Agenda and minutes

a)    Webcasting;

b)    Introductions of Members and Officers;

c)    Other announcements.

The Chair announced the following:

a)    The meeting was being broadcast live to the internet via the usual webcasting facility 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. 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)     Members had made site visits during the morning of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 25 January 2024, be approved, subject to an amendment to Councillor Flunder’s declared interest for application ref: SMD/2023/0506, to reflect it being within his County Division.

There were none.

i. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests;

ii. Other Interests;

iii. Lobbying Interests.

RESOLVED: That the Late Representations report be noted.

Construction of a temporary 49.35MW battery storage facility, to include a compound, a DNO control room, a customer substation, security fencing, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

(Having declared an interest, Councillor Pointon withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting on the following application)

(Report recommended refusal)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Mrs Linda Brookes - Local resident

Mrs Tracy Kirton – On behalf of a local residents group

For the application:

Kat Crisp – Agent

Members debated the visibility of the site, adverse noise impact, potential loss of landscape/habitat and the need for the renewable energy projects.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;

2.     That the Late Representations report be noted;

3.     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 Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Flunder and seconded by Councillor Emery)

This application had been deferred to a future meeting.

Erection of 1no. detached bungalow.

(Having declared an interest, Mr B Haywood withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting on the following application)

(Report recommended approval)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Mr Rob McDermott – Local resident

Mr Graham Varley – Local resident

For the application:

Mr Rob Duncan – Agent

Officers advised that an appeal had now been lodged in respect of application ref SMD/2023/0085.

Some members welcomed the development and others questioned the garden amenity of the proposed dwelling.

Discussion took place around the width of the access to the site. The Officer advised that the Highways department had visited the site and no objections had been received.

1.    That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;

2.    A condition to be added in terms of biodiversity net gain be delegated to the Senior Planning Officer in consultation with the Chair of the Committee;

3.      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 Senior Planning Officer be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Hoptroff and seconded by Councillor Emery)

This application had been deferred to a future meeting.

Change of use from dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to care home for children (Use Class C2).

(Report recommended approval, subject to conditions)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

For the application:

Mr Rob Duncan - Agent

Mr Alex Hayward – Applicant

Members debated the level of occupancy, the outside amenity at the property and the need for care homes for young people.

In response to a query in relation to the general upkeep of the local area, the Head of Development Services would refer the matter to the Enforcement Team. It was noted that this land was not within the applicant’s control.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;

2.     That the Late Representation report be noted;

3.     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 Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Swindlehurst and seconded by Councillor Flunder)

Single storey extension to existing dwellinghouse.

(Report recommended refusal)

Received representation from the undermentioned speaker:

For the application:

Mr James Boon – Agent

Members discussed permitted developments rights, the design of the proposed extension and development within the Green Belt.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be REFUSED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;

2.    That the Late Representations report be noted:

3.      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 Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Johnson and seconded by Councillor Kempster)

Demolish the disused existing x2 Two-storey residential buildings and 1 single-storey building and to erect 12 self-contained flats for the elderly with associated parking. Also, a new public car park to serve the village centre.

(Having declared an interest,  Councillor Holmes withdrew from the meeting during the consideration and voting on the following application)

(Report recommended conditional approval subject to the signing of a S106)

There were no registered speakers for this application.

Members welcomed the proposal and commented positively in terms of the proposed new public car parking facility and future community use.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report;

2.    That the Late Representations report be noted in terms of the amended description of the proposal;

3.    Delegated Authority be granted to the Head of Development Services in consultation with the Chairman to approve the revised description application subject to the re-consultation being carried out and no new substantive planning issues being raised and subject to the s106 agreement and conditions as outlined in the officer report.

4.    That an informative be added in relation to heating and sustainability;

5.      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 Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Flunder and seconded by Councillor Plant)

.

This application had been deferred to a future meeting.

This application was deferred to a future meeting.

Siting of Glamping Pod.

(Report recommended refusal)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

For the application:

Mr Rob Duncan - Agent

Mr Lee Doyle - Applicant

Councillor Mike Haines - Ward Councillor

Consideration was given to farm diversification and the need for tourist accommodation in the area.

RESOLVED:

1.    That contrary to officers’ recommendation the application be APPROVED for the following reasons:

a.    The proposed development was in compliance with policy

E4.

2.    That a condition be added in terms of biodiversity net gain;

3.    Other conditions to be delegated to the Head of Development Services in consultation with the Chair of the Committee;

4.    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 Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Cawley and seconded by Councillor O’Shea)

This application had been deferred to a future meeting.

Single storey extension containing store room for convenience store.

(Report recommended refusal)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

For the application:

Councillor Bernie Charlesworth – Town Councillor representing the owner

Councillor Mike Haines – Supporter

Reference was made to an alternative scheme however, the Officer advised that the Committee was required to determine the proposal contained within the report.

Members gave consideration to the community aspect of the store, the requirement for extra space to maintain the viability of the shop and the impact of the proposed extension to neighbouring properties.

RESOLVED:

1.    That contrary to officers’ recommendation the application be APPROVED for the following reasons:

a.    The proposed development was in accordance with policies

SS1 and DC1. Weight was given to the fact that no neighbour objections had been received and it was concluded that the proposal was not harmful to amenity

b.    The shop is of social and economic benefit to the local community.

2.    Conditions to be delegated to the Head of Development Services in consultation with the Chair of the Committee;

3.    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 Head of Development Services be delegated authority to do so in consultation with the Chair of the Committee, provided that the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Johnson seconded by Councillor Wilkinson)

The Committee gave consideration to a report to confirm Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. SM.328 without modification.

RECOMMENDATION:

That notwithstanding the objections received, Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. SM.328 be confirmed without modification. In order to maintain legal protection over significant trees.

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the confirmation of the TPO:

Mr Paul Horwell – Owner

Fran Whittaker – Local resident

Discussion took place around the significance and value of the trees towards the street scene. The safety of the trees was taken into consideration.

RESOLVED:

1)    That notwithstanding the objections received, Tree Preservation Order (TPO) No. SM.328 be confirmed without modification. In order to maintain legal protection over significant trees.

The Chair to move:-

 “That pursuant to Section 100A (2) and (4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or nature of the proceedings whereby it is likely that exempt information as defined in Section 100A (3) of the Act would be disclosed to the public in breach of the obligation of confidence or exempt information as defined in Section 100I (1) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act would be disclosed to the public by virtue of the paragraphs indicated.”

The Chair Moved:-

“That, pursuant to Section 100A(2) and (4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the public be excluded from the meeting in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings whereby it is likely that confidential information as defined in Section 100A (3) of the Act would be disclosed to the public in breach of the obligation of confidence or exempt information as defined in Section 100 I (1) of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act would be disclosed to the public by virtue of the Paragraphs indicated.”

Members received a report which set out the performance on planning appeals.

RESOLVED:

That the exempt minutes from the previous meeitng held on 25 January 2024, be approved.