Agenda and minutes
PDF 239 KBVenue: Parkside Suite, Parkside, Market Street, Bromsgrove, B61 8DA
Contact: Jan Smyth
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies Minutes: An apology for absence was received on behalf of Councillor P.J. Whittaker. Councillor C.B. Taylor was confirmed as Councillor Whittaker’s substitute for the meeting.
|
|
|
Declarations of Interest 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. Minutes: The following Declaratons of Interest were made:
Councillor R.J. Deeming (Chairman), declared an Other Disclosable Interest in Agenda Item 7 (Planning Application 2016/0894 – New Road Dental Surgery, 68 New Road, Bromsgrove B60 2LA), in that he had used the services of the Dental Practice in the past.
Councillor C.B. Taylor declared an interest in Agenda Item 7 (Planning Application 2016/0894 – New Road Dental Surgery, 68 New Road, Bromsgrove B60 2LA) in that he was the County Councillor for the Division in which the application site was located.
Councillor P.L. Thomas declared an Other Disclosable Interest in Agenda Item 7 (Planning Application 2016/0894 – New Road Dental Surgery, 68 New Road, Bromsgrove B60 2LA) in that he had called in the matter as the application site was in his Ward. Councillor Thomas declared, however, that he had no predetermined view on the Application.
|
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3rd October 2016 were submitted.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting be approved as a correct record.
|
|
|
Minutes: Officers reported on additional information relating to the Planning history of the application site, which has been omitted from the Officer’s report in error, as detailed in the Update Report, copies of which were provided to Committee Members and the public gallery prior to commencement of the meeting.
Officers provided clarification on the terms of the Legal Unilateral Undertaking that had been entered into with the Applicant in regard to implementation of permitted development and the development as proposed by the planning application. Members were advised that the agreed undertaking with the Applicant would be directly referenced as an Informative for the Decision Notice for the application. .
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted, subject to the Conditions and Informatives detailed in pages 9 to 10 of the main agenda report, and the following additional Informative:
5) The Applicant’s attention is drawn to the contents of the Unilateral Undertaking dated 18th September 2016, which accompanies this Application.
|
|
|
Minutes: This matter was WITHDRAWN from the Agenda by Officers and was not discussed.
|
|
|
Minutes: Officers reported on an additional letter of objection that had been received as detailed in the published update report, copies of which were provided to Committee Members and the public gallery prior to commencement of the meeting.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr R. Hood, addressed the Committee on behalf of himself and Mr R. Mainwaring, objecting to the application.
The Committee then considered the Application, which had been recommended for approval by Officers. Having considered the Officer’s report and representations made, Members were of the view that the proposal would represent over-development of the site and would harm the character and appearance of the property and wider streetscene. The Committee agreed that the reasons in paragraphs 6 and 15 of the Planning Inspector’s previous decision applied to this Application and were therefore minded to refuse the application for the reason detailed in the resolution below.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed extension would result in a cluttered complexity to the appearance of the building that is already incongruous in the context of the simpler elevation of its immediate neighbours. The extension would, therefore result in significant harm to the character and appearance of the host property and wider street scene that would represent an over-development of the site. This would be contrary to Policies DS13 and E4 of the Bromsgrove District Local Plan 2004, Policy BDP1 and BDP19 of the Emerging District Plan and the relevant guidance in the National Planning Policy Framework.
|