AGENDA - Bassetlaw District Council

BASSETLAWDISTRICT COUNCILNORTH NOTTINGHAMSHIREPLANNING COMNIITTEEAGENDAMeeting to be held inThe Ballroom,Retford Town Hall,onWednesday, 17'h ~ u~ust 2011at6.30 p.m.(Please note time and venue)(Please turn off mobile telephones during meetings.In case of emergency, Memberslofficers can be contacted on the Council's mobiletelephone: 07702 670209)(Photographs or audio recordings during the meeting are not permitted.)District Council Offices, Potter Street, Worksop, Notts. S80 2AH

PLANNING COMMITTEEWednesday. 17' ~u~ust 2011AGENDA1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE2. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST BY MEMBERS AND OFFICERS(Members' and Officers' attention is drawn to the attached notes and form)(a)(b)MembersOfficers3. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD ON 27'h JULY 201 1 * (pages 1 - 6)4. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LIST * (page 7)SECTION A - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLICKey DecisionsNoneOther Decisions5 REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY *(a)(b)Public Interest Test:(Mr D Armiger, Head of Community Prosperity, has deemed that all the reports on the Agenda are not confidential).Revised Scheme of Delegation for Determining Planning Applications(pages 9- 14 )(c) Review of Delivery of Section 106 Agreements (pages 15-20)(d) Appeal Decisions Received (pages 21-24)(e) Planning Applications and Associated Items (pages 25-34)Exempt Information ItemsThe press and p~rblic are likely to be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of thefollowing items in accordance with Section lOOA(4) of the Local Government Act 1972.SECTION B - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATEKev DecisionsNone.Other DecisionsNone.6. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS TO BE URGENT* Report attachedF:\Docs\Mernbers\Ms8WGENDAS\planningagdoc

NOTES-..1. The papers enclosed with this Agenda are available in large print if required.2. Copies can be requested by contacting us on 01909 533254 or by e-mail:cara.crossland~bassetlaw.~ov. uk. . ~.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTCOMMITTEE ..........................................................................................DATE ................................................................................NAME OF MEMBER : ..........................................................................................Levels of Interest1. Personal2. Personal and prejudicial. . . . ........... -.Level ofAgenda itemlnterestNo. j REASON *. - ...... . - - I 11 SignedI, 11 Dated 1 1Note:*When declaring an interest you must also state clearly the reason for your declarationCompletion of this form is to aid the accurate recording of your interest in the Minutes. The signed formshould be provided to the Minuting Clerk at the end of the meeting.A nil return is not requiredIt is still your responsibility to disclose any interests which you may have at the commencement of themeeting and at the commencement of the appropriate Agenda item.

DECLARATION OF INTERESTSHOW TO USE THIS FORMThere are now only two types of Declaration of lnterest:Level I - Personal 1 Details can be found in the Councillors1 Code of Conduct which is contained inJ the Council's Const~tution (a summary isLevel 2 - Personal and Prejudicial 1 printed below)Upon receipt of the attached form you will need to enter the name and date of the Committee and your ownname. By looking at the Agenda you will no doubt know immediately which Agenda Items will require you tomake a Declaration of lnterest.Fill in the Agenda ltem number in the first column of the form.Enter the subject matter and any explanations you may wish to add in the second columnIn the third column you will need to enter either level 1 if you are declaring a personal interest, or level 2 ifyou are declaring a personal and prejudicial interest.The form must then be signed and dated. Please remember that if during the actual meeting you realise thatyou need to declare an interest on an additional Agenda ltem number please simply amend the form duringthe meeting.The form must be handed into the Committee Administrator at the end of the meetingNB. The following is a summary prepared to assist Members in deciding at the actual meetings theirposition on INTERESTS it is not a substitute for studying the full explanation regarding INTERESTS, whichis contained in the Council's Constitution and the Code of Conduct for Councillors, which is legally binding.Members and Officers are welcome to seek, PREFERABLY WELL IN ADVANCE of a meeting advice fromthe Council's Monitoring Officer on INTERESTS.Personal lnterestsMay relate to employment or business interestsMay relate to property interestsMay relate to contentsMay relate to interests in other bodiesOR if a decision on the matter to be discussed:MIGHT REASONABLY BE REGARDED ASAFFECTING (A MEMBER OR OFFICER) TO AGREATER EXTENT THAN OTHER COUNCIL TAXPAYERS, RATEPAYERS OR INHABITANTS OFTHE AUTHORITY'S AREA, the well being orfinancial position of himself, a relative or a friend orany employment, business, interest, etc. of such aperson.Prejudicial lnterestsA Member with a personal interest ALSO has aprejudicial interest if a member, of the public withknowledge of the relevant facts would reasonablyregard as so significant that it is likely to prejudice theMembers judgement of the public interest.(Note - there are special provisions which mayexclude the above provisions in certaincircumstances.)Action to be Taken - Personal lnterestsMust disclose to the meeting-existence of the interest-the nature of the interestAction to be Taken -Personal and Prejudicial lnterestsMust:-- declare existence and nature-withdraw from the room- not seek improperly to Influence a decisionon the matter.(Note - there are some exceptions whenacting in a scrutlny capacity.)

