Agenda and draft minutes

22 July 2024, 30 July 2024, 12 September 2024

It was moved by Councillor Peter O’Brien, seconded by Councillor Steve Wain and

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meetings of the Community and Environment Committee held on 22 July 2024, 30 July 2024 and 12 September 2024  be approved as a correct record.

Voting

15 For

00 Against

01 Abstained

The Chair declared the motion CARRIED.

To receive the minutes of the following Sub-Committee meetings:

-       Local Plan Sub-Committee – 16 July 2024

It was moved by Councillor Peter Dobbs, seconded by Councillor Peter O’Brien and

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the following Sub-Committee meetings be received:

-        Local Plan Sub-Committee – 16 July 2024

Voting

15 For

00 Against

01 Abstention

The Chair declared the motion CARRIED.

To enable members of the public to ask questions, express views or present petitions, IF NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN, (by telephone, in writing or by email) BY NO LATER THAN 12 NOON OF THE WORKING DAY PRECEDING THE MEETING. As per Procedural Rule 14.4 at any one meeting no person may submit more than 3 questions and no more than 1 such question may be asked on behalf of one organisation.

In accordance with the procedure for public participation, Councillor Roger Shelley, gave a statement on the Peak District National Park Authority Local Plan Review Issues and Options Consultation. Mr Victor Launert, Ms Kim Launert, Ms Victoria Friend and Mr John Youatt spoke as local residents on the provision of permanent Gypsy and Traveller site identification.

In accordance with the procedure for public participation the following questions were received:

Questions from Kevin Rowney, Rowsley Local Resident regarding Item 11; Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Site Identification

1)     Can Rowsley Parish Council have a copy of the Council’s "requirements and specifications for permanent pitches" as mentioned in the report for this meeting in Agenda Item 11 Section 2.3, along with "Pelham Architects five pitch feasibility drawing" mentioned in section 2.4 and the "eight pitch design" for which the Woodyard at Homesford was granted planning approval also mentioned in section 2.4?

2)     On 6th August I submitted details to the Travellers@ email address of a private individual in possession of land who was willing to discuss both the rent and sale to the council for a Travellers site and on 8th August I had an unsigned email reply that the details would be passed on to ARK.  Has this been done and has ARK considered this land for both a temporary and permanent site?

3)     On 22nd October Tommy Shaw confirmed in writing that "the notes of the public meetings held during the consultation on temporary traveller sites will be circulated to all Councillors before any decisions are made on the outcome of the consultation”.  As Tommy Shaw no longer works for the council is this still the case?

Response:

1.   Rowsley Parish Council will be provided with a copy of the Council’s “requirements and specifications for permanent pitches”. The drawing provided by Pelham Architects is commercially sensitive information and is not disclosable. The eight pitch design is available via the Planning Portal as it accompanied the planning application made by the owner’s agent.

2.   Yes the contact was followed up but nothing has yet come of the contact.

3.   Yes the notes of the public meetings will be published as part of a future report to consider this issue.

Questions from Victoria Friend, Rowsley Local Resident regarding Item 11; Permanent Gypsy and Traveller Site Identification

1)     Who decided that Old Station Close Rowsley should be considered by ARK consultancy as a permanent traveller site when residents of Rowsley had been assured in the past by Paul Wilson that it was not suitable and would not be considered at any time?

2)     What are the site constraints mentioned at Rowsley Old Station Close in 2.8 of the Report attached to the Agenda that led to The Working Group recommending that no further action be taken at the present time?

3)     Why do these site constraints not also prevent Rowsley Old Station Close from being considered as a temporary traveller site?

Response:

1.     ARK asked for and were provided with a list of the previous  ...  view the full minutes text for item 212/24

Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any interests they may have in subsequent agenda items in accordance with the District Council’s Code of Conduct. Those interests are matters that relate to money or that which can be valued in money, affecting the Member, her/his partner, extended family and close friends. Interests that become apparent at a later stage in the proceedings may be declared at the time.

Item 10 – Peak District National Park Authority Local Plan Review Issues and Options Consultation – Council

Councillors Matt Buckler, Andy Nash and Dermot Murphy declared a non-pecuniary interest in the item due to being Members of the Peak District National Park Authority.

