Agenda item

Prior to consideration of the applications, the Assistant Director, Planning and Regulatory Services advised that officers wished to withdraw Application V/2020/0541, Mr C Quickfall, 60 Portland Road, Selston to obtain further clarity from the Highways Authority.  Members of the Committee concurred with this course of action.

 

1.  V/2020/0371, Mr A Cash, Temporary Siting of Mobile Home, Land on the West Side of Brickyard, Brickyard Drive, Hucknall

 

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

Conduct, Councillor Jason Zadrozny had previously declared a Non Disclosable Pecuniary/Other Interest in respect of this application. His interest was such that he stayed in the meeting and took part in the discussion and voting thereon.)

 

It was moved and seconded that planning consent be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

 

2.  V/2020/0654, Ashfield District Council, Demolition of Community Centre and Construction of 2 Bungalows, The Beeches Community Centre, Beech Street, Skegby

 

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

 

3.  V/2018/0783, Gleeson Regeneration Ltd, 206 Dwellings and Associated Infrastructure, Land Off Gilcroft Street / Vere Avenue, Skegby

 

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

Conduct, Councillors Samantha Deakin, Rachel Madden, Helen-Ann Smith, Daniel Williamson and Jason Zadrozny had previously declared Non Disclosable Pecuniary/Other Interests in respect of this application.  Their interests were such that they stayed in the meeting and took part in the discussion and voting thereon.)

 

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:-

 

Applicant

A letter had been received from the applicant, Gleeson Homes, in support of the application. They considered that the substantive issues of highways and ecology had been resolved and were surprised to see the scheme recommended for refusal. The letter set out the benefits of the scheme including:

 

·         The Highways Authority were happier with this access and internal arrangement than the approved scheme. A significant amount of off-site highways improvement works were also now proposed.

 

·         An ecological mitigation package was provided that included a large area of wildlife and open space, which was to be maintained by a management company rather than the Council (as with the other approved scheme).

 

·         Gleeson offered low cost housing to first time buyers. The approved scheme contained larger homes that would be more expensive.

 

·         Gleeson did not sell to landlords or allow their properties to be rented out.

 

They considered the scheme to represent an improvement on the previous application and they would either build out the other scheme, or seek an appeal. If Members signalled that they wanted to avoid these scenarios, Gleeson would be happy for a deferral to see if a MUGA could be accommodated and to look at the space standards for the dwellings.

 

Report Correction

A correction was required on page 62 of the Agenda report. The table should have included a further two bedroom house type which met the local standard, but the overall housing numbers still equated to 78% not being compliant with local standards. As such, there remained substantive concerns about the schemes acceptability, when assessed against both local and national housing standards.

 

Additional Letters of Objection

Four further letters of objection had been received from residents but no new issues were raised. Thus a total of 188 letters of objection had been received.

 

Comment from the NP forum

Teversal Stanton Hill & Skegby Neighbourhood Forum reiterated their concerns over two established footpaths that were subject to application to Nottinghamshire County Council for them to be dedicated as rights of way and had further concerns that the surface of the proposed footpaths were contrary to NP Policy 6.

 

Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) Rights of Way

NCC Public Rights of Way confirmed there would be opportunity to divert a footpath onto the proposed access road and they welcomed the pedestrian access linking into the Park and Gardens. They further recommended other paths were dedicated as rights of way.

 

Officer Response to the Footpath Issue

A new stone chipping footpath was proposed to be created running adjacent to the stream which linked into the access to the south of the park and gardens.  It would be recommended that this path was dedicated as a public right of way. If the footpath running along the rear of houses on Hall Street/Gilcroft Street was added to the definitive map, an application for its diversion would be required.

 

Steve Gamble, for the Applicant, 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 submission as required.

 

It was moved and seconded that planning consent be refused as per officer’s recommendation.

 

(Prior to voting on this application, Councillor Daniel Williamson left the meeting at 10.52am)

 

4.  V/2020/0411, Minster Developments Ltd, Approval of Reserved Matters for Planning Permission V/2018/0262 for Maximum of 24 Apartments and Associated Works, Land at Junction of Outram Street and Park Street, Sutton in Ashfield

 

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

 

5.  V/2020/0653, Ashfield District Council, Demolition of Community Centre and Construction of 2 Bungalows, The Poplars Community Centre, Charles Street, Sutton in Ashfield

 

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

 

(Prior to consideration of the last application, Councillor Daniel Williamson returned to the meeting at 11.12am.)

 

6.  V/2020/0669, Ashfield District Council, 2no. Two Storey Dwellings and 3no. Two and a Half Storey Dwellings, Car Park, Stoney Street, Sutton in Ashfield

 

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:-

 

One further letter of objection has been received from a local resident raising concerns which were already covered in the report. This took the total number of objections received to three. They also claimed they were not notified of the application.

 

Officer Response

Letters were sent to all properties directly adjacent to the site and a site notice was erected adjacent to the car park access. The consultation therefore exceeded the Council’s statement of community involvement and statutory requirements in this case.

Stacey Clifford, an Objector, 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 submission as required.

 

It was moved and seconded that conditional consent be granted as per officer’s recommendation subject to an additional condition and informative as follows:-

 

Condition

No development shall commence on site until a Construction Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. This should include details of working hours, parking for site operatives and visitors, loading and unloading areas, the storage of plant and machinery, and how access to the rear of properties on Stoney Street and Chatsworth Street is to be maintained.

 

Informative

There are current traffic regulation orders on Stoney Street which require further investigation by the applicant and improved where necessary at the applicants expense following consultation with local residents and business owners. Any improvement should be sought before development commences.