Agenda item

1.   V/2023/0219, Mr J Taylor, Dwelling and Associated Works, Land Rear of Cross Road Annesley

It was moved by Councillor Rachel Madden and seconded by Councillor Helen-Ann Smith that the officer’s recommendation contained within the report be rejected and planning consent be refused.

Reasons for rejecting officers’ recommendation:

1.    The proposed development would result in a significant visual intrusion and loss of part of designated formal open space as identified in the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002). The proposed development is unrelated to the retention, enhancement or use of the open space and no replacement provision is proposed it would therefore conflict with policies ST1 and RC3 of the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002).

2.    The proposed development is located within a conservation area. It is considered that the erection of a single 4 bed detached dwelling by reason of its siting, scale and design would be out of character with the general appearance of the area which includes mainly terraced properties located alongside open space and this development would not preserve or enhance the quality and character of the conservation area and would conflict with Policies ST1 and EV10 and HG5(g) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review(2002) and chapter16 Conserving and Enhancing the Historic Environment of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.

3.    The application site is located in close proximity to a 90 degree bend in the highway where Cross Road leads onto Byron Road and forward visibility would be reduced around this bend due to the development of the site and is located in close proximity to the junction of Cross Road with Annesley Cutting where vehicles have difficulty in turning because of the alignment of the roads. It is therefore considered that an increase in traffic is likely to exacerbate existing traffic problems to the detriment of highway safety. It is thus contrary to policies ST1(c) and HG5(e) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002) and paragraph 111 of the National Planning Policy Framework 2023.

For the motion:

Councillors Jamie Bell, Jodine Cronshaw, Samantha Deakin, Arnie Hankin, Rachel Madden, Sarah Madigan, Andy Meakin, John Smallridge and

Helen-Ann Smith.

Against the motion:

None.

Abstentions:

None.

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

This application was formally withdrawn by the Applicant and was not considered by the Committee.

3.   V/2022/0295, Persimmon Homes, Development of 124no. Dwellings, Access, Attenuation Basin and Associated Landscaping and Infrastructure, Land North of Fackley Road, Teversal

(In accordance with the Council’s Constitution and the Members’ Code of Conduct, Councillor Helen-Ann Smith had previously declared an

interest in respect of this application. Her interest was such that she stayed in the meeting and took part in the discussion and voting thereon.)

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:-

To correct an error in the report which stated that the bus stops were located on ‘Carnarvon Street’ but should have read ‘Fackley Road’.

Craig Devonshire, as an Objector on behalf of the Skegby, Stanton Hill and Teversal Neighbourhood Forum, and George Breed, as 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 submissions as required.

It was moved by Councillor Helen-Ann Smith and seconded by Councillor Rachel Madden that the officer’s recommendation contained within the report be rejected and planning consent be refused.

Reasons for rejecting officers’ recommendation:

The proposed development would result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the surrounding area through the visual impact of the built form on green fields and encroachment of development into open countryside and reducing the green corridor between Stanton Hill and Teversal. It would, therefore, be in conflict with Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002) policies ST1, ST4 and EV2 which seek to protect the character of the countryside. The development would also conflict with policy NP4 of the Teversal, Stanton Hill and Skegby Neighbourhood Plan.

Consideration of the application is premature to the adoption of the emerging local plan and there is a lack of evidence to justify that the proposal will not result in flooding in the area or that the Sustainable Urban Drainage scheme will function adequately. The highway layout utilising Crompton Street will also result in adverse highway safety impacts and possible anti-social behaviour to the detriment of the neighbouring properties. The proposal would therefore conflict with Ashfield Local Plan Review (2002) policies ST1 and HG5 which seek that access to development is safe and convenient and integrated with existing provision and that it will not adversely affect the quality, amenity or safety of the environment.

For the motion:

Councillors Jamie Bell, Jodine Cronshaw, Samantha Deakin, Arnie Hankin, Rachel Madden, Sarah Madigan, Andy Meakin, John Smallridge and

Helen-Ann Smith.

Against the motion:

None.

Abstentions:

None.

4.   V/2023/0568, Ashfield District Council, Replacement of Flood Lights to Tennis Courts 1 to 4, Tennis Centre, Lawn Lane, Sutton in Ashfield

It was moved and seconded that conditional consent be granted as per officer’s recommendation.

(Councillor Helen-Ann Smith returned to the meeting during consideration of this item. Consequently, in accordance with the Code of Conduct and Procedures in respect of the Planning Service she was not permitted to vote on the application).