Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Sally Renshaw, John Ritchie, Janet Tait and Deborah Watson, and Sarah Kay (Interim Director of Planning, Devolution and Corporate Policy).

To note any urgent items of business which the Chairman has consented to being considered under the provisions of Section 100(B) 4(b) of the Local Government Act 1972.

There was no urgent business to be considered at the meeting.

Members should declare the existence and nature of any Disclosable Pecuniary Interest and Non Statutory Interest as defined by the Members’ Code of Conduct in respect of:

a)  any business on the agenda

b)  any urgent additional items to be considered

c)  any matters arising out of those items

and if appropriate, withdraw from the meeting at the relevant time.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting held on 3^rd September 2025.

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Rob Hiney-Saunders           

RESOLVED that the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3^rd September 2025 be approved as a true and correct record.

Committee considered a report in relation to the above application presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, who gave details of the application and highlighted the location and features of the site and key issues.  The application sought approval from the Committee for a residential development of 217 dwellings on an approximately 8 hectare site to the east of Bolsover Town, accessed from Langwith Road, Foxglove Drive and Buckthorn Drive.  The site formed part of a housing allocation in the adopted Local Plan, along with the recently completed scheme to the north and Crossways Garage and Dunedin House that had not been included within the application.

Amendments have been made to reduce the number of dwellings, increase the size of the attenuation basin and increase the amount of public open space within the site.

The Supplementary Agenda informed of 2 additional neighbour representations made.

Updates to the conditions list had been made.

Derbyshire County Council (DCC) had provided a late submission the day before the meeting.  This has been emailed to Members upon receipt.

A further submission from DCC was received a few minutes before the meeting.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:11 hours for the Planning Team to provide paper copies of the second of DCC’s submissions.

The meeting was reconvened at 10:16 hours.

The Development Management and Land Charges Manager read out the second of DCC’s submissions.

Councillor Donna Hales spoke against the application on behalf of Councillor Paul Goodwin.

Paul Butler, the agent, spoke in favour of the application.

To a question on the concerns raised on the disposal of foul water, Paul Butler could not comment on the issues raised by the Keepmoat development, but the proposal would benefit from the resolutions made by Keepmoat and stated that if the water authority was not content to claim responsibility of the system after the development was progressed, they had every right to refuse the adoption.

It was reiterated that the attenuation basin had been substantially enlarged for surface runoff which would reduce impacts on the system.

To a question on the provision of the play area, Paul Butler informed this would be maintained by the developer in perpetuity.

Adrian Kerrison, the consultant, spoke in favour of the application.

A Member stated it would be difficult for the developer to meet the 10% affordable housing target if DCC’s request for additional educational contributions was accepted – no development of this size would be capable of fulfilling DCC’s request.

The Chair noted there was a substantial change in market conditions since the original application.

A Member shared the Council pursued growth as a policy and the District needed housing – the application had to be considered with all seriousness.

To a question on the development’s expected profit once completed, the Development Management and Land Charges Manager explained that a 17.78% profit margin had been accepted as part of the viability appraisal work - this fell within the 15-20% range that was required for a development to present  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL34-25/26

Committee considered a report in relation to the above application presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, who gave details of the application and highlighted the location and features of the site and key issues.  It had been resolved by the Committee on 14^th May 2025 that subject to the prior entry into a Section 106 agreement to secure a requested travel plan contribution that the application be approved subject to conditions.

Progress had been made on preparing a legal agreement to secure the payment of the travel plan contribution prior to occupation of any part of the development.

The Council had a long leasehold interest on site and the agreement only needed to secure one financial contribution payable to Derbyshire County Council (DCC).  It had been agreed that it would be more appropriate for a Section 106 unilateral undertaking to be made in favour of both the Council and DCC.

The applicant had also sought a longer period to submit the reserved matters to allow for phasing that would be more responsive to market demand as the development progressed.

More detail was provided in the report.

