Agenda and minutes

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

Councillor H Liggett. Councillor M Foster, substituted by Councillor W Jones.

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.

None.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 14 May 2024.    

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 14May 2024 were approved as a true record.

Replacement of a Nissen Hut with a 6 bed holiday let (Conservation Area/Further Amended Plans/Amended Title) (Private Drainage System) at Amber Lodge, Amber Mill Farm, Amber Green, Wessington

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to the Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for the replacement of a Nissen Hut with a 6-bed holiday let (Conservation Area/Further Amended Plans/Amended Title) (Private Drainage System) at Amber Lodge, Amber Mill Farm, Amber Green, Wessington.

The Application had been referred to the Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor C Cupit, who had raised concerns about it. 

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

The proposed new building would be similar in design to the Nissen hut, which had been in place since the 1940s. Although the new building would be larger, it would be set back from the road and comparable in scale to the existing structure. The six-bed holiday let would result in more activity at the site. However, officers felt that subject to appropriate conditions, this additional activity would not have an unacceptable impact on the amenity of neighbouring properties.

Officers contended that the proposed new building would, on balance, respect the character of the landscape in which it would be located and preserve the character of the Conservation Area. The development would also enhance the visitor economy, by providing additional accommodation, close to the Peak District. Officers believed that this additional accommodation would add some limited weight in favour of the Application.  

Officers concluded that the proposals would accord with the Development Plan. As there were no amenity or other issues that outweighed this, they felt it appropriate that the Application be approved.

Before the Committee considered the Application it heard from M Bagan, an objector to the Application and V Fell, the Applicant.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the site’s location within the Conservation Area and within a primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES). It considered the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS1, on Sustainable Development, Local Plan Policy SS9, requiring acceptable development in the countryside to respect the form, scale and character of the landscape and Local Plan Policy SDC3, requiring proposals for new development not to cause harm to the character, distinctiveness, or sensitivity of the landscape.

Committee also took into account Local Plan Policy SDC5, on development within Conservation Areas, the relevant policies of the Wessington Neighbourhood Plan and the ‘Successful Places’ Design Guidance 2013.

Members discussed the report. Some Members asked for clarification on the distance of the new building from neighbouring properties. Some Members expressed concern about the potential noise impact of the development. They reflected on the management provisions that would be put in place to help prevent this. They were also reminded of the legal provisions and enforcement action to deal with noise nuisance, which were separate to the Planning system.

In this context, Members discussed whether there would be scope to include the prevention of noise nuisance within the proposed Condition 11 for approval (Permitted Development Rights).  Committee was informed that although this would be limited, it might be possible to impose  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/5/24-25

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to the committee explained there had been three appeals lodged, and one determined.

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

None.