Agenda No. 3DRAFTPLANNING COMMITTEEMinutes of the rneetinq held on Wednesday, ~ 7 Julv ' ~ 2011 at Worksop Town HallPresent:Councillor D R Pressley (Chairman)Counciilors J Anderton, B Barker, Mrs V A Bowles, H Burton, G Freeman, F Hart, B Hopkinson,K H Isard, G A N Oxby, M W Quigley and Mrs A Sirnpson.Officers in attendance: D Armiger, S Britt, L Brown, C Crossland, M Freeman, K Hall andD RowanStandards Members: B Letherland7. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCEThere were no apologies for absence.8. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST(a)MembersThere were no declarations of interest by Members(b)OfficersThere were no declarations of interest by officers.9. MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD ON 6TH July 201 1RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 6th ~ uly 2011 be approved.10. OUTSTANDING MINUTES LISTIn regards to Outstanding Minute number 5(b), Building Control Unit, the Head of CommunityProsperity informed the Committee that a report will be presented to the Committee when BobWhatley, Principal Building Control Surveyor, returns to work.RESOLVED that:1. The Outstanding Minutes List be received.2. The Committees best wishes be sent to Bob WhatleySECTION A - ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PUBLIC.Key DecisionsNone

Other Decisions11. REPORT(S) OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY(a)Public Interest TestThe Head of Community Prosperity had deemed .that he considered all the reports on the agendawere of a non-confidential nature.(b)Tree and Hedqerow GuidanceMembers were presented with new guidance documents produced by the Planning Policy Teamfor the public, developers and applicants to provide a clearer, more effective way of dealing withissues relating to protected trees and hedgerows. Guidance documents on: methodology for treeprotection in Bassetlaw; trees on development sites and tree preservation order enforcementpolicy were appended to the report.RESOLVED that:1. The Committee approve the tree and hedgerow guidance documents for use by theCouncil in guiding and determining planning and treelhedgerow applications.2. Treelhedgerow documents be circulated to Parish Councils.(c)Appeal Decisions ReceivedMembers were presented with two appeal decisions.RESOLVED that the Appeal Decisions be received(d)Planning Applications and Associated ItemsApplication No Applicant Proposal61111100015 Mr Khosla Erect two storey and single storey extensionsto care home including means of access atBrailsford House, Main Street , HaworthThe application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. The Principal Plannerused slides to show: the site; existing and proposed layout of the development; character of thesite; proposed access; parking provision; proposed elevations and floor plans. She informedMembers that the proposed development would create an additional 14 bedrooms not 11 asstated in the report.Elected Members asked questionslraised issues on: the proposed access; amenities and outsidespace for residents; increase in traffic and parking provision.RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY - Grant planningpermission subject to the conditions as circulated.COMMITTEE DECISION -: Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated.(Observations of Nottinghamshire County Council's Director of Communities (Highways),Nottinghamshire County Council's Director of Communities (Archaeology), NottinghamshireCounty Council's Director of Communities (rights of way) and five letters of objection from localresidents were taken into consideration).

Application NoAoplicantProposal1611 0100058 Mr CalladineConvert redundant barn to office use, erectextension and construct new access at land tothe South of Cleveland Farm, Cleveland Hill,West Markham. RetfordThe application had been the subject of a site visit prior to the meeting. The Principal Plannerused slides to show the location of the site, existing and proposed layouts, proposed access,elevations and alterations.Mr R Fletcher spoke as Agent on behalf of the applicant who advised: the application is for asimple and attractive rural building; the building is a heritage asset which should be preserved; theapplicant's original application for a residential development was refused on the criticism thatbusiness opportunities had not been explored; the government has stated that rural buildingsshould be preserved , particularly where employment can be created; the development will nottake away from the original character of the building and will be in keeping with the area. He askedthe Committee to support the recommendation in the report to approve the application.Elected Members asked questionslraised issues on: the increase in floor space; creation ofemployment; access to the site; diversification; sustainability of a commercial property in the rurallocation; visual merit of the building.In response to a questions raised by members the Head of Community Prosperity informed theCommittee of a typographical error on page 79 on the report, where the report says dwelling thisshould be premises, he advised Members that if the application is granted this wording would beamended.RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY - Grant planningpermission subject to the conditions as circulated.(The Chairman used his casting vote)COMMITTEE DECISION -Grant planning permission subject to the conditions as circulated(Observations of Nottinghamshire County Council's Director of Communities (Highways), NaturalEngland, East Markham Parish Council, West Markham Parish Council and two letters ofobjection were taken into consideration)(Copies of an email from East Markham Parish Council were distributed to Members either on thesite visit or at the meeting. It detailed objections to the application)(At this point Councillor F Hart left the meeting and did not return)Application No Applicant Proposal01111/00183/v Heathcliff Developments Variation of condition 2 of PIA 01110100270 -Allow rebuilding of existing warehouse toprovide new dwelling instead of conversion andcondition 9 -windows and doors to be uPVCto Plots 3-1 1 and timber windows towarehouse and plots 2,12,13 and 14 atBanana Warehouse, 28 Moorgate, Retford

