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. Members of the public were not permitted to enter the Chamber or speak to members of the committee unless invited.

b)    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.

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

d)    Members had made site visits during the morning of the meeting.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 17 October 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.

Variation of condition 2 (part retrospective) relating to planning permission ref. SMD/2018/0180 seeking minor amendments to Phase 1 Planning Layout Rev Z3 (ref: ARCH/PL/PH1 Rev Z3) and ‘Site Location Plan’ (ref: ARC/LP/01 Rev B) for reconfiguration of approved SuDS pond, addition of retaining walls to plots 60-67 and 70, resiting of garage serving plots 66/67 and resiting of plots 1-5, including correction of redline ownership adjoining The Gables boundary.

(Report recommended approval subject to recommended planning conditions)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Councillor Bernard Charlesworth – Objector (technical/site matters)

Adrian Millward – Local resident

Councillor Peter Jackson – On behalf of Cheadle Town Council

For the application:

Chris Kershaw – Applicant

In response to points made by speakers, the Officer advised that some related to phase 2 of the development and was subject to a future planning application. Significant discussion had taken place between Persimmon, Planning Officers and residents in terms of the acoustic fence which the developer had agreed to provide.

The Committee was reminded that its decision was not related to the floor levels of the properties, as they were in accordance with the approved drawings.

Members made reference to a lack of comment from Severn Trent Water, an independent assessor/report and development starting prior to the discharge of pre-commencement conditions. They had concerns about drainage and the potential for different styles of boundary fencing. The Committee was advised that it wasn’t possible to require Persimmon by condition to carry out works  on land that was not within its control. However, it would be possible to make it a requirement of the conditions for stress testing to be carried out to ensure the construction of the retaining walls was to the correct standard and to inspect the works to ensure it was also aesthetically satisfactory.

RESOLVED:

1)    That the Late Representations report be noted;

2)    That the application be DEFERRED for one solution to the boundary treatment to be designed which all neighbouring residents were in agreement with.

(Proposed by Councillor Wilkinson and seconded by Councillor Roberts)

Retrospective change of use of an agricultural building into mixed use comprising storage with associated office.

(Report recommended approval with conditions)

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

Received representations from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Julia Podmore – On behalf of Ian Podmore and a local Save the Green Belt Campaign

For the application:

Ben Kettle – Planning Agent

Councillor Mike Worthington – Ward Councillor

A late objection received from a resident of 4 The Cottages, Bagnall was read out to the Committee.

Some members were of the opinion that the development did not have a negative environmental impact, whereas others had concerns as the property was located within the green belt and that the change of use changed the original agricultural purpose of the building.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the Later Representation report be noted;

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

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 Hoptroff and seconded by Councillor Flunder)

Erection of Agricultural and Woodchip Storage Building.

(Report recommended approval with conditions)

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

Received representations from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Helen Bridgett – On behalf of David Pearson (local resident)

John Steele – On behalf of the Churnet Valley Conservation Society

Steve Dawson – Local resident

For the application:

Rob Duncan – Agent

Members debated support for the rural economy,  diversification, heritage and the prominence of the proposed siting of the building. It was suggested that screening of the driveway maybe  unnecessary but the south west elevation of the building required screening with mature trees and hedges. However, too much mitigation would impact the heritage openness of the parkland.

Clarification was sought in regard to ridge heights and the agent would discuss the possibility of alterations to lower the building into the landscape.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the Late Representation report be noted;

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

3.     For a condition to be included for additional planting of trees to the south west elevation of the building and details of levels to be provided;

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 Emery and seconded by Councillor Hulme)

Change of use of an agricultural building to a dwelling with a basement extension.

(Report recommended refusal)

(Councillor Pointon was no longer present at the meeting)

Received representations from the undermentioned speakers:

For the application:

Dominic Cooney – Planning & Design Practice

Kelly Jeffrey – Applicant

Reference was made to a previous approval to convert the property under the Class Q permitted development criteria and it was felt that the design did not provide a reasonable or appropriate level of amenity for occupiers.  

RESOLVED:

1.     That the Late Representations report be noted;

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

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 Roberts and seconded by Councillor Johnson)

Conversion of existing building to form dwelling.

(Report recommends refusal)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

For the application:

Charlie Dean – Applicant

Consideration was given to the design and access to the property.

RESOLVED:

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

a.     The application is in accordance with the Neighbourhood Plan

2.     Delegate authority to the Head of Development Services and Chair of the Committee to agree conditions;

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 Wilkinson and seconded by Councillor Hulme).

Retrospective application for retention of external render and cladding.

(Report recommended refusal)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

For the application:

Rob Duncan – Agent

Councillor Mike Worthington – Ward Councillor

Members commented on the different frontages to the properties on this estate and the improved thermal efficiency of the render.

RESOLVED:

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

a)    The proposed development is judged by the Committee to be of suitable design and in keeping with the character of this 1970’s housing estate. There are not judged to be any adverse implications for neighbours or wider public amenity and street scene.

2.     Delegate authority to the Head of Development Services and Chair of the Committee to agree conditions;

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 Flunder and seconded by Councillor Emery)

Change of use from holiday let to 1 No. dwelling house.

(Report recommended refusal)

(Having declared an interest Councillor Wilkinson withdrew from the meeting during the consideration of and voting on the application)

Councillor Flunder was no longer present at the meeting.

Received representations from the undermentioned speakers:

For the application:

Councillor Sandra Peck – Local resident and Parish Councillor

Tom Wilkinson – Supporter

The Committee was advised of a late representation in relation to a recent change from the Valuation Office, confirming that the property was listed as a dwelling for council tax purposes. However, this was separate legislation and could not be taken into account when determining the planning application.

Discussion took place around the marketing of the property, competitive nature of holiday letting post pandemic, the amenity of the property and Space About Dwellings Standards.

RESOLVED:

1.     That the Late Representations report be noted;

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

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 Johnson and seconded by Councillor Kempster)

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.

RESOLVED:

That the exempt minutes from the previous meeting held on 17 October 2024, be approved.

Consideration was given to a report on the performance of planning appeals.