Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors K.A. Grant-Pearce and C.J.Tidmarsh.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

Councillor P. Lammas declared an Other Disclosable Interest in Item 7 (Tree Preservation Order (No.20) 2014 – Trees on land at Grange Park, Lickey End, Bromsgrove) in that he was acquainted with two residents who lived in Lord Austin Drive, one of the residential areas affected by the Order.  Councillor Lammas advised, however, that he was not aware that they had submitted representations on this matter.

The minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committee held on the 26^th January and 2^nd February 2015 were submitted.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meetings be approved as a correct record.

This matter, which was published on the Agenda with the report to follow, was WITHDRAWN by Officers and was not discussed.

The Committee considered a report requesting confirmation, with modification, of Tree Preservation Order (No.19) 2014 which related to trees on land at Peterbrook Road, Maypole Lane and Gay Hill Golf Club, Hollywood, Bromsgrove. 

Members were informed that the temporary Order had been put in place due to concerns raised by residents that the site was being prepared for development by the land owner and that having visited the site, the Council’s Tree Officer had had similar concerns.   Officers clarified the proposed modification to the Order was being sought further to a reassessment of the site and the identification of a number individual trees of poor quality for removal from the Order.  Members welcomed the continued protection of the trees in question.

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order (No.19) 2014, relating to trees on land at Peterbrook Road, Maypole Lane and Gay Hill Golf Club, Hollywood, Bromsgrove be confirmed, with modification, as detailed in Appendix 3 attached to the report.

The Committee considered a report requesting confirmation, without modification, of Tree Preservation Order (No.20) 2014 which related to trees on land at Grange Park, Lickey End, Bromsgrove.

Members welcomed the continued protection of the trees in question.

RESOLVED that Tree Preservation Order (No.20) 2014, relating to trees on land at Grange Park, Lickey End, Bromsgrove be confirmed, without modification, as detailed in Appendix 9 attached to the report.

Officers reported on 2 additional letters of objection received as detailed in the Update Report published on the Council’s Website, copies of which were also provided for Committee Members and the public gallery prior to commencement of the meeting.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor M. Buxton, in whose Ward the application site was located, addressed the Committee on behalf of local residents objecting to the application.

Consideration was then given to the Application which had been recommended for approval by Officers, subject to conditions.

Having considered all of the information provided, Members expressed  concerns in regard to the substantial reduction in the car parking facilities of a popular and well used Public House and the potential for displacement of vehicles into residential areas already experiencing parking problems.   Members were not convinced of the Applicant’s view that that reduced car parking facilities, would be sufficient for the purposes of the business and further expressed concerns that the County Council’s Highways Authority had no issues n regard to the fact that the proposed parking facilities for the public house, that was known to be much busier all day that the Applicant had advised, would be well below its own parking standards.  Concerns were also raised in regard to pedestrian access between the proposed housing and public house car park.

On taking the matter to the vote, the Committee considered that in view of the substantial car parking reduction proposed for the public house in order to provide the space required for the housing development, the proposal was an over-development of the site which would likely lead to a loss of local amenity for the surrounding residents due to displacement of vehicles into residential areas.   

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for the following reasons:

1)    The loss of parking spaces associated with the public house will result in the dispersal of parking onto adjacent residential streets causing increased congestion and significantly raising highway safety risks for road users and pedestrians which amounts to a severe highway impact that is contrary to policies TR8 and TR11 of the BDLP and the NPPF.

2)    Due to its siting and lack of designated footpath the residents parking area will result in potential occupiers walking an unsafe route across an area used by both delivery lorries and residents vehicles which could cause significant harm to their amenity which is contrary to DS13 of the BDLP and the NPPF.

3)   The addition of 7 dwellings to the site would appear cramped and contrived amounting to an over-development of the site which detracts from the character of the local area and is therefore contrary to Policy S7 of the BDLP and the NPPF.

.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr P. Burton, the Agent for the Applicant and Mrs J. Slaney-Summers, the Home Manager, addressed the Committee in support of the Application.  Councillor M.A. Sherry, in whose Ward the application site was located, also addressed the Committee.

Consideration was then given to the Application which had been recommended for refusal by the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services.  

Having considered all of the information provided, and acknowledging that the proposal amounted to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, Members felt that the extension was well designed to minimise the actual harm to the Green Belt.   Members also acknowledged that there was a high level of need for specialist dementia care in this location, which they considered amounted to very special circumstances that clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt in this instance.  

The Committee were therefore minded to grant Planning Permission subject to reasonable standard Conditions to be determined by Planning Officers with the exception of the standard 3 year Condition for commencement of the development, which Members requested be reduced to 18 months.

Members were informed that such departures from Green Belt Policy would generally require referral to the Secretary of State for consideration.  Officers advised, however, that as the proposal would have no significant impact on the Green Belt, it was believed that the proposal would not warrant a referral to the Secretary of State.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted, subject to Conditions as summarised below:

1)    the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans;

2)    the development to begin within the next 18 months;

3)    matching materials to be used; and

4)    trees to be protected during construction.

This matter was WITHDRAWN from the Agenda at the request of the Applicant’s Agent, and was not discussed.

To consider the above item of Urgent Business, details of which have been notified to the Head of Legal, Equalities and Democratic Services and which the Chairman considers to be of so urgent a nature that it cannot wait until the next meeting.

The Chairman agreed that this matter be raised as an urgent item at the meeting as a decision on this matter could not wait until the next meeting of the Planning Committee.

The Committee was reminded of its resolution at the meeting of the Planning Committee on the 2^nd February 2015, when a deadline for completion of the Section 106 Agreement by the 3^rd March 2015 had been included and that should this not be the case, then Officers had been given delegated authority to refuse the planning permission.  

Members were informed that due to issues recently raised by the preferred Registered Provider of the affordable housing element of the proposed development, the Applicant had requested an extension of time for determining the application to enable outstanding matters contained in the Section 106 Agreement to be resolved and agreed by all parties, as it had become clear that this could not be completed by the deadline. 

The Committee was asked to agreed to extending the deadline for the completion of the Section 106 agreement to avoid refusal of the permission. Members also noted that ongoing discussions could result in the affordable housing provision being secured by either the Section 106 Agreement or a suitability worded Condition.   

RESOLVED that Resolution 3 of Minute 70/14 (Application 2014/0821 – Land at Recreation Road, Bromsgrove) be amended to extend the period of time for the determination of the Application to 31^st March 2015 and that the affordable housing element of the development be secured by the mechanism deemed most appropriate.