Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Cheetham, M Foster , P Elliott and H Liggett.

Councillor K Gillott attended as a substitute for Councillor D Cheetham, Councillor S Clough attended as a substitute for Councillor M Foster, and Councillor A Dale attended as a substitute for Councillor P Elliott for items 7-10.

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.

Regarding item 25/00522/FLH – Dronfield South, as the application was within Dronfield South Ward, which Councillor W Jones represented, Councillor Jones would speak as Ward Councillor and then leave the room and would not participate in the Committee’s consideration or determination of the application.

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.

There were no declarations of predetermination.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 29 July 2025.

RESOLVED – That the Minutes of the meeting held on 29 July 2025 were approved as a true record.

Councillors S Clough, K Gillott and L Hartshorne left the meeting for the following item, Item 5 - 25/00415/FL – TUPTON, as it had been deferred from the previous meeting, at which they had not been present. They did not participate in the consideration or determination of the application.

Councillor T Lacey in the Chair

Retrospective application for siting an InPost Parcel Locker at Unit 5, Ankerbold Road, Old Tupton.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee considered a retrospective application for siting an InPost Parcel Locker Unit 5, Ankerbold Road, Old Tupton, Chesterfield. The application had been deferred during the discussion stage at the previous Planning Committee meeting, held on Tuesday 29 July 2025, to allow for further assessment of the highway safety impacts.

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

The report reiterated the reasons as to why the application had been recommended for approval at the meeting where it had been deferred. In regard to the information that had been collected since that, officers were of the view that retention of the parcel locker would not result in any unacceptable highway safety impacts.

Officers concluded that the proposed development represents an acceptable form of development within the defined Settlement Development Limits of Tupton. They recommended, therefore, that the application be approved subject to conditions.

Councillor T Lacey and Councillor A Cooper moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, in line with officer recommendation. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.

RESOLVED – That planning permission be conditionally approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with the final wording of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Manager).

Councillors S Clough, K Gillott and L Hartshorne returned to the meeting.

Councillor L Hartshorne in the Chair

Councillor W Jones left the meeting.

Part retrospective single storey rear extensions, two storey side extension and alterations to existing openings (resubmission of previously approved application 24/00766/FLH (Amended title and Amended plans) at 62 Hilltop Road, Dronfield.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for part retrospective single storey rear extensions, two storey side extension and alterations to existing openings at 62 Hilltop Road, Dronfield. The application had been referred to Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor W Jones, who had raised some concerns. An update report had been circulated which set out late representations regarding the application.

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

The report contended that the proposal was considered acceptable in terms of its design, impact on neighbouring amenity and highways matters. The report also stated that as the development was located within the urban environment of Dronfield, it would accord with policies of the North East Derbyshire Local Plan, Dronfield Neighbourhood Plan and National Planning Policy Framework.

Officers concluded that the proposal was in accordance with the relevant planning policies. They recommended, therefore, that the application be approved subject to conditions.

Before the Committee considered the application it heard from Local Ward Member, Councillor W Jones, an objector, Stephen Briggs and the applicant, Julia Mawbey.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. This included Local Plan policy LC5, concerning residential extensions, and Local Plan policy SDC12, concerning High Quality Design and Place Making.

Committee discussed the application. Some Members raised queries regarding the difference between this proposal and previously approved plans.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor T Lacey and Councillor K Rouse moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application, subject to conditions. The Motion was put to a vote and approved.

RESOLVED –

That planning permission be conditionally approved subject to the conditions and informatives set out in the report with the final wording of the conditions delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Manager).

Councillor W Jones returned to the meeting.

Councillor A Dale joined the meeting.

Full application for the erection of 180 dwellings including formation of access and associated landscaping and infrastructure (Major Development) at land north of Spindle Drive and East of Deerlands Road, Wingerworth.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for the erection of 180 dwellings including formation of access and associated landscaping and infrastructure (Major Development) at land north of Spindle Drive and East of Deerlands Road, Wingerworth. The application had been referred to Committee by Local Ward Member, Councillor N Baker, who had raised some concerns about it and the Planning Manager due to the scale of the application. An update report had been circulated which set out late representations 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 lay on a site outside the Settlement Development Limit and therefore the principle of development was not accepted. Additionally, as the Local Plan was up to date, the policy context carried significant weight against the proposal. However, the report explained that, given the change in national policy, the Council would not be able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land year supply in November 2026. Additionally, updated evidence suggested that there was insufficient allocated land to meet affordable housing need in Wingerworth. The report contended, therefore, that there was a local housing need that exceeded the allocations in the current Local Plan. Therefore, significant weight was attributed to the proposal as a result of its 40% affordable housing provision.

The report drew attention to a 2018 appeal decision that identified this site as a sustainable location for a very similar scheme. It was suggested that the appeal decision needed to be given significant weight in the decision-making process because there was little evidence to suggest that factors had changed in relation to the revised scheme.

Whilst it was accepted that the proposal would cause limited harm to the local landscape, the report attributed significant weight to the proposal in regard to its Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) commitments.

Officers concluded that the benefits of the proposal did significantly and demonstrably outweigh the harms and that the proposal, as amended and within the context of the changes to national planning policy since September 2024, represented a sustainable form of development. They recommended, therefore, that the application be approved subject to conditions and legal agreement.

Before the Committee considered the application it heard from Local Ward Member, Councillor N Baker, an objector, Mark Pearson and the Agent, Tom Ayres.

Committee considered the application. It took into account the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. This included Local Plan policy SS1, concerning sustainable development, Local Plan policy SS9, concerning development in the countryside, and Wingerworth Neighbourhood Plan policy W2, concerning development in the countryside.

Committee discussed the application. Some Members expressed concern over the deliverability of 40% affordable housing. Officers confirmed that 40% had been offered by the applicant and would be included in the Section 106 agreement and was reflective of the affordable housing levels agreed in the appeal decision in 2018. Some Members expressed further concerns around the strain this development would put on local  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/34/25-26

(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 four appeals had been lodged, one appeal had been allowed, six 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. 

Committee discussed the report. Some Members commended the relevant officers on their work surrounding specific appeals that had been dismissed.

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

None.