Agenda and minutes
PDF 588 KBVenue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Election of Vice-Chairman for the remainder of the municipal year Minutes: The Chairman announced that, following on from a recent change to the membership of the Committee, a new Vice-Chairman needed to be elected for the remainder of the municipal year.
RESOLVED that Councillor A. D. Kriss be elected Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the remainder of the municipal year.
|
|
|
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A. B. L. English and C. J. Spencer, with Councillor S. Baxter and M. Glass in attendance, respectively as substitute Members.
An apology for absence was also received from 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: Councillor M. A. Sherrey declared in relation to Agenda Item No.5 – 19/00592/FUL and 20/01140/LBC – Blue Bird Confectionery Ltd, Blue Bird Park, Bromsgrove Road, Romsley, Halesowen, Worcestershire, (Minute No. 55/21), in that she would be addressing the Committee for this item as Ward Councillor under the Council’s public speaking rules. Following the conclusion of the public speaking, Councillor M. A. Sherrey left the meeting room. |
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 1st November 2021 were received.
It was noted that, on page 7, there was a typographical error, as the meeting actually stood adjourned from 19:49pm to 19:52pm.
RESOLVED that, subject to the correction as detailed in the preamble above, the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 1st November 2021, be approved as 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 and she asked if all Members had received and read the Committee Update.
In response to Councillor S. P. Douglas, the Chairman confirmed that a Committee Update had been emailed to all Planning Committee Members prior to the commencement of the meeting.
|
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: The Chairman announced that officers would be presenting a joint presentation for Planning Applications 19/00592/FUL and 20/01140/LBC, Blue Bird Factory, Blue Bird Park, Bromsgrove Road, Romsley, Halesowen, Worcestershire.
Officers reported that with regards to:-
Planning Application 19/00592/FUL – that a further 5 objections from 3 individuals had been received. The majority of issues raised had related to matters already report ed. Those matters not previously listed related to:- · The notification procedures for the Committee meeting. · The conduct of the meeting on 1st November. · Where the s.106 money was being directed to. · The application of vacant building credit. · An application for planning permission for a nearby development for 2 houses.
Planning Application – 20/01440/LBC – that a further 2 representations had been received from the same individual. The comments raised no material planning matters rather than issues associated with the listed building consent; 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 highlighted that as Members would recall, during the Planning Committee meeting held on 1st November 2021, the Committee resolved to defer Planning Application 19/00592/Ful, pending confirmation on the vacant building credit, which removed the requirement for the proposed development to provide affordable housing.
Officers explained that further information had now been received and officers drew Members’ attention to the ‘Vacant Building Credit (VBC) – What is the vacant building credit’? detailed information on pages 11 and 12 of the main agenda report and Section 8 – Affordable Housing and Vacant building credit, as detailed on pages 35 to 36 of the main agenda report.
Officers continued and informed the Committee that the proposed development comprised of the demolition of the existing modern industrial buildings on the site and the conversion of the retained Welfare and Administration buildings, to provide a total of 108 residential units. 9 units were proposed in the Administration building, 13 units were proposed in the Welfare building with the remainder of the dwellings new build.
In 2019 the Welfare and Administration building and the boundary walls, railings and gates fronting the highway were listed at Grade II and would therefore be retained.
Officers further drew Members’ attention to the following presentation slides:-
· Site Frontage - Administration and Welfare Buildings · Proposed site layout plan · Proposed house types · Proposed street scenes · Conversion of the Administration Building · Conversion of the Welfare Building
Members were also reminded that during the Planning Committee meeting held on 1st November 2021, that some Members had raised some concern with regard to drainage and surface water flooding at the site.
Appendix 1 to the report provided the Drainage Note from Pegasus Group in respect of the proposed drainage and surface water flooding, as detailed on pages 45 to 51 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. L. Dowling (via Microsoft Teams) addressed the Committee in objection to Planning Application 19/00592/FUL.
Mr. K. Fenwick, the Applicant’s agent ... view the full minutes text for item 55/21 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration because it was for a Major development.
Officers presented the report and in doing so informed the Committee that the application was for a single storey, first floor and two storey extensions to an existing 20-bed residential care home to create a 48-bed residential care home.
Officers referred to the Site Location presentation slide. The care home was located along a private driveway accessed off the eastern side of the Birmingham Road (A441). Officers drew Members’ attention to the Access from Birmingham Road presentation slide, as detailed on page 87 of the main agenda report. There was a belt of trees to the right of the site, tree matters were covered on pages 75 and 76 of the main agenda report.
Officers further referred to the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 80 to 100 of the main agenda report, which included:- · Front elevation from north west · Access from Birmingham Road · Existing and proposed site plan · Proposed site plan · Existing ground floor · Proposed ground floor · Existing first floor · Proposed first floor · Front elevation: existing and proposed · Rear elevation: existing and proposed · Existing and proposed: (NE facing) side elevation · Existing and proposed: (NW facing) side elevation · Proposed courtyard elevations
Currently the site had 10 car parking spaces, this would increase to 30 car parking spaces.
