Agenda and minutes

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

Apologies were received from Councillor D Cheetham, who was substituted by Councillor C Gare and Councillor P Elliot, who was substituted by Councillor W Jones. Apologies were also received from Councillor M Foster.

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.

Councillor D Hancock declared an Interest in Item 6 – Application NED/22/0142/AD, in his capacity as a Member of Wingerworth Parish Council. He indicated that he would not take part in Committee’s consideration or determination on the Application and would leave the meeting at the appropriate time.

To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of the Planning Committee held on Tuesday 25 July 2023.    

The minutes of the meeting held on Tuesday 26 July 2023 were approved as a true record.

Full Planning Application for the development of 27 new dwellings, sports pavilion, and associated access at land off Oakhill Road, Dronfield. (Major Development (Amended Title and Drawings) at Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre, Oakhill Road, Dronfield.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for the development of 27 new dwellings, a Sports Pavilion and associated access at the Gladys Buxton Adult Education Centre site, Oakhill Road, Dronfield. The Application had been referred to the Committee by the Planning Manager (Development Management) due to the important planning policy issues that would need to be considered.

Planning Committee was recommended to approve the Application, subject to conditions and a ‘Section 106’ Agreement between the Council and the Developer to carry out specific work to help offset the impact of the new development. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.        

Officers felt that the development would be acceptable and accord with the Policies of the Development Plan. They contended that the Applicant had provided a layout and design, which would, on balance, provide a reasonable environment for future occupiers of the Development and ensure that an acceptable level of amenity was retained by existing residential occupiers. A full package of social mitigation had been offered as part of a Section 106 Agreement, and in particular, the Applicant had agreed a mitigation package for the part loss of the playing fields, to provide a two-team sports pavilion for those using the remaining playing fields.

Officers had concluded, therefore, that the proposed Development would accord with the policies of the Development Plan. There were no technical reasons that would justify resisting the Application or other matters that would outweigh this. The proposed Development would also provide affordable housing, which would help to meet the needs of the local area and the District as a whole. The report recommended, therefore, that the Application be approved, subject to the conclusion of a suitable Section 106 Agreement and the conditions set out in the report.

Before the Committee considered the Application it heard from E Ranson and P Ranson, who spoke against the Application. It also heard from T Breislin, the Agent for the Application, who spoke in support of it.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the location of the site within the Settlement Development Limits for Dronfield. It considered the relevant local and national planning policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS7 on the development of unallocated land within Settlement Development Limits, Local Plan Policy SDC12, requiring new developments to achieve high standards of design and Local Plan Policy ID10, seeking to protect and enhance existing open space sports and recreation facilities. It also took into account Local Plan Policy ID1, requiring appropriate mitigation to be achieved to offset the social impacts of developments, as well as the relevant policies of the Dronfield Neighbour Plan and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). 

Members discussed the Application. They reflected on the low level of use of the playing field for organised sport in recent years and what use might be made of it in the future. In this context, some Members expressed concern about the proposed Sports Pavilion, suggesting that it might remain  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/23/23-24

Temporary Planning Permission for the siting of a Mobile Farm Shop and Café, creation of a new access and parking (Private Drainage System) on land to the West Side of The Cutthorpe Institute, Main Road, Cutthorpe.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for Temporary Planning Permission to site a Mobile Farm Shop, along with the creation of new access and parking, at land to the west side of the Cutthorpe Institute, Main Road, Cutthorpe. The Application had been referred to Committee by Ward Member, Councillor M E Thacker MBE, who had raised issues about it.

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

Officers had concluded that the proposed Farm Shop / Café building, and the associated car park and infrastructure would represent an unacceptable development. If approved, it would cause significant harm to the Green Belt, impacting upon the openness, both spatially and visually, of the site. This would be contrary to both Local and National Planning Policy, which seek to protect the Green Belt and areas of countryside which contribute to the character of the area from inappropriate and unacceptable development.

Officers also contended that none of the very special circumstances in planning terms, that would justify the Development and outweigh the harm to the Green Belt site, had been identified. Consequently, they recommended that the Application be refused.

