Agenda and minutes
PDF 160 KBContact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors P. M. McDonald and H. Rone-Clarke. It was noted that Councillor H. Rone-Clarke should have been in attendance as the substitute member for Councillor P. M. McDonald. |
|
|
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. |
|
|
Updates to planning applications reported at the meeting Additional documents: Minutes: Planning Committee Members agreed that they had received and read the Committee Update report, that had been circulated to all Members and had also been included on the relevant page of the Council’s website.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes:
This item was withdrawn from the agenda in light of receipt of further information which was currently being considered by officers. The application to be brought back to a further meeting of the Planning Committee. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the report and in doing so explained that Rubery Social Club was on level ground on the north side of New Road and was set within the local centre shopping frontage. Bounding to the rear of the site was the A38 and Callow Brook.
The application proposed was in outline with all matters reserved.
The Highway Authority, as a statutory consultee, had raised no objections from a highway safety point of view.
The development with carefully designed drainage could go ahead without any drainage or flood risk impact, therefore no objections, subject to approval of a site drainage strategy to be secured by way of planning condition.
Members’ attention was drawn to suggested condition number 14 on page 90 of the main agenda report and the submitted Walnut Acoustics Noise Assessment.
The Committee then considered the Application, which had been recommended for approval by Officers.
Officers responded to questions from Members with regards to noise mitigation measures and car parking and in doing so, highlighted that detailed noise mitigation measures would be secured; and that there were 16 allocated car parking spaces for the Social Club and 20 allocated car parking spaces for the flats, one for each flat. Both of which were considered sufficient.
Councillor P. J. Whittaker questioned the finished floor level, would this be higher than any localised flooding hazards.
Officers informed the Committee that no comments or concerns has been received from the local lead officer that the proposed development was in a flood risk area.
Members were in agreement that, the proposal was a good development, however they also agreed that officers should include an additional condition; whereby the finished floor level was set, taking into consideration any local flood risk concerns.
Having considered the Officer’s report and clarification from Officers on a number of points which had been raised, Members were minded to approve the application.
RESOLVED that
a) outline Planning Permission be granted;
b) delegated powers be granted to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure to determine the planning application following the receipt of a suitable and satisfactory legal mechanism in relation to the following:-
1. A contribution towards off-site public open space (£40 per square metre of created floor space); 2. Contribution to provision of refuse and recycling bins; 3. £7,570 to meet additional demand on local GP practices; 4. A financial contribution of up to a maximum of £3,478.44 to meet annual shortfalls in NHS Service revenue 5. Affordable housing provision in the event of the proposed gross floor area exceeding that of the existing building proposed for demolition (following application of Vacant Building Credit); 6. S106 monitoring fee (As of 1 September 2019, revised Regulations were issued to allow the Council to include a provision for monitoring fees in Section 106 Agreements to ensure the obligations set down in the Agreements are met).
c) delegated powers be granted to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure to agree the final scope and detailed wording and numbering of ... view the full minutes text for item 42/20 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers reported that concerns had been raised by Worcestershire County Highways regarding the originally submitted layout (05 Rev E), including a requirement for a Speed Survey and other technical conflicts with the Streetscape Design Guide. However, following revisions to the proposal and correspondence between County Highways and the agent, these have now been resolved; as detailed in the published Update Report.
Officers reminded that Committee that outline approval for 14 dwellings was granted permission under an outline application reference 18/00119/OUT on 10th September 2018, subject to the signing of a s106 agreement. A copy of the outline decision was included in the Committee Update.
The site was located on the southern side of Stoke Prior and comprised of a triangular piece of land measuring 0.52 hectares. The site was also bordered by Westonhall Road to the south, the Birmingham to Worcester Canal to the north west and the former Polymer Latex Works to the east.
The proposed layout showed 14 dwellings arranged around a shared surface. The access was to be taken directly from Westonhall Road frontage in the form of a shared surface, which created a social space for new and existing users of the area. The scheme proposed 7 different house types across the 14 units creating a vibrant and mixed built environment. All dwellings would be two storey in height.
