Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Janet Tait.

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 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 17^th January 2024.

Moved by Councillor Justin Gilbody and seconded by Councillor Phil Smith

RESOLVED that the minutes of a meeting of the Planning Committee held on 17^th January 2024 be approved as a correct record.

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application.

The application had been referred to Planning Committee by Councillor David Bennett due to concerns raised regarding the impact the additional traffic resulting from five additional dwellings would have on an already overcrowded street.

The application sought approval for the partial demolition of garden outbuildings to facilitate the erection of five, two storey dwellings.

The site would utilise the existing access onto Mitchell Street and the proposal retained two parking spaces for the existing dwelling at 44 Mitchell Street. Each of the dwellings proposed had two parking spaces which met the Council’s parking requirements which was set out in the Local Plan. The proposal included a shared on-site turning area which would allow vehicles to enter and leave the site in a forward facing direction and there would be a passing place on the driveway to prevent the need for vehicles to reverse onto or off from the highway should two vehicles need to pass.

The principle of residential development to the rear of dwellings which front Mitchell Street had already been established by development of the adjacent sites which had two storey dwellings constructed in what was originally back gardens.

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Letters of objection had been received from four neighbouring properties which were detailed in the report.

Further information was contained in the Supplementary Update Report, which advised of a further letter of objection received regarding the application, and that there was no change to the recommendation in the main report.

Charlotte Stainton (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

Councillor David Bennett, District Councillor, not on the Planning Committee, attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Pamela Hook attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Dominic Webb attended the meeting to request the application be deferred to a later date to allow for further consideration on soakaways and boundary treatments.

The Principal Planneraddressed the issues raised in relation to soakaways and boundary treatments and stated that a number of points raised could already be undertaken through permitted development. As for the soakaway, building regulations would have to be followed and they would be tested to ensure they was fit for purpose.

Councillor Phil Smith raised concern over allowing the applicant to control the hours of operation of the site and queried if a condition could be added to control when deliveries etc could be made due to the congestion already on the street.

The Principal Planner advised that all conditions imposed needed to be reasonable for the size of the development and in this instance under other legislation there was sufficient control. If there were issues with the development then Environmental Health could investigate and take action when necessary.

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Chris Kane

RESOLVED that the application be APPROVED subject to the following conditions:

1.    The development must be begun before the expiration of three years from  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL55-22/23

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application.

The application had been referred to Planning Committee by Councillor Donna Hales because the application was for an ancillary room for stables and there were no stables on the site and also because other conditions of previous applications had not been met, i.e. replacement hedgerows.  There were also concerns that the gateway to the stables was not in keeping with the countryside.

The application was for the retention of the amenity block which had been constructed on site.  The building was single storey and was finished in render with a tiled roof and upvc windows and doors.  The building contained a dayroom with kitchen and dining area, a bathroom and a children’s room.

The application did not involve the conversion of a stable block as described in the application and should be considered as a new building, albeit on the footprint of the stable block previously approved and utilising the walls of the stable block which had commenced construction.

The proposed use was not compliant with Policy SS9 (Development in the Countryside) but would provide ancillary facilities to support the approved use as a traveller site. Such facilities were identified as essential in the Designing Gypsy and Traveller Sites Good Practice Guide and as such were considered to be in compliance with Policy LC5 (Applications for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People.)

The application was recommended for approval subject to conditions.

Comments received from members of the public were detailed in the Supplementary Update Report but related mostly to application 23/00609/FUL which would be considered later in the meeting.

There was no change to the recommendation in the main report as a result of the additional comments detailed in the Supplementary Update Report.  However, it was suggested that the wording of condition 1 be amended to read:

“The amenity block hereby permitted must not be occupied at any time other than for

purposes of an amenity block, ancillary to the use of the site as a traveller site (travellers as defined as defined in “Planning Policy for Traveller Sites (updated 19th December 2023) and must not provide any sleeping accommodation or include the installation of any beds.”

This added more precision to the condition and ensured that it was enforceable should the condition not be adhered to.

Councillor Donna Hales, District Councillor not on the Planning Committee, attended the meeting and spoke against the application on behalf of residents living on Shuttlewood Road, Bolsover.

A Member queried if a condition could be added to ensure that no businesses were run from the site.  The Principal Planner advised that it would not be considered a reasonable/necessary condition to attach to an amenity block because business use of the main site is restricted and this building would be ancillary to that use. Any concerns regarding the running of businesses would need to be taken to the Enforcement Team for investigation and for them to take any appropriate action if required. 

Moved  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL56-22/23

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee by the Assistant Director of Planning and Planning Policy as the original application for the traveller site had been determined previously by Planning Committee.

