Planning Committee

PLANNING COMMITTEE

Minutes of the meeting held on Wednesday, 5th February 2014 at Worksop Town Hall

Present:

Councillor B Barker (Chair) Councillors B A Bowles, H Burton, P Douglas, S Fielding, G Freeman, K H Isard, G Jones, G A N Oxby, C Palmer and A Simpson.

Officers in attendance: B Alderton-Sambrook, C Crossland and S Wormald

(Meeting commenced at 6.30pm.)

(The Chairman welcomed everyone to the meeting and read out the Fire Alarm/Evacuation Procedure. Members of the public were asked if anyone wanted to film the meeting (or part thereof) in accordance with the Department for Communities and Local Government’s guidance; however no-one responded.)

78. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor D Challinor.

79. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

(a) Members

Councillor B A Bowles declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 13/00977/COU, as he had been present at a Parish Council meeting when the application was discussed. He has also been contacted by residents and requested that the application be brought to Planning Committee. He remained in the meeting.

(b) Officers

S Wormald declared a non-pecuniary interest in planning application 13/00977/COU as one of the objectors to the application is his neighbour. He remained in the meeting.

80. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 15TH JANUARY 2014

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 15th January 2014 be approved.

81. MINUTES OF PLANNING CONSULTATION GROUP MEETINGS HELD BETWEEN 6TH JANUARY AND 20TH JANUARY 2014

Councillor P Douglas, ward Member for Welbeck, commented in relation to 13/01382/VOC that residents of Elkesley were concerned that the application was not referred to Planning Committee. She thanked the Chairman and the Planning Services Manager for subsequently meeting with herself and the Parish Council Chairman.

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the Planning Consultation Group meetings held between 6th January and 20th January 2014 be received.

82. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST

RESOLVED that the Outstanding Minutes List be received.

SECTION A – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

83. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY

(a) Public Interest Test

The Head of Community Prosperity had deemed that he considered all the reports on the Agenda were of a non-confidential nature.

(b) Planning Applications and Associated Items

Application No Applicant Proposal

13/01231/FUL J G Pears (Newark) Ltd Erection of a thermal oxidiser and 30 metre high chimney at J G Pears (Newark) Limited, Marnham Road, Low Marnham, Newark

The application had not been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting as Members were familiar with the site. Members were advised that the application seeks to erect a thermal oxidiser comprising of plant equipment 23 metres in length, 7.4 metres wide and 9.3 metres high with a 30 metre high chimney for the purpose of reducing residual emission from the combustion and odour treatment process at the site, therefore reducing the odour.

The Planning Services Manager used slides to show the site location and photographs of the site. The landscape is considered as being moderate quality in the Nottinghamshire Landscape Study. The visual impact of the proposal is considered to be marginal given that the existing plant already has a visual impact. The benefits in reducing the odour outweigh the marginal change to the visual impact.

Members were reminded that planning permission was refused in 2013 at the site for a biomass combined heat and power plant, the decision has been the subject of a recent appeal. If the appeal is unsuccessful this proposal will provide odour abatement. However if the appeal is successful this would be become the standby equipment for the combined heat and power plant, the 30 metre high tower would then be removed as per the terms contained in the associated section 106 legal agreement.

Mr G Bolton spoke as the agent on behalf of the applicant. He advised that they are awaiting the outcome of the appeal. The combined heat and power plant proposal would have dealt with the odour issues. Following meetings with the Council’s Environmental Health Officer it was felt that the best option was to build a thermal oxidiser which could be incorporated into the combined heat and power plant if the appeal was successful. In the event that the combined heat and power plant is approved the 30 metre chimney would be removed. The proposal would also reduce the load on the bio filter.

Observations from the following organisations were taken into account:

 English Heritage  Environment Agency  The Council’s Principal Environmental Health Manager  Normanton-on-Trent with Marnham Parish Council

Also taken into consideration was a planning statement in support of the application submitted by the applicant’s agent.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY – Grant subject to the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION - Grant subject to the conditions as circulated.

Application No Applicant Proposal

13/00977/COU Mr M J Mitchell Change of use from agricultural land to clay target shooting club, land off Whitewater Lane off, B6045, Bawtry Road, Blyth

The application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Members were advised that the application seeks permission for the change of use of agricultural land to a clay target shooting club following the closure of a shooting club on the former army base at Ollerton. The application is for change of use only and further planning applications would be required for any other works. The applicant states that five full time and up to 15 part time jobs would be created.