The Development Control Manager informed Members that the application seeks to varyconditions of planning application 01110100270. The applicant seeks firstly to vary Condition 2which allowed the Banana Warehouse building to be renovated and converted into a dwelling buthas since been demolished, to be rebuilt in an identical fashion to the renovation works. Secondlythe applicant seeks to vary Condition 9 which required all new windows and doors on the site tobe timber, to enable the use of UPVC windows on the single storey new build units proposed atthe rear.Elected Members asked questionslraised issues on: listed building status; granting variation ofone condition; impact on conservation area; rebuilding with reclaimed materials; the possibility ofresubmitting an application.Elected Members commented that if UPVC windows were part of the original applicationsubmitted for the renovation of the Banana Warehouse that they would not have granted theapplication.Members made reference to Planning Policy Statement 5, which outlines the importance ofsustaining and enhancing the significance of heritage assets with the desirability of appropriatenew development in contributing and enhancing the historic environment. Bassetlaw Local PlanPolicy 6111 indicates that within Conservation Areas permission will only be granted fordevelopment where it would not detract from the special character and appearance of the area.RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY - Agree the variation ofconditions 2 and 9 as circulated.Voting for taking this course of action, to agree the variation of Condition 9:FOR:AGAINST:ABSTAINED:NoneCouncillors J Anderton, B Barker, Mrs V A Bowles, H Burton, G Freeman, BHopkinson, K Isard, G A N Oxby, D R Pressley, M W Quigley andMrs A SimpsonNoneCOMMITTEE DECISION- Agree the variation of condition 2 and refuse the variation ofcondition 9.Reasons for refusal being that using UPVC for the windows was considered an inappropriatematerial in a conservation area setting. Members felt that the variation on condition 9 would beagainst Planning Policy Statement 5 and Bassetlaw Local Plan Policy 611 1.(i)Alleged Cases of Unauthorised DevelopmentCase No.Development0111 1100017 Unauthorised demolition of a listed building, former Banana Warehouse, 28Moorgate, RetfordThe Banana Warehouse, a Grade II listed building on Moorgate, Retford has been substantiallydemolished. Planning permission and Listed Building Consent had been granted for its renovationand conversion work into a dwelling. Whist the renovation work would have required a degree ofdemolition, its total demolition had not been proposed.

RECOMMENDATION OF THE HEAD OF COMMUNITY PROSPERITY - Authorise ListedBuilding Enforcement NoticeCOMMITTEE DECISION- Authorise Listed Building Enforcement NoticeSECTION B -ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION IN PRIVATEKev DecisionsNoneOther DecisionsNone.12. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WHICH THE CHAIRMAN CONSIDERS TO BE URGENTAs there was no other urgent business to be considered, the Chairman closed the meeting

Agenda No. 4PLANNING COMMITTEEOUTSTANDING MINUTES LISTMembers please note that the updated positions are shown in bold type following eachitem. (BCM = Building Control Manager, HCP = Head of Community Prosperity)Min. No. Subiect Decision OfficerResponsible5(b) 09.12.10 Building Control Unit (2) A further update report bepresented to the PlanningBCMCommittee in six months time.Report to be presented to a future meeting.61 (b) 12.01 .I 1 Carlton in LindrickConservation Area(2) Planning Policy andConservation Officers giveAppraisalconsideration to Green Lane tobeing included in theConservation Area and reportback to Planning Committee onthe outcome of theseconsiderations in due course.Report to be presented at a future meeting.HCP

BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCILPLANNING COMMITTEEAaenda Item NOS(^)/17 AUGUST 2011REPORT OF HEAD OF COMMMUNITY PROSPERITYREVISED SCHEME OF DELEGATION FOR DETERMINING PLANNINGAPPLICATIONS1. Public Interest TestCabinet Member: Community ProsperityContact: David ArmigerExt: 3187.The author of this report David Armiger has determined that the report is notconfidential.2. Purpose of the ReportTo approve the Revised Scheme of delegation for determining PlanningApplications3. Background and DiscussionThe Council's Constitution sets out the way that the authority to determinePlanning Applications is delegated and establishes the Planning ConsultationGroup (PCG) as an advisory body within the delegation process.The procedures to be used by Officers and PCG are not set out in detailwithin the Constitution and it is for Planning Committee to determine theprecise detail of this. As a result it is appropriate from time to time to reviewthe procedures for delegating the determination of Planning Applications. It istherefore proposed that Planning Committee consider adopting a RevisedScheme of delegation for determining Planning ApplicationsThe key objective of the revised delegation scheme is to provide clarity aboutthe circumstances in which applications will be dealt with using delegatedpowers, referred to Planning Consultation Group (PCG) or to PlanningCommittee.The scheme of delegation sets out the criteria to be used to determine:

The-applicationsapplicationscircumstances in which delegated powers can be used;that should automatically be referred to PCG;should automatically be referred to Planning Committee.It is important to make clear that when considering applications that do notobviously meet these criteria , Officers will use their judgement to determinewhether the applications raise issues that justify consideration at PCG orCommittee.A central part of the scheme is that any Member of the Council is able torequest that applications are considered by Planning Committee. To aid thisprocess there will be a standard form for Members to use to request that anapplication should be determined by Planning Committee. This will requirethat planning grounds are given for such a request. The completed form willthen be added to fhe application file so that it is available for public scrutiny.In addition, in the interest of transparency, the Officer report to PCG will havea section summarising any relevant issues arising from the discussion at PCGand noting any specific points that Members wish to be recorded. This reportwill be added to the application file and will be available for inspection as arecord of the considerations taken into account in determining the application.It is proposed that if agreed the Scheme will be circulated to all Councilmembers, Parish Councils and other interested parties as well as being madeavailable on the Council's web site.The draft scheme of delegation for determining planning applications is setout at Appendix A.4. Implicationsa) For service usersThere will be greater certainty over how Delegated powers will be usedby the Council and the circumstances in which applications will andmay not be determined by Planning Committee.b) Strategic & PolicyNone arising from this reportc) Financial - Ref: 121994None arising from this reportd) Legal - Ref: 212109111

The extent of Officer delegation is set out within the Constitution andthis scheme is in accordance with the relevant provisions and is amatter for Planning Committee to determine.e) Human ResourcesNone arising from this reportf) Community Safety, Equalities, EnvironmentalNone arising from this reportg) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference number.This is not a key decision.5. Options, Risks and Reasons for RecommendationsThe Council has the option whether or not to revise the existing scheme ofdelegation.It is important however that the scheme is refreshed from time to time and it isconsidered that the revised scheme provides greater clarity and transparencyover how powers of delegation will be used.6. RecommendationThat the Revised Scheme of delegation for determining Planning Applicationsis formally adopted and circulated to all Council Members, Parish Councilsand other interested parties.Background PapersLocation

