Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor K Rouse, who was substituted by Councillor T Lacey, Councillor D Hancock who was substituted by Councillor P Windley and from Councillor R Hall who was substituted by Councillor J Funnell.  Apologies were also received from 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.

None.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on Tuesday 21 March 2023  

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 21 April 2023 were approved as a true record.

Development to provide 41 dwellings (Revised Scheme of 20/01024/FL) (Major Development/Affecting Public Footpath). Land to the rear of 151-181 Chesterfield Road, Holmewood.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for a development to provide 41 dwellings at land to the rear of 151-181 Chesterfield Road, Holmewood. This was a revised scheme to that proposed under Application NED 20/01024/FL. It would be a Major Development that would affect a Public Footpath. The Application had been referred to Committee by the Planning Manager (Development Management), who felt that it raised issues which should be considered by the Committee.

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

Members were informed that planning permission had been previously granted for development on the site, which was within the Settlement Framework for Holmewood, as set out in the Local Plan. The proposed development would sit between existing dwellings and a site that is already being developed for new housing. Officers felt that, in general terms, it would be a sustainable development, which would provide a significant proportion of affordable properties. The proposed housing would be on an appropriate site and accord with the Council’s Development Plan.

Before the Committee considered the Application it heard from the Agent for the Application, S Haslam, who spoke in support of it. No one had registered to speak against the Application.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the principle of development and the site’s location within the Settlement Development Limits (SDL) for Holmewood and as part of the wider HO1 (housing) allocation, located to the west of Chesterfield Road. It also took into account the extant planning consent which had been granted for the development of the site for housing, along with a substantial area to the south and west of it, which is currently undergoing development.  It considered the relevant planning policies. These included Development Plan Policy SDC12, requiring good standards of design, SDC 4, requiring development to protect and enhance the District’s environment and Local Plan Policy ID1, requiring additional social infrastructure and mitigation to offset the impact of a development.

Members discussed the Application. As part of this they reflected on the financial requests to help mitigate the impact of the development. Some Members felt it important that the request for funding help to meet the costs of additional off-site play areas primarily and that this should be made a condition of approving the application.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor M Foster and Councillor W Armitage moved and seconded a Motion to approve the Application, subject to the requirement that the funding should meet the full cost of the requested play areas

Committee approved the Motion by acclamation.

RESOLVED

That the Application be approved, in line with officer recommendation and subject to the prior completion of a section 106 agreement that requires full payment of the contribution towards off site play (as requested by NEDDC Streetscene team) with the remaining contributions split pro rata among the other requestors.  

That the final wording of the conditions and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/103/22-23

Demolition of existing farmhouse buildings and erection of a new 5-bedroom dwelling, plant building and barn, associated access and landscaping. Land at Uppertown Farm, Cullumbell Lane, Uppertown.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for the demolition of an existing Farmhouse building the erection of a new 5-bedroom House, along with a Plant (machinery) Building and a Barn at land at Uppertown Farm, Collumbell Lane, Uppertown. The Application had been referred to Committee by local Ward Member, Councillor W Armitage, who had raised issues about it.

Planning Committee was recommended to refuse the Application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Officers contended that the Application would erode the character of the area. They pointed out that the site was located in the Wooded Slopes and Valleys Landscape Character Area and lay within the Primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES). Officers concluded that as the scale of the building would be larger than which it would replace, the Development would damage the Area of Environmental Sensitivity in which it would be located. As such, the Application would be contrary to both Local Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan policies, which seek to prevent unacceptable developments and so should be rejected.

Before Committee considered the Application, it heard from W Marshall, the Agent for the Application, and R Walker, who spoke in support of the Application. No one spoke against it.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the principle of development and the site’s location within the countryside and within a primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES), comprising the most attractive rural areas with the District. It considered the relevant Planning Policies.  These included Local Plan Policy SS9, on the requirement for replacement buildings to be for the same use as the previous building and not significantly large than those that they are to replace, Policy SDC3, on the need for new developments not to harm the character, quality and distinctiveness of the landscape and the policy requirement for new developments in Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity to contribute to the conservation, enhancement or restoration of the local landscape.