Item 9 – Planning Appeal: Gritstone Road

Councillor Matt Buckler declared a non-pecuniary interest in this item due to being an employee of Derbyshire Wildlife Trust who provide biodiversity advice to the Council on Planning applications.

To answer questions from Members who have given the appropriate notice.

Question from Councillor Susan Hobson to, Chair of the Community & Environment Committee:

“Can the Chair tell me the names of the Officers and Councillors who have seen the full report by ARK Consultancy, and are aware of the locations of the three potential permanent Gypsy & Traveller sites that are being voted on this evening?”

The Chair of Community & Environment Committee provided the following response.

RESPONSE:

The ARK report has been seen by the PA Leadership - Cllr. Flitter, Cllr. Buttle and Cllr. Butcher. In addition, the report has been seen by Cllr. Mellstrom and Cllr. Franks as part of a Leaders meeting where Cllr. Mellstrom attended as Deputy Leader substituting Cllr. Buttle and Cllr Franks attended as Chair of the Gypsy & Traveller Working Group. Officers who have seen the report are the Chief Executive, the Director of Housing and the Interim Directior of Corporate & Customer Services (Monitoring Officer).

Question from Councillor Stuart Lees to, Chair of the Community & Environment Committee:

“Do you find the sum of allocating and spending £25,000 on 3 sites in completely unknown areas as stated as being an acceptable way to make decisions with very little information provided on how and what it is to be spent on?”

The Chair of Community & Environment Committee provided the following response.

RESPONSE:

The costs reflect the fees associated with looking at 3 sites in more detail. Para 3.5 sets out the costs at up to £4000 per site, so £12,000 in total, not £25,000. Para 8.4 details how the £12,000 will be spent.

As para 3.5 states the balance of £13,000 will be used to procure Development Agency support, as the council does not have the inhouse skills or capacity to undertake this work.

Question from Councillor Dermot Murphy to, Chair of the Community & Environment Committee:

“I have been contacted by several residents who like me have been keen to see DDDC find a permanent solution to the settlement of the Travellers. The Woodyard site at Homesford  on the A6 was thought to be a very realistic option by many,  the only site in the District that has planning consent. Agenda item 11, section 2.3 of the report states that the cost of  developing the Woodyard site would amount to £1.3M. Can the Officers please share a detailed breakdown of the costs that produce this figure of £1.3M. In recent years the good standing of DDDC has been damaged by a lack of transparency concerning Traveller issues.  Let’s share the detailed analysis that created this figure of £1.3M.”

The Chair of Community & Environment Committee provided the following response.

RESPONSE:

ARK have used an established industry standard appraisal tool (Proval) to establish the likely scheme costs prepared by a Quantity Surveyor and how the scheme performs against industry recognised performance parameters. The costs include the cost of land acquisition based upon what we consider to be the landowners expectations, the QS estimated cost of works which include incoming services, drainage, landscaping, site clearance, adoptable works, preliminaries and fees.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 214/24

The report sets out options for defending an appeal at a Planning Inquiry relating to an application which was recommended for refusal by Officers and refused by the Planning Committee.

The Interim Development Manager introduced a report which set out options for defending an appeal at a Planning Inquiry relating to an application which was recommended for refusal by Officers and refused by the Planning Committee.

Members were informed that an appeal had been lodged against the refusal of planning permission for a residential development on land between Sandy Lane, Bent Lane and Gritstone Road, Matlock. The Planning Inspectorate had received an appeal by the applicant (William Davis Limited) and it was proposed that an appeal by Public Inquiry be held over eight days from 4^th February 2025.

On 26^th September 2024, the Council resolved to approve a further supplementary revenue budget in 2024/25 for additional expenditure of £250,000, associated with defending other planning appeals, to be finance from the General Reserve. Budgetary provision for defending this appeal was therefore available.

The report outlined the options available to the Council in defending the appeal and set out a recommended approach.

It was moved by Councillor Peter Dobbs, seconded by Councillor Steve Wain and

RESOLVED

1.     That the approach to defending the appeal set out in section 3 of the report is agreed.

2.     That Council be requested to approve a supplementary revenue budget of £61,778 to provide for the extension of the contract of the Interim Principal Planning Officer be to 31 March 2025.