The Planning Services Manager used slides to show the site location, photographs of the area and a diagram indicating the location of closest properties to the site. In relation to concerns and objections received she advised that: no objections have been received from statutory consultees; the nearest properties are 650 metres on the opposite side of the dual carriageway; the football pitch is some distance away and the club would shoot away from the pitch; and there are no public footpaths or rights of way within the vicinity.

Members asked questions/ raised issues in relation to:

 The potential noise impact  Stray shots  The number of potential jobs created  Access  Highway safety  Other suitable sites  Hours of operation  Contaminated land

In response to questions raised in relation to the hours of operation Members were advised that the Council’s Environmental Health Officer has submitted recommendations and a condition is proposed to restrict the opening hours.

Observations from the following organisations were taken into account:

 The Highways Agency  Nottinghamshire County Council Director of Environment and Resources (Highways)  Styrrup-with-Oldcotes Parish Council  Blyth Parish Council

Also taken into consideration were two letters of objection from local residents and a request from the ward Member that the application be reported to Planning Committee.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY – Grant subject to the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION - Grant subject to the conditions as circulated.

Application No Applicant Proposal

13/01355/FUL AH Retford Ltd Erection of extra care village comprising 63 apartments, 30 bungalows and associated car parking, amenity space and landscaping, former Elizabethan High School and games courts, land at Leafield, Retford

The application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Members were advised that the application is for an extra care village comprising of 33 one bedroom apartments, 30 two bedroom apartments and 30 two bedroom bungalows with associated parking, landscaping and the formation of a bowling green and allotments. The properties would be available for purchase, private rent or be nominated rented by residents who are over 55 years of age.

The Planning Services Manager used slides to show the site location, proposed layout, elevations and a section across the street showing the relationship of the proposal to existing dwellings on Leafield. A copy of additional information received from a local resident comprising of photographs in support of their objection was circulated at the meeting.

Mrs A Harrison spoke in objection to the application. She advised that she feels the proposal is not in keeping with other buildings in the area. She expressed concerns that there would be a significant loss of sunlight for the opposite properties, an increase in traffic and an increased strain on utility suppliers. She raised issues in relation to highway safety, children walking to and from school and that the proposed parking is not adequate for the number of dwellings. She added that there is a concern over the character of the residents. She commented that she does not object to the idea in principle but resents the size, height and design of the development. She suggested that the bowling green could be taken out of the scheme and the height of the apartments lowered and accommodated in this space.

Ms C Dunk spoke in support of the application. She advised that Nottinghamshire County Council have committed funding for the development of several extra care schemes across the county. Consultation has shown that older people want to live in their own home environment with care support. Extra care housing accommodation is built to a high specification with high corridors, lifts and wheelchair access. There will be an element of communal space with the opportunity to invite health professionals for wellbeing clinics. The use of the communal areas will be decided by the residents. The County Council would have nomination rights on 25 of the units for residents who are to receive care funded by the County Council. The model of care enables residents to access medical care whilst ensuring they retain their independence.

Ms P Akers spoke as the architect for the scheme. She advised that:

 Planning permission was previously granted for 48 family houses on the site in 2008.  The current proposal is the same distance away from the existing properties as the previous permission.  The apartment’s location was chosen to address the urban grain and is 25 metres away from the existing properties, which is two metres further than the guidance.  Consultation was carried out with the local community during the application. Residents were invited to attend a consultation day and only a few objections were raised which were mainly in relation to the height of the apartment block. At the time of the consultation the block had a four storey element, this was subsequently reduced.  Concerns were raised in relation to a memorial tree on the site. The tree is not subject to a tree perseveration order; however the development has been moved to protect the tree.

Members commented that they felt the scheme was good and did not object in principle. However they raised questions/ concerns in relation to:

 Parking provision  The contaminated land study  The height of the development  The street scene and design  Loss of light  Location of the apartment block  Facing materials

In response to the questions raised in relation to the street scene Members were advised that the height of the three storey building is no more than 1.8 metres higher than the two storey dwellings opposite on Leafield. In design terms it was discussed that the off-white rendered sections in contrast to the red brick sections break up the horizontal massing of the building and makes it less imposing. In regard to parking provision Highways have not objected. A travel plan is mentioned in the Highways comments to encourage sustainable transport and a traffic survey is recommended. The report also indicates that the road is wide enough to facilitate some on street parking and the need for traffic regulation orders would need further investigation as an outcome of the required surveys.

