Agenda for Planning Committee on Monday 9th December 2019, 6.00 p.m.

Agenda and minutes

Planning Committee - Monday 9th December 2019 6.00 p.m.

Venue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions

Contact: Pauline Ross 

No. Item


Apologies for absence and notification of substitutes


An apology for absence was received from Councillors S. J. Baxter and S. G. Hession, with Councillor M. Thompson present as substitute for Councillor S. J. Baxter.


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.


There were no declarations of interest received.


Minutes pdf icon PDF 88 KB

Additional documents:


The Minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 14th October and 31st October 2019 were received.


RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 14th October and 31st October 2019, be approved as a correct record.




Updates to the planning application reported at the meeting (circulated prior to the start of the meeting) pdf icon PDF 6 KB


The Chairman confirmed with Members that they had received and read the Update which had been published and circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting.


19/01213/FUL - Demolition of the existing buildings and the construction of a 72 bedroom care home (Use Class C2) and associated access works, parking, tree planting, landscaping and provision of site infrastructure - 466 Lickey Road, Cofton Hackett, Birmingham, Worcestershire, B45 8UU - c/o Agent pdf icon PDF 147 KB


Officers reported that further comments had been received, 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 gave a detailed presentation of the application and in doing so informed the Committee that the proposed site was located within the local centre of Cofton Hackett and had been previously occupied by a former prestige car and motorcycle dealership and showroom. 


The proposed development was for the redevelopment of the site to provide a 72 bedroom care home and associated works.  The proposed development would consist of a 3-4 storey building with a parking area providing 30 car parking spaces.  The existing building on site was a 2-3 storey vacant building. 


The proposed building would be a dominant feature in the street scene and therefore thought had been incorporated into the design to address the slope in land level.  Although this would be a large building and was greater in height than the existing building, the use of broken frontage, dormer windows and stepped height would soften its overall appearance. 


At this stage in the meeting, the Chairman took the opportunity to remind Members that Planning Committee meetings were quasi-judicial meetings and he would ask Committee Members to avoid leaving the meeting room whilst Officers were presenting their report.  Members were required to be fully conversant with the matter being presented in order to make an informed decision.


At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr S. Smart and Mrs. J. Fay addressed the Committee in objection to the Application.  Mr. A. Smith and Mr. M. Johnson, the Applicant’s architects also addressed the Committee. 


The Committee then considered the application, which had been recommended for approval by Officers.  Members commented that whilst they were not against the principle of the proposed development, they did however have some concerns with regard to the height of the proposed building compared to the height of the existing building.  Members commented that the proposed building would be bulky and overpowering and questioned if the proposed development represented high quality design in accordance with the Development Plan.  Some Members were of the view that the proposed development was not in keeping with the existing street scene.  Members further referred to the comments made by the Council’s Urban Designer, that the building was unimaginative.  Members also questioned if 30 car parking spaces were sufficient. 


In response, Officers clarified both the height of the existing building and the proposed development and that the Council’s Urban Designer had not objected to the size of the building.  The Council’s Urban Designer had suggested a number of elements that could improve the scheme which had included the use of breaks in the front elevation and some interest at pedestrian level; which the Applicant had responded to.  It was considered that the proposed building was of relatively good design for its dominance within the street scene.


Officers responded to further questions from Members with regard to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64/19