lacey and Councillor N Baker moved and seconded a Motion to refuse the application, in line with officer recommendation. The Motion was put to a vote and agreed.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:

Local Plan Policy SS10 stated that new buildings within the Green Belt would not be granted planning permission; one exception being for extensions to existing dwellings providing it did not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling.

The National Planning Policy Framework also identified that the construction of new buildings in the Green Belt as inappropriate development, exceptions to this include the extension or alteration of a building provided that it did not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.

Inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, was clearly outweighed by other considerations.

The proposed development, when taken cumulatively with previous extensions to the property, would represent in a disproportionate addition to the original dwelling and be inappropriate development by definition and therefore harmful to the North East Derbyshire Green Belt.

No very special circumstances exist to justify the proposal and clearly outweigh the harm caused. The development was therefore contrary to the requirements of Policy SS10 of the North  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/14/25-26

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee considered a report which set out planning appeals that had been lodged and determined.

The report set out that five appeals had been lodged and one enforcement appeal, one appeal had been allowed and two appeals and one enforcement appeal had been dismissed. The relevant applications the appeals were in respect of was set out in the report.

It was reported at the meeting that the appeal in respect of 21/01310/FLH had been incorrectly labelled in the report as dismissed when it had been allowed, and costs had been awarded to the appellant.

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

None.

The Chair to Move:

“That the public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of the following item of business to avoid the disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 5, Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972”.  (As amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2008).

RESOLVED – that the public be excluded from the meeting during the discussion of the following items of business to avoid the disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 and 5, Part 1 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972 (as amended by the Local Government (Access to Information) (Variation) Order 2008).

Planning Manager (Development Manager)

[Paragraphs 3 and 5]

The Committee considered a report which provided a detailed breakdown of all live section 106 (legal) agreements.  The report outlined the current position in respect of all live section 106 (legal) agreements following a grant of planning permission, the receipt of any money further to that and the spend (as appropriate) against the agreed outcomes.

RESOLVED – That:

(1)       the information contained with Appendices A, B and C be noted.

(2)       the contents of paragraphs 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 be noted.

(3)       this matter continued to be reported to Planning Committee on a (approximately) quarterly basis.

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

None.