Agenda and minutes

1.    Councillors Arnie Hankin and Jason Zadrozny declared Non-Registrable Interests in relation to application V/2022/0246, Garner Holdings and Trustees of Major RP Chaworth Musters 1990 Discretionary Settlement and Exors of Major RP Chaworth Musters, Grant consent Application Made in Accordance with the Town and Country planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) 2017: Hybrid Planning Application Comprising: Full Application for a B2/B8 Unit with Associated Access, Parking, Drainage Infrastructure and Landscaping; and Outline Application for up to 4no. B2/B8 Units (With Point of Access and Scale Included), Land Adjacent to Junction 27 of the M1, Mansfield Road, Annesley.  Councillor Zadrozny’s intentions were to speak on the matter, prior to both Councillors leaving the room during consideration of the application and voting thereon.

2.    Councillor Jason Zadrozny declared a Non-Registrable Interest in relation to application V/2024/0377, Mr I Benzer, Change of Use of Ground Floor From Shop (Use Class E) to Hot Food Takeaway, Installation of Flue to Rear and Associated Internal Works, 8 Church Street, Kirkby in Ashfield. His interest arose from the fact that he had previously spoken with the applicant and some objectors, 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 23 October 2024, be received and approved as a correct record.

1.   V/2022/0246, Garner Holdings and Trustees of Major RP Chaworth Musters 1990 Discretionary Settlement and Exors of Major RP Chaworth Musters, Application Made in Accordance with the Town and Country planning (Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations) 2017: Hybrid Planning Application Comprising: Full Application for a B2/B8 Unit with Associated Access, Parking, Drainage Infrastructure and Landscaping; and Outline Application for up to 4no. B2/B8 Units (With Point of Access and Scale Included), Land Adjacent to Junction 27 of the M1, Mansfield Road, Annesley

(In accordance with the Council’s Constitution and the Members’ Code of

Conduct, Councillors Arnie Hankin and Jason Zadrozny had previously

declared interests in respect of this application. Their interests were such that

following an address to the Committee by Councillor Zadrozny, they left the room prior to consideration of the application and the voting thereon.)

Late Items

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:-

Two further letters of representations had been received which did not raise new issues but in clarification:

It was suggested that to mitigate impacts on local junctions, types of vehicles using the A611/A608 could be restricted because the MARR and the A38 routes were designed to move the traffic efficiently through this part of the county.  Officer’s response was that it would be inappropriate to restrict vehicle types using A classified roads and the highway authority and national highways were satisfied with the proposed mitigation measures put forward.

It was suggested that the report was fundamentally flawed since the question to be addressed in respect of prematurity was whether the proposal was prejudicial to the “plan-making process” not a particular policy.  To allow this application prior to the adoption of the Local Plan would therefore be unlawful.

This proposal would be considered on its own merits and the issue of prematurity had been addressed in the report and the Secretary of State would be considering whether the proposal would be called in.

It was suggested that changes to the Green Belt should be made via the plan-making process and that the proposal couldn’t reasonably be considered suitable development within the Green Belt.  It was further suggested that the “exceptional circumstances” put forward by the applicant were wholly matters to be addressed at the strategic level through the Local Plan.

These were matters already addressed in the report in respect of economic, social and environmental benefits.

It was suggested that the application site couldn’t in any way be considered as previously developed or even “Grey Belt” land as per the NPPF review.

This had never been suggested.

The decision should be deferred until after the Local Plan process had been completed and proposed changes to the NPPF were clearly material.  A decision on any application should be made on its own merits and suggested emerging policy did not have weight in the decision  ...  view the full minutes text for item P.23

Members were asked to note the recent Planning Appeal decisions as outlined in the report.

RESOLVED

that the report be received and noted.