Revised Scheme of delegation for determining planning applicationsIntroductionAppendix AThe key objective of this scheme is to provide clarity about the circumstances inwhich applications will be dealt with using delegated powers, referred to PlanningConsultation Group (PCG) or referred to Planning Committee.Any Member of the Council is able to request that applications are considered byPlanning Committee. To aid this process there will be a standard form for Membersto use to submit requests for items that they wish to be decided by Committee. Thiswill require that planning grounds are given for such a request. The completed formwill be added to the application file.In the interest of transparency, the Officer report to PCG will have a sectionsummarising any relevant issues arising from the discussion at PCG and noting anyspecific points that Members wish to be recorded. This report will be added to theapplication file and will be available for inspection as a record of the considerationstaken into account in determining the application.The scheme of delegation sets out the criteria to be used to determine:-The circumstances in which delegated powers can be used;The applications that should automatically be referred to PCG;The applications that should automatically be referred to PlanningCommittee.When considering applications that do not obviously meet these criteria. Officers willuse their judgement to determine whether the applications raise issues that justifyconsideration at PCG or Committee,The scheme of delegation for determining planning applications, and related mattersas approved by Planning Committee, is set out below.Extent of delegation to OfficersOfficers will have the following delegated powers.Determination of applications for permission, approval or consent, requirements forassessment, issuing of notices and completion or modification of agreements orobligations under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the Planning (Listed~uildin~s and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, the Planning (Hazardous Substances)Act 1990, the Planning and Compensation Act 1991 and the Environment Act 1995,or any subordinate rules, orders or regulations made under such legislation.Officers will also have delegated powers to determine all other matters required tobe dealt with as part of the management and administration of the Council's Planningfunction and powers, including (but not exclusively):

Amendments to approved plans;Details submitted pursuant to conditions;Matters relating to protected trees;Consultation with other bodies on planning matters;Enforcement of planning control (in consultation with the Head of Legal andDemocratic Services);Appeals;Screening opinions under the 1999 Environmental Assessment Regulations.Applications that should automatically be referred to Planning ConsultationGroup (PCG) for consideration- Applications- ConfirmationApplications made by elected Members of the Council or by Officers of theCouncil or close relatives.County Matter ApplicationsApplications where a request is made by an elected Member of the Council,on planning grounds, that an application be decided by Planning Committee;that have received at least one valid objection, on planninggrounds, where the recommendation is to grant permission;Applications subject to a Parish Council objection on valid planning groundswhere the recommendation is to grant permission or applications explicitlysupported by the Parish Council where the recommendation is to refuse;Applications where the recommendation is to grant where there are issues ofconcern raised by a Statutory Consultee;Applications for material amendments to approved applications;Applications to vary conditions;Applications for reserved matters following outline approval at PlanningCommittee.of tree preservation or other orders or directions, which are thesubject of a valid objection.Applications that should automatically be referred to Planning Committee- MajoreThe recommendation is to approve where there are issues of principle raisedwithin an objection from a Statutory Consultee,Applications that require referral to the Secretary of State;Applications accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment;Applications for residential development or conversions of 20 or moredwellings in Harworth, Worksop and Retford, or 10 or more dwellingselsewhere;Employment proposals classified as major schemes not within an existingemployment site;Free standing chimneys, towers, masts or similar structures, other thanstructures intended for removal within less than 1 year, higher than 20 metres.In the case of turbines the height refers to the height of the turbine hub.

Member Requests for Consideration of Applications by Planning CommitteeVameI Wardc\pplication ~eference4pplication Details 1 Application Address?lanning Reasons for request for consideratio: by Planning Committee*' Please note that 'valid planning grounds' do not include any of the following grounds:Devaluation of propertyLoss of viewEffect on tradelcommercial competition-Effect on private or civil rightsPersonal or financial circumstances or the character of the applicant.Third party interestsMatters covered by other legislation or controls including Building Regulations and licensing.leclaration of conflict of interest if applicableSignedleferred to PCG - Yes/Noif No reasons why not/3utcome of PCG consideration- Refer to Planning Committee / Do not refer to Committeegason for decision-Once completed this form should be returned to the Development Control Manager

--Aclenda Item No. 5(c)BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCILPLANNING COMMITTEE17 AUGUST 2011REPORT OF HEAD OF COMMMUNITY PROSPERITYREVIEW OF DELIVERY OF SECTION 106 AGREEMENTS1. Public Interest TestCabinet Member: Community ProsperityContact: David Armige~Ext: 3187The author of this report David Armiger has determined that the report is notconfidential.2. Purpose of the ReportTo provide a summary of outstanding Planning Obligations in relation toapproved planning applications.3. Backclround and DiscussionThe purpose of this report is to provide Members with an update aboutprogress on delivering outstanding monies received through Section 106Agreements attached to Planning Approvals.Section 106 Agreements are a mechanism for ensuring services and facilitiesrequired to ensure the effective delivery of an approved scheme are broughtforward. There are strict rules about when an agreement can be applied, what~t can cover and how the money can be spent. In general terms the moneycan only be used where it is directly related to the approved development andshould not be used to address issues that do not arise as a result of thescheme.In February 2008 Cabinet agreed revised procedures for dealing with Section106 Agreements. Under these arrangements an Officer was nominated as theSection 106 Officer with responsibility for handling all financial arrangementsrelated to approved Section 106 agreements.