The application sought approval for an extension to a previously approved traveller site to create an additional 4 pitches, each of which could contain a mobile home, one touring caravan and two parking spaces to facilitate the occupant's travelling lifestyle. The proposal included the hard surfacing of the site to facilitate year round access. The proposal also included amendments to the layout of pitch three (already approved).

If the application was approved there would be 7 pitches on site in total.

The proposed use was not compliant with Policy SS9 (Development in the Countryside) but met an identified need for traveller sites within the district in compliance with Policy LC5 (Applications for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Show People).

Derbyshire County Council Highways Department had raised concern about potential conflict between additional vehicle movements on the public footpath and the users of the path, however, this was not considered sufficient to warrant an objection.

Following on from the site notices and neighbour notification letters, objections had been received from two residents which were detailed in the report.  Six additional representations had been raised including a representation from Mark Fletcher MP, on behalf of local residents for Bolsover, and these were detailed and addressed by the Planning Officer in the Supplementary Update Report. 

It was suggested that condition 10 be amended to read:

“Notwithstanding the provisions of Article 3(1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order) no development otherwise permitted by Part 5 Class B (permitted development for caravan sites) of the Order must be erected/constructed/undertaken without first obtaining planning permission”

This gave clarity and precision to the wording of the condition because it advised

anyone reading the condition what Part 5 Class B provides permitted development for.

A Member raised concern that new guidance from Derbyshire County Council regarding traveller sites was not yet available.  The Principal Planner advised that although the guidance had not yet been published the Council knew what was to be included so deferring the application and waiting for the document to be published would not have any benefit.

Councillor Ashley Taylor, District Councillor not on the Planning Committee, attended the meeting and spoke against the application on behalf of local residents.

The Senior Planning Officer (Policy) advised that if the application was to be approved the Council would have met its target for the number of Traveller Sites required until at least 2040.

It was moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Chris Kane that the application be approved. 

On being put to the vote it was:

for the motion 4

against the motion 4

The Chair exercised his right to use his casting vote and voted  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL57-22/23

As the time was approaching 1205 hours consideration was given as to whether the day’s business could be concluded by 1330 hours.  In view of the number of items remaining on the agenda, the meeting adjourned and reconvened at 1230 hours.

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application.

The application had been referred to Planning Committee due to the number of objections received.  The Council’s Delegation Scheme required applications with more than 20 objections to be referred to Planning Committee for determination.

The application sought approval for the change of use from a dwelling (Use class C3) to a care home for children (Use Class C2.)  It was intended to be a specialist care home for up to three children aged from 7 -18 years with emotional and/or behavioural difficulties.  No physical external alterations were proposed to the property.

Further information was contained in the Supplementary Update Report and showed that a revised internal layout plan had been submitted.  The amended layout plan reflected the amended proposal as described and referred to in the main report, but the plan was not received until after the main report was submitted and therefore could not be included in the main report.  The amended plan showed the number of children’s bedrooms reduced to three, as the proposal was now for a maximum of three children.  It should however be noted that the internal layout could alter if the suggested layout did not meet Ofsted’s requirements, and this would not require subsequent planning permission provided it did not alter the total number of residents or staff set out in the suggested conditions in the main report. 

Objections had been received from 42 households, two councillors and Palterton Residents Association, who had also prepared a briefing pack which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting.  A petition signed by 67 residents had been received and Mark Fletcher MP, had confirmed he had received a number of objections from residents and had asked that the legitimate concerns of the community be considered during the application process. 

Letters of support had also been received for the application and these were detailed in the report.

Concerns regarding on street parking had been raised, however, Derbyshire County Council as the Highway Authority were aware that the proposal would result in on street parking but did not consider this to result in an unacceptable impact on highway safety.

As detailed within the report the Environmental Health Officer had raised concerns over potential noise complaints that may arise and had suggested that if the application was approved it be granted for a 2 year temporary period, so that the impacts of the proposals upon the community could be fully evaluated.  

David Dozwa (Applicant) attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

In response to a Member’s query, the Applicant confirmed that it wasn’t standard practice for staff to use a taxi to travel to and from the site for their shift, however, this had been implemented to reduce the number of vehicles on site to minimise disturbance to neighbours.  Further to this, the majority of meetings and visits would take place away from the home.

In response to another Member’s query, the Applicant, advised that if  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL59-22/23

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Duncan McGregor

RESOLVED that due to the length of time taken for the meeting the remaining two items of business on the agenda; Appeal Decisions: July 2023 - December 2023 and Quarterly Update on S106 Agreement Monitoring, would be deferred to the next meeting of Planning Committee.