From the Supplementary Agneda provided, the Committee was informed the applicant had pointed out an inconsistency with the wording of the recommended Condition 29, which did not link to the phasing of the development as per the other conditions.  It had been requested that the condition be worded as follows:

'An Employment Scheme, to enhance and maximise employment and training opportunities during the construction phase of the project, for each approved phase of development shall be submitted to, and be approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority prior to the commencement of development in that phase.  Any such approved Scheme shall then be implemented in full unless in accordance with any such subsequent variations as shall have been formally submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.'

Councillor Donna Hales spoke on the application.

To a question on any specific heritage assets raised, Councillor Donna Hales informed of the railway workshop and Portland House (the latter was not a listed building, though it was argued it remained a significant historical asset) – both would be demolished along with the expected rail buildings and bathhouse.

A Member noted Shirebrook encountered the same situation of local heritage assets – while personal feelings should be acknowledged it was natural for the District to move forwards.

The Development Management and Land Charges Manager addressed concerns on the historical assets – it was noted the former Headquarters building would be retained but the loss of all other buildings to develop the site was acceptable, having regard to the public benefits to be derived.

5 in favour

0 against

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Phil Smith

RESOLVED that application no. 23/00180/OUT be APPROVED following completion of a legal agreement to secure the travel plan contribution and with the conditions set out in the officer report, with the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL35-25/26

Committee considered a report in relation to the above application presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, who gave details of the application and highlighted the location and features of the site and key issues.  The application was for the material change of use of the New Middle Club to provide 9 residential flats.  The original application had included 10 off-road car parking spaces with vehicular access from Coronation Street, Whitwell.  2 of the flats were 2-bedroomed and 7 of the flats were 1-bedroomed units.

The application had been deferred by the Committee 3^rd September 2025.  Members had debated the appropriateness of the number of car parking spaces to be allocated (10).  A revised parking layout had been received, which would provide 3 additional car parking spaces (13 in total).

Additional representations had been received and detailed in the Supplementary Agenda.

Dee Devine spoke against the proposal.

Amat Patil, the applicant, spoke in favour of the application.

To a question on the provision of EV charging points, Amat Patil informed that while not part of the original application, the car park would have the electrical cables prepared further into the development for the individual installation of charging points.

Amat Patil confirmed that the provision of the bin storage area would remain onsite despite the additional 3 parking spots in the revised plan.

4 in favour

0 against

Moved by Councillor Phil Smith and seconded by Councillor Rob Hiney-Saunders

RESOLVED that application no. 25/00179/FUL be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the following approved drawings and documents unless specifically stated otherwise in the conditions below:

Revised Site Layout and Proposed Floor Plans - drawing number AP/02 revision d dated 04/09/2025.

Revised Site Location Plan and Proposed Block Plan - drawing number AP/04 dated 24/07/2025.

Proposed Elevations and Roof Plan - drawing number AP/04 dated 09/05/2025.

3. Construction works on the site and deliveries to the site must be undertaken only between the hours of 07.30am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 7.30am to 1pm on Saturday.  There shall be no work undertaken on site or deliveries to the site on Sundays or public holidays.

4. If during the construction and/or demolition works associated with the development hereby approved, any suspected areas of contamination are discovered, then all works shall be suspended until the nature and extent of the contamination is assessed and a report is submitted and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority which addresses the risk identified.  The Local Planning Authority shall be notified as soon as is reasonably practicable of the discovery of any suspected areas of contamination.

Any investigation required shall be undertaken in accordance with a scheme submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority and shall comply with current Government Guidance to achieve the appropriate standard at completion.

Upon completion of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL36-25/26

Committee considered a report in relation to the above application presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, who gave details of the application and highlighted the location and features of the site and key issues.  The application the demolition and erection of a replacement Church Hall.  The site was currently occupied by a church hall which previously provided a number of community facilities.

The main issues for consideration were whether the proposed development would result in harm to the character and appearance of the area, harm to residential amenity and raised any unacceptable impacts on highway safety and the local road network.

The decision was referred to the Committee in the interests of openness and

transparency, given that the application site was owned by the Council.

Councillor Mary Dooley spoke in favour of the application.

To a question on the building’s future use, Councillor Mary Dooley informed it would be for any / all local community events as well as for externally hired events (e.g. weddings) – it would be a fabulous design and a valuable new asset for Pinxton.