Officers continued and informed the Committee that there was clearly a need for this type of development in the district and that principle of the development was accepted. Policy BDP10 sets out that the Council would encourage the provision of housing for the elderly where appropriate whilst avoiding an undue concentration in any location. The applicant had commissioned an ‘Assessment of Need’ report, which concluded that there was a current shortfall of residential care closer to Bromsgrove and Alvechurch.
The site was located within the Green Belt and paragraph 149 (c states that the ‘extension or alteration of a building’ was appropriate development provided that the development does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.
Officers drew Members’ attention to the front elevation from the north west presentation slide and in doing so further referred Members to the planning history of the care home. The existing floor space present within the care home equated to 660m2. If permission were to be granted, the total floor space following the development would rise to 2400m2, a total increase of 1740m2. This would represent a non-proportionate (disproportionate) increase.
The applicant had raised a number of matters, as detailed on pages 72 and 73 of the main agenda report, referring to Very Special Circumstances (VSC). Whilst the matters raised by the applicant were material planning considerations in the determination of the application it was also necessary to examine whether there were genuine VSC, effectively unique to the site and development proposal. The applicant had commissioned a report by Christie & Co to undertake a ... view the full minutes text for item 56/21 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration because it was for a Major development.
Officers presented the report and in doing so informed the Committee that the application was for redevelopment to form 8no. Class E (a) retail units at ground floor and 9no. 1 and 2 bed apartments at first and second floor.
The site was located in the town centre, officers drew Members’ attention to the Proposed Ground Floor Plan presentation slide. The application sought the redevelopment of the existing ground floor retail units, reducing them in size, but increasing to three units fronting the High Street. The formation of a pedestrian access from the High Street into a courtyard area behind, with five further Class E(a) retail units proposed on the ground floor. Across the first and second floors 9no. flats were proposed, 6 one bedroom and 3 two bedroom units.
The application had met with support from the Conservation Officer and all statutory consultees.
Members then considered the application, which officers had recommended be approved.
Councillor A. D. Kriss stated that he welcomed the proposal and that it brought life to the front and rear of the property.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted, subject to the Conditions as detailed on pages 105 and 106 of the main agenda report. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers reported that they had received amended contaminated land comments from Worcestershire Regulatory Services. Mott McDonald (acting as Transport Planning Advisors to the Council) had reviewed the latest documents published on the planning portal site and had three main key points that the developer would need to consider, as follows:-
· Uncontrolled crossing of Perryfields Road · Footpath / Cycleway connection from Perryfields · Cumulative Assessments
Members’ attention was also drawn to the amended Conditions, Condition 2 and Condition 10, 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 presented the report and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the Site Location presentation slide, as detailed on page 137 of the main agenda report.
Officers informed the Committee that the application proposed the erection of 60 dwellings on land to the north of Perryfields Road, Bromsgrove and formed part of the BROM2 allocation as a Bromsgrove Town Expansion Site.
Members were further informed that the proposal sought permission for a 100% affordable housing scheme. The proposed house types were detailed on page 143 of the main agenda report.
Members were asked to note that, the application proposed a new vehicular and pedestrian access off Perryfields Road further to the west than the existing farm gate access into the site.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. P. Rawle the Applicant’s agent addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which officers had recommended for approval.
Officers responded to questions from the Committee with regard to the uncontrolled crossing of Perryfields Road, child safety when accessing the play area and safety around the balancing ponds.
In response to further questions from the Committee with regard to the comments received from Mott MacDonald, as detailed on pages 1 to 3 of the Committee Update.
Ms. K. Hanchett, Worcestershire Highways stated that they were aware of the comments received from Mott MacDonald and they were content, however she would ask Mr. G. Nock, Jacobs to respond further.
With the agreement of the Chairman, Mr. G. Nock, Jacobs, who had acted on behalf of WCC Highways Authority providing advice on this application addressed the Committee.
Mr. Nock informed Members that he had worked closely with Mott MacDonald and that there had been due diligence with regard to the three main key points raised:-
Uncontrolled crossing of Perryfields Road Access and pedestrian consideration had been taken very seriously. There would be a number of pedestrian crossings throughout the site and a Road Safety Audit procedure had been undertaken twice in this case.
Footpath / Cycleway connection from Perryfields This was achievable.
Cumulative Assessments He would assure Members that the approach was to align with that transport strategy, which would be a very comprehensive strategy, in order to deliver today and to be delivered at a later stage.
In response to further questions from the Committee, Mr. Nock referred to the ‘monitor and manage’ strategy, as detailed on ... view the full minutes text for item 58/21 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration as the applicant was an employee of Bromsgrove District Council.
Officers reported that the Tree Officer had no objections, as noted on page 3 of 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.
The proposal involved the removal of an existing conservatory that would be replaced with a single storey extension to the rear of the property to provide a larger kitchen/dining/family area.
The Committee then considered the Application, which officers had recommended for approval.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the Conditions as detailed on page 148 of the main agenda report.
|