Venue: Council Chamber
Contact: Amy Bryan
No. | Item | ||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Apologies for Absence and Substitutions To receive any apologies for absence and notices of substitutions from Members. Minutes: None. |
|||||||||||||||
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes: None. |
|||||||||||||||
Declaration of Predetermination 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. Minutes: None. |
|||||||||||||||
Minutes of Last Meeting To approve as a correct record and the Chair to sign the Minutes of Planning Committee held on 1 October 2024. Minutes: RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 October 2024 were approved as a true record. |
|||||||||||||||
NED/24/00253/FL - ASHOVER Erection of a self-build dwelling plus associated hard and soft landscaping (Amended Details) at Fall Hill Quarry, Ashover.
(Planning Manager – Development Management) Minutes: The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for the erection of a self-build dwelling plus associated hard and soft landscaping at Fall Hill Quarry, Ashover. The application had been referred to Committee by Councillor H Wetherall who had raised concerns about the proposal being located outside the settlement development limit and that guest accommodation would be used as regular holiday accommodation.
The recommendation by officers was to grant permission, subject to conditions and a legal agreement. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.
Officers accepted that the proposal was contrary to the Local Plan and Ashover Neighbourhood Plan, in that it was an isolated dwelling in the countryside. However, officers, along with an independent design review, contended that the overall design of the scheme represented exceptional design. Therefore, it had the support of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Further to this, the report suggested that the proposal would be sensitive to the defining characteristics of the former quarry setting and the local area.
The report informed Members that the proposal lay within a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). In this context, it was suggested that the design of the scheme would increase the quantity and quality of biodiversity and geodiversity on site. As such officers attributed weight in favour of the scheme as they considered it would protect the natural environment, including the SSSI.
Officers had concluded that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supported exceptional design such as this. 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 H Wetherall. It also heard from the applicant, P Kennedy, and the agent, M Gordon
Committee considered the application. It took into account the history of the site and how safe the land was currently. It considered the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included (and were not limited to) Local Plan policy SS9 concerning development in the countryside, Local Plan policy SDC4 concerning biodiversity and geodiversity, relevant policies within the Ashover Neighbourhood Plan and NPPF Paragraph 84 concerning the mitigating circumstances for isolated development.
Members discussed the application. Some Members had reservations over the visitors that the site would get. However, it was felt that reassurances from the applicant and conditions were suitable to address this. Committee debated the extent to which the proposal would enhance its immediate setting. Some members reflected that the site was currently rundown and trespassed upon and, therefore, supported the proposals aims to develop the site. Additionally, the biodiversity and geodiversity gains were regarded as enhancing to the setting of the site. In this context, there was support for the application as a means of protecting the future of the SSSI.
At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor D Hancock and Councillor P Elliot moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application. The motion was put to a vote and agreed.
RESOLVED -
That the application be approved, in ... view the full minutes text for item PLA/30/24-25 |
|||||||||||||||
NED/24/00601/FL - SHIRLAND & HIGHAM Removal of existing garages and hardstanding, and erection of 5 affordable bungalows with associated landscaping, shared drive and car parking (Amended Plans) (Amended Title) on land at Byron Grove, Stonebroom.
(Planning Manager – Development Management)
Minutes: The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for the removal of existing garages and hardstanding, and erection of 5 affordable bungalows with associated landscaping, shared drive and car parking on land at Byron Grove, Stonebroom. The application had been referred to the Committee because the applicant was Rykneld Homes, the Council’s arm’s length housing company, and objections had been received which meant it could not be dealt with under officer delegated powers.
Planning Committee was recommended to approve the application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.
Officers had attributed positive weight to the scheme due to it offering additional housing within the settlement development limits. The report contended that this would be an upgrade on the underutilised garages that currently occupied the site. Officers contended that there were no technical reasons to resist the application and the amenity of existing future occupiers would be safeguarded. Committee heard that late comments, submitted by the Coal Authority, had resulted in two conditions being withdrawn, due to the fact that the Coal Authority were now satisfied that the application site was safe and stable for the proposed development.
Officers concluded that the proposal was in accordance with the policies of the development plan. It was therefore recommended, that the application be approved subject to conditions.
Before the Committee considered the application it heard from D Wright, an objector to the application, and the applicant, N Clark.
Committee considered the application. It took into account the existing access track and garages. It considered the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included Local Plan policy SS7 concerning development on unallocated land within settlement limits, and Local Plan policy SDC12 concerning high quality design and place making.
Members discussed the application. Some members considered whether it would have been possible to retain some garage space on the site. It was felt the design of the scheme was necessary to allow for the 10% Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) required.
At the conclusion of the discussion Councillor D Hancock and Councillor T Lacey moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application. The motion was put to a vote and agreed.
RESOLVED
That the application be approved, in line with officer recommendations.
That the final wording of the conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management).
Conditions
|
|||||||||||||||
NED/24/00642/FL - SHIRLAND & HIGHAM Erection of new Community Hall with pre-school facility and food bank, associated car parking and play area (Amended Plans) on land adjacent to 42 Cleveland Road, Stonebroom.
(Planning Manager – Development Management)
Minutes: The Committee considered an application that had been submitted for the erection of a new Community Hall with pre-school facility and food bank, associated car parking and play area on land adjacent to 42 Cleveland Road, Stonebroom.
The application had been referred to Committee because the applicant was Rykneld Homes, the Council’s arm’s length housing company, and objections had been received.
Planning Committee was recommended to approve the application. The report to Committee explained the reasons for this.
Officers contended that the development was generally supported as it lay within the settlement development limits. They attributed further support to the facility as it offered substantial community benefits. The report accepted that the site was located in close proximity to other properties. However, officers suggested that the new building was compatible with the area, the amenity of neighbouring properties was protected, and the issue of noise could be suitably addressed by conditions. In this context, Committee heard that late comments from the Environmental Health Officer further addressed the issue of noise by amending condition 6, concerning noise from the air conditioning unit, and adding a further condition, concerning a noise management plan. Additionally, late comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority added two further conditions centred around surface water drainage.
Officers concluded that the proposal was in accordance with the policies of the development plan. They recommended, therefore, that the application be approved subject to conditions.
Before the Committee considered the application it heard from the applicant, N Clark.
Committee considered the application. It took into account the noise that would be generated by the new use of the site. It considered the relevant Local and National Planning Policies. These included Local Plan policy ID4 concerning new social infrastructure and Local Plan policy SS2 concerning spatial strategy and the distribution of development.
Councillor D Hancock and Councillor P Elliot moved and seconded a Motion to approve the application. The motion was put to a vote and agreed.
RESOLVED
That the application be approved, in line with officer recommendations.
That the final wording of the conditions be delegated to the Planning Manager (Development Management).
Conditions
|
|||||||||||||||
Planning Appeals - Lodged and Determined (Planning Manager – Development Management) Minutes: The Committee considered a report which set out planning appeals that had been lodged and determined. The report set out that three appeals had been lodged, no appeals had been allowed or withdrawn, and three had been dismissed. The relevant applications the appeals were in respect of was set out in the report. |
|||||||||||||||
Matters of Urgency To consider any other matter which the Chair is of the opinion should be considered as a matter of urgency. Minutes: None. |