Agenda and minutes
PDF 135 KBVenue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors S. J. Baxter and A. J. B. Beaumont, with Councillor C. A. Hotham present as substitute for Councillor S. J. Baxter and Councillor C. J. Spencer present as substitute for Councillor A. J. B. Beaumont. |
|
|
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 3rd June 2019 were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 3rd June 2019, be approved as a correct record. |
|
|
Minutes: The Chairman confirmed with Members that they had received and read the updates which had been published and circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting. |
|
|
Minutes: Officers reported on additional information had been received from NHS/Medical Infrastructure Contributions with regard to the proposed development and the likely impact on the services of 1 GP practice and further representations objecting to the proposal, from Burcot Village Hall Committee and neighbours; as detailed in the published Update Report, copies of which were provided to Members and the public gallery prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers also drew Members’ attention to the amended Recommendation, as detailed in the published Update Report, copies of which were provided to Members and the public gallery prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers reported that the application sought full planning permission to demolish all existing buildings and structures and to redevelop the site for a residential scheme of 11 dwellings. The application proposed 8 market dwellings and 3 affordable dwellings.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. L. Howcroft, Mrs. S. Hibbert and Mr. N. Smith, addressed the Committee in objection to the Application. Mr. S. Warner, the Applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant.
The Committee then considered the Application, which had been recommended for approval by Officers. Members commented that they were pleased to note that the original proposed secondary access off Pikes Pool Lane had been removed.
Members expressed their concerns with regard to the proposed siting of the 3 affordable homes, in one single area, rather than spread across the development and that only 2 bed dwellings had been proposed. Members were also concerned about the low percentage of affordable housing being proposed and referred to the report, which highlighted that in April 2016, 10.5% of the dwellings in the District were affordable housing stock, and that this was lower than both the affordable housing provision in Worcestershire (15%) and England (17.3%). The Bromsgrove District Plan, BDP 8, stated “That the evidence highlights that the Councils aspiration of achieve 40% affordable provision on-site was achievable in most circumstances”.
Officers responded by outlining the exact wording of the Policy BPD8 and that the application complied with the policy.
Officers responded to further questions from Members with regard to the application site being situated on adjacent to the village boundary and that the new housing would be visually contained by existing landscape features. In addition, the proposal would provide an opportunity to rationalise development over the whole of the site. The proposal was not considered an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt, due to compliance with BDP2 and BDP4 and Chapter 13 of the NPPF, specifically paragraph 145.
Officers clarified that the garages would have a hard standing driveway to the front of each property along with a non-hard standing area.
In response to the Committee, the County Council’s Highways Officer stated that the proposed development would be bound by a S106 planning obligation and that generally a development would have three years from the date permission was granted to begin the development. The ‘trigger’ for S106 monies to be paid would be ... view the full minutes text for item 17/19 |
|
|
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.
Officers drew Members’ attention to an amendment to Condition 8, with regard to the Construction Management Plan, as detailed in the published Update Report, copies of which were provided to Members and the public gallery prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers highlighted that a previous application for the construction of 7 dwellings on the site was refused by Planning Committee Members in December 2018; due to pedestrian safety and that the proposal did not make the best use of the land and did not provide a good mix of housing. That application was currently at appeal and a decision had not been made.
The proposed application had been re-submitted, with two amendments, in an attempt to overcome the two refusal reasons on the previous application, namely; a reduction in vehicular accesses from St Kenelms Road from 4 to 2 and a change in the mix of dwellings as detailed on page 35 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman Mr. R. Arrowsmith, Chairperson, Romsley Parish Council, addressed the Committee in objection to the Application.
The Committee then considered the Application, which had been recommended for approval by Officers. Having noted all of the information provided by Officers and the representations made on behalf of Romsley Parish Council; Members were mindful that the same concerns had been expressed by local residents and the Parish Council in respect of highway safety and road issues due to the road width and close proximity to the Co-op shop.
Members noted that the public speaker had referred to 750 incidents in the last year that had been recorded in the location.
The Chairman invited the County Council’s Highways Officer to comment and in doing so, he reiterated that the proposed application had been put before a qualified road safety audit and should the application be approved there would be a further stage 2 and 3 road safety audit. The default position would be to only carry out improvements that were deemed necessary.
The County Council’s Highways Officer further informed the Committee that from the information he had before him there were no recorded police incidents in the last year. The last recorded incident was in 2017. The Highways officer confirmed that such specific questions should be brought to officers prior to the meeting to ensure the most up to date information could be provided.
Officers clarified that the applicant had also proposed to increase the footpath width to a minimum 2 metres and had also allocated to Worcestershire Highways a 0.7 metre verge beyond the widened footpath to allow the Highways Authority to make future improvements should it be deemed necessary. Having considered the Officer’s report and information provided by the public speakers, and having conducted a Site Visit; Members were of the view that the applicant had addressed the previous concerns raised with regard ... view the full minutes text for item 18/19 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor A. J. B. Beaumont, Ward Member.
Officers reported that the application had previously been subject to an appeal in November 2018, where it was dismissed. The appeal decision was detailed on pages 51 to 53 of the main agenda report.
The current planning application removed the wall element of the previous proposal. The greenhouse would be of a modest scale and would be sited within the curtilage of the dwelling. The building would comprise a low brick wall, however, there would be of a glass construction above this. The appearance of the building would therefore be predominantly transparent. The addition of the building would still be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would still have a modest impact on Green Belt openness.
At the invitation of the Chairman Mr. R. Lydon, the Applicant addressed the Committee in support of the Application.
The Committee then considered the Application, which had been recommended for refusal by Officers. Having considered the Application and the information as detailed in the appeal papers, Members were of the view that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and that no very special circumstances had been put forward.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for the reason set out on pages 48 and 49 of the main agenda report.
|