Agenda and minutes
PDF 158 KBContact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor M. Glass. |
|
|
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: Councillor J. E. King declared in relation to Agenda Item No. 7, 20/01402/FUL- 32 Gleneagles Drive, Blackwell, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 1BD (Minute No 115/20), in that she had objected to the application; and had requested that the application be considered at Planning Committee rather than being determined under Delegated Powers.
Councillor J. E. King left the virtual meeting prior to the consideration of this item.
Councillors R. J. Deeming, A. J. B. Beaumont, G. N. Denaro, S. P. Douglas, A. B. L. English, S. G. Hession, J. E. King, P. M. McDonald P. L. Thomas and P. J. Whitaker declared other disclosable interests in Planning Application 21/00254/FUL – 27 Shaw Lane, Stoke Prior, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 4DS, in that the applicant was a Councillor and that they were acquainted with the Councillor.
|
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 1st March 2021, were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 1st March 2021, be approved as a correct record.
|
|
|
Updates to planning applications reported at the meeting Minutes: The Chairman announced that a Committee Update had been circulated to all Planning Committee Members prior to the meeting commencing.
The Chairman further announced that the running order of the agenda had been changed and that Agenda Item No. 8, Planning Application 21/00254.FUL would be considered by the Committee before Agenda Item No. 7, Planning Application 20/01402/FUL. |
|
|
Minutes: Officers reported that Conditions 5 and 14 had been amended and an additional Condition, Condition 18 had been included; as detailed in the published Committee Update, copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers stated that, as highlighted by the Chairman, the Committee would receive a joint presentation for Planning Applications 20/01392/FUL and 20/01393/LBC.
Officers informed the Committee that permission was sought to convert the former nursing home into 7 No. one bedroom and 8 No. two bedroom apartments, with amenity provision and off street car parking. Existing structures would remain, apart from the low quality additions such as lean tos and conservatories.
The building had previously been used as a nursing home and had since closed down. The building had fallen into disrepair.
The site was within an area designated as residential in the Bromsgrove District Plan and given its close proximity to public transport links and within walking distance to the town centre, the principle of residential development in this sustainable location would be acceptable and would comply with Policy BDP1 of the District Plan.
Given the previous use of the building the conversion works would lend themselves towards 1 and 2 bedroom accommodation. The provision of 1 and 2 bedroom units in this location would be acceptable and would comply with Policy BDP7.
The scheme provided sufficient functional space for residential development and incorporated appropriate amenity space for the occupiers complying with Policies BDP19 of the District Plan, the provisions of the NPPF, and the Council’s SPD on High Quality Design.
The building was a Grade II listed building. The Conversation Officer had no objection to the principal of this structure. The proposed use would enable this designated heritage asset to be brought back into use and would save the building from any further decline.
Concerns had been raised by residents with regards to highways and parking, whilst there was one letter supporting the proposal; the majority of objections received related to car parking issues in the area and that the proposed scheme would hinder the existing on street car parking provision. Further evidence was provided via a Highway Technical Note that deemed the parking arrangements to be acceptable in this instance.
Officers drew Members’ attention to Sustainability, as detailed on page 14 of the main agenda report.
Officers further drew Member’s attention to the additional condition added, Conditions 18, that the existing gate along the southern boundary of the site would be used for maintenance and emergency use only, as detailed in the Committee Update. . At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. J. Taylor and Mr. B. Taylor’s objections were read out by the Democratic Services Officer. Mr. E. Nash. Morrison Nash Developments, applicants addressed the Committee. Councillor S. Robinson, Ward Member, also addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for approval.
In response to questions from Members and with the agreement of the Chairman, the ... view the full minutes text for item 113/20 |
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Following on from the officers joint presentation on Applications 20/01392/FUL and 20/01393/LBC, the Committee then considered the Application, which officers had recommended for approval.
RESOLVED that Listed Building Consent be granted, subject to the Conditions as detailed on pages 23 and 24 of the main agenda report. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application has been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration, as the Applicant was a Councillor.
Officers informed Members that the application site was located on the southern side of Shaw Lane in the designated residential area of Stoke Prior.
The proposal sought permission to construct a two storey rear extension in place of an existing conservatory, which would be demolished, to form two bedrooms at first floor level and enlarged living accommodation on the ground floor. The ground floor would project 5 metres beyond the original rear wall of the dwelling and the first floor would project 3.5 metres.
No new side facing windows were proposed at first floor level other roof lights, as such no concerns had been raised in respect of overlooking to adjacent properties or their gardens. The rear facing first floor windows serving the bedrooms would be approximately 23 metres away from the opposing windows in the dwellings to the rear of the site.
The proposed extension would not breach the 45 degree line at either first floor or ground floor level when drawn from the nearest habitable room window. As such, the extension would not result in a loss of light to neighbouring occupiers.
Members were further informed that no objections to the application had been received and that Stoke Parish Council had no objections to the application.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for approval.
Officers responded to a query on Permitted Development and the criteria for such an extension to be built under Permitted Development Rights.
Officers further clarified that it was proposed that the side store, as shown on the ‘Proposed Ground Floor Plan’ would be removed.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the Conditions as set out on page 57 of the main agenda report.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers reported that an additional letter of support had been received and that further comments from the applicant had been submitted, as detailed in the Committee Update; copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers clarified that the Application has been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor J. E. King, Ward Member.
Officers presented the report and outlined that the application related to a detached residential property located at the end of a cul de sac and within the residential area of Blackwell.
The application sought permission for a single storey front extension and at the rear a part single storey and part two storey extension.
The front extension would provide for a store in a position forward of what was currently the garage. This area would be brick built with a pitched roof over and would extend for a depth of 1.9 metres.
To the rear an existing conservatory would be removed and replaced with the single storey extension which would project 2.9 metres from the rear of the existing dwelling. This would provide for an extended kitchen and add a new playroom. The first floor rear extension would extend the existing bedroom by 1.9 metres. There were no windows proposed at the first floor in the side of this extension. The resultant dwelling would remain a five bedroom property.
Officers were satisfied that the proposed arrangement would not give rise to any concerns relating to overbearing, overshadowing or lack of privacy, as detailed on page 40 of the main agenda report.
Officers commented that as Members would be aware, that two storey extensions were assessed against the 45 degree guidance as contained within the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), High Quality Design where a 45 degree line was drawn to the closest edge of the nearest habitable window of the neighbouring property.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. A. Brown, the applicant addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for approval.
In response to questions from Members, officers reiterated that the proposal did meet the requirements as contained in the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), High Quality Design.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the Conditions and Informatives, as set out on page 41 of the main agenda report.
,. |