Clear financial arrangements were also put in place using the Council'sACOLAID system to monitor all section 106 monies and to track expenditureto ensure that any works are carried out in accordance with the agreement,including ensuring monies are spent within the timescales envisaged by theagreement. One important change introduced in this regard was that allmonies should be paid initially to Bassetlaw District Council and they shouldthen only be drawn down when evidence of expenditure, or a programme ofspend, is supplied which accords with the provisions of the agreement.It is important to note that if money is not spent within the Agreement period itmust be handed back to the applicant, unless they agree to an extension ofthe Agreement, and it cannot be used for purposes other than those set outwithin the Agreement.In addition the rules regulating Section 106 Agreements have been amendedas a result of the introduction of the Community infrastructure Levy.To date there are currently 16 agreements with outstanding funding whichaccount for a balance of £877,517.92 covering a range of issues such asAffordable Housing, play areas and equipment, transportation improvementsetc. These agreements are detailed at Appendix 1.Within the last 6 months a total of £619,414 has been paid out in relation todelivery of all or part of works contained with 6 of the outstanding agreementsThese figures are not included within the outstanding balance above.In addition discussions are currently taking place in relation to 5 newagreements arising out of recent approvals such as the mixed useredevelopment of Haworth Colliery and the redevelopment of the FormerOrdsall Comprehensive School site.It is proposed that further update reports are brought to planning committeeon a six monthly basis.4. Implicationsa) For service usersNone arising from this reportb) Strategic & PolicyNone arising from this reportc) Financial - Ref: 121796The Council has in place clear procedures for Manag~ng the receiptand allocation of monies received through Section 106 Agreements

and the funding is not available for use through general budgetaryprocedures.d) Legal - Ref: 216/08/11There are strict rules about when an agreement can be applied, what itcan cover and how the money can be spent. Once signed the Councilis bound by its obligations as defined within the Agreement and canonly vary the Agreement with the consent of the other parties to theAgreement.e) Human ResourcesNone arising from this report9 Community Safety, Equalities, EnvironmentalNone arising from this reportg) Whether this is a key decision, and if so the reference numberThis is not a key decision5. Options, Risks and Reasons for RecommendationsThe Council has the option whether or not to revise the existing scheme ofdelegation,It is important however that the scheme is refreshed from time to time and it isconsidered that the revised scheme provides greater clarity and transparencyover how powers of delegation will be used.6. RecommendationThat the figures are noted and that further update reports are brought toplanning committee on a six monthly basisBackground PapersLocation

Outstanding S106 Agreements at 31 March 2011Appendix 1COMMUTED SUM HOUSING --02107100386NEWCASTLE - AVE, WORKSOP02102100322LAND OFF MANSFIELD RD,WORKSOP3'30422 k A 02107100386 - Newcastle Avenue,Worksop - 10k rec 21112109 for communitysafety measures within Worksop Town-10,00000CentreE40K pay provision for open space site and£ lOk for landscape preparation works.I Expires 2OW2009 Letter received from~507000,00/ Wm Davis - extension of time limit agreed.I£6667 Infrastructure Costs ExpiresNot KnownNonea e e d --2010412009 -Extension oftime limitagreed/ for maintenance) Total £49167 E25k 1 £6667 8vrs 111108R012 8 £42500 for ccn/ provision / £42500 -Exp~res 10108109 (E 17500 Cap~tal 8 f25k 1010812009 1 29-33 -24.17700 1 applied in ZOM-~O 1 101081~0'12 102103100340B & Q, RETFORD ROAD,WORKSOP031021201 1 & 02191 100079E200k for sustainable travel patterns. 1 iAnn,a cams maae to pro. be o-s serv ce- n.c,ce rece .ea from hCC 19 3 05 iorf 16876.40. Accrual processed 2009-10 forf27k in the absence of NCC invoice-,5772.52 spent in 07108 General Fund.£6700.12 for Eldon St, Tuxford POSmaintenance. £23936 POS futuremaintenance for Heathfield Gardens and£ 13629.40 additional remedial works onsame site. DD 20 2008-09 re POS @Eidon Green Tuxford, E400pa transfer torevenue. DD 9 2009-10 re HeathfieldGrdns to transfer £ 1994.66 cla to revenue,0310212011 £9319 - Ryton drdns, Worksoppa 02191100079. £24382.28 received inTRANSFER OF OPEN SPACETO THE COUNCIL PUBLIC£261 74 - Commuted sum for maintenanceof the POS for a 12 year period. DD signed Yr23/3/07, DD signed £1500 08109 Grounds contractMaintenance 12 yrs. £1500 transferred for expires091101201902106100308 1 Canal Bridge, Interest added £1700.14 09- 1PRIORY CENTRE, BRIDGE10, £291 interest added 10-11PLACE, WORKSOP-53,350.25 I02/07/00278 PAID BY LAlNG O'ROURKE 23110108 -FORMER BAKER, - 60K FOR HERITAGE AND LANDSCAPEREFRACTORY SITE,MITIGATION WORKS. £274591 InterestSTEETLEY-62,745,91 added in 10-11i221101201 3

