Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence submitted.

…

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 were no urgent items of business to consider.

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.

Councillor Paul Cooper declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in Agenda Item 5 - 21/00619/OUT and would leave the meeting at the relevant time.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting held on 17^th November 2021

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Derek Adams

RESOLVED that the Minutes of a Planning Committee meeting held on 17^th November 2021 be approved as a correct record.

Councillor Paul Cooper having previously declared a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest in the following item, left the meeting.

Committee considered a detailed report presented by the Planning Manager in relation to the above application.

The proposal was for Outline planning permission, with all matters reserved, for the construction of two detached dwellings to be created in the village of Stanfree.

The main issues for Committee to consider were whether the principle of developing two dwellings in the countryside was acceptable by reason of the applicant’s submitted statement that the site was previously developed land, the sustainability of Stanfree as a settlement within the countryside, and whether the site could be provided with a safe and suitable access.

The applicant had submitted some photographic evidence with the application, providing images of a hearth, and evidence of burning, and the applicant has claimed that there was a residential cottage previously on the site.  A search of historic maps suggested that there were buildings on the site up until around 1970 and the presence of a burnt hearth also suggested that the buildings were residential in nature, rather than agricultural/animal buildings.  A further site visit was carried out with the Development Control Manager where it was evident that there were remnants of former buildings on site that were barely covered with foliage.  There were also areas of hard standing beneath and around the dilapidated, static caravan.  Images of these have been provided in the Landscape and visual impact section of the report.

Whilst the Council acknowledged that the site was currently free of permanent buildings, it was evident that there had been a building on the site up until a timeframe of between 1949 and 1970, and it was highly likely that this was residential in nature.  The Council therefore considered that the applicant had submitted sufficient information to demonstrate that the site was previously developed land.

Where this had been demonstrated, policy SS9 required that it was only on the basis that the proposed use was ‘sustainable and appropriate to the location’.  The site was not within a sustainable settlement but given that it was proposing only two additional dwellings adjoining the built up area of Stanfree, and given that there had been recent approvals for limited infill developments within the village, it was considered that the location was acceptable and would not warrant a reason for refusal on sustainability grounds. 

In relation to a safe and suitable access, the highway authority, DCC, had explained that some improvements would be required to the lane to improve access in the form of a Section 278 agreement, although they acknowledged that the works would need to be kept to the bare minimum in order to retain the rural appearance of the land.  Their final comments were received on the 6^th January 2022, advising that it was their understanding that in the event of permission being granted, some improvements could be offered to the Lane. 

With regard to on-site parking provision,  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL29-21/22

At the Planning Committee meeting held on 17^th November 2021, Members had resolved to adopt a number of Conservation Area Appraisals with the exception of Elmton with Creswell.  This was because a further public consultation was necessary regarding two more farmsteads to be added into the Elmton and Creswell Farmstead conservation area appraisal. 

On 1^st December 2021, a letter was sent to those property owners affected by the proposed boundary changes, inviting their responses to be received by 17^th December 2021 – No objections were received.

The proposed amendments to the Elmton with Creswell Conservation Area were considered to better reflect the special architectural or historic interest of the Conservation Area as a whole and would afford those additional areas the additional protection that designation brings.

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Tom Munro

RESOLVED that the proposed additions to the Conservation Area of Elmton with Creswell Farmsteads be designated as a Conservation Area, to be included in the Elmton with Creswell Conservation Area, to be known as Extension Number 1.

(Planning Manager)

Committee considered a report which provided progress in respect of the monitoring of Section 106 Agreements.  The report was a quarterly progress report following a meeting of the Section 106 Monitoring Group held on 26^th October 2021.

S106 agreements were a type of legal agreement between the Council and landowners / developers, often completed alongside applications for planning permission for major developments.  They were needed to deal with the additional pressures on infrastructure that resulted from the new development.  They were only required where the effects of the development would otherwise be unacceptable in planning terms and where they could not be dealt with by conditions of the planning permission.

If the Council failed to spend monies provided through the Section 106 Agreement within a set period, there was a risk to the Council that the developer would be entitled to request the money back and this could be with interest.

To manage and mitigate this risk, the Council had approved a procedure for recording and monitoring Section 106 Agreements, which governed the work of the Council’s cross-departmental Section 106 Monitoring Group.

Members would recall that three sums which remained unspent were identified in the report presented to Committee at its meeting held in June 2021.  At the Section 106 Monitoring Group, a further sum had been highlighted also needing to be spent within 12 months.

Further updates for the four sums and their details were set out in the report and the actions which had been progressed with regard to these

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Chris Kane

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Committee considered a report which set out the performance of the Planning Service against the Government’s quality of decision making targets.

During the 6 month period since the last monitoring period ending June 2021, the Council had no appeals on major planning applications determined, and only one appeal on non-major applications which was dismissed.  Therefore, the Council was still exceeding its appeal decision targets.  The lack of appeals against decisions indicate that current decision making was sound.  This was supported by Internal Audit who reported ‘substantial’ reassurance in the latest internal audit of ‘Planning Processes and Appeals’.

Members welcomed the report and the Chair requested that the Planning Manager pass on Committee’s thanks to planning staff who carried out their duties diligently.

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Duncan McGregor

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

Committee considered a report which provided an update on enforcement service targets set out in the Local Enforcement Plan for the period ending December 2021.

The service standards had been designed to facilitate prompt investigation of suspected breaches of planning control and to encourage making timely decisions on how to progress individual cases.

A graph in the report showed that out of 314 enquires received in 2021, the enforcement team had visited 84% of high and medium priorities (19 cases), within the service target.  Of the 295 low priority cases, 9 were not inspected within the 42 day target (3%). 

A table in the report provided the number of historic cases that had been closed over the last seven years, and also the number of cases that officers continued to process.  A second table provided the number of cases, and also by low and medium priority, that had been closed in 2020 and 2021 and the number that remained pending consideration.  A third table in the report provided the oldest cases up to end of 2019 that were pending or had progressed to enforcement action.

A Member commented that the report highlighted and underpinned the excellent work of the planning department.

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Tom Munro

RESOLVED that the report be noted.

The meeting concluded at 1035 hours.