Skip to content Skip to main navigation
Site map Arabic Urdu Slovenian Farsi Chinese French

Agenda and minutes

Planning Board
Thursday, 24th November, 2011 9.00 a.m.

Venue: Town Hall, Moorgate Street, Rotherham. S60 2TH

Contact: Debbie Bacon, Senior Democratic Services Officer. 

Items
No. Item

69.

Declarations of Interest pdf icon PDF 67 KB

(A form is attached and spares will be available at the meeting)

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Councillors Pitchley and Smith declared a personal interest in application RB2011/1193 (extension and alterations at the Blue Bell Hotel, Worksop Road, Aston) on the grounds that the application had been discussed at Aston-cum-Aughton Parish Council, but neither Councillor had been party to the discussion.

70.

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board held on 3rd November, 2011 pdf icon PDF 34 KB

Minutes:

Resolved:- That the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board held on 3rd November, 2011, be approved as a correct record for signature by the Chairman.

71.

Deferments/Site Visits pdf icon PDF 26 KB

Minutes:

There were no deferment or site visits requested.

72.

Development Proposals pdf icon PDF 2 MB

Minutes:

Resolved:- (1) That, on the development proposals now considered the requisite notices be issued and be made available on the Council’s website and that the time limits specified in Sections 91 and 92 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 apply.

 

In accordance with the right to speak procedures, the following people attended the meeting and spoke about the applications below:-

 

-        Extension and alterations at Blue Bell Hotel, Worksop Road, Aston for Enterprise Inns Plc. (RB2011/1193)

 

         Mr. and Mrs. Bragger (Objectors)

        

-        Erection of a two-storey building with rooms in roofspace comprising retail (use class A1), Financial and Professional Services (use class A2), Coffee Shop (use class A3), Dental and Doctors Surgery (use class D1) at ground floor, 12 residential units above and associated bin store at Previous site of Ex-Serviceman's Club, Canklow Road, Canklow for Mr. I. Henderson (RB2011/1263)

 

         Mr. I. Henderson (Applicant)

 

-        Outline application for the reinstatement of Grange Lodge at Grange Lodge, Todwick Grange, Todwick for Mr. & Mrs. Dashper (RB2011/1364)

 

         Mr. J. Dashper (Applicant)

 

-        Change of use from dwellinghouse to day nursery/breakfast and after school facility (use class D1) with opening hours 0700 to 1800, demolition of the existing garage and the erection of two single storey side extensions at Sandown, Broom Crescent, Broom for Mrs. I. Kachiwn Idaboh (RB2011/1438)

 

         Mrs. I. Kachiwn Idaboh(Applicant)

         Mr. P. Higgins (Objector)

         Mrs. L. Sharpe (Objector)

 

(2)  That applications RB2010/1084, RB2011/1263, RB2011/1296, RB2011/1389 and RB2011/1486 be granted for the reasons adopted by Members at the meeting and subject to the relevant conditions listed in the report.  Further phasing updates were requested in relation to application RB2011/1296 in due course.

 

(3)  That applications RB2011/1193, RB2011/1218, RB2011/1364 and RB2011/1438 be be refused for the reasons listed in the report.

 

(4)  That Listed Building Consent be granted for application RB2011/1502 for the reasons adopted by Members at the meeting and subject to the relevant conditions listed in the report. 

73.

Withdrawal of Enforcement Notice in relation to land at Common Road, North Anston (now known as Brickyard Cottage, Common Road, North Anston) (CC1975/0022) pdf icon PDF 292 KB

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed proposals to withdraw an Enforcement Notice served in relation to the use of land at Common Road, North Anston (now known as Brickyard Cottage).

 

An Enforcement Notice was served on J. E. Myers and E. H. Ducksbury, on 3rd December, 1975 requiring the discontinuation of use of land for storing scrap metal and removal of scrap metal

 

A planning application was submitted on 17th October, 1997 under planning reference RB1997/1231 for the demolition of existing cottages and the erection of dwellinghouse and double garage and this permission was implemented.

