Issue - meetings

The Development Management and Land Charges Manager presented the report to the Committee.

During July to December 2024, the Council had received no appeals on major planning applications and five appeal decisions on non-major planning applications (two were dismissed, three allowed). However, this only equated to 1.66% of the number of non-major applications determined from July to December 2024.

For the application at 16 The Chine, Broadmeadows, South Normanton, Alfreton, DE55 3AN, Members had gone against the Officer recommendation and refused the application.  However, this was successfully upheld at appeal and Members had made the correct decision.

For the application at the land adjacent 1 Park Street, Barlborough, S43 4ES, the main issues were the effect of the development on the setting of nearby heritage assets and the living conditions of future residents.  The appeal was allowed subject to conditions relating to: materials of construction; landscaping; ecological enhancements; removal of permitted development rights; widening of the access; parking and garage to be provided and retained for parking; submission of an archaeological written scheme of investigation; and submission of details of windows and doors.

To a question on the South Normanton application setting a precedent for future decisions, the Development Management and Land Charges Manager explained UK National Government policy would take precedence in the future.  While the unsuccessful application would provide a case precedent, it would not set a policy precedent.  The Senior Devolution Lead for Planning Policy, Strategic Growth and Housing added the inspector would take a decision on existing policy, not on a single case.

To a question on why Officers had recommended the 16 The Chine, Broadmeadows, South Normanton, Alfreton, DE55 3AN application, when the inspector had agreed with Members to refuse during the appeal, the Development Management and Land Charges Manager explained the site had been a sustainable location.  However, the inspector had agreed with Members on the lack of available public transport and the need for personal car travel to access the site – this went against the application.  However, Officers could consider the inspector’s decision in the future.

A Member stated this was one of the reasons Members made the decisions on Planning applications, as they could use their own first-hand knowledge and views of applications like the one above.

Moved by Councillor Deborah Watson and seconded by Councillor Duncan McGregor

RESOLVED that: 1)  This report be noted; and,

2)    Recommend appeal decisions continue to be reported to Committee Members every 6 months