Agenda item

1.  V/2019/0483, Bellway Homes (East Midlands), the residential development of 206 no. dwellings and associated infrastructure and works, including the removal of two groups and three individual TPO trees included in the Ashfield District Council Tree Preservation Order, TPO 168, (Phase 2) Land at Broomhill Farm, Hucknall

 

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:-

 

A representation had been received from the applicant requesting that the application be deferred for consideration at a later Committee.  In light of current market considerations, they had undertaken a new financial appraisal of the scheme and advised that they now considered the current proposals to be unviable.

 

They would like the opportunity to review the scheme and decide whether efficiencies could be made to the layout whilst adhering to the design principles. They also advised that they might need to submit a viability appraisal to the Council for assessment.

 

It was therefore moved and seconded that consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

 

(In accordance with Part 9 (7e) of the Code of Conduct and Procedures in respect of the Planning Service, Councillor Rachel Madden, having experienced difficulty maintaining her virtual connection to the meeting during consideration of the above item, was subsequently not permitted to vote on this application).

 

2.  V/2020/0114, Bellway Homes (East Midlands), Erection of a Temporary Construction Site Compound (for a period of 8 Years), Car Parking and Associated Works associated with Planning Permission V/2019/0483, Land to the South of Broomhill Farm, Nottingham Road, Hucknall

 

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:-

 

As per the previous application and as a result of the reasons thereby outlined, the applicant again requested that the application be deferred for consideration at a later Committee. 

 

It was therefore moved and seconded that consideration of the application be deferred to a future meeting of the Committee.

 

(In accordance with Part 9 (7e) of the Code of Conduct and Procedures in respect of the Planning Service, Councillor Rachel Madden, having experienced difficulty maintaining her virtual connection to the meeting during consideration of the above item, was subsequently not permitted to vote on this application).

 

3.  V/2020/0030, Mr E. Clements, Dwelling, 26 Brickyard, Brickyard Drive, Hucknall

 

It was moved and seconded that consideration of the application be deferred to a later meeting of the Committee subject to the relaxation of lockdown restrictions to enable Members to undertake a site visit.

 

(In accordance with Part 9 (7e) of the Code of Conduct and Procedures in respect of the Planning Service, Councillor Rachel Madden, having experienced difficulty maintaining her virtual connection to the meeting during consideration of the above item, was subsequently not permitted to vote on this application).

 

4.  V/2019/0825, Mr I Glen, Barn Conversion to Form Dwelling, Barn 3 Stubbinwood Farm, Watnall Road, Hucknall

 

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:-

 

The applicant had advised:-

 

·         That they had recently suffered the theft of a church pew being stored in the agricultural barn;

·        The whole length of the farm track was made of crushed stone and reclaimed brick rubble and the use of the agricultural track would not result in highway safety implications.

 

Officer’s Response

 

·         Matters regarding theft and trespassing were covered and discussed in full in the written report;

·         The site plan submitted with the application showed approximately 100m of the agricultural track being utilised for access to the property. Whilst the access might be constructed from crushed stone, due to the use of the track by farm traffic, mud was observed to be present on the track itself.  It was further noted that in the planning application for the agricultural track, the applicant claimed that the existing driveway was not wide enough to allow farm and domestic traffic to pass and was thus a detriment to highway safety. If domestic vehicles were permitted to use the agricultural access track then this issue would present itself once again where the access was shared. 

·         A representation received on the application was reported as being an objection when it should have been stated to be ‘raised concerns with the proposal’ rather than ‘objected to’.  The concerns were therefore as stated in the report and a redacted copy of this representation had been published online.

 

An objector, Vaughan Gallagher, took the opportunity to address the Committee in respect of this matter and Members were offered the opportunity to clarify any points raised during the submissions as required.

 

Following the moving and seconding of the motion to go against officers’ recommendation, the meeting adjourned at 11.20am and reconvened at 11.34am.

 

It was moved by Councillor Tom Hollis and seconded by Councillor Helen-Ann Smith that the officer’s recommendation contained within the report be rejected and:

 

a)    planning consent be granted subject to the following conditions

1. standard time period
2. details of materials to be agreed
3. boundary treatment to be agreed
4. hard and soft landscaping scheme to be agreed
5. surface water and foul sewage drainage plans to be agreed
6. The development to be carried out in accordance with the submitted plans as amended

 

 

 

Reasons for rejecting officers’ recommendation:

 

The proposal conformed with policy ST1 of the ALPR 2002 and parts 5, 11 and 12 of the NPPF and the proposal will remove a barn which is an eyesore and it will stop further development occurring.

 

For the motion:

Councillors Ciaran Brown, Samantha Deakin, Tom Hollis, Rachel Madden, Sarah Madigan, John Smallridge, Helen-Ann Smith, Daniel Williamson and Jason Zadrozny.

 

Against the motion:

Councillor Chris Baron.

 

Abstention:

Councillor Lauren Mitchell.

 

5.  V/2020/0122, Chris Slack, Porch to Front Elevation, Fackley Cottage, 3 The Park, Silverhill Lane, Teversal, Sutton in Ashfield

 

It was moved by Councillor Jason Zadrozny and seconded by Councillor Ciaran Brown that the officer’s recommendation contained within the report be rejected and planning consent be refused.

 

Reasons for rejecting officers’ recommendation:

 

The porch would be harm the appearance of a local heritage asset which would in turn have a harmful impact on the character of the area and is thus considered to be contrary to policy ST1 (b) & (e) of the Ashfield Local Plan Review 2002 and paragraph 197 of the NPPF 2019

 

For the motion:

Councillors Ciaran Brown, Samantha Deakin, Tom Hollis, Rachel Madden, Sarah Madigan, Lauren Mitchell, John Smallridge, Helen-Ann Smith, Daniel Williamson and Jason Zadrozny.

 

Against the motion:

None.

 

Abstention:

Councillor Chris Baron.