Voting

15 For

00 Against

01 Abstention

The Chair declared the motion CARRIED.

On the 7^th October 2024, the Peak District National Park Authority published a ‘Issues and Options’ consultation on a new Local Plan for the Peak District. The new Local Plan will replace the existing Core Strategy (2011) and Development Management Policies Documents (2019) and provide the framework to guide new development; and policies to determine planning applications within the Peak District National Park to 2045. The new Local Plan seeks to ensure that development is coordinated; reflects the goals of local communities and meets the National Park statutory purposes.

The purpose of this report is to provide a District Council response to the Peak District National Park Authority’s Local Plan Review Issues and Options consultation and enable Members to respond by the 29^th November 2024 deadline.

The Planning Policy Manager introduced a report which provided the Council’s response to the Peak District National Park Authority’s Local Plan Review Issues and Options consultation, enabling Members to respond by the 29^th November 2024 deadline.

Members were informed that the Peak District National Park Authority, as Local Planning Authority for those parts of the District that lie within the National Park was reviewing its current Local Plan, once adopted, this would set out the strategic planning polices for use in the determination of planning applications in the National Park.

The Local Plan Review Issues and Options Consultation was the first stage of a more formal public consultation on the revised Local Plan. Along with other organisations, consultees and stakeholders, the Council had been invited to respond to this Consultation by the deadline of 29^th November 2024. Section 2 of the report detailed the content of the Issues and Options Consultation and provided Officer Comments to the key issues identified; the implications for the Council and a response to the consultation questions posed therein.

The Council’s proposed response to the consultation was set out in Appendix 1.

It was moved by Councillor Peter O’Brien, seconded by Councillor David Chapman and

RESOLVED

1.     That the District Council’s response to the Peak District National Park Local Plan Review Issues and Options Consultation as set out in Appendix 1, with a revised opinion on issue 42 to be agreed with the Chair and Vice-Chair, is agreed for submission to the National Park Authority and submitted by the deadline of 29^th November 2024.

Voting

12 For

00 Against

04 Abstentions

The Chair declared the motion CARRIED.

ARK were engaged by the Council to undertake an initial search of potential permanent traveller sites. This project concluded in May 2024 and a further, more detailed assessment was then commissioned and concluded in October 2024. This report sets out the progress of the 2^nd phase of work. Whilst ARK were unable to secure suitable sites, they have identified 3 potential sites that need further assessment. ARK have also reflected on the shortcomings of the traditional approach of councils to acquire land and recommend that the District Council revise its approach to include the use of auctions, subject to the development of an appropriate delegation policy.

The Director of Housing introduced a report which set out the recommendations of the Gypsy and Traveller Working Group following consideration of the 2^nd phase of work carried out by ARK Consultancy Limited (ARK) in relation to the search of potential permanent traveller sites.

ARK completed the first phase of the Gypsy and Traveller site identification process during the period March to early May 2024 on behalf of the Council. Following the completion of Phase One, Ark was asked to submit a methodology and resource proposal for Phase 2 and was subsequently appointed by the Council to complete this.

The report set out ARK’s workings in terms of further assessment of Phase 1 sites and the outcomes from their ongoing search for additional and new sites. Site viability assessments and sketch site layouts had been provided for those sites which were considered to potentially meet the Council’s requirements.

In terms of practical progress measured against this methodology, ARK had identified an additional twenty-two sites. Members were informed that six of these sites had met the Council’s criteria.

Further detail on the potential sites was given in section 2 of the report.

It was moved by Councillor Peter Dobbs, seconded by Councillor Marilyn Franks and

RESOLVED

1.     That Members note the results of the ARK Phase 2 report set out within the report.

2.     That in accordance with the recommendations of the Gypsy and Traveller Working Group, no further work is undertaken at the present time in regard to progressing the provision of a permanent Traveller site on land at the Woodyard, Homesford, Station Road Car Park, Rowsley and Watery Lane, Ashbourne.

3.     That Council be recommended to approve a supplementary revenue budget of £25,000 to be funded from the General Reserve to take forward a further phase of work aimed at assessing the viability of the 3 privately owned sites set out in the report, any further sites that may emerge in the short term and further development support.

