Agenda and minutes

V/2020/0627, Nasims Ltd, 38 No. New Dwellings with Associated Infrastructure, Public Open Space and Landscaping, Land off Laburnum Avenue, Kirkby in Ashfield

Councillor Rachel Madden declared a Non-Registrable Interest due to the fact that she had previously spoken to an interested party, but in doing so had not expressed any opinions on the application at any point.

RESOLVED

that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 14 June 2023, be received and approved as a correct record.

1.   V/2023/0115, J. Warren, Single Storey Front and Side Extension, 10 Thoresby Dale, Hucknall

Max Cully, on behalf of the Applicant, took the opportunity to address the

Committee in respect of this matter. As per the agreed process, Members

were then offered the opportunity to clarify any points raised during the

submission as required.

It was moved and seconded that the retrospective application be deferred until the next meeting, to enable further discussions to take place between Planning officers and the Applicant in respect of the following:

·         proposed changes to the external aspect of the extension to ensure there would be no detraction from the appearance of the street scene and the host property, should the application be approved;

·         the internal layout of the single story front and side extension and its compliance, or otherwise, with Part M of the Building Regulations 2010.

2.   V/2020/0627, Nasims Ltd, 38 No. New Dwellings with Associated Infrastructure, Public Open Space and Landscaping, Land off Laburnum Avenue, Kirkby in Ashfield

Late Item

In accordance with the Council’s Policy for dealing with late matters in relation

to planning applications, (Minute No. D4.17, 1993/94 refers), officers proceeded to give a verbal report as to additional comments received in relation to the application as follows:-

Since publication of the Council’s committee report a resident had provided two further letters raising concerns about the maintenance in the future of his boundary fence. He suggested that a shared rear access path could be provided to serve plots 22 to 24 alongside the neighbouring property.  This was not considered to be necessary because plots 22 and 23 were semi-detached properties and had private access around the properties to the rear. Such a shared path could also lead to issues in designing out crime with the creation of alleyways through the development.

One further point brought to Members’ attention was an error in the wording of Condition 16 on page 37. This should restrict the hours of construction work on the site including deliveries in the interests of protecting the amenities of local residents.

It was moved and seconded that conditional consent be granted as per officer’s recommendation, subject to:

a)    the successful reconfiguration of the driveway/access to Plot 15 from the site service road rather than from a singular private access off Mill Lane;

b)    delegated authority be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning, in consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, to consider and agree the final design of the site following the changes made to Plot 15, as required.

Members were asked to note the recent Planning Appeal decision as outlined

in the report.

RESOLVED

that the report be received and noted.