01101100181 & 01103100069LAND AT FORMER TANNERYSITE. MOORGATE, RETFORD011071002281RGROVE HOUSE, 52 NORTHROAD, RETFORD-01109100071FORMER BRIDON ROPES,OLLERTON RD, RETFORD01102100041LAND AT THRUMPTON LANE,RETFORD -61 102100035LAND AT GRANGE VIEW,HARWORTH02/03/00064LAND AT CARLTON ROAD,WORKSOP ---01106100014LAND OFF PORTLAND ROAD.RETFORDDeveloper costs of providing (i)footbridge over the River Idle linkingthe site to the land opposite side of theriver or (ii) improving pedestrain routelinking the site with Retford towncentre. Inv No 50428004 dated30107109--Affordable Housing contribution to bepaid in two payments £250k split intotwo payment of f125k each, one whenagreement was signed and 1 on orbefore 3110112010 or 50% of housesare occupied -further £ 125,000received by BACS on 1110212010£85897 paid to Ordsall Bridon CricketClub towards sports and recreationalfacilities. Balalnce of first payment toRetford Enterprise Centre.Transfer of Public Open Space to theCouncil - amount received includes£6467 to replace timber fencingaround perimeter. DD £270 yr toGeneral FundInvoice 50451138 sent 1711212009.Re: Community Development &Facilities£:25k for POS, ITC £400,620 and£90k for Public Safety Cont. Rec27107110 -Index LinkedPaid 10121201 1 off site commuted sumin lieu of on site POSNo time limitapplied to--S1061st paymentexpires21110120142ndpaymentexpires1110212015--Employmentexpires in 12Y rs1810512022.Communitycont, in 5 yrs1810512015£535104under 12 yrmaintenancecontract£6467 forfencing2111212014271071201 51010212014

PLANNING COMMITTEE,17'~ u ~ u2011s tINFORMATION REPORTAPPEAL DECISION RECEIVED14110100005 Mr R Taylor Appeal against the refusal of planning permission tochange use of and extend dwelling to create twodwellings, at Riversdale, Main Street, Dunham-on-Trent.DECISION: Appeal ALLOWED by the lnspector.The lnspector considered that the main issues were the effect of the development on theliving conditions of neighbouring occupiers and its effect on road safety.The lnspector concluded that change of use and extensions would not materially affectthe amenities of the neighbouring properties, and that the modest increase of parking onthe A57 would not materially compromise road safety.A copy of the Inspectors decision letter follows this report,OFFICER RECOMMENDATION:FlNALlSED DECISION LEVEL:REFUSE planning permissionDelegated

$9 The Planning,Z,- Ins~ectorateAppeal DecisionSite visit made on 5 July 2011by Peter Willows BA DipUED MRTPIan Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local GovernmentDecision date: 29 July 2011Appeal Ref: APP/A3010/A/11/2149157Riversdale, Main Streetl Dunham-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire NG22 OTYe The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990against a refusal to grant planning permission.. The appeal is made by Mr Richard Taylor against the decision of Bassetlaw DistrictCouncil.The application Ref 14/10/00005, dated 22 October 2010, was refused by notice dated30 December 2010.The development proposed is described as 'Existing mid terrace property altered to form2 No dwellings (+ 1 No nett additional dwelling only) including first floor extension torear'.DecisionI. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for Existing midterrace property altered to form 2 No dwellings (+ 1 No nett additional dwellingonly) including first floor extension to rear at Riversdale, Main Street, Dunhamon-Trent,Nottinghamshire NG22 OTY in accordance with the terms of theapplication, Ref 11/10/00005, dated 22 October 2010, subject to the followingconditions:1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three yearsfrom the date of this decision.2) The materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces ofthe extension hereby permitted shall match those used in the existingbuilding.3) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordancewith the following approved plans: 102010-001A; 102010-002A.Main Issues2. The main issues are the effect of the development on the living conditions ofneighbouring occupiers and its effect on road safety.ReasonsLiving Conditions3. The appeal buildlng is a 3 bedroom house. It has a small rear garden, wh~chcan be reached through a gateway via the rear amenity area to theneighbouring dwelling 'Ingham Villa'. Accessing the rear area in this way

Appeal Decisior~ APP/A3910/A/li/2149157clearly compromises the privacy of this amenity area. Moreover, it allowsviews through windows serving the kitchen and dining room.4. The creation of 2 dwellings from the single existing house could well lead tosome increase in the use of the neighbouring property to access the area to therear for purposes such as refuse collection or fuel deliveries. However, anysuch increase wouid be quite limited in my view. The 2 dwellings would eachbe srnalier than the single dwelling that exists at present. This would limit thesize of the households that would occupy them. Furthermore, the layoutsproposed would retain access to the rear via the dwellings, which could oftenbe used in preference to the external access.5. With this in mind, and given that the access at the rear of Ingham Villa willremain in any event, I am not persuaded that the appeal proposal would resultin significant harm in respect of privacy at that property. The limited additionalmovements likely at the rear of the property also lead me to conclude thatnoise or disturbance would not be materially increased. The proposedextension would align with the existing similar extension at the rear of InghamVilla, and so would not affect that property to any significant extent.Accordingly, I find that living conditions at Ingham Villa would not be materialiyharmed by the proposal, and there would be no conflict with policy 5/3 of theunadopted Bassetlaw Local Plan.Road Safety6. The appeal property fronts the A57 Main Street. The road has double centrelines through the village in order to prevent overtaking. Parked vehicles in thevicinity of the appeal property would force vehicles to cross these lines. It islikely that creating an additional household at the appeal property would resultin an increase in the numbers of cars based there, and there is no specificprovision for off-street parking.7. However, since the proposed units are only suitable for small households, thenumbers of cars they would have would be likely to be limited. Thus, anyincrease when compared to the single, larger dwelling that exists at presentwould be small. Moreover, car parking is available on The Green, a quiet roadclose to the appeal site, and it seems likely to me that many people wouldchoose to park their cars there rather than on the main road.8. Additionally, in the vicinity of the appeal site Main Street is subject to a 30mphspeed limit and has footways and street lighting. It is of a reasonable width atthis point and forward visibility is not excessively restricted. With these pointsin mind, any modest increase in parking on the A57 tnat could result from theappeal proposal would not materially compromise road safety.Other Matters9. I have taken account of the recently published draft National Planning PolicyFramework, but it does not alter my findings on the main issues.Conclusion10. For the reasons given above, and having considered all other matters raised, Iconclude that the appeal should be allowed. I have attached a conditionrelating to the materials to be used in the extension to ensure that itsappearance is satisfactory. I have specified the approved plans for the