The Council’s High Quality Design SPD recommended that private amenity space to be required to be of a usable size, with a minimum of 70 sq.m. The SPD also suggested that a distance of 21m should be considered the minimum separation between the rear elevations of dwellings to achieve an appropriate degree of privacy. The layout largely achieved this requirement, however, there were a few minor breaches in terms of the distances between units 13 and 14 and units 3, 4 and 5. The breaches noted were considered to be minor.
Overall the level of amenity achieved across the site was considered to be acceptable having regard to Policy BDP1 and the High Quality Design SPD.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. D. Stiff, the Applicant’s agent addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the application, which had been recommended for approval by Officers.
Officers responded to questions from Members with regards to the variety and type of dwellings proposed and the comments from the Conservation Officer in respect of dwelling 13 being rendered. Officers stated that, in their opinion, this would not undermine the overall scheme.
At the request of the Chairman, officers agreed to feedback the Committee’s comments with regards to dwelling 13 being rendered.
Officers responded to further questions from Members with regards to the open space and in doing so, informed the Committee that the dwellings would be located immediately adjacent to an area of public open space.
Members were further informed that, as detailed in the outline approval, that preliminary risk assessment reports would be required and would include all potential contaminants, sources and receptors.
Officers further clarified that ... view the full minutes text for item 43/20 |
|
|
Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application has been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor C. Hotham, Ward Member.
The Chairman informed Members that officers would be presenting a joint presentation for Applications 20/00942/FUL and 20/00943/LBC – The Byre, 2 Bittell Farm Barns, Bittell Farm Road, Barnt Green; but each Application would be considered, debated and voted on individually.
Officers gave a detailed presentation on Applications 20/00942/FUL and 20/00943/LBC and in doing so highlighted that the applications sought a proposed extension to form a corridor link in order to enlarge the accommodation further, by constructing a small extension to create a short corridor running along part of the front of the north west elevation connecting the south west part of the ‘L’ to the lobby adjacent to the dining room in the centre of the north east range; thereby avoiding the need to walk through the living room to access the lobby.
The proposed structure would comprise a flat roofed box clad in waney edged boarding to match the finish to the new extension with a rooflight and a door and simple metal framed window to the north west elevation.
Officers drew Members’ attention to the reasons for refusal as detailed on page 131 of the main agenda report and Conservation Officers comments as detailed on page 127 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. S. Holland, the Applicant and Councillor C. Hotham addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for refusal.
Councillor S. P. Douglas asked that, in terms of historic record could the existing building be photographed and archived in order to provide a record of the existing building.
Officers clarified that in terms of an historic record that such a condition could be added in order to record the historic history of the building.
Officers further clarified that Section 5 of the Councils High Quality Design Guide SPD, provided very specific guidance on barns and that this was a curtilage listed building; and that the proposed corridor link would harm the significance of the curtilage listed building, as it would be at odds with the original plan form of the barn and detract from its simple appearance.
In response to questions from Members the Conservation Officer stated that that the proposed corridor link would cause harm to this listed building and that an historical recording of the building would not necessary overcome that harm; because the shape of the building would be lost.
Some Members commented that whilst they understood the objections raised by the Conservation Officer, they were of the opinion that the proposed extension was reasonable and proportionate. The corridor link would be small and if done discreetly would not harm the significance of the curtilage listed building. Other Members agreed with Officers that the proposed extension should be refused.
In response to further questions from Members, the Conservation Officer commented that it was difficult to say whether the building ... view the full minutes text for item 44/20 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application has been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor C. Hotham, Ward Member.
Following on from the Officers joint presentation on Applications 20/00942/FUL and 20/00943/LBC, Officers drew Members’ attention to the reasons for refusal as detailed on page 136 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. B. Ghosh, the Applicant’s agent addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for refusal, Members reached a different view to that of the Officers.
RESOLVED that
a) authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to grant Listed Building Consent, subject to:
b) further discussions taking place with Officers, the Conservation Officer and Alvechurch Parish Council to agree the final finishing details and external materials to be used;
And
c) an additional condition be included, that a photographic record of the existing building be taken, in order to provide a historical record. |
Copyright Bromsgrove District Council