Agenda and minutes
PDF 148 KBVenue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R. J. Deeming and S. P. Shannon. |
|
|
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: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 10th September 2018 were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 10th September 2018 be approved as a correct record. |
|
|
Minutes: With the agreement of the Chairman the running order of the Agenda was altered, so as this Planning Application could be considered in conjunction with Agenda Item 5 (Application 18/00748/ADV) – Land At, Victoria Ground, Birmingham Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B61 0DR).
Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration because it was situated on Council owned land.
The Chairman drew Members’ attention to the amended Officer recommendation for this Application.
Officers reported that amended plans had been received for the proposed fence system, which related to the density and type of netting that was proposed to be used. The amended plans showed that the density of the netting had changed from the tightly knitted knotless mesh netting with a density of 30x30mm to a mesh netting with a density of 120x120mm. By reducing the density of the proposed mesh netting, it was considered that it would appear more discreet in the street scene and would have a lower visual impact on the area.
The Council’s Conservation Officer still considered that the amended proposal would amount to less than substantial harm in terms of the Conservation Area and Paragraph 196 of the NPPF. However, in light of the newly proposed netting the Conservation Officer considered that the balance of public benefits to the proposed harm weighed in favour of the amended proposal, which was less visually intrusive then the original proposed scheme, whist achieving the required public benefit of public safety. As such the Conservation Officer had raised no objections to the amended proposal.
Overall it was considered that the public benefits that would arise through the improved safety when visiting the adjacent retail store would now outweigh the lesser harm that the proposal would have had on the surrounding heritage assets. As such it was considered that the amended proposal would accord with the policies in the Bromsgrove District Plan and the NPPF and would be acceptable; as detailed in the published Update Report, copies of which were provided to Committee Members and the public gallery prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers also drew Members’ attention to the updated Recommendation and Conditions, as detailed in the published Update Report.
The Committee then considered the Application, which was now recommended for approval by Officers.
Officers clarified that previously there had been a building situated on the adjacent site. This had been demolished and there was now an Aldi Stores Limited and customer car park situated there. The proposed netting would ensure that any footballs were contained within the football ground and did not enter the adjoining land which formed the car park area to the Aldi retail store, hence improving public safety and avoiding any potential damage to vehicles parked there.
Members commented that they were pleased to see that an amicable agreement had been reached with the Applicant. However, some Members expressed their concern with regard to galvanised posts being used, which in their opinion would be very visible. Members were informed ... view the full minutes text for item 39/18 |
|
|
Minutes: This Planning Application was considered in conjunction with Agenda Item 7 (Application 18/00979/FUL) – Land At, Victoria Ground, Birmingham Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B61 0DR).
Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration because it was situated on Council owned land.
Officers reported that amended plans had been received. These amendments no longer showed the advertisement to be part of the main netting of the proposed net fencing system. Instead the advertisement was shown to be a separate band of netting (with a mesh density of 45x45mm), which would be attached to the centre of the main netting and would span the whole length (24 metres) of the net fencing system. The Conversation Officer was informed of these amendments, but had verbally confirmed that they would still object to the proposal; as detailed in the published Update Report, copies of which were provided to Committee Members and the public gallery prior to the commencement of the meeting.
The Committee then considered the Application, which had been recommended for refusal by Officers. Having considered the Officer’s report and the information as detailed in the published Update Report, Members were in agreement with Officers; that the proposed advertisement would fail to enhance the character and appearance of the area and would result in a proliferation of advertisements in the area.
RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reason as set out on page 5 of the main Agenda report. |
|
|
Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor M. A. Sherrey, Ward Member.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. N. Stockdale, the Applicant, addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers has recommended for refusal. Having considered all of the information provided and Officer responses to the queries raised; Members gave further consideration as to whether the proposed extension would have a detrimental impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Members were of the view that the proposed extension was small in scale and would therefore have minimal impact to the Green Belt.
Members noted that the proposed extension when combined with previous additions to the original dwelling equated to 69% and thus exceeded the 40% threshold. However, Members were of the opinion that the proposed extension would harmonise the previous additions and potentially increase security by removing the flat roof section.
Members queried Officers on the possible permitted development options available to the property and were advised that given the extent of the previous extensions there was very limited scope for further extensions under Permitted Development. Having had regard to this, Members decided it was not necessary to remove the property’s permitted development rights. The Committee was therefore minded to grant Planning Permission, subject to standard conditions.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted, subject to standard conditions. |