Agenda and minutes

a)    Webcasting;

b)    Introductions of Members and Officers;

c)    Other announcements.

a)    The Chair confirmed that the meeting was being broadcast live to the internet and was capable of repeated viewing. The images and sound recording could be used for training purposes within the Council. The Chair had the discretion to terminate or suspend filming if it was his opinion that continuing to do so would prejudice the proceedings of the meeting. It was likely that recording cameras would capture the image of persons seated in the public gallery and that image would become part of the broadcast. Any views expressed by any speaker in the meeting were the speaker’s own and did not necessarily reflect the views of Staffordshire Moorlands District Council.

b)    Members of the Committee and Officers present were introduced by the Chair.

            (a)     To approve as a correct record the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 30 August 2018.

            (b)     Reports on matters arising, if any.

RESOLVED – That the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 30 August 2018 be APPROVED as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

There were no urgent items.

i. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests;

ii. Other Interests;

iii. Lobbying Interests.

The following declarations were made at this point unless otherwise stated:-

FULL APPLICATION FOR THE ERECTION OF 24 DWELLINGS FOR HOSTDAY LTD.

(Report recommended Refusal)

(Councillors Ellis and Lockett had declared “other” interests, Councillor Lockett had declared a lobbying interest.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

              Mr. Ian Wain                             -        Objector

              Mrs. Linda Demaid-Jones      -        Objector

              Mr. Mark Hall                             -        Objector     

For the application:

              Mr. Andrew Dukesell               -        Applicant’s Agent

              Mr. Alan Corinaldi-Knott         -        Applicant’s Agent

NOTED     -    1.Late Representations Report (LRR) contained comments from SMDC Trees & Woodlands Officer and SCC Highway Authority. Also further reason for refusal regarding an adverse impact on existing trees and that the 1^st reason for refusal be amended to include the additional amenity issues arising from trees. Further reason for refusal to be added providing the overall balance of issues were required by para 11 of the NPPF.

                        2. Large-scale photograph of the site dated 1984 handed to the Chair by the Applicant’s Agent.

                        3. Members felt that an alternative access to the site – possibly from the old gas works site on Newcastle Road – would be preferable.

RESOLVED – That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, together with the additional and amended reasons as stated above.

(Proposed by Councillor Lockett and Seconded by Councillor Roberts.)

PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM PLACE OF WORSHIP (D1) TO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING (C1) FOR DANE AND TRENT METHODIST CHURCH

(Report recommended Approval)

(Councillor Roberts had declared an “other” interest. Councillor Pearce declared an “other” interest at this point in the meeting.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

              Mr. Roger Ball                           -        Objector

              Mr. Eric Pye                               -        Objector

For the application:

              Ms. Alicia Bowers-Smith         -        Architect

NOTED -        1. LRR contained revised Location and Block Plan, Legal Advice regarding a conflict with consecrated ground – deemed not material to a change of use application and Officer comment regarding the revised site boundary (red edge) being consistent with the revised site layout.

                        2. Architect confirmed that the land is not consecrated.

                        3. Officer discretion regarding roof lights – only to be included where there was no other light source.

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED  for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report.

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Davies and Seconded by Councillor Lockett.)

OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, MEANS OF ACCESS, ANCILLARY WORKS AND SITE REMEDIATION FOR CB COLLIER FD LTD.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors present had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

For the application:

              Mrs. Jane Hare                         -        Supporter

              Cllr. Keith Flunder                   -        Checkley Parish Councillor

              Mr. Patrick Downes                 -        Applicant’s Agent

NOTED -        1. LRR contained comments – though not objections - from Trees & Woodlands Officer and Environment Agency (EA). Recommendation for further tree and hedge protection conditions, condition 5 to refer to the submitted Landscaping Strategy as well as the DAS, EA’s amended flood risk condition be added and that an informative be added regarding shortcomings with the illustrative plan.

                        2. Agent confirmed that the culvert and a pre-existing cross-drain were to be cleared.

                        3. Members requested that S.106 money should go towards the playing fields nearest Tean.

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED  for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions and informatives contained in the report and the additional and amended conditions and informative stated above.

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Pearce and Seconded by Councillor Cawley )

OUTLINE PERMISSION WITH SOME MATTERS RESERVED (EXCEPT ACCESS) FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF UP TO 121 DWELLINGS FOR MR. JAMES INGESTRE.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

              Cllr. Peter Wilkinson               -        Ward Councillor

Miss Sharon Roberts had registered to speak against the application but was unable to attend through illness.

For the application:

              Mr. Jim Malkin                          -        Applicant’s Agent

Mr. James Ingestre and Mr. Mark Devenish had registered to speak in favour of the application, but attended solely to answer any specific questions raised.

NOTED -        1. LRR contained 1 further 3^rd party objection, comments from the developer and a request from Officers requesting delegated authority be given to agree the final percentage of affordable housing.

                        2. Concerns expressed regarding a buffer zone for Cecilly Brook.

                        3. Confirmation given that NPPF allowed site viability to be taken into account when calculating the percentage of affordable housing.

