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.

c)    The Chair requested that mobile phones be switched off or to silent.

            (a)     To approve as a correct record the Public Minutes of the Planning Applications Committee held on 25 July 2019.

            (b)     Reports on matters arising, if any.

RESOLVED – That the Public Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Applications Committee held on 25 July 2019 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:-

OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED FOR L & C HOMES LTD.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” and lobbying interests. Mr. Ben Haywood had declared an “other” interest and left the room, taking no part in the discussion or vote.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

                   Mr. Paul Jones                -    Objector

                   Mr. Kevin Barr                 -    Objector

                   Mr. Steven Proffitt           -    Objector

                   Cllr. Mike Bowen            -    Ward Cllr.

                   Cllr. Mike Worthington   -    Ward Cllr.

For the application:

                   Mr. David Breakwell       -    Applicant’s Agent

                   Mr. Frank Murray            -    Applicant

NOTED -        1. Late Representations Report (LRR) contained:-

·         Clarification of comments from Cheddleton Parish Council;

·         Comments from Ramblers’ Association;

·         Additional information from Applicant;

·         Additional neighbour representations;

·         Residents’ responses to SMDC Ecology Officer, Planning Officer and Absolute Ecology comments;

·         Additional consultation responses from SMDC Ecology Officer;

·         Additional comments from SMDC Projects Officer, Conservation Officer and Planning Officer;

·         Amended recommendation relating to the rewording of condition 13 (reptiles).

                        2. Further comments had been received after LRR publication, critical of Absolute Ecology methodology.

                        3. Key points to consider were Ecology, Access and impact on Heritage Assets.

                        4. Query raised regarding ownership of the site – Applicant confirmed L & C Homes Ltd were the owners.

                        5. Sole reason for previous refusal was a lack of a Heritage Assessment.

                        6. Legal Advisor clarified that the previous definition (Visual Open Space) was not consistent with the NPPF, hence limited weight could be given. Under the emerging Local Plan the Planning Inspector had indicated that the area would not qualify as a Local Green Space – again, limited weight.

                        7. Members expressed concern with regard to access.           

                        A motion to APPROVE the application was proposed by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Coleman. However at the vote, the motion was LOST.

RESOLVED – That, contrary to officer recommendation, the application was REFUSED based on the following reasons / policies:-

Reasons / policies

·         Policy DC1 – Design consideration;

·         Policy DC2 – Perceived harm to the Heritage Asset outweighed the public benefit afforded by the development.

(Proposed by Councillor Cawley and seconded by Councillor Emery.)

APPROVAL OF RESERVED MATTERS OF APPEARANCE, LANDSCAPING, LAYOUT AND SCALE RELATING TO SMD/2017/0470 FOR HUMPHREY BUILDERS LTD.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

Against the application:

                   Mrs. Marion Armstrong  -    Objector

                   Mr. Geoffrey Snow         -    Objector

For the application:

                   Mr. Rob Duncan             -    Applicant’s Agent

NOTED -        1. LRR contained additional information from the Applicant, officer comments and a revised officer recommendation with an additional condition (No. 10) relating to site levels.

                        2. Previous reason for refusal was that the design layout was too suburban. This was seen to have been addressed with the revised application.

                        3. Speaker expressed concern that notification letters had been delayed, giving reduced time for consideration and response. Officer confirmed that was no statutory requirement to re-consult on amended plans. The delay was postal rather than procedural.

                        4. Concerns expressed regarding potential parking on Moss Lane. Speaker requested double yellow lines. Speaker stated that in the event of an incident he would publish the fact that he had warned about this. Officer confirmed that there was parking for 3 vehicles at each property and that yellow lines were inappropriate at the reserved matters stage.

                        5. Members requested that Plots 1 & 2 be separated (agreed by Applicant’s Agent).

RESOLVED – 1. That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained in the report, subject to the conditions also contained in the report and an amended plan showing Plots 1 & 2 separated.

2. 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 Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Flunder.)

PROPOSED ERECTION OF AN AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO HOUSE LIVESTOCK AND INCLUDES SECURE STORAGE AND A WORKSHOP FOR MR. A WILSON.

(Report recommended Refusal.)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

RECEIVED = Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

For the application:

                   Mr. Graeme Perry           -    Applicant’s Agent

                   Mrs. Karen Atkinson      -    NFU Secretary

                   Cllr. Sandra Peck           -    Checkley Parish Cllr.

                   Cllr. Peter Wilkinson      -    Ward Cllr.

NOTED -        1  LRR contained 1 letter of public support.

                        2. Speakers confirmed that an increase in rural crime had led to a need for more secure agricultural buildings located near to dwellings.

                        3. The reduction in carbon footprint would assist in achieving the Council’s climate change target.

                        4. Confirmed that the building would be in use throughout the year.

                        5. Delegated authority be given to officers with regard to conditions in the event of approval.

                        A motion to REFUSE the application was proposed by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Roberts. However at the vote, the motion was LOST.

RESOLVED – That, contrary to officer recommendation, the application was APPROVED for the reasons / policies stated below:-

Reasons / policies:

·         Economic development & employment opportunities perceived to outweigh the harm to the landscape in the overall planning balance;

·         Bio-diversity enhancement opportunities;

·         Sustainability – reduction in the impact on climate change and reduced journeys.

(Proposed by Councillor Flunder and seconded by Councillor Emery.)

OUTLINE PLANNING APPLICATION WITH ALL MATTERS RESERVED FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (EXCEPT FOR ACCESS, APPEARANCE, LAYOUT AND SCALE) FOR MR. & MRS. BLOOR.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests. Councillors Emery, Roberts and Whitehouse had declared lobbying interests.)

RECEIVED – Representations from the undermentioned speakers:-

For the application:

                   Mr. Rob Duncan             -    Applicant’s Agent

NOTED -        1. LRR contained representation from ‘Cheadle Unite’ and response from officer. Also 2 additional conditions regarding Permitted Development Rights.

                        2. ‘Extant’ planning permission was already in place establishing the principle of development.

                        3. Original plans had been amended following objection from SCC Highways department. Objection subsequently withdrawn. Despite this, members expressed their concern regarding the safety of access / egress.

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

2. 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 Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor Davies and seconded by Councillor Cawley.)

AGRICULTURAL BUILDING TO PROVIDE TB ISOLATION UNIT FOR CATTLE FOR MR. STUART HEATH.

(Report recommended Approval)

(All Councillors had declared “other” interests.)

Councillor Cawley left the meeting at this point, taking no part in the discussion or vote.

RECEIVED – Representation from the undermentioned speaker:-

For the application:

                   Mr. Robert Watkins         -    Chartered Surveyor

NOTED -        1. Additional conditions requested by members for:-

·         More trees / hedging to reduce the visual impact;

·         Broad scheme of bio-diversity enhancement.

                        2. Confirmed that the building would be in use for 8 – 10 months per year.

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

2. 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 Head of Development Services had delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Applications Committee, provided that the changes did not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision.

(Proposed by Councillor  Emery and seconded by Councillor Holmes.)

Ben Haywood presented the report which showed that no appeals had been lodged with the Planning Inspectorate since the previous report.

Appeal decisions received were as follows:-

As previously, Ben was pleased to reflect on good back-up from the Planning Inspectorate.

RESOLVED – That the report be NOTED.