4.     That a procedure for the potential acquisition of land at auction for the provision of permanent and/or temporary Traveller sites be developed and presented to a future meeting of this Committee for approval.

Voting

11 For

03 Against

02 Abstentions

The Chair declared the motion CARRIED.

20:02 – Councillor Nash left the meeting.

20:05 – Councillor O’Brien left the meeting.

20:07 – Councillor Slack left the meeting.

Empty homes represent a waste of a much-needed housing resource in a time of severe shortage. Over time, their condition and appearance can significantly deteriorate, attracting crime and antisocial behaviour, whilst potentially blighting streets and neighbourhoods. In recognition of this, the Council appointed a dedicated, full time Empty Homes Officer (EHO), who commenced in post in November 2022.

The purpose of this report is to summarise the key highlights and learning points from the first 18 months of the EHO being in post, to July 2024. The report makes a number of recommendations as to how work in this important area can be improved in current and future years.

The Housing Enabling and Development Manager introduced a report which summarised the key highlights and learning points from the first 18 months of the Empty Homes Officer (EHO) being in post.

Empty Homes represent a waste of a much-needed housing resource in a time of severe shortage. Over time, their condition and appearance could significantly deteriorate, attracting crime and antisocial behaviour, whilst potentially blighting streets and neighbourhoods. In recognition of this, the Council appointed a full time EHO, who commenced post in November 2022.

A recent review had shown good progress being made with many properties, but some owners were simply unwilling to act, and overall numbers remained stubbornly high. The review showed that there were certain key areas where specific changes to the Council’s practice would improve the effectiveness of the strategy for dealing with empty homes. These were detailed in section 2 of the report.

Appendix 3 to the report illustrated some of the success stories and some of the higher profile problematic properties that remained vacant.

It was moved by Councillor Steve Wain, seconded by Councillor Anthony Bates and

RESOLVED (unanimously)

1.     That Council be requested to approve the delegation of specific enforcement powers to the Empty Homes Officer, in consultation with Legal Services, as set out in paragraphs 3.6 – 3.7 of this report.

2.     That as a growth item in our budget proposals for 2025/26, Council be requested to approve a revenue budget of £20,000 for expenditure on ‘works in default’. This sum to also include the costs of the legal support necessary for the registration of these expenditures as land charges and the subsequent recovery of these costs.

3.     That authority is given to the Director of Housing, in consultation with the Director of Resources, to bid to Homes England for Social Housing grant funding. This will be used to finance the acquisition and renovation of long-term empty properties via the capital programme.

4.     That the temporary contract of the Empty Homes Officer be extended to 31/03/2028.

The Chair declared the motion CARRIED.

The report proposes re-introducing a revised/updated Local Validation Checklist which sets out the requirements for validating planning applications.  The use of a local checklist is supported by the government within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG).

The list sets out additional information required to be submitted with an application above that required by the national validation requirements.  The revised checklist also includes a separate revision addressing the requirements for Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) which became a requirement for a large number of planning application from April of this year.

The information requirements set out within the proposed local list are not intended to add any additional burden to development, but to ease the fair and timely assessment of planning applications by being consistent and reducing delays.

The Interim Development Manager introduced a report proposing the re-introduction of a revised/updated Local Validation Checklist which set out the requirements for validating planning applications. Members were informed that the use of a local checklist was supported by the government within the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

The information requirements set out within the proposed local list were not intended to add any additional burden to development, but to ease the fair and timely assessment of planning applications by being consistent and reducing delays.

A previous local validation checklist for the Council was adopted in 2002 and revised on 15^th April 2011. The list was therefore out of date and not currently being used for development management purposes. It was noted that it was good practice to review local validation lists to ensure inclusion of any key legislative or policy changes.

Members resolved in their current Corporate Plan to produces a new validation checklist including clear requirements in respect of drainage. The draft Local Validation Checklist was detailed in Appendix 1.

It was moved by Councillor Joanne Linthwaite, seconded by Councillor Robert Archer and

RESOLVED (unanimously)

1.     That the Local Validation checklist be approved for consultation with Members, planning agents and external bodies for a period of six weeks.

2.     That the outcome of the consultation process be reported to a future meeting of the Community and Environment Committee prior to adoption of the revised Local Validation Checklist.

The Chair declared the motion CARRIED.