Members discussed the application. They considered whether the proposed new 5-bedroom dwelling would be significantly larger and taller than the existing structure and how the overall ‘footprint’ of the development compared to the existing buildings. They reflected on what impact the new structure would have on the environment. Members discussed the access arrangements to the site and the purposes of the ancillary Barn and Plant Buildings. Some Members felt that the Application would improve the environment by replacing the existing structures which were in a poor state of repair with higher quality structures and that the development would be in line with the appropriate Planning Policies.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor W Armitage and Councillor H Liggett moved and seconded a Motion to approve the Application, contrary to officer recommendations. The Motion was put to the vote and was approved

RESOLVED

That the application be conditionally approved, contrary to officer recommendations

That the final wording of the conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager (Development  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/104/22-23

Demolition of existing Agricultural Barn and redevelopment of a new Agricultural Barn. Land at Uppertown Farm, Cullumbell lane, Uppertown.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for the demolition of an existing Agricultural Barn and the development of a new Agricultural Barn at land at Uppertown Farm, Collumbell Lane, Uppertown. The Application has been referred to Committee by local Ward Member, Councillor W Armitage, who had raised issues about it.

Planning Committee was recommended to refuse the Application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

The report argued that the proposed new agricultural building would have a greater mass and a greater impact on the site and the locality than the existing building. Officers felt that the design of the new structure would be more akin to an industrial building, rather than an agricultural one. Because of its form, design and scale, the building would have an unacceptable impact on the rural character of the area. It would not respect the distinctive local landscape within the primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES) and so should be rejected.

Before Committee considered the Application, it heard from W Marshall, the Agent for the Application, and R Walker, who spoke in support of the Application. No one spoke against it.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the Principle of Development and the site’s location within the countryside for planning purposes and within a primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES), comprising the most attractive rural areas with the District. It considered the relevant Planning Policies.  These included Local Plan Policy SS9, on the issue of acceptable development in the countryside and Policy SDC3, on the need for new developments not to harm the character, quality and distinctiveness of the landscape and for new developments in Areas of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity to contribute to the conservation, enhancement or restoration of the local landscape.

Members discussed the Application. They reflected on the size of the proposed Barn and its potential impact on the landscape. They queried what use would be made of the Barn as an Agricultural Building and reflected on its design. Some Members also reflected on possible future uses of the building.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor D Ruff and M Foster moved and seconded a recommendation that the Application be refused, in line with officer recommendations. The Motion was put to the vote and was approved.

RESOLVED

That the Application be refused, in line with officer recommendations.

Reasons

The Application is considered unacceptable as by reason of the building’s size, scale, design, and overall massing there would be an unacceptable impact on the rural character of the area and the proposals would fail to respect, conserve and enhance the distinctive local landscape area.

As such, the proposals would be contrary to policies SS1, SS9, SDC3 and SDC12 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan and policies AP2, AP11 and AP13 of the Ashover Neighbourhood Plan.

Single Storey Extension to Eastern Gable and formation of opening between extension and existing kitchen (Listed Building)atCommon Bank, Fallgate, Milltown.

 (Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for a single storey extension to an eastern gable and the formation of an opening  between the extension and the existing kitchen of a listed building at at Common Bank, Fallgate, Milltown.

The Application had been referred to Committee by local Ward Member Councillor W Armitage, on the grounds that a relation of the Applicant was employed by the Council. This had been determined to be a valid request by the Council’s Legal Service.

Planning Committee was recommended to reject the Application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Officers felt that the benefits of the scheme would not outweigh the harm which it would do to the listed building and its setting. They pointed out that various other changes to the building had already taken place. The proposed development, when considered in the context of these other changes, would dilute the building’s character, and so harm the listed building’s setting, contrary to national and local Planning Policies.

Before Committee considered the Application it heard from S Wortley, the Applicant and C Stainton, acting for the Agent. No one spoke against the Application.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the Principle of Development and the site’s location in the open countryside, outside of any defined Settlement Development Limit. It considered the relevant Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy LC5, requiring extensions to dwellings to be in keeping with the existing property and the street scene and Local Plan Policy SS9, requiring developments to respect the form, scale and character of the landscape. Committee also took into account Local Plan Policy SDC12 and Ashover Neighbourhood Plan Policy AP11, requiring development proposals to respond positively to local character and Local Plan Policy SDC6 and Ashover Neighbourhood Plan Policy, requiring developments to preserve the significance of heritage assets and their setting.