Appeal Decision APPiA3010/A/11/2149157avoidance of doubt and in the interests of proper planning. I have noted thesuggestion of a planning condition to control parking on the pavement, but donot consider such a condition to be necessary in this instance.Peter WiGhwsINSPECTOR

BASSETLAW DISTRICT COUNCILINDEX FOR PLANNING COMMITTEE 17'" August 201 1Sheet Ref No. Applicant LocationNo.Recom.Decisiona1 0111 1100141A Mr R Thompson THE HOP POLE, 96 WELHAhA ROAD, GTDRETFORD (pow 27 - 2 2THE HOP POLE, WELHAM ROAD,33 - 39)RETFORD C , , p 3TNA

ITEM SUBJECT OF A SITE VISITSchedule: aItem No: 01Application No: 0111 1100141/A Application Type: Consent to display advertisementsProposal:Location:RETAIN TWO EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED FACADE PANEL SIGNSAND EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED DOUBLE SIDED FREESTANDINGSIGNTHE HOP POLE, 96 WELHAM ROAD, RETFORD, NOTTS, DN22 6UGCase Officer: Miss. M. Freeman Tel No: 01 909 533227THE APPLICATIONThe application seeks advertisement consent to retain two externally illuminated fa~adepanel signs on each side of the building; and an externally illuminated double sided freestanding sign measuring 2270mm x 3250mm on the grass bank at the front of the building.As the application is retrospection, an associate enforcement report follows.DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONSPlanning Policy Guidance Note 19, 'Outdoor Advertisement Control' contains general adviceabout advertising. The display of advertisements can only be controlled in the interests ofamenity andior public safety.RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYJan 1959Dec 1959Dec 1969Advertisement consent was GRANTED for floodlighting to the front upperstorey.Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display 'Stones' illuminated signAdvertisement consent was REFUSED to display 3 separate illuminatedsigns.Aug 1970 Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display illuminated BassCharrington 'cube' sign and projecting sign.Feb 1974Oct 1977Oct 1977May 1978Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display illuminated pole sign tofront of site.Advertisement consent was REFUSED 2 x non-illuminated signs on gableends at first floor level.Advertisement consent was REFUSED for illuminated double sided sign to beaffixed to existing pole of the swing board sign.Advertisement consent was REFUSED to display double sided illuminatedprojecting sign on first floor front gable.

Aug 1978Jun 1984Jun 1984Aug 1987Advertisement consent was REFUSED to display double sided illuminatedprojecting sign on first floor front gable.Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display 2 externally illuminatedsigns on front wall.Advertisement consent was REFUSED to display signs on side gable endsAdvertisement consent was GRANTED to display neon sign on side gableend.Feb2000 Advertisement consent was GRANTED to erect pictorial sign post, 3illuminated fascia signs, 2 non-illuminated fascia signs and 5 lanterns.RESPONSES OF STATUTORY BODIESA copy of the Nottinghamshire County Council Director of Communities (Highways)comments are attached.OTHER COMMENTS RECEIVEDA copy of an email from the applicant to John Mann MP has been received, a copy of whichis attached.CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUESThe display of advertisements can only be controlled in the interests of amenity andlorpublic safety.In terms of amenity, the side faqade signs are of a size and location appropriate to thebuilding. Previously side gable signs have generally been resisted, but this was inassociation with several signs on the front of the building. No signage is now proposed onthe front of the building, only the tiled 'Hop Pole Hotel' that is part of fabric of the buildingremains. As such, this is not considered excessive and hence it is not considereddetrimental to the character of the area.Although the free standing sign to the front is large and coupled with the 'hop pole' totemcould be seen as excessive, it is considered due to the individual design, timber materialsand quality of the signage that the signs are not detrimental to the character and amenity ofthe area.In terms of safety, the highways authority have confirmed that the proposal is notdetrimental to highway safety. In practical terms, a clear sign to the front of the site assistshighways users in identifying where to turn when travelling along the road.The Highway Authority comments relating to the location of the signs to the front of the sitebeing on the public highway and therefore being an offence under the Highways Act is notan issue to be addressed under The Town and Country Planning (Control ofAdvertisements) (England) Regulations 2007, under which this application is made.

RECOMMENDATION:Grant subject to the following conditions1 Standard Time Limit - 5 years2 Standard advertisement condition 13 Standard advertisement condition 24 Standard advertisement condition 35 Standard advertisement condition 46 Standard advertisement condition 57 Intensity of Illumination

Form TP.52TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACTHIGHWAY REPORT ON PROPOSALS FOR DEVELOPMENTNottinghamshireCounty CouncilCommunitiesDISTRICT: Bassetlaw Date recerved 17/06/2011OFFICER: MISS M FREEMAN by D C 15/06/2011PROPOSAL: RETAIN TWO EXTERNALLY DC No. 01/11M01411AILLUMINATED FACADE PANEL SIGNSAND EXTERNALLY ILLUMIFIATEDDOUBLE SIDED FREESTANDING SIGNLOCATION: THE HOP POLE, 96 WELHAM ROAD,RETFORD, NOTTS, DN22 6UGAPPLICANT: Mr R~chard ThompsonThis is a retrospective application for advertisements at The Hop Pole publichouse, Welham Road, Retford.The.red line of the planning application site incorrectly suggests that the doublesided free-standing sign is located on land within the applicant's,conQol. Thissign (and the totem pole) are actually located on the public higWy.'..----.. -._I .-..-Whilst the advertisements do not directly affect safety for highway users, the ',:. ;:*.$japplicant should note that, regardless of whether the signs are ganted ,,KC-,iadvertisement consent, unlicensed non-statutory signs are nbt permitted wijhffllthe limits of the public highway to protect the structural integrity of thethighway . ,:., -and to allow for future maintenance. . -.:> ::: C.JI regret that the Highway Authority cannot support this application as the signageI structures on the public highway are an offence under the Highways Act. Theapplicant should be made aware that further action is being considered by thisAuthority. The applicant should contact Mr H Phillips, Principal CoordinationOfficer (North), on 01623 520739 to discuss the actions which would benecessary in order to prevent the commencement of further action at this time.-... .-.Kate BiggsDevelopment Officer24106t2011Page No. l

