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 April 2024 be approved as a correct record.

There were none.

i. Disclosable Pecuniary Interests;

ii. Other Interests;

iii. Lobbying Interests.

RESOLVED: That the Late Representations report be noted.

Installation of a solar array, substation and associated works forming an extension to Blythe solar farm (ref: SMD/2022/0160).

(Report recommended approval, subject to conditions)

Received representation from the undermentioned speaker:

For the application:

Nicola Jones – Applicant

The Committee was assured that the export capacity would be below the threshold of 50MWp.The site was not connected with, and would operate completely independently to (with separate connection to the grid), the existing operational solar farm at Lower Newton House Farm.

Discussion took place around land ownership and classification, the proximity of the site to the Grade II listed building, cumulative impact of solar panels in the area, biodiversity net gain and the merits of the location.

Legal advice was provided to members in terms of reasons for refusal or deferral of the application.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the Late Representations report be noted;

2.     That the application be deferred to enable further discussions by the applicant with officers to achieve the desired buffer zone.

(Proposed by Councillor Flunder and seconded by Councillor Roberts)

(A motion to approve the application had been moved by Councillor Johnson  and seconded by Councillor Kempster but was lost)

Demolition of existing buildings on site and erection of a Class E retail unit, alongside access, car parking and associated works.

(Report recommended approval subject to conditions)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Councillor R Ward – County Councillor

Councillor B Hughes - Ward Councillor

Councillor P Hughes – Ward Councillor

Mr S Hodgetts – Local Resident

For the application:

Katia Clarke – Agent

James Athersmith – Transport Consultant

In response to concerns about highway safety, the Officer advised that the proposal was acceptable to the Highways section and that a Transport Assessment has been submitted as part of the application.

Members debated potential issues for delivery vehicles, provision of parking spaces, the road speed limit and the positioning of the entrance.

The applicant advised the scheme incorporated a designated area for delivery vehicles and offered a delivery management plan to mitigate the concerns of members.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the Late Representations report be noted;

2.     That contrary to officers’ recommendation the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

a.     Contrary to policy DC1 - failure to achieve high quality design

3.     For an informative to be included to express highway concerns.

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 thar the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Emery)

This application had been deferred to a future meeting.

This application had been deferred to a future meeting.

Siting of two woodland holiday cabins.

(Report recommended approval with conditions)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Mr John Higgins – Local Resident

Mrs Diana Gardener – Local Resident

Annette Baxter – Local Resident

Councillor James Aberley (on behalf of Councillor Moult) – Ward Councillor

For the application:

Mr John Imber – Agent

There was concern in relation to the impact the development would have on the nearby ancient woodland and the sustainability of the site given the remote location.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the Late Representation report be noted;

2.     That contrary to officers’ recommendation the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:

a.     Contrary to policy DC3 – landscape and setting.

b.     Detrimental visual impact of the lodges.

c.     Contrary to policies T1 and SS10 unsustainable location

d.     Impact on ancient woodlands as a result of increased people, drainage and vehicle activity.

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 thar the changes do not exceed the substantive nature of the Committee’s decision

(Proposed by Councillor Roberts and seconded by Councillor Johnson)

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 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.

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

Consideration was given to a report in relation to planning enforcement.

RESOLVED: That the exempt minutes from the meeting held on 25 April 2024, be approved as a correct record.