Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Rob Hiney-Saunders and Carol Wood.

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.

Members were 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.

Minute No.                 Member                                 Level of Interest

PL78-24/25.               Councillor Janet Tait             As a Member on the Planning

Committee, Councillor Tait would             sit in the public gallery and not             take part in the discussion or vote on the item.

To consider the minutes of the last meeting held on 10^th April 2024.

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor John Ritchie

RESOLVED that the Minutes of a Planning Committee held on 10^th April 2024 be approved as a true record.

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application, presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager.

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it proposed to vary a planning permission that was originally determined by Planning Committee and involved more than non-material minor amendments.

The current application was to vary condition 2 (approved plans) of planning permission 22/00168/FUL to allow for the relocation of the site access during the construction period.  The access track currently proposed utilised the same access as previously approved, but the current proposal was to move the temporary access track within the site such that it ran directly to the rear of the boundary hedge before running across the field to the barn.

It was proposed that the land would be restored to its natural state following completion of the development and any hedge and boundary walls reinstated.  The temporary surface road was proposed to comprise weed block matting/membrane with min. 100mm of hard core/crushed brick/stone laid over.

The only issue for consideration was, therefore, the line of the temporary access track within the paddock.  There were no other alterations to the previously approved scheme.

Mr Chris Williams attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Mr Paul Harris attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

In response to a Member’s query, the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, advised the meeting that utilities and the route of utilities was a matter for the service providers and that they have national permitted development rights to carry out such work.  Planning officers had looked at the proposed alternative access, assessed the impact on the environment and felt the revised routing of the access was better than the original routing because it was not a strident feature which crossed the land diagonally.  It actually provided a more direct link to Farm Lane, and followed an existing landscape feature which helped mitigate its impact on the landscape, thus, the application was considered acceptable on its own merits.  Members were asked to note that this was an application under s73, i.e., to grant a new permission, but the original permission was a valid application and a legitimate fall-back position.

The Member noted that the applicant was not at the meeting to answer Members’ questions.

In response to another Member’s query, the Development Management and Land Charges Manager, advised the meeting that land ownership was a civil matter.  In relation to the original application, the applicant had confirmed the extent of the application site area was in their ownership and had served the correct certificate.  In relation to the current application, this was to make an amendment to the original permission and it was not a requirement to submit a further site location plan. 

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Jenny Wilson

RESOLVED that the application beapproved subject to the following conditions:

1. The development shall be begun before 9^th August 2025
2. The development hereby permitted must  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL77-24/25

District Councillor Janet Tait, spoke against the application. 

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application, presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager.

The application was for the change of use of the building from a public house and above residential and office accommodation to a convenience store to the ground floor, two self-contained flats and a 10-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to the first and second floors for a maximum of 10 persons.  The application included internal and external alterations involving a rear extension for commercial storage, alterations to a side facing dormer, deliveries from Acreage Lane, a shared secure amenity area for future occupants and parking for both residents and customers.

The application originally proposed a large flat roofed rear extension which spanned Acreage Lane and an amenity area surrounded by commercial access for delivery purposes.  Other alterations were proposed to the façade of the building and the site’s boundaries which were not considered to respect its design character and caused harm to the visual amenity of the locality and residential amenity.  The application had therefore been formally amended to address these issues and increase off-road parking within the site.

District Councillor Janes Yates had requested the application be referred to Planning Committee because there were 15 licensed HMOs in the Bolsover District, all within Shirebrook South, Shirebrook North and Langwith Wards, and 8 of these were within Shirebrook South wards where the Victoria Inn was located.  Councillor Yates had stated there had been multiple issues within HMOs in this area, for example, at the former Station Hotel in Shirebrook North Ward, and the former King of Diamonds in Langwith Ward.  These were not on the list of licensed sites on the Council’s Website.

Mrs Raj Padda (Applicant) attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

In response to Members’ questions, Mrs Padda confirmed that in relation to the single occupant rooms, any potential tenant would be required to sign a single occupant contract.  Work and background checks would also be carried out.  In relation to management and inspection of the properties, this would be undertaken by Mrs Padda as she would be on site on a daily basis.

Shirebrook Town Councillor Dale Smith attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Hazel Ward attended the meeting and spoke against the application on behalf of Shirebrook Town and District Councillor Jane Yates who could not attend the meeting.

Wendy Rogers, secretary of the Model Village Residents Association, attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

The Development Management and Land Charges Manager referred to the Supplementary Update Report, which advised of a further representation received from Shirebrook Town Council and a late representation from Derbyshire Wildlife Trust which confirmed that a Preliminary Bat Roost Assessment should be submitted prior to determination of the application to demonstrate the presence or otherwise of protected species, and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development.  If Members were minded  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL78-24/25

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application, presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager.

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee for determination due to significant resident objection.

