Agenda and minutes

In accordance with the Members Code of Conduct, all Elected Members present at the meeting in the Council Chamber declared that they had been lobbied with regard to Application No. 17/02334/FUL, Agenda Item 5(5), but had not given their opinion thereon. 

In accordance with the Members Code of Conduct, Councillor Jonathan Wood declared that he had received correspondence from Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council’s Communication Team with regard to Application No. 17/00301/FULM, Agenda Item 5(1), but had not given his opinion thereon.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 14th November, 2017, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Vice-Chair.

RESOLVED that upon consideration of a Schedule of Planning and Other Application received, together with the recommendations in respect thereof, the recommendations be approved in accordance with Schedule and marked Appendix ‘A’.

RESOLVED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 18.11(f), the meeting stand adjourned at 3.40 p.m. and 5.25 p.m. be reconvened on this day at 3.45 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. respectively.

The meeting reconvened at 3.45 p.m. and 5.30 p.m. respectively.

RESOLVED that in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 33.1, the Committee, having sat continuously for 3 hours, continue to consider the items of business on the agenda.

The Committee considered a report which sought approval to a variation to the Section 106 Agreement for a mixed use development of housing, employment uses, ancillary amenities and public open spaces, including associated landscaping and means of access on approximately 70.07ha of land at Manor Farm, Bessacarr.  Prior to consideration of the report, Members were informed of an amendment to paragraph 34 of the report and the receipt of an additional representation from Councillor Steve Cox, Local Ward Member.

It was reported that outline planning permission was granted on appeal on the 9th November, 2009 with the decision being subject to a Section 106 Agreement which sought to deliver the following obligations:-

l.      - a public open space management and maintenance scheme

It was noted that in relation to affordable housing, the Agreement required that 26% of all units on site be delivered as affordable homes; the tenure split required 25% to be Social Rented dwellings and 75% to be Shared Ownership dwellings.  The first reserved matters application for Phase 1 of the development was approved in January 2012, which included details for the erection of 276 dwellings and included the phasing plan for the remainder of the development, comprising of a further two phases of development.

Following a period of extensive marketing of the shared ownership homes within Phase 1 to housing associations, it was demonstrated that there was no demand for these homes.  Therefore, to enable the scheme to continue providing its contribution towards affordable housing without delay, the Council agreed to receive an equivalent financial sum in lieu of on-site provision which would be invested by the Council into affordable homes provision within the Borough; the Section 106 Agreement was subsequently amended by a Deed of Variation to secure this.

Subsequently, due to the continued lack of demand for shared ownership homes which was an issue not only in Doncaster, but also across the Sheffield City Region, a situation which was acknowledged by the Council’s Strategic Housing Team, HCA and Housing Associations, Persimmon had asked to amend the Section 106 Agreement for Phase 2 and 3 to deal with the continuing market conditions.

In accordance with Planning Guidance ‘Having Your Say at Planning Committee’, Ms Jess Kiely, on behalf of Persimmon Homes, spoke in support of the proposal for the duration of up to 5 minutes.

Subsequently, it was moved by the Vice-Chair, Councillor Iris Beech and seconded by Councillor Duncan Anderson to grant the deed of variation to the terms of the S106 Agreement.

A vote was taken on the proposal made by the Vice-Chair, Councillor Iris Beech, which was declared as follows:-

For – 3

Against – 0

Abstain  ...  view the full minutes text for item 59.

RESOLVED that the following decisions of the Secretary of State and/or his inspector, in respect of the under-mentioned Planning Appeals against the decision of the Council, be noted:-

RESOLVED that the public and press be excluded from the remaining proceedings of the meeting, in accordance with Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, on the grounds that exempt information as defined in Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 12A to the Act, is likely to be disclosed.

The Committee considered a report which detailed all Planning Enforcement complaints and cases received, and closed during the period 2nd to 27th November, 2017.

RESOLVED that all Planning Enforcement Cases received and closed for the period 2nd to 27th November, 2017, be noted.

Further to the above Minute, the Committee considered a report which outlined the current position relating to the reasons for refusal of the planning application for residential development with open space, landscaping and associated access at Mere Lane, Edenthorpe, and sought approval for the Council to not defend the reason for refusal relating to the detrimental impact on the local highway network in respect of the Appeal against refusal of outline planning permission.

It was reported that outline planning application 15/01278/OUTM was refused by the Planning Committee in November, 2016; the reasons for refusal being as follows:-

1.         being inappropriate development in the countryside which would create an isolated development disconnected from Edenthorpe;

2.         being in an isolated location in relation to public transport and local services;

3.         resulting in the loss of high quality agricultural land; and

4.         having a detrimental impact on the local highway network

It was noted that in April, 2017 the Planning Committee confirmed that it wished to pursue the highway reason for refusal and authorised the instruction of a consultant to appear on behalf of the Council to defend the reason.  The Appeal against that decision was proceeding by way of Public Inquiry which was held over two weeks in September 2017, and was due to re-convene again in early 2018. 

Subsequently, following the Council’s highway witness examining the case thoroughly and upon the receipt of additional information from the appellant, it was now believed that the Council was not in a position where it could now defend the reason for refusal in respect of the detrimental impact on the local highway network.

RESOLVED that the Council not defend the reason for refusal relating to the detrimental impact on the local highway network in respect of the Appeal against refusal of outline planning permission for residential development with open space, landscaping and associated access at Mere Lane, Edenthorpe.