 

Historic photographs show that the site was cleared between the serving of the Enforcement Notice and 1999 and remained clear of scrap metal since. The current owner of the property was in the process of selling it and had requested that the Enforcement Notice be withdrawn.

 

Resolved:-  (1)  That under Section 173A of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, the Enforcement Notice issued in relation to the land at Common Road, North Anston (now known as Brickyard Cottage), which required discontinuation of use of land for storing scrap metal and removal of scrap metal, be withdrawn as the requirements of the Notice have now complied with by clearance of the site and discontinuance of use for storing scrap metal.

74.

Appeal Decision - Against an Enforcement Notice requiring demolition of building at Falconer Farm, Smallage Lane, Fence (RB1999/1350PN)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed an appeal against serving of an Enforcement Notice requiring demolition of a building at Falconer Farm, Smallage Lane, Fence

 

An appeal was lodged with the Planning Inspectorate on 16th May, 2011, but only in respect of “Ground f” (that steps required to comply with the requirements of the Enforcement Notice are excessive and lesser steps would overcome the objections).

 

The Inspector noted that the barn was a substantial building in the Green Belt. Various attempts to gain planning permission for an alternative use have failed in the past. A planning application and subsequent appeal were refused in 2006 and again in 2010. The condition attached to the original permission granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 as amended was clear, and required the barn to be removed if it ceased to be permanently used for agriculture within ten years from the date it was built. There was no doubt it was built within the last ten years, and the appellant offered no evidence that it has not permanently ceased to be used for agriculture.

 

The Inspector considered the appeal on Ground (f) alone, and the appellant provided no evidence or explanation as to what lesser works might be appropriate. Consequently the Inspector considered that the requirements of the Notice, to remove the building and restore the land, were perfectly reasonable and the appeal on ground (f) should fail.

 

The Inspector noted the appellant’s comments that the barn had now been sold to a Charity, but since no evidence had been submitted as to when this took place, the Inspector considered that there was no reason to doubt that the notice was properly served in the first place. The new compliance date for the Notice is 21st April, 2012.

 

It should be noted that a separate planning application has been submitted by Autism Plus to retain the building and use it for horticultural purposes, in connection with the horticultural use of adjoining land. This application was approved by the Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Planning Board and was subject to a condition that the permission shall be solely for the benefit of Autism Plus as it would not have been granted but for the very special circumstances of Autism Plus and their clients. If implemented, it would legitimise the use of the building, though if at some stage in the future Autism Plus stopped using the building, and somebody else began using it, the new operator would have to demonstrate their own very special circumstances to justify retention of the building, or further enforcement action could be pursued.

 

The Inspector, therefore, concluded that the appeal should be dismissed, for the reasons outlined above, and the Enforcement Notice upheld.

 

Resolved:-  That the decision to dismiss the appeal and uphold the Enforcement Notice be noted.

75.

Appeal Decision - Against the erection of two storey front extension at 120 Greenland Avenue, Maltby for Mrs. S. Beach (RB2011/0609)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed an appeal against the refusal of planning permission for the erection of a two storey front extension at 120 Greenland Avenue, Maltby.

 

The Inspector dealing with the appeal considered that the main issue was the effect of the proposal on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the street scene. The Inspector noted that the appeal property was located in a road of similar dwellings which were broadly on the same building line. Several of the adjacent properties have single storey porch or porch and lounge extensions to the front, but the Inspector considered that they had a consistent character and appearance. The proposed extension would be the only one in this road which would be of 2 storey height.

 

The depth of the proposed extension would be approximately 2.4m whereas the adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance stated that the Council would normally allow 2 storey front extensions up to 2m deep, but that these should be modest in scale and preserve and reflect the architectural features of the existing house. Additionally, saved Policy ENV3.1 of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan (1999) (UDP) has the objective of securing development that makes a positive contribution to the area and had a relationship with its context.