The Chair noted parking would take place on the highway but that residents supported this decision.  Councillor Mary Dooley informed parking was also available nearby on Victoria Road, Pinxton.

A Member brought to light that funding for the proposal was largely being delivered through the UK Shared Prosperity Fund.  A new build, rather than a refurbishment, would also maximise the potential and positive economic impact of the development.

Members praised the work and design of the proposal.  The exclusion of any parking onsite was due to the provision of a tree to improve the visual aspect of the proposal / area and provide a welcoming aspect to the site.

Questions were asked on the non-requirement of disabled parking bays – the development had remained acceptable without.

The work of the Senior Economic Development Officer was noted.

5 in favour

0 against

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Phil Smith

RESOLVED that application no. 25/00239/FUL be APPROVED with final, precise wording of conditions relating to biodiversity (current Conditions 7, 8, and 9) delegated to the Development Management and Land Charges Manager or Principal Planners:

AND subject to the following conditions:

1. The development must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. The development must be carried out in accordance with the following plans/details submitted with the application:

·       ‘PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHEET 1’ (24101-CO-XX-XX-DR-A-41001) received on the 3^rd July 2025;

·       ‘PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHEET 2’ (24101-CO-XX-XX-DR-A-41002) received on the 3^rd July 2025;

·       ‘PROPOSED PLAN’ (24101-CO-XX-XX-DR-A-21001) received on the 3^rd July 2025.

·       ‘PROPOSED SITE PLAN’ (24101-CO-XX-XX-DR-A-16002) received on the 3^rd July 2025; and,

·       ‘PROPOSED LANDSCAPING’ (24101-CO-XX-XX-DR-A-16003) received on the 30^th July 2025.

3. The development hereby approved must be constructed and finished in the material details that are outlined in the elevation plans: ‘PROPOSED ELEVATIONS SHEET 1’ & ‘2’, both received on the 3^rd July 2025.

4. Unless otherwise amended by  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL37-25/26

Committee considered a report in relation to the above application presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, who gave details of the application and highlighted the location and features of the site and key issues.  The application sought permission to demolish 6 existing prefabricated garages, re-surface the existing parking area and extend it by 9.5 sqm, marking out the resulting parking area with 14 spaces, including one disabled parking space.  The proposal also included repairs to an existing low retaining wall and installation of a 12.6m long crash barrier at a height of 900mm along the front of one of the rows of parking spaces created.

A submission from Sarah Hyde was brought to the attention of the Committee.

The Assistant Director of Housing Management & Enforcement was present to help address listed concerns.

It was noted the provision of EV charging points would be a commercial one and not for the Council to include in the proposal.

5 in favour

0 against

Moved by Councillor Phil Smith and seconded by Councillor Steve Fritchley

RESOLVED that application no. 25/00307/FREG3 be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

2. The development must be carried out in accordance with plan number: BDC-WCG-03A Proposed block plan.

Statement of Decision Process

Officers have worked positively and pro-actively with the applicant to address issues raised during the consideration of the application.  The proposal has been considered against the policies and guidelines adopted by the Council and the decision has been taken in accordance with the guidelines of the Framework.

Equalities Statement

Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 places a statutory duty on public authorities in the exercise of their functions to have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination and advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it (i.e., “the Public Sector Equality Duty”).

In this case, there is no evidence to suggest that the development proposals would have any direct or indirect negative impacts on any person with a protected characteristic or any group of people with a shared protected characteristic.

Human Rights Statement

The specific Articles of the European Commission on Human Rights (‘the ECHR’) relevant to planning include Article 6 (Right to a fair and public trial within a reasonable time), Article 8 (Right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence), Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions and protection of property).

It is considered that assessing the effects that a proposal will have on individuals and weighing these against the wider public interest in determining whether development should be allowed to proceed is an inherent part of the decision-making process.  In carrying out this ‘balancing exercise’ in the above report, officers are satisfied that the potential for these proposals to affect any individual’s (or any group of individuals’) human  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL38-25/26