Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Tuesday, 16th November, 2021 2.00 pm

Contact: Alan Maher  01246 217391

No. Item


Apologies for Absence and Substitutions

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


Apologies were received from Councillor A Cooper, who was substituted by Councillor J Funnell. Apologies were also received from Cllr J Ridgway.



Declarations of Interest

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



Minutes of Last Meeting pdf icon PDF 230 KB

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 19 October 2021.    


The minutes of the meeting, held on Tuesday 19 October 2021, were approved as a true record.



NED/21/00853/FL - HOLMEWOOD pdf icon PDF 1 MB

Demolition of existing redundant building(s) known as Ellen House and construction of new affordable housing development (19 units) plus associated car parking and landscaping (Major Development) (Amended Plans/Amended Title). Close to the junction of the A6175 (Heath Road) and B6039 (Tibshelf Road).


(Planning Manager – Development Management)


The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for the demolition of existing redundant buildings, known as Ellen House, and the construction of a new housing development of 19 units, along with associated car parking and landscaping, close to the junction of Heath Road and Tibshelf Road, Holmewood. This would be classed as a Major Development. It would also involve amended plans to the original proposals.


The Planning Manager (Development Management) had referred the Application to Committee for determination. This was because the Application would not provide for a Section 106 Agreement between the Council as Planning Authority and the Developer – East Midlands Housing (EMH). Such agreements were used to provide health, education and other infrastructure improvements to offset the impact of a development on local people.


Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to conditions.


The report to Committee explained why Members were asked to agree the recommendations. Committee was reminded that the site was classed as Previously Developed Land (PDL) and that under the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), such land should be used as far as possible for new developments. The officers had concluded that the existing buildings had little heritage value. They did not have a protected status to prevent their demolition. The buildings had also been vacant for some time and were falling into disrepair. The officers believed that the Application provided a good mix of house types, which would respect the character of the surrounding street scene. They had also concluded that the development would provide much-needed affordable housing in the District.


Before Members discussed the Application those registered to speak were asked to address the Committee. H Roberts and N Roberts objected to the Application. The Applicant J Fradgley and Agent C Woods spoke in support of it.


Committee considered the Application. It took into account the relevant Planning Issues. These issues included the Principle of Development. In particular, how the site fell within the Settlement Development Limit and was on Previously Developed Land (PDL). It took into account the Local Plan policies relating to Affordable Housing. It considered the Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covering some of the trees on the site.  Committee also assessed the impact on the Street Scene and on neighbouring properties. In addition, it considered the highway safety, ecology and drainage implications of the Application.


Members discussed the Application. They reflected on the contribution which the proposed 19 units would make to the provision of Affordable Housing in the District. Members asked for and received clarification of what was meant by the term Affordable Housing and how it would be applied to the properties on this development. They discussed the reasons why there would be no Section 106 Agreement if the Application was approved. They heard that as the development would consist only of lower cost Affordable Housing, such a contribution would make it financially un-viable.


Members discussed the impact on the neighbouring Street Scene of the demolition of the existing buildings and whether  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/42/21-22


NED/21/01005/FL - WESSINGTON pdf icon PDF 457 KB

Construction of an open sided timber gazebo measuring 6 metres long by 4metres wide by 3.5 metres high at Amber Valley Wines, Back Lane, Wessington.


(Planning Manager – Development Management)



The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for the construction of an open sided timber gazebo measuring 6m long by 4m wide by 3.5m high atAmber Valley Wines, Back Lane, Wessington.


In line with normal practice, the application had been referred to the Committee as the applicant was an elected Member of North East Derbyshire District Council.


Committee was recommended to approve the application in line with officer recommendations and subject to the conditions set out in the report.


The report to Committee explained why Members were asked to approve the application. Officers had concluded that it would be an appropriate design and not cause significant harm to the character of the landscape or to the surrounding countryside.


Committee was informed that no representations had been made on the application and that no one had registered to speak on it.


Committee considered and discussed the Application. It took into account the Principle of Development. It considered whether the timber framed Gazebo would serve an appropriate purpose for this countryside location. Members also reflected on what impact the construction might have on the landscape.


At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor P Elliot and Councillor W Armitage moved and seconded a motion to approve the Application in line with officer recommendations. The motion was put to the vote and was approved.




(a)  That planning permission be conditionally approved in accordance with officer recommendations.

(b)  That the final wording of the conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management).


GRANT Full Planning Permission subject to the following conditions:




1)    The development hereby permitted shall be started within 3 years from the date of this permission.


[Reason: To comply with the provision of Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.]


2)    The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans, unless otherwise subsequently agreed through a formal submission under the Non-Material Amendment procedures.


[Reason: For clarity and the avoidance of doubt.]


3)    The building hereby approved shall be used for ancillary purposes linked to the winery use of the site and for no other purpose.


[Reason: In the interest of the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding countryside, and highway safety.]


4)    The structure hereby permitted shall be removed from the site within 3 months of it ceasing to be used for the purposes linked to the winery, and, within 6 months of the removal of the structure, the land shall be restored in accordance with a scheme of works that shall have been first submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.



Planning Appeals - Lodged and Determined pdf icon PDF 251 KB

(Planning Manager – Development Management)


The report to Committee informed Members that two appeals had been lodged. One appeal had been allowed. No appeals had been dismissed or withdrawn.



Matters of Urgency

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