Agenda and draft minutes

Planning Committee
Thursday, 2nd March, 2017 10.00 am

Venue: Oak Room, County Buildings, Stafford

Contact: Michael Bradbury  Email: michael.bradbury@staffordshire.gov.uk

Webcast: View the webcast

Items
No. Item

31.

Declarations of Interest in Accordance with Standing Order No. 16

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The following member(s) placed on record his/her association with the application(s) under consideration as follows:

 

Name of Member

Nature of Association

Minute No./ Application No.

Peter Davis

Member of Burton Rugby Football Club

Minute no. 33(a); Application No. ES.16/25

Tim Corbett

Member of the Newbold Quarry Liaison Group

Minute no. 34; Application Nos:

ES.16/22/501 MW

ES.16/23/501 MW

ES.16/21/501 MW

 

32.

Minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2017 pdf icon PDF 115 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED – That the minutes of the meeting held on 2 February 2017 be confirmed and signed by the Chairman.

33.

Applications for Permission

Reports of the Director for Economy Infrastructure and Skills

Additional documents:

33a

Branston Road High School, Branston Road, Tatenhill, Burton on Trent - ES.16/25 pdf icon PDF 108 KB

 

The Cabinet’s planning application not to comply with (to vary) condition 3(e) of planning permission ES.16/03 related to the Construction Traffic Management Plan

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Note by Clerk:  Mr. P. Davis declared an “interest” in this application as a member of Burton Rugby Football Club.  Even though he had not disclosed a “pecuniary interest”, he chose to leave the room during the consideration of the application and the decision thereon.

 

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer on the proposed application (Schedule 1 to the signed minutes) not to comply with (to vary) condition 3(e) of planning permission ES.16/03 related to the Construction Traffic Management Plan at Branston Road High School, Branston Road, Burton on Trent.  The Case Officer requested members to note the following corrections to the report:

 

·         Paragraph 7 – That the final sentence should read as follows: It is proposed that the requirement under condition 3 (e) to be amended to allow for HGVs to pass through Tatenhill village when the primary HGV route (via the A38 then Branston Road) is not available.

·         Paragraph 23 – That the first sentence should read as follows:  ‘The Burton Rugby Football Club’ – permission for a change of use of agricultural land to form sports ground, erection of two storey detached building to form clubhouse and grandstand, formation of a new access, provision of car, bus and cycle parking, associated floodlighting, a freestanding covered terrace, formation of landscaping bunds and a banked spectator area and associated landscaping (ref. PA/32378/003/JPM dated 4 September 2009).

·         Paragraph 50 – The duplicated word “that” should be deleted from the first sentence.

·         Paragraph 53 – That the second sentence should read as follows: Tatenhill and Rangemore Parish Council objected to the proposals on the ground that the additional noise, dirt, danger and damage that would occur as a consequence of the HGVs using roads through the village is unacceptable to parishioners.

·         Paragraph 61 - That the second sentence should read as follows:  The County Council’s TDC officers have carefully assessed the routes and concluded that they are suitable for the temporary use during Branston Road, Tatenhill closures, subject to the mitigation measures outlined earlier in this report, and as a result no further Risk Assessment would be required.

 

In accordance with the County Council’s scheme for public speaking at meetings, the Committee received representations from Dr John Fawn (on behalf of the objectors to the application); Cllr Danielle Westlake (on behalf of Tatenhill and Rangemore Parish Council); and Mr Stuart Lane (on behalf of the applicant).

 

In response to a question from Mr Chapman concerning the proposal to introduce penalties for any supplier or contractor who breached an instruction to use the A38 to access the site, he was informed that this would be administered by the contractor and that this provision was already in place.

 

Mr Brookes and Mr Smith referred to the delay which had occurred as a result of the original application for the school being called-in by the Secretary of State which had, as a consequence, led to the submission of the application currently before the Committee.  Mr Brookes also referred to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33a

33b

Land off Henhurst Ridge, Branston, Burton on Trent - ES.16/01 pdf icon PDF 49 KB

To consider a change to one of the material considerations taken into account by the Planning Committee on 12 May 2016 when it accepted the recommendation to permit the application to construct a new 2 storey primary school and nursery on land off Henhurst Ridge, Branston, Burton upon Trent

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee received a presentation by the Case Officer concerning a change to one of the material considerations taken into account by the Planning Committee on 12 May 2016 when it accepted the recommendation to permit the application to construct a new 2 storey primary school and nursery on land off Henhurst Ridge, Branston, Burton upon Trent (Schedule 2 to the signed minutes).

 

In accordance with the County Council’s scheme for public speaking at meetings, the Committee received a representation from Mr Stuart Lane (on behalf of the applicant).

 

Members were informed that since the Planning Committee’s resolution to permit the application, there had been a change to one of the material considerations reported to the Committee.  Having regard to relevant legal cases, it was concluded that it was appropriate to bring this application back before the Committee to ensure that the effect of the change could be properly taken into account before the decision notice was issued. 

 

In the earlier committee report reference was made to a planning application to develop 150 houses (‘Red House Farm’ - Phase 2), which had been refused by the East Staffordshire Borough Council on 23 July 2015 and was the subject of an appeal (appeal ref. APP/B3410W16/3142808). In the presentation given to the Planning Committee on 12 May 2016, in an update to the report, it was explained to Members that the appeal had been allowed on 29 April 2016 thereby giving permission for the housing development to proceed.  It was also explained that this housing development would add to the need for additional primary school places.  However, East Staffordshire Borough Council challenged the appeal Inspector’s decision in the High Court and following a hearing on 28 October 2016 the High Court ruled that the appeal Inspector had erred in law, and the appeal Inspector’s decision was quashed.

 

The Committee concluded that whilst the appeal decision to allow the Red House Farm Phase 2 housing development was one of a number of material considerations that were taken into account by the Committee when it accepted the recommendation to permit the application for the new school, the High Court ruling to quash the housing planning permission made no material difference to the overall conclusion reached and recommendation in the earlier report.

 

In response to a question from Mr Brookes in relation to consultation, the Case Officer confirmed that consultation letters had only been sent to the original objectors as this was deemed as being reasonable.

 

Mr Smith and Mrs McKiernan referred to parents being able to apply for places for their children at schools which were not necessarily their catchment area school and expressed the view that the new school was likely to be a very popular choice and could well be oversubscribed.

 

RESOLVED – to PERMIT the new school, subject to the matters contained in a Memorandum of Understanding (now completed) and planning conditions and informatives as set out in the earlier report.

 

34.

Decisions taken under Delegated Powers pdf icon PDF 44 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered the ‘county matters’ and consultation with Staffordshire County Council dealt with by the Director for Economy, Infrastructure and Skills under delegated powers (Schedule 3 to the signed minutes).

 

RESOLVED – That the report be received.