The application was a proposal to change the of use of 16 The Chine, Broadmeadows Pinxton (C3a - dwellinghouse) to a Children’s Care Home (C2 - residential institutions) for a maximum of 3 children with 24-hour care supervision undertaken by the applicant One Home Property UK Ltd.  The use would see 3 no. young people under 18 having unrestricted access to the property with the aim to replicate a family household where children and staff members ate and lived together, albeit on a rota basis where staff do not live within the property as their full-time residence. 

The statement of purpose submitted with the application explained the property would be used for children at risk of CCE/CSE, drug/alcohol abuse, self-injurious behaviours, criminal behaviours, and complex needs.  The statement explained the team had experience of working with a range of young people with various complex needs who may come from homes/family breakdowns, fostering breakdown or from residential children’s homes.

The staff required to look after children would work to a register and weekly staff rota. Other visitors would include Social Services once every 6 weeks, an Ofsted visit taking place every 12 months.  At Least one member of staff would be required to sleep at the property overnight. 

No external changes were proposed to the appearance of the building.  The only minor operational development associated with the application was a proposal to widen the vehicular access and driveway hardstanding to facilitate additional off-road parking and turning for the proposed use.  The second floor of the building would not be in use.

Further information was contained in the Supplementary Update Report which advised that BolsoverDistrict Councillor Louise Fox and South Normanton Parish Councillor Julian Siddle had made a joint representation stating their concerns regarding the application, and that a further additional resident representation had been received.

Emma Swann attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Patricia Baker attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

Marie Martin attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

June Lambert attended the meeting and spoke against the application.

James Stannard (Agent) attended the meeting and spoke for the application.

Further to a question from a Member, James Stannard noted he had worked with the applicant a number of times over the previous 18 months and the applicant had recruited extensively for very senior positions in care homes the applicant had set up.  Two representatives of the applicant who were present at the meeting, provided Members with their experience and number of years working with young people with complex needs and answered further questions raised by Members.

The Chair drew Members attention to the Principal Environmental Health Officer’s (PEHO) comment in the report where the PEHO had quoted the Ministerial Statement issued in 2023 by the Minister  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL79-24/25

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application, presented by the Principal Planner.

The application required a determination by Planning Committee, as it was contrary to policies contained within the Bolsover District Local Plan relating to developer contributions.

The application was to vary planning obligations and the wording of the Affordable Housing clause within a completed Section 106 legal agreement (dated 19th May 2022), attached to planning permission 21/00464/TDC, comprising 58 dwellings.

The application was accompanied by a Viability Assessment undertaken by Aspinall Verdi dated October 2023.  Their Assessment concluded that “the scheme is unable to provide any of the non-housing S106 contributions included within the signed s106 agreement.  The applicant has confirmed that the 6 affordable units will be transferred to the Together Housing Group upon completion but in order to receive the Affordable Housing Grant from Homes England, the units must be outside the S106 agreement. The financial appraisal clearly demonstrated that even with the grant funding the viability of the scheme is challenging.”

The application had since been subject to an independent viability review on behalf of the Council, which recommended that a reduced amount of £485,000 from the original £693,591 (£722,000 with indexation) was the total amount that the applicant could pay to deliver the scheme.  This had been agreed by the applicant and consultees, and had been distributed across the obligations.

The proposed amendments to the Affordable Housing provision (6 units) were to insert a definition of ‘Homes England’, and to define the term ‘Registered Provider’ to allow for ‘Together Housing’ as developer of the affordable housing units, and who were a sub-company of Forge New Homes, or any other registered provider who was registered with Homes England, to enable grant funding to deliver social rented housing on site.

Further information was contained in the Supplementary Update Report in relation to Leisure / Public Open Space considerations.  In the original comments from BDC Leisure (dated 3 May 2024), it was suggested that if a reduced Section 106 contribution was to be negotiated, then the Playing Pitch contribution could be omitted as there were no playing pitches immediately related to the development; but only on the basis that the original Public Open Space (POS) contribution was increased from £50,460 to £55,970.  This figure was agreed taking a logical approach, as it was 50% of the total contribution (for both POS and playing pitches) required in the original Section 106 agreement. 

The Council’s Leisure Officer had suggested the revised POS contribution should be allocated towards development of the new town park as an alternative to the three sites originally stated, as this would be better related to the development due to walking distances.  They also suggested that the POS clause should include the delivery of the town park within 5 years of receipt of payment (depending on the trigger point). 

Following consideration, it was agreed that the town park may not be delivered within 5 years, and that a longer timescale would be  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL80-24/25

Committee considered a detailed report in relation to the above application, presented by the Development Management and Land Charges Manager.

Members attention was drawn to the Supplementary Update Report which advised that the Lead Local Flood Authority had confirmed in respect of conditions 9 -11 of application 22/00323/FUL, that the following surface water details were acceptable:

• SWH Letter to Derbyshire with accompanying Appendices 18/07/2023.
• Scott White and Hookins. (25 - May 2022) FRA & Drainage Strategy Report.
• 203810/Revision 1 b. Scott White and Hookins. (26 - May 2022) Drainage Layout.
• 203810-SWH-ZZ-XX-DR D-0500-P02

In light of the above, if Members were minded to approve the application for completeness, recommended conditions 8 – 10 should be replaced with the two conditions as outlined in the Supplementary Update Report.