Members discussed the Application. They reflected on the scope and scale of the proposed development. They discussed the current state of repair of the building gable and what contribution the proposed development would make towards stabilising this. Some Members felt that the proposed extension would be in line with the appropriate Planning Policies. They felt that the proposed extension would be of small scale, which would not detract from the property.  Some Councillors felt that as the proposed development would be difficult to see from publicly accessible areas it would have minimal impact on the landscape. 

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor M Foster and Councillor H Liggett moved and seconded a Motion to approve the Application, contrary to officer recommendations. The Motion was put to the vote and was agreed.

RESOLVED

That the application be conditionally approved, contrary to officer recommendations

That the final wording of the conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management) in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Council.

Reasons

That the Application accords with the appropriate local and national Planning Policies, including Local  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/106/22-23

Application for Listed Building consent for a single Storey Extension to eastern gable and formation of opening between extension and existing kitchen. (Listed Building) at Common Bank, Fallgate, Milltown.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for Listed Building consent to construct a single storey extension to the eastern gable and the formation an opening between the extension and Existing Kitchen on a listed building at Common Bank, Fallgate Milltown.

The Application, which followed on from the previous application to carry out this development on the site, had been referred to Committee by local Ward Member Councillor W Armitage, on the basis that a relation of the Applicant was employed by the Council. This had been determined to be a valid request by the Council’s Legal Service.

Committee was recommended to refuse the Application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this, principally the adverse impact the development would have on the listed building.

Before Committee considered the Application it heard from the Applicant, S Wortley and C Stainton, acting on behalf of the Agent. No one spoke against the Application.

Members discussed the Application. As part of this some Members highlighted the potential benefits to the long-term sustainability of the property of the proposed works. Members took into account the Committee’s earlier decision to approve the Application to carry out this work.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor M Foster and Councillor W Armitage moved and seconded a Motion to approve the Application, contrary to officer recommendations. The Motion was put to the vote and was approved.

RESOLVED

That the Application be conditionally approved, contrary to officer recommendations.

That the final wording of the conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management) in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of the Council.

Reasons

That the proposed development would accord with Local Plan Policy SDC6, by preserving and enhancing a listed building, and of a scale and design that would not detract from it as a listed building.

Change of use of existing land to accommodate additional car parking and relocation of existing stable at the Devonshire Arms, Westfield Lane, Middle Handley.

(Planning Manager Development Manager)

The report to Committee explained that a Planning Application had been submitted for the change of use of existing land to accommodate additional car parking and the relocation of an existing stable at the Devonshire Arms, Westfield Lane, Middle Handley. The Application had been referred to the Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor A Dale, so that Planning Committee could assess the impact of the proposal on the Green Belt.

Planning Committee was recommended to refuse the Application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Officers felt that this would be an inappropriate development that would harm the openness of the Green Belt. They considered the possible level of harm to be significant, due to the size of the proposed new car park and the  position of the relocated stable building. They concluded that as there were no ‘very special circumstances’ to outweigh the harm which the development would cause, the application should be refused. 

Before Committee considered the Application it heard from the Agent for the Application, J Stannard. No one spoke against the Application.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the Principle of Development and in particular, the site’s location outside of any defined Settlement Development Limit, within open countryside and the Green Belt. It considered the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy Local Plan Policy SS1, requiring sustainable development, Local Plan Policy SS9, on the categories of development permissible in countryside areas and Local Plan Policy SS10, regarding development within the Green Belt.  It also took into account Local Plan Policy SDC3 on the need for new developments not to harm the character, quality, and distinctiveness of the landscape.

Members discussed the Application.  They considered the potential social and economic benefits to the local economy and community if the car park was installed. They discussed the possible impact on road safety if the additional car parking spaces were not provided. Some Members felt that these benefits would be grounds for approving the Application. Other Members contended that although welcome, the economic and social benefits would not constitute the very special grounds under Planning Policy that would permit the development.

At the conclusion of the discussion, Councillor D Ruff and W Armitage moved and seconded a Motion to refuse the Application in line with officer recommendations. The motion was put to the vote and was approved.

RESOLVED

That the Application be refused, in line with officer recommendations.

Reasons

Policy SS10 of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan states that proposals for engineering operations may not be inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve openness and do not conflict with its purposes. The National Planning Policy Framework identifies that material changes in the use of land are likewise acceptable subject to the same caveats. 

Inappropriate development is by definition harmful and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/108/22-23

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that one appeal had been lodged, three appeals had been dismissed and that none had been withdrawn.

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

None.