Observations from the following organisations were taken into account:

 Nottinghamshire County Council Director of Environment and Resources (Highways)  The Environment Agency  The District Council’s Environmental Health Officer

Also taken into consideration were comments from the Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust; three letters of objection from local residents; a statement of support submitted by the applicant; and a variety of documents in support submitted by the applicant’s agent.

Some Members were concerned about the design and use of white rendering. A vote was taken to whether officers should agree the facing materials or if facing materials should be brought to a future meeting of the Committee to be decided by Members.

RESOLVED that taking Members comments into consideration officers agree the facing materials.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY – Grant subject to the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION - Grant subject to the conditions as circulated.

Application No Applicant Proposal

13/01355/FUL Bassetlaw District Council Demolition of 28 existing Airey Homes and redevelopment of the site to provide 71 dwellings, creation of access and ancillary play area, development at part of Thompson Avenue and Smith Square, Harworth

The application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Members were advised that the application seeks to demolish the 28 exiting pre-fabricated houses. The development of the site would provide 71 new dwellings, the creation of new access and ancillary play area. The development would be delivered in three stages to minimise the impact on residents.

Members were advised that part of the application site includes the use of a playing field. Sport England initially objected to its loss, however with the improved play area facilities proposed on the site in conjunction with the other open spaces identified by the Council to come forward as part of the Councils Open Space Strategy they have lifted their objection.

In response to issues raised in relation to the objection received from a local resident, who is concerned about the potential loss of privacy and noise impact from the play area adjacent to her property, Members were advised that full landscaping details are recommended and would mitigate the issues. Members were informed that a condition could be imposed to require acoustic fencing to the boundary.

Observations from the following organisations were taken into account:

 Nottinghamshire County Council Director of Environment and Resources (Highways)  The Council’s Principal Environmental Health Manager  Sport England  Harworth Town Council

Also taken into consideration was one letter of objection from a local resident and a Design and Access Statement submitted by the applicant.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY – Grant subject to the conditions as circulated.

COMMITTEE DECISION - Grant subject to the conditions as circulated and the inclusion of the following condition:

 Acoustic fencing to be erected on the boundary with the dwelling adjacent to the play area.

Application No Applicant Proposal

13/01181/VOC Mr S Baker Variation of condition 3 of p/a 28/07/00016 to allow caravan site B to open all year round, at Manor House Caravan Park including land to north and south, Clayhough Lane, Church Laneham

The application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Members were advised that the application seeks to vary a condition which would increase the occupation for holiday purposes all year round. The site currently has 130 holiday let caravans which are open March to October inclusive.

The Planning Services Manager used slides to show the site location and photographs of the area. The site is located in a rural settlement village within flood zone 3. The Environment Agency object given the high probability of flooding and state that park homes are particularly vulnerable due to their instability. The proposed passing bays on the access track would be in the flood plain, meaning that there would be no safe access in a flood event.

Ms S Lysandrou spoke in objection to the application as a resident of Church Laneham. She advised that:

 The site is within flood zone 3 and at risk of flooding.  Park homes are particularly vulnerable to flooding.  The management of the flood risk is not demonstrated.  The site floods frequently throughout the winter and is only accessible by a single track lane.  Church Laneham is identified as a rural settlement unsuitable for growth. The village is not a sustainable environment.  No reasonable grounds have been given for the development.  It is stated that the units will only be used for holiday accommodation, how can this be enforced?  There would be a potential increase in traffic of 108 vehicles during the period November- February when the park would usually be closed.

Observations from the following organisations were taken into account:

 Nottinghamshire County Council Highways  Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way  Environment Agency  Bassetlaw District Council’s Licensing Unit  The Council’s Principal Environmental Health Manager  Laneham Parish Council

Also taken into consideration were 6 letters/ emails of objection from local residents and an email of objection from The Riverview Residents Association.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY – Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The Council considers that the proposal is contrary to Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD Policy DM1 by virtue of the exacerbation of an existing environmental safety problem of flood risk through extending opening times during winter when there is an increased likelihood of long sustained flood events.

2. Paragraph 103, Part 10 of the National Planning Policy framework requires development to be flood resilient, including safe access and escape routes so residual risk can be managed. Given the location in Flood Zone 3, combined with the proposed extension of opening rimes during the most vulnerable months of the year, it is considered that the management of the potential flood risk has not been demonstrated.