 

The Inspector noted the effect of the existing 2-storey extension at No. 28 Arnside Road (Ref RB2008/0819), in a different road opposite the appeal site, on the appearance of that dwelling and considered that, if repeated at the appeal site in the context provided by the more open and consistent linear context of Greenland Avenue, it would be more obviously incompatible. The effect of the gable on the front elevation and the second floor element of the design would also upset the simple balanced appearance of the present façade.

 

The Inspector considered that the decision to allow the development in Arnside Road weakened the Council’s case in relation to the effect on the appearance of the existing building, but concluded that the proposed extension would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the existing dwelling and the street scene. As such it would be in conflict with objectives of UDP Policy ENV3.1 and the SPG.

 

Resolved:-  That the decision to dismiss the appeal be noted.

76.

Appeal Decision - Against retrospective permission for raising rear garden 300mm and erection of new front boundary wall at No.11 Hoober Court, Rawmarsh for Mr. G. Watson (RB2011/0404)

Minutes:

Consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration Services which detailed an appeal against the refusal of retrospective permission for raising rear garden 300mm and erection of new front boundary wall at No. 11 Hoober Court, Rawmarsh.

 

The Inspector dealing with the appeal considered that raising the rear garden level by 300mm had not caused material harm to the living conditions at No.12 Hoober Court in terms of privacy in the rear garden and conservatory. As such, it would not conflict with broad aims of Policy ENV3.1 of the Rotherham Unitary Development Plan. This required developments to make a positive contribution to the environment by achieving an appropriate standard of design having regard to the relationship to the locality, scale and height, among other things.

 

The Inspector, therefore, concluded that the appeal should be allowed and planning permission be granted for the raising of the rear garden by 300mm and the construction of a new front retaining boundary wall, in accordance with the submitted plans in the planning application RB2011/0404 subject to a planning condition that the close-boarded fence erected along part of the side boundary with No.11 Hoober Court shall be retained at a height of 1.8 metres above the raised land level.

 

Resolved:-  That the decision to allow the appeal be noted.

77.

Courtesy Consultation Procedures

Minutes:

Further to Minute No. T68 of the meeting of the Planning Board held on 3rd November, 2011, consideration was given to a report by the Director of Planning and Regeneration, which set out details regarding the statutory requirement for carrying out consultations in respect of planning applications in neighbouring Local Authorities (as opposed to carrying out publicity) as set out in Article 16 of Part 3 of The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (DMPO).

 

It was noted that consultation of adjoining Authorities by Rotherham in respect of planning applications received was carried out on a case by case basis.  There had not been any issues raised by adjoining Authorities over a lack of consultation, or indeed by Rotherham due to a perceived lack of consultation by an adjoining Authority.

 

Any Courtesy Consultation in respect of a planning application received from an adjoining Local Authority was referred to the Planning Board where the proposal would have been reported to Board (under the Scheme of Delegation) had it been submitted in the Rotherham area. Any comments made by Members were then forwarded to the relevant adjoining Authority for consideration.

 

In relation to the wind turbines at Marr in Doncaster, it had been established that the application related to the erection of four turbines, with a hub height of 80m and a blade tip height of 125m. This would compare with the six turbines proposed at Ulley which were also 80m to the hub, but 132m to the blade tip. The turbines in Doncaster were located to the south of the A635 between Hickleton and Marr and would be approximately 5km from the Rotherham boundary at the nearest point (being Mexborough Road/Hound Hill Lane at Wath).

 

In view of the distance to the Rotherham boundary it was considered that any land or properties within the Borough would not be affected by the development, and that consultation with Rotherham was not, therefore, necessary in this instance.

 

Resolved:-  That the report be received and the information noted.

78.

Updates

Minutes:

Councillor Roddison requested an update on an area of land at Brinsworth that had previously been granted planning permission and sought clarification on a number of issues relating to the details of the Section 106 Agreement, public footpath responsibilities and enforceable actions.

 

Information was provided to Councillor Roddison and an invitation extended to him to discuss this matter further with the relevant Case Officer.