Agenda and minutes
PDF 158 KBVenue: Virtual Meeting - Skype - Virtual. View directions
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from 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. Minutes: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
Updates to planning applications reported at the meeting (to be circulated prior to the start of the meeting) Minutes: It was noted that there was no Update Report and Members confirmed that they had received the supplementary papers pack issued on 27th November. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the application which had last been considered by Planning Committee on 5th August 2019 and deferred on that occasion due to highway safety concerns. In particular County Highways had not been satisfied that the proposed configuration allowed sufficient space for vehicles to turn and breached requirements for vehicles to be able to enter and exit in a forward gear.
Members were advised that the application had been revised since it’s previous submission and that County Highways were no longer objecting. As such, the application was recommended for approval.
RESOLVED that
Planning Permission be granted subject to the conditions set out on page 3 of the main agenda. |
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Officers presented the application for the construction of two three bedroomed semi detached dwellings on a vacant plot between a row of existing dwellings on Ash Lane on the edge of Hopwood. The application site was in the Green Belt and outside the village envelope.
Members were referred to the main issues as summarised on page 15 of the agenda. Although under Green Belt policy the starting point was that development would be inappropriate, in this case the application site was in a row of existing dwellings forming a linear extension from the village. Officers had therefore concluded that the development would fall under the exception of “limited infilling within a settlement” and would not be inappropriate in the Green Belt.
Officers had assessed the application against policy H2 of the Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan (APNP) Housing for Hopwood and Rowney Green. It was noted that the proposal did not accord with criterion (d) regarding provision of at least one small home with fewer than two bedrooms for every dwelling of three bedrooms or more, and criterion (f) regarding the village envelope. Officers had considered this aspect carefully and ln light of the lack of a five year housing supply and location of the site, had concluded that the partial conflict with policy H2 was not so significant at to warrant a refusal.
As part of the application process the applicant had made a number of changes to address comments from statutory consultees as to highways matters, design, drainage, ecology and trees. With regard to character and design, there was a mix of detached, semi-detached dwellings and bungalows in the area. The size and scale of the dwellings proposed had been reduced, with a reduction of bedrooms from four to three, and the version before Members had been assessed to be acceptable and in keeping with the surrounding street scene.
There were no objections from County Highways, and a number of highway matters would be secured through conditions, including the provision of a visibility splay.
The application was recommended for approval.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. N. Kennedy, the agent for the Applicant and Councillor C. Hotham, ward councillor for Barnt Green and Hopwood, addressed the Committee.
In debating the application Members commented on some of the points raised in public speaking including the sustainability of the location, possibility of future expansion of the dwellings to add bedrooms and the weight to be placed upon neighbourhood plan (Policy H2).
Officers responded by re-iterating the comments made regarding the conflict with the neighbourhood plan and the balancing of those matters as detailed in the report. On the issue of sustainability, it was acknowledged that as a small settlement Hopwood had limited facilities, but this had not been regarded as a significant issue in the context of the addition of two dwellings. It was noted that Hopwood is identified as a Small Settlement under Policy BDP2 in the District Plan. Due to the level of parking it was not evident ... view the full minutes text for item 57/17 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the application and reminded Members that a similar application had last been considered by Planning Committee in March 2020. On that occasion the application had been refused on the grounds of not being compliant with green belt policies and due to the height of the stable building and the number horses for the size of the plot.
Whilst the layout as set out on the site plan was more or less the same as the previous application, the height of the stable had been reduced from 4.5 metres to 3.3 metres and the size reduced to one stable and one tack room. As previously, the proposed menage was 20 by 20 metres in size.
It was noted that under Green Belt policy appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and recreation were permitted. The design as amended was acceptable and taking into account the removal of the existing derelict building on the site and the reduction in scale, the application was recommended for approval.
At the invitation of the Chairman Mrs. R. Jennings and Councillor A. Beaumont addressed the committee, Mrs Jennings in objection and Councillor Beaumont in his capacity as the ward councillor.
In debating the application, it was noted that equestrian uses can be acceptable in the Green Belt and Members welcomed the reduction in scale compared to the previous application. On this point the view was expressed that the proposed stable, due to its smaller dimensions, be less visible from Yarnold Lane.
Officers clarified that the removal of the existing structure on the site would be secured through a condition.
RESOLVED that
Planning Permission be granted subject to the Conditions set out on pages 44 to 46 of the agenda. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the application for a ground floor extension to provide a family area and additional bedroom. It was noted that the site was located in the Green Belt, and officers advised that a proportionate addition to an existing dwelling up to an additional 40% of the original floor space would be acceptable. However, the plans for this application very slightly exceeded the permitted upper limit by 0.46 square metres. That being the case, the issue of very special circumstances had been considered.
Officers were of the view, taking into account the sympathetic design of the extension, its location at the rear of the property and the fact that a less acceptable design with a greater floor space could be achieved under permitted development rights, that it could be said that very special circumstances existed. As such, on balance the very special circumstances outweighed the harm to the Green Belt.
It was noted that the Conservation officer had raised no objection and that a condition would be imposed to remove permitted development rights under Class A.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Applicant Mr. G. Williams addressed the committee under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules.
RESOLVED that
Planning permission be granted subject to the conditions and informatives set out on pages 56 to 57 of the agenda
|