.~.. ~ . . ~ . ~From: Darfoulds.com [mailto:sparky@darfoulds.comlSent: 19 July 2011 16:33To: john.mann.mp@parliament.ukCc: Michael TaggSubjeb: The Hop Pole RetfordDear JohnI purchased The Hop Pole in October 2009 and dernolistion work was completed by christmas 2009. From Jan 2010to 15th July 2010 a major refurbishment was carried out on this property which i co-ordinated. 1.2 Million was investedin this site which has emplyed people locally and peripherally.During the reconstruction new signage was fitted to replace the existing which a planning application was submitted.- Cle bank in front of the pub was re-landscaped by my father and me.We were always under the impression that theoank belongs to the pub, however now highways are saying that it belongs to them even though we have adopted it.ie Grass cuning and weeding. We have now got an issue with highways and they want us to remove both signs.The first one they say is a piece of sculpter which is the same as the first which had been there for many years. Thesecond has been there for a year which has replaced 6 old signs. This has also been made fully withdrawable ifhighways needed to do any work. (as this sits in plastic sleeves)John, I need red tape cutting downI have been complemented with the way we have made this bank look clean and tidy. If i am forced to take thesesigns out this will impact on my sales which will have a huge impact on jobs. I am sure this is bad at all accounts andyour help will be much appreciated.Many thanksRichard Thompson

Schedule: aItem No: 02Enforcement No: 01111100006 Application Type: ADVUProposal:Location:UNAUTHORISED DISPLAY OF SIGNAGE ON WEST AND EASTELEVATIONS AND TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS ADJACENT TOHIGHWAYTHE HOP POLE, WELHAM ROAD, RETFORDCase Officer: Mr T Wells Tel No: 01 909 533728THE APPLICATIONThe unauthorised display of advertisements relates to two externally illuminated faqadepanel signs on each side of the building and externally illuminated double sided freestanding sign measuring 2270mm x 3250mm on the grass bank at the front of the building.Also, in conjunction with the free standing sign, is an externally illuminated 6 metre hightimber 'hop pole' totem sculptureDEVELOPMENT PLAN AND OTHER MATERIAL CONSIDERATIONSPlanning Policy Guidance Note 19, 'Outdoor Advertisement Control' contains general adviceabout advertising. The display of advertisements can only be controlled in the interests ofamenity andlor public safety.Planning Policy Statement 4 - Planning for Sustainable Growth aims to deliver sustainableeconomic growth with the objective of building prosperous communities by improving theeconomic performance of towns and raising the quality of life.The Bassetlaw Local Plan contains policy 6114, that development will be permitted outsidesettlement envelopes only if the development is demonstrated to be essential for theoperational needs of the business which essentially requires a rural location and is designedand located so as not to cause demonstrable harm or adversely affect the character andappearance of the surrounding area.RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORYJan 1959storey.Dec 1959Dec 1969signs.Advertisement consent was GRANTED for floodlighting to the front upperAdvertisement consent was GRANTED to display 'Stones' illuminated signAdvertisement consent was REFUSED to display 3 separate illuminatedAug 1970 Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display illuminated BassCharrington 'cube' sign and projecting sign.Feb 1974Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display illuminated pole sign tofront of site.

Oct 1977Oct 1977May 1978Aug 1978Jun 1984Jun 1984Aug I987Advertisement consent was REFUSED 2 x non-illuminated signs on gabieends at first iioor level.Advertisement consent was REFUSED for illuminated double sided sign to beaffixed to existing pole of the swing board sign.Advertisement consent was REFUSED to display double sided illuminatedprojecting sign on first floor front gable.Advertisement consent wasREFUSED to display double sided illuminatedprojecting sign on first floor front gable.Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display 2 externally illuminatedsigns on front wall.Advertisement consent was REFUSED to display signs on side gable ends,Advertisement consent was GRANTED to display neon sign on side gableend.Feb2000 Advertisement consent was GRANTED to erect pictorial sign post, 3illuminated fascia signs, 2 non-illuminated fascia signs and 5 lanterns.RESPONSES OF STATUTORY BODIESSee preceding reportOTHER COMMENTS RECEIVEDSee preceding report.CONSIDERATION OF PLANNING ISSUESThe details set out in the preceding report are relevant in addressing the planning issuesrelating to the elevational signage and the freestanding advertisement. In addition, the 'hoppole' sculpture, which is not considered to be an advertisement, is also unauthorised. Noplanning application has been received to retain this structure. The totem is made of similarmaterials and designed in association with the free standing sign. It is not considered thatthe totem is detrimental to the character of the area due to the quality of design andmaterials, and relating to the operation of the existing business. In view of therecommendation on the preceeding report, it is not considered expedient to take action toremove the 'hop pole' totem sculpture.RECOMMENDATION:Take No Action