COMMITTEE DECISION – Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

Application No Applicant Proposal

13/01180/VOC Mr S Baker Variation of condition 2 of P/A 28/07/00016, to complete the development of site A. The condition should read “this permission shall relate only to the siting of no more than 51 caravan/ park homes on site A and no more than 108 holiday caravans on site B subject to the satisfactory installation and completion of an additional passing bay in accordance with details shown on job No. 13.1556 drawings No. 7 and 8”, at Manor House Caravan Park including land to north and south, Clayhough Lane, Church Laneham

The application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. Members were advised that the application seeks to vary condition 2 of current planning permission to increase the number for caravan/park homes on site A for residential units from 40 to 51 and reduce the number of holiday caravans on site B from 130 to 108, subject to the installation of an additional passing bay. This is an increase of 11 residential units and a reduction of 22 holiday caravans.

The village is defined as a rural settlement with limited or no facilities. The village is not suitable for growth and new dwellings in the location are not supported. The Environment Agency objects given that the site is located within flood zone 3 with a high probability of flooding and risk to life.

Mr D Taylor spoke in objection to the application. He raised concerns in relation to highway safety. The access is a narrow single track with no passing places on a four mile stretch. The proposed passing bay on the access track would be in the flood plain at risk of flooding. There is no evidence of how the passing bay will be constructed.

Observations from the following organisations were taken into account:

 Nottinghamshire County Council Highways  Nottinghamshire County Council Rights of Way  The Environment Agency  Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board  Bassetlaw District Council Licensing Unit  The Council’s Environmental Health Officer  Laneham Parish Council

Also taken into consideration were 6 letters/ emails of objection from local residents and an email of objection from The Riverview Residents Association.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY - Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD Policy CS1 sets out the settlement hierarchy for the scale of new development. Church Laneham is a rural settlement defined in Appendix 4 where there is limited or no service/facility provision, and as such Policy CS9 states that proposals for the development of housing within these settlements, other than conversion or replacement dwellings, will not be supported.

2. Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD Policy CS9 requires that all housing development resulting in a net gain of one or more units will be required to contribute towards affordable housing targets. No details have been submitted in terms of the required affordable housing contribution and is therefore contrary to the requirement of Policy CS9.

3. Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD Policy DM12 emphasises that proposals for new units in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from the areas at highest risk. Given that availability of sequentially preferable sites identified in the Councils SHLAA, there are no reasonable grounds to justify further residential development in such a high flood risk area. This is reiterated in paragraph 100, Part 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework, to the detriment of site safety.

COMMITTEE DECISION - Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

3. Bassetlaw Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD Policy DM12 emphasises that proposals for new units in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from the areas at highest risk. Given that availability of sequentially preferable sites identified in the Councils SHLAA, there are no reasonable grounds to justify further permanent residential development in such a high flood risk area. This is reiterated in paragraph 100, Part 10 of the National Planning Policy Framework, to the detriment of site safety.

Application No Applicant Proposal

12/01628/COU Ms Haley Welch Change of use of land to use as a residential caravan site for two gypsy families each with two caravans, formation of hardstanding area and new access, land south of Cleveland Farm, Cleveland Hill, East Markham

At the previous meeting of the Committee, Members resolved to refuse planning permission in relation to the above application and asked that officers bring back detailed reasons for refusal.

Proposed reasons for refusal being that:

1. The Council considers that this proposal has no reasonable access to services and facilities contrary to the provisions of adopted Development Management Policy DM6 where the policy could otherwise allow exception sites in semi-rural and rural locations to come forward for such uses if it can be adequately demonstrated that there isn’t an over reliance upon the private motor vehicle. Furthermore, whilst the Council recognises the need to review the Gypsy and Travellers Needs Accommodation Assessment the current requirement for permanent sites has been met and therefore no justification has been forthcoming as to why the applicants cannot use existing vacant sites elsewhere in the district rather than this unsustainable location.

2. The Council considers that the lack of evidence to demonstrate the adequacy of space for parking, turning, servicing and waste collection/ recycling within the site, and the further lack of appropriate servicing by utilities such as water, foul sewerage and electricity is contrary to the provisions of adopted Development Management Policy DM6 which seeks to only provide land for Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople where there is a reasonable access to services and facilities.

3. The Council considers that insufficient information has been submitted regarding the proposed access to the site to the determine if there are fundamental issues of access/egress to the detriment of highway safety which conflicts with the requirements of adopted Development Management Policy DM6.

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons as follows:

SECTION B – ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATE

Key Decisions

None.

Other Decisions

None.

84. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT

As there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chairman closed the meeting.

(Meeting closed at 8.45 pm.)