The application followed the approval of planning application 22/00323/FUL on 28^th September 2022 for a new crematorium, including a wake facility, administration space, memorial garden, car park and landscaping.  At the technical design stage a number of changes to the development had been identified, which had necessitated the submission of this application. The application also addressed changes to foul drainage connections and landscaping.

The application sought permission under section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act (1990) to make the following changes to the previously approved scheme.

• Changes to roof lights and doors (inc. omitting some openings);
• Increase floor areas to accommodate toilets, new openings, and lights; increased hall and plant room floor area, and;
• Revisions to landscaping and drainage.

Moved by Councillor Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor John Ritchie

RESOLVED that the application be approved subject to the following conditions;

1.           Unless specifically stated in the conditions below, the development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and documents approved in respect of application code ref. 22/00323/FUL, except where amended by the following details and plans:

·        Ground floor crematorium plan numbered 1481-A-10-01

·        Ground Arrangement Plan – Tranquillity and Flower Court Plan numbered 1481-A-10-02

·        Crematorium Roof Plan numbered 1481-A-10-03

·        Crematorium Elevations Plans numbered 1481-A-12-01, 02, and 03

·        Wake Facility Building General Arrangement Plan numbered 1481-A-50-01

·        Wake Facility Building Roof Plan numbered 1481-A-50-02

·        Wake Facility Elevations Plan numbered 1481-A-52-01

·        Boundary Treatment Plan numbered D200020_CDS_EN_ZZ_DR_L_006 REV 02

·        General Site Layout Plan numbered D200020 CDS EN ZZ DR L 01

·        Soft Landscaping Plan 1 of 7 - Trees, Seeding & Native Hedgerows numbered D200020 CDS_EN_ZZ_DR_L_020

·        Soft Landscaping Plan 2 of 7 - Front & Rear Of Building numbered D200020 CDS EN ZZ DR L 021

·        Soft Landscaping Plan 3 of 7 - Car Park & Adjacent Border numbered D200020 CDS EN ZZ DR L 022

·        Soft Landscaping Plan 4 of 7 - Flower Court to Wake Facility Borders numbered D200020 CDS EN ZZ DR L 023

·        Soft Landscaping Plan 5 of 7 – Tranquillity Garden, Wake Facility and Memorial Garden Plan numbered D200020 CDS EN ZZ DR L 024

·        Soft Landscaping Plan 6 of 7 – Bulb Planting numbered D200020 CDS EN ZZ DR L 025

·        Soft Landscaping Plan 7 of  ...  view the full minutes text for item PL81-24/25

Committee considered a detailed report, presented by the Principal Planning Policy Officer, which sought Members approval for the contents of the Creswell Growth Plan Consultation Draft Document and also to commence a consultation exercise upon it.  The draft Growth Plan document was attached at Appendix 1 to the report.

Work on the preparation of a Growth Plan for Creswell commenced in April 2022.  Two stages of public consultation had taken place; an initial consultation exercise in June 2022 and a master planning consultation exercise in January-February 2023.

The feedback during these consultation exercises by way of the representations submitted had all been considered and informed the preparation of the draft Creswell Growth Plan document.  The next step was to publish the draft Creswell Growth Plan for public consultation.

The consultation methods for prepared Growth Plans were set out in the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (December 2022) and were intended to mirror closely the methods used for statutory planning documents.

The Council had carried out a number of innovative digital planning consultations on its growth plans using the secured external funding through the Government’s PropTech Innovation Fund.  This funding extended to the planned public consultation exercise on the draft Creswell Growth Plan and would involve a further trial of the new purposely designed consultation website portal to increase public engagement. 

If approved, the 6-week consultation exercise would commence on Monday 8^th July 2024 to Monday 19^th August 2024. 

Councillor McGregor and the Portfolio Holder for Growth thanked the Principal Planning Policy Officer and Planning staff for their work on the document. 

Moved by Councillor Tom Munro and seconded by Councillor Duncan McGregor

RESOLVED that 1) the contents of the proposed draft Creswell Growth Plan be approved,

2) delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Planning and Planning Policy in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair of Planning Committee to agree the final arrangements of the proposed consultation exercise on the draft plan.

Committee considered a detailed report, presented by the Principal Planning Policy Officer, in relation to progress on the monitoring of Section 106 agreements.

The progress report was required to highlight any sums at risk of clawback that needed spending within 24 months, as well as a summary of the sums being held by infrastructure type that were in years three, four and five.  Accordingly, the report was the quarterly progress report following the meeting of the Section 106 Monitoring Group held on 18^th April 2024.

In the report provided to Members in March 2024, seven sums were identified as being within their 24-month deadline as of 18^th January 2024.  As at 18^th April 2024, there were eight sums within their 24-month deadlines, details of which were set out in the report.

Members asked various questions to which the Special Projects Officer and Community Arts Development Officer replied.

Move by Councillors Duncan McGregor and seconded by Councillor Tom Munro

RESOLVED that the report be noted.