Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received by Councillors D Cheetham and P Elliot.

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.

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.

Councillor T Lacey declared a predetermination in item 5 on the agenda, NED/24/00303/FLH – Killamarsh, as his spouse was the Local Ward Member and would be speaking in objection to the application. He indicated that he would leave the room at the appropriate time and would not participate in the Committee’s consideration or determination of the application.  

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 3 December 2024.  

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 3 December 2024 were approved as a true record.

Having previously declared a predetermination in the next item, Councillor T Lacey left the meeting room.  

Amendments to raising of ridge height and reduction in size of rear extension and atrium approved under planning application 19/00591/FLH at 41 Rose Way, Killamarsh.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for amendments to raising of ridge height and reduction in size of rear extension and atrium approved under planning application 19/00591/FLH, at 41 Rose Way, Killamarsh. The application had been referred to Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor C Lacey, who had raised some concerns about it.  An update report had been circulated which set out a late representation regarding the application.

The recommendation by officers was to approve the application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.

Officers accepted that the proposal resulted in an increase in the ridge heights of both the dwelling and garage over those in the previously approved schemes. However, the report contended that the impact of these changes was acceptable in respect of the overall design and impact on the surrounding street scene. Furthermore, officers suggested that the revised dimensions of the buildings, would not result in an unacceptable impact on the privacy and amenity of any neighbouring occupiers.

Officers had concluded that the proposal was in accordance with local and national planning policy. They recommended, therefore, that the application be approved subject to conditions.

Before the Committee considered the application it heard from Local Ward Member, Councillor C Lacey, and Ms L Morton who spoke against the application.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policies LC5, concerning residential extensions, and SDC12, concerning high quality design and placemaking. Committee also considered guidance set out in “Successful Places”.

Committee discussed the application. Members considered the schemes effect on the privacy and amenity of neighbouring properties. Some Members felt that the size and scale of the proposal represented a significant loss. Committee were reminded that the application being considered represented a smaller footprint that previously approved plans. In this context, some Members suggested that approving the proposal represented the best option available for protecting the amenity of neighbouring properties. Committee further considered the impact on the privacy of the nearby residents overlooked by the property. Members felt that the privacy of neighbours could be suitably protected through a condition stipulating that obscure glazing and non-opening windows were used in the roof of the property, as well as no window being fitted in the gable end of the garage.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor D Hancock and Councillor W Jones moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, subject to a condition prohibiting a window in the gable end of the garage and requiring windows in the roof of the property be non-opening and obscurely glazed. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.

RESOLVED –

That the application be approved, in line with officer recommendations.

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

Proposed Confirmation of Tree Preservation Order 302/2024 – Trees on Land South of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland.

(Planning Policy & Environment Manager)

The Committee considered an application for a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) in respect of the trees on land south of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland.

Committee were informed 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. The report explained that one duly made objection had been received.

Members considered the report and the assessment of the Council’s Principal Arboricultural Officer that there was a foreseeable threat to the trees situated on land south of Hallfieldgate Lane if the TPO was not confirmed.

Councillor D Hancock and Councillor L Hartshorne moved and seconded a Motion to approve the TPO. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.

RESOLVED –

That TPO 302/2024 in respect of trees on land south of Hallfieldgate Lane, Shirland be confirmed, without modification.

(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, three appeals had been allowed, four appeals had been dismissed, and no appeals had been withdrawn. The relevant applications the appeals were in respect of was set out in the report. 

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

None.