Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor Jayne Barry, who was substituted by Councillor Lee Hartshorne, Councillor Peter Elliot, who was substituted by Councillor Heather Liggett, Councillor Mo Potts who was substituted by Councillor Steve Clough. Councillor Jacqueline Ridgway, who was substituted by Councillor Margaret Jones and Councillor Ross Shipman, who was substituted by Councillor Pam Windley.

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.

No declarations of interest were received.

The report to Committee explained that an application had been received for the construction of 4 detached four-bedroom dwellings with garages on land to the rear of Hamhill Close and 14 To 19 John Street, accessed from Station Road Hepthorne Lane, North Wingfield, for Mr Featherstone (D.F. Blasting Contractors, C/O Mitchell Proctor).  The proposed development would be a departure from the Development Plan and affect a Public Right of Way.

The report explained that the application had been referred to Planning Committee by the Local Ward Members, Councillor Nigel Barker and Councillor Jayne Barry, who had raised concerns about it.

Two Parish Councillors spoke against the application. One of these was Councillor Nigel Barker, in his capacity as a North Wingfield Parish Councillor.

The Agent spoke in support of the application.

No supporters spoke in favour of the application.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Planning issues in reaching its determination on the application. These included the sustainability of the development, its possible impact on the character of the area, the impact on neighbouring properties and the effect on the natural environment. It also took into account highways issues and how the proposed development might impact on drainage conditions.

Members discussed the application. In particular, they discussed the maintenance arrangements for the road to the proposed development. Committee noted that the road would not be ‘adopted’ and as such would not be maintained by Derbyshire County Council as the Highways Authority. They considered the role which the proposed Management Company for the site should play in maintaining it.

Members concluded that appropriate arrangements ought to be put in place to ensure that the road was kept in an ongoing good state of repair and asked that these arrangements ought to be made a condition as for approval for the application. They also asked for conditions about the pre-installation of the substructure of the road, prior to construction and a requirement for additional landscaping to be imposed.

RESOLVED -

(a)      That the application be approved, in line with officer recommendations,

(b)      That a condition be imposed requiring details of the future management and maintenance of the road to be submitted;

(c)      That conditions requiring root protection for trees on and surrounding the site, additional landscaping the installation of the substructures of the road be in place before construction of the properties commences.

(d)     That the detailed conditions be finalised by the Assistant Director of Planning, in consultation with the Chair of the Committee.

The report to Committee explained that an application had been received for the change of use of a double garage to a beauty salon at 11, Wellington Park, Shirland for Mr Glen Gent.

The report explained that the application had been referred to the Committee for determination by a local Ward Councillor, Heather Liggett, who had raised concerns about it.

A Parish Councillor spoke against the application.

Eight objectors spoke against the application.

The partner of the applicant spoke in support of the application

No supporters spoke in favour of the application.

Planning Committee was referred to the recent late comments report, which had been issued on the afternoon prior to the meeting.

Committee considered the application. As part of this, it took into account the relevant Planning issues in reaching its determination on the application. These included the impact on the characteristic and appearance of the surrounding area, the implications on the privacy and amenity considerations for neighbouring residents and Highways Safety.

Members discussed the application. They discussed the potential benefits for the applicant and the proposed working arrangements that would be put in place.  They considered the likely volume of customers using the proposed facility, both during the period of the Coronavirus (Covid-19) outbreak and afterwards.  Members also discussed concerns that the change of use might create additional traffic and parking problems and the impact that these would have on the local community.

RESOLVED -

(a)  That the application be refused contrary to officer recommendations.

(b)  That the reasons for refusal focus on the adverse impact on the residential amenity as a result of parking problems, increased traffic, disturbance caused and reduction in the privacy of neighbouring properties.

The report to Committee explained that an application had been received for the erection of a detached garage in the rear garden of 13 Westthorpe Road, Killamarsh S21 1ET for Mr R Ley.

The report explained that a ward Member had requested that the application be determined by the Planning Committee, as they had raised concerns about it.

A Ward Councillor, Councillor Mo Potts, spoke against the application

One local resident spoke in objection to the application

No one spoke in support of the application.

Committee considered the application. As part of this, it took into account the relevant Planning issues in reaching its determination on the application. In this context, it considered the impact of the proposed development on the character of the area, privacy and amenity considerations, and whether the building would have a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers and uses. Committee also considered highway safety implications of the proposals.

Member discussed the application. In particular, they considered, the size of the proposed building and its appearance. They also discussed whether it would be an appropriate development in a residential area and the possible impact on neighbouring properties, including an increased volume of traffic.

RESOLVED -

(a)  That the application be refused, contrary to officer recommendations;

(b)  That the reasons for refusal focus on two grounds of the adverse impact on residential amenity of neighbouring properties as a result of the amount of cars and activity that could be generated, and that the size of the building in this areas was detrimental to the residential character of the area.  

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

There were no Matters of Urgency for the Committee to consider.