Agenda and draft minutes

There were no items on the agenda to warrant exclusion of the press and public.

There were no matters of urgency for consideration.

Councillor Sutton declared a personal interest in application RB2024/0841 (reserved matters application details of landscaping, scale, external appearance and layout for the erection of 185 dwellinghouses including discharge of conditions 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31 reserved by outline RB2022/1638 at land north of Tickhill Road, Maltby for Homes by Honey) on the grounds of objecting to this application prior to coming a member of the Planning Board.  She left the meeting whilst discussion took place and did not take part or observe the vote.

Resolved:- That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Planning Regulatory Board held on Thursday, 15^th May, 2025, be approved as a correct record of the meeting and signed by the Chair.

There were no site visits or deferments recommended.

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 procedure the following people attended the meeting and spoke about the applications below:-

-               Reserved matters application details of landscaping, scale, external appearance and layout for the erection of 185 dwellinghouses including discharge of conditions 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 13, 14, 15, 18, 21, 22, 23, 30, 31 reserved by outline RB2022/1638 at land north of Tickhill Road Maltby for Homes by Honey (RB2024/0841)

Mr. J. Pearce (Applicant)

Councillor A. Tinsley (Objector)

-               Application to undertake works to trees protected by RMBC TPO 11 (2010) at 2 & 3 Parkstone Place South Anston for Messrs Wild & Stanley (RB2025/0333)

Mr. B. Anderton (Agent on behalf of the Applicants)

Mr. C. Wild (Applicant)

Mrs. T. Stanley (Applicant)

Mr. T. Pask (Supporter)

Mrs. T. Walters (Supporter)

Statements were also read out on behalf of the following who were also supporters to the application:-

Councillor T. Baum-Dixon

Mr. A. Stafford

Mr. A. Singh-Bhatti

-               Change of use to Craft Ale & Coffee House (Sui Generis) at 263 Wickersley Road Brecks for Mr A Marples (RB2025/0338)

Mr. A. Marples (Applicant)

Ms. C. Suter (Objector)

Ms. K. Killeen (Objector)

(2)  That with regards to application RB2024/0841:-

(a)   The Council enter into a satisfactory Legal Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the purposes of securing the following:-

·           25% of the total number of dwellings to be provided on site for affordable housing provision in accordance with the approved plans.

·           Education Contribution in line with the Council’s adopted formulae towards Secondary/SEND resource within the local area.

·           A commuted sum of £500 per dwelling towards sustainable travel encouragement.

·           A commuted sum of £181,557 towards improvements to sports facilities for the local community.

·           A commuted sum of £40,000 towards the provision of a cycle link between the application site and Glencairn Close.

·           Establishment of a Management Company to manage and maintain the areas of Greenspace on site.

(b) subject to the satisfactory signing of the legal agreement, the Council resolves to grant planning permission for the proposed development subject to the reasons for grant and conditions listed in the submitted report, an amendment to Condition 1 from Revision D to Revision E on the Amended Boundary Treatment and an additional condition relating to timeframes to read:-

06

The footpath/cycle path shown on the approved plan shall be completed and open for use in accordance with timescales to be agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reason

To ensure a provision of a footpath/cycle link to promote sustainable travel. 

(3)  That application RB2025/0333 be refused for the reason adopted by Members at the meeting and as listed in the submitted report.

(4)  That application RB2025/0338 be granted for the reasons adopted by Members at the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Consideration was given to the report of the Report of the Assistant Director of Planning, Regeneration and  Transportation Service which provided details of how at the Planning Board on 21st November, 2024 two 100MW battery storage facilities RB2024/0321 and RB2024/0063 were recommended for approval on the basis that very special circumstances had been demonstrated to overcome the harm by reason of inappropriateness and the harm to the openness of the Green Belt.

Planning Board Members subsequently refused both applications for the following reasons:-

01

The Council considers that the proposed battery storage facility would represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt, would have an adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt, and would not safeguard the countryside from encroachment. The applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances to justify this inappropriate development and the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt, and any other harm. As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to Local Plan Policies CS4 ‘Green Belt’ and SP2 ‘Development in the Green Belt’ as well as the guidance contained within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

02

Green Lane by virtue of its restricted width and lacking in separate pedestrian

facilities is inadequate to cater for the proposed construction traffic associated with the battery storage facility. As such the proposal would be detrimental to both highway and pedestrian safety.

The applicants for both applications have now appealed the refusals and the Planning Inspectorate was looking to consider both appeals jointly by way of a Public Inquiry. Both appellants now argue that the sites fell within the Government’s new ‘Grey Belt’ definition (NPPF revision 12^th December 2024) which had been introduced since the original decision and that the battery storage facilities no longer represented inappropriate Green Belt development.

The report now submitted assessed the appellants’ assertion and whether the sites did represent ‘not inappropriate’ Grey Belt development within the Green Belt.

The highways reason for refusal on both appeals were not affected.

Details of the changes to the National Planning Policy Framework were shared with the Planning Board and specifically where it introduced significant changes concerning Green Belt land, notably the formalisation of the Government’s "Grey Belt" concept.  Specifics were provided on the detail set out in Paragraph 155 where it was stated:-

 “The development of homes, commercial and other development in the Green Belt should also not be regarded as inappropriate where all the following apply:-

a.     The development would utilise grey belt land and would not fundamentally undermine the purposes (taken together) of the remaining Green Belt across thearea of the plan;

b.     There is a demonstrable unmet need for the type of development proposed;

c.      The development would be in a sustainable location, with particular reference to paragraphs 110 and 115 of this Framework; and

d.     Where applicable the development proposed meets the ‘Golden Rules’ requirements set out in paragraphs 156-157 below.”

In terms of the NPPF it stated that “For the purposes of plan-making  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7.

There were no updates to report.