Before the Committee considered the Application it heard from A Herrington, who objected to the Application. It also heard from   E Wood and M Langley, the Applicants and D Cooney, the Agent, who spoke in support of the Application. The Committee then heard from D Catton, T Johnstone, A Wood and C Langley, who supported the Application.

Committee considered the Application. It took into account the site’s location within the Green Belt and a primary Area of Multiple Environmental Sensitivity (AMES), within the District’s most valued and protected landscape. 

Committee considered the relevant national and local planning policies. These included Local Plan Policy SS10 on preventing inappropriate development within the Green Belt except in very special circumstances, Local Plan Policy SDC3, requiring new developments not to cause significant harm to the character, quality, distinctiveness or sensitivity of the landscape and Local Plan Policy SS9, requiring acceptable developments to respect the form, scale, and character of the landscape through careful siting, scale, design, and use of materials.  In addition, Committee took into account the relevant policies of the draft Brampton Neighbourhood Plan.

Members discussed the report. They reflected on what impact the development would have on the visual openness of the area. They discussed the time limited period for the Application and the officer conclusion that it would not be an appropriate development given its Green Belt location.

Members considered the proposed access and parking arrangements. They considered what use would be made of the proposed Farm Shop and Café and benefits which they might have, in terms of providing additional facilities for the local community. They heard about the potential benefits of the proposed facility in helping to diversify an existing agricultural holding and in reducing carbon emissions by using locally produced foodstuffs at the Farm Shop / Café.

At the end  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/24/23-24

Application for advertisement consent for 4 signs, 2 mounted horizontally and 2 mounted vertically (Amended Title) at the Parish Rooms, New Road, Wingerworth.

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

Councillor D Hancock left the meeting at this point.

The report to Committee explained that an Application had been submitted for an Advertisement Consent for four signs at the Parish Rooms, New Road, Wingerworth.  The Application had been referred to Committee by the Planning Manager (Development Management) due to the interest which had been shown in it, the issues raised by the Application and because a public body (Wingerworth Parish Council) had submitted it.

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

Officers had concluded that the Application would be acceptable in planning terms. In particular, the signs would be in keeping with the character and appearance of the site and the surrounding street scene. The report made clear that concerns had been raised about the possible light pollution which the signs might cause. However, the Applicant had now confirmed that these would not be illuminated as part of this Application. Consequently, officers were content that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents, land uses or the adjacent countryside setting.

Members were informed that no one had registered to speak on the Application.

Committee discussed the Application. Members reflected on the scale of the proposed signs. Committee welcomed confirmation that these would not now be illuminated as part of this Application. Some Members asked for and received reassurance that a requirement that the signs should not be illuminated would be included as a proposed condition for approving the Application.

At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor L Hartshorne and Councillor T Lacey moved and seconded a motion to approve the Application. The motion was put to the vote and was approved.

RESOLVED -

That the Application be conditionally approved, in line with officer recommendations.

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

Conditions

1)           The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans:

·                0520-AM2-LP (Location Plan)

·                Location of Signs Plan; date scanned 27.10.2022

·                Proposed Signs Plan; date scanned 27.10.2022

·                Vertical Sign Details; date scanned 11.08.2023

2)           The signage hereby approved shall not be illuminated in any way.

3)            No advertisement is to be displayed without the permission of the owner of the site or any other person with an interest in the site entitled to grant permission.

4)           No advertisement shall be sited or displayed so as to—

(a) endanger persons using any highway, railway, waterway, dock, harbour or aerodrome (civil or military);

(b) obscure, or hinder the ready interpretation of, any traffic sign, railway signal or aid to navigation by water or air; or

(c)   hinder the operation of any device used for the purpose of security or surveillance or for measuring the speed of any vehicle.

5)           Any advertisement displayed, and any site used for the display of advertisements, shall be maintained in a condition that does not impair the visual amenity of the site.

6)           Any structure  ...  view the full minutes text for item PLA/25/23-24

(Planning Manager – Development Management)

Councillor D Hancock returned to the meeting at this point.

The report to Committee explained that one appeal had been lodged, one had been allowed 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.