Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor L Hartshorne, who was substituted by Councillor T Lacey. Apologies were also receive from Councillor M Foster, who was substituted by Councillor S Clough. 

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.

None. 

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on Tuesday 14 February 2023.     

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 14 February 2023 were approved as a true record. 

Change of use from Agriculture to Dog Exercise Training Facility at land to the south of Little Chatsworth Cottages, Millthorpe Lane, Holmesfield

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for the change of use from Agriculture to a Dog Exercise and Training facility at land to the south of Little Chatsworth Cottages, Millthorpe Lane, Holmesfield. The Application had been referred to Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor B Strafford-Stephenson, who had raised concerns about it.

Planning Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to conditions. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Officers contended that the change of use would be in line National and Local Planning Policies. Allowing dog training in the field would not cause any unacceptable harm to the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. But to make sure of this, and in response to the concerns which had been raised locally, they recommended that only temporary permission for the development be granted. This would allow the impact of the change of use to be monitored over the two year period covered by the temporary permission. If full permission for the development was subsequently granted then any identified problems could be rectified.

Before the Committee considered the Application, it heard from Local Ward Member B Strafford-Stephenson, C Brooks, R Barnes, K Botros, H Stuart-Bamford, A Turner, N Todd, H Geary, M Greenland and S Nash, who spoke against the Application. The Applicant, H Wordsworth, and the Agent for the Application, M Seddon, spoke in support of it.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the Principle of Development and the site’s location outside of the defined Settlement Limits for Holmesfield, but within the countryside and the Green Belt. It considered the relevant Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS9, on acceptable development in the Countryside and in particular, category 1(d) of the Policy, on small scale use related to recreation. It took into account Local Plan Policy SD3, requiring new developments to not significantly harm the character, quality distinctiveness or sensitivity of the landscape. It also took into account Local Plan Policy SS10, proscribing inappropriate development in the Green Belt, except in very special circumstances and Local Plan Policy SDC12, requiring that all new developments protect the amenity of neighbouring occupiers.

Members discussed the Application. They heard about how the Dog Training Facility would operate, the Parking and Access arrangements for those visiting it and how boundary fencing would be used to help prevent dogs from escaping into the neighbouring fields and properties. They discussed the noise and other impacts which the Development might have on the surrounding area.  In this context, Members discussed the concerns raised that those travelling to use the Facility might generate additional traffic in the local area, and also that it was not required and so unlikely to be widely used.

Some Members felt that that the Application would be contrary to Local and National Planning Policies. They expressed concern that the proposed fencing to enclose the Field, the creation of hard surfacing for parked cars and the new access to the site would  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/92/22-23

Application to install a 4 metre high acoustic fence to air source heat pump compound and to install acoustic wall lining to internal brick work elevations of compound at Eckington Swimming Pool, Gosber Street, Eckington.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted to install a 4 Metre high Acoustic Fence to the Air Source Heat Pump compound and to install an acoustic wall lining to internal brick work elevations of the compound at Eckington Swimming Pool, Gosber Street, Eckington. Under the Council’s Constitution Planning Committee was required to consider and determine on the Application, as an objection to the proposed development at this Council owned facility had been received.

Planning Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to conditions. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Members were informed that the proposed 4 metre high fence was intended to ameliorate the impact noise coming from the Air Source Heat Pumps (ASHP) installed at the Swimming Pool. The Council’s Environmental Health officers were confident that the Acoustic Fence would achieve this. However, they had suggested that a condition requiring that the impact should be tested once the fence was in place ought to be imposed.

In addition, Member heard that a Noise Report had been submitted. This report was subject to a public consultation period, which would only conclude after the Committee had met. Officers recommended, therefore, that if the Committee approved the Application then this should remain subject to the consultation period expiry date.

Before Committee considered the Application it heard from P Vardywho objected to the proposal. No one spoke in support of it.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account of the Principle of Development and the site’s location within the settlement development limits for Eckington. It considered the relevant local and national planning policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS7, supporting appropriate development within settlements and in particular, the specific provision of Local Plan Policy SS7(c) requiring that developments be compatible with and not prejudice any intended use of adjacent sites and land uses. Committee also took into account Local Plan Policy SDC12, on the need for developments to protect the amenity of existing occupiers in relation to privacy.

Members discussed the Application. Some Members sought clarification on whether the proposed Fence would reduce the noise impact on the neighbouring property. Committee was reminded that the Council’s Environmental Health Officers had advised that it would do so.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor R Hall and A Armitage moved a motion to approve the Application in line with officer recommendations. The motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

RESOLVED -

That the Application be conditionally approved, in line with officer recommendations, subject to expiry of the consultation date with any late matters relating to the noise report delegated to the Planning Manager in consultation with Chair and Vice Chair of the Committee.

Conditions

1.    (Full Condition)

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

T1R Reason - To comply with the provision of Section 91 (as amended) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2.    (Submitted Plans)

The development  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/93/22-23

Proposed confirmation of Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 192/2022 on land at the Rectory of All Saints’ Church, Wingerworth

(Planning Policy and Environment Manager)

The report to Committee proposed that Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 192/2022, on land at the Rectory of All Saints Church, Wingerworth, should now be confirmed. Members were informed that this Order had been provisionally madeon 12 December 2022. It would apply for six months from that date, or until it had been Confirmed or Modified.

Members were reminded that the Council was required to take into account all ‘Duly Made’ objections and representations which had not been withdrawn, before confirming the Provisional Order. In this context, the report explained that two objections to it had been received.

Members considered the report and the assessment of the Council’s Principal Arboriculture Officer (Tree Officer). He advised that should the Order not be confirmed in the interests of amenity then there would be a foreseeable threat to the tree described as T1 within the Order. This threat  would be likely to result in the loss of the tree.

RESOLVED -

That Tree Preservation Order (TPO) 292/2022, Land at the Rectory of All Saints’ Church, Wingerworth be confirmed without modification.

By Acclamation

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that four Appeals had been lodged.  No Appeals had been allowed or withdrawn and one Appeal had been dismissed.

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 & 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 item of business to avoid the disclosure to them of exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 3 & 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 Management)

                                                                                           (Paragraphs 3 and 5)

The report to Committee provided information on specific ‘Section 106’ Agreements, or agreements reached between the Council as Planning Authority with developers to carry out specific work to help offset the impact of new developments on local people.

Members were informed of those agreements where the funding had now been secured. It also included information about Section 106 agreements where the funding had not yet been received or written-off.

RESOLVED - 

(1)       That the information contained within Appendices A, B and C of the report   be noted.

(2)       That the contents of paragraph 2.1 of the report be noted and endorsed.

(3)       That information on Section 106 Agreements continues to be reported to     Planning Committee.

        By Acclamation 

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

None.