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.

RESOLVED:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 23 January 2025, 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.

Application for the installation of a solar farm comprising ground mounted solar PV panels with a generating capacity of up to 49.99MW including mounting system, underground cabling, stock proof fence, CCTV, internal tracks and associated infrastructure, landscaping, biodiversity net gain and environmental enhancements for a temporary period of 40 years.

(Report recommended refusal)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Peter Slinn – Local Resident

Andrew Batson – Bagnall Parish Council

Joshua Clarke – Local Resident

For the application:

Amanda Williams – Local Resident

Nick Beddoe – Agent

Members discussed several concerns around the visual impact of placing a solar farm on a hillside, the noise impact on local residents, lack of consultation with the Parish Council, lack of information to screen equipment, impact on walkers, negative effect on tourism, adverse effect on the character of the landscape and alignment of the transformers. They further discussed whether to include highways as a reason for refusal but resolved not to.

Members commented that per acre the site would only benefit 82 homes and that the applicant could do more to support BNG.

In response to a query, Officers confirmed to members that benefits needed to clearly outweigh the harms identified. They further confirmed that it was reasonable to include the cumulative impact of this development as other applications had been approved in the vicinity.

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, and also for the cumulative impact with other developments in the area.

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 Parkes)

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

Application for Non-Material Amendment relating to SMD/2022/0444.

(Report recommends approval of the Section 96A application)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Ian Podmore – Save the Rownall and Bagnall Greenbelt Campaign

Les Knowles – Bagnall Parish Council

Susan Beardmore – Local Resident

For the application:

Julian Austin – Agent

Matt  Squire- Director of Engineering at Ameresco Ltd

Following a query from members, Officers confirmed that the final location of the pond was not included in this application. Members suggested that it was a contentious issue and should return to this Committee for approval.

Members queried why the plans had been redesigned. The
Committee was informed that the changing of solar technology, the practicality of the building, emergency service access and maintenance of the site were the reasons for the redesign, not for the site to hold more power.

The legal representative confirmed to members that there was an existing permission for the site and minor changes could be made under this application.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Late Representations Report be noted;

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

3.    That the Discharge of conditions concerning drainage be bought to this Committee for consideration;

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 Hoptroff and seconded by Councillor Johnson)

(Having declared an interest Councillor Pointon withdrew from the meeting. Councillor Flunder also withdrew from the meeting. Neither were present during the consideration of and voting on the application.)

Application for a 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 conditions)

Received representation from the undermentioned speakers:

Against the application:

Steven Thornton - Resident

For the application:

Ross Meachin - Planner

Councillor Bernard Charlesworth – On behalf of local residents

Members thanked the Planning Officers for listening to previous comments made by the committee and taking action.

Members discussed the height of the acoustic fence and the width reduction of the footpath.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the Late Representations 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 Roberts and seconded by Councillor Emery)

(Councillor Flunder was not present in the meeting during the consideration of and voting on the application)

Application for Variation of a Condition 9 of SMD/2016/0134.

(Report recommended approval)

Received representations from the undermentioned speaker:

For the application:

John Hurst – Applicant (Statement read out by Legal Advisor)

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within 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 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 Pointon)

Proposed detached dwelling.

(Report recommended approval)

Received representation from the undermentioned speaker:

For the application:

Jon Imber – Planning Consultant

Officers advised members that a late letter had been received on the morning of the meeting which raised issues concerning protected species and the requirement for an environmental report. Officers advised that this would be dealt with by conditions in the application.

Members discussed the National Described Space Standards.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the application be APPROVED for the reasons and based on the policies contained within the report, subject to a response from Severn Trent,

2.    That permitted development rights and occupancy restrictions be removed from the 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 Roberts and seconded by Councillor Pointon)

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.

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

RESOLVED:

That the exempt minutes from the meeting held 23 January 2025, be approved as a correct record.