                        4. Members requested that the open space contribution be directed to Churchill Road Recreation Ground.

                        5. Informatives requested regarding site layout in advance of future detailed application(s) – road layout to avoid rat-runs, parking to be designated rather than shared and an additional access to be created to the Churchill Road Recreation Ground.

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to a Section 106 Agreement and the conditions contained in the report and the informatives referred to above.

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Roberts and Seconded by Councillor Cawley.)

RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR THE PHASE 2 ACCESS ROAD AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE INCLUDING DRAINAGE TO SERVE THE ROAD, TREE REMOVAL, LEVELS, LANDSCAPING, SAFEGUARDING AREA, GREAT CRESTED NEWT MIGRATION PURSUANT TO PLANNING APPLICATION 11/00405/REM FOR MRS. L. BISBEY, ST MODWEN HOMES

(Report recommended Approval)

(Councillor Pearce had declared a disclosable pecuniary interest and left the room, taking no part in the discussion or vote. All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

              Cllr. Gordon Winfield              -        Draycott Parish Councillor

              Mr. John Clarke                        -        Objector

For the application:

              Cllr. Keith Flunder                   -        Ward Councillor

              Ms. Joanne Russell                -        Applicant’s Agent

NOTED -        1. LRR contained ecology comments regarding hedgerows and Great Crested Newts, comments regarding the Landscaping scheme (deemed acceptable after LRR produced).

                        2. Application was to extend the ‘spine’ road to serve all phases for the site.

                        3. Speaker requested a Masterplan for the area. Applicant’s Agent confirmed that they were ‘putting in the building blocks to ensure one could come forward’.

                        4. Additional condition requested regarding ecology.

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions contained in the report and the additional condition referred to above.

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Cawley and Seconded by Councillor Ellis.)

PROPOSED EXTENSION TO FORM GROUND FLOOR BEDROOM AND WETROOM FOR A DISABLED PERSON FOR MR. & MRS. ARNOLD

(Report recommended Refusal)

(Councillor Lucas had declared an “other” interest and chose to leave the room, taking no part in the discussion or vote. All other Councillors had declared “other” interests. Councillor Lucas had declared a Lobbying interest.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

For the application:

              Mr. Malcolm Sales                   -        Applicant’s Agent

              Mr. Michael Sale                      -        Supporter

              Mrs. Alison Hassell                  -        Applicant’s Daughter

NOTED -        1. LRR contained 1 letter of support and a 52 signature petition by local residents in support of the application.

                        2. Confirmed that the relevant test was – Harm to the Heritage Asset Vs public benefit.

                        3. Members felt that a ‘linear’ extension would be preferable as the proposed side extension went against the character of the building.

RESOLVED – That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report.

(Proposed by Councillor Roberts and Seconded by Councillor Davies.)

OUTLINE APPLICATION FOR THE CHANGE OF USE OF THE REAR GARDEN AREAS TO 2 No. RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PLOTS WITH NEW ACCESS FOR MR. & MRS. BEARDMORE

(Report recommended Approval)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

              Mrs. Elaine Wheeldon            -        Objector

              Mr. Alan Thorpe                       -        Objector

              Mr. Alan Challinor                   -        Objector

NOTED -        1. Speakers stated that there was no right to use the access road. Legal Advisor confirmed that this was a civil matter and not a material planning consideration.

                        2. A condition was requested removing permitted development rights.

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions contained in the report and the additional condition referred to above.

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Lockett and Seconded by Councillor Ellis.)

SIDE EXTENSION TO GARAGE AND EXTENSION OF GARAGE ROOF TO FORM STUDIO SPACE ABOVE FOR  MR. & MRS. BINNS

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

              Dr. David Adams                      -        Objector

              Cllr. Gill Heath                          -        Objector

NOTED -        1. LRR contained comments from Trees & Woodlands Officer – no objections.

                        2. Speakers expressed concerns with the glazing on the gable end leading to light & noise pollution, with a resulting loss of privacy.

                        3. Officer confirmed that separation distances were well in excess of those required. Existing boundary treatments were sufficient to prevent overlooking.

RESOLVED – That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions and informative contained in the report.

(Proposed by Councillor Lockett and Seconded by Councillor Davies.)

RESERVED MATTERS APPLICATION FOR ONE DWELLING APPROVED UNDER OUTLINE PERMISSION SMD/2016/0511 FOR MR. MARK HAMMOND

(Report recommended Approval)

NOTED -        1. LRR contained comments from the Trees & Woodlands Officer – no objection.

                        2. Application brought to Committee as the applicant is related to Cllr. Julie Bull.

                        3. Additional condition requested for removal of Permitted Development Rights.

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions and informatives contained in the report and the additional condition referred to above.

2. That in the event of any changes being needed to the wording of the Committee’s decision (such as to delete, vary or add conditions / informatives / planning obligations or reasons for approval / refusal) prior to the decision being issued, the Operations Manager – Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Roberts and Seconded by Councillor Pearce.)

A report was received confirming that no appeals had been lodged nor decisions received since the last meeting of the Planning Applications Committee