Agenda and minutes
PDF 382 KBVenue: Parkside Suite, Parkside, Market Street, Bromsgrove, B61 8DA
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors H. J. Jones, D. J. A. Forsythe, B. M. McEldowney and J. W. Robinson
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 1st August 2023, were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 1st August 2023, be approved as a correct record.
|
|
|
Minutes: The Chairman announced that there was a Committee Update which had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting commencing, with a paper copy also made available to Members at the meeting.
Members indicated that they had had sufficient time to read the contents of the Committee Update and were happy to proceed.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that the application was for the demolition of an existing workshop/garage and the redevelopment of the site for mixed use, comprising of the construction of 9 dwellings and an office building with associated access and landscaping works.
Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 27 to 48 of the main agenda pack.
The proposed site plan detailed on page 31 of the main agenda pack, was presented to Members and the following elements were identified.
The Access to the site as shown on page 44 of the main agenda pack was detailed to Members. Officers clarified that there would be marking on the adjacent highway to help mitigate congestion caused by vehicular access to the site. Officers further clarified that the main agenda pack detailed the marking to be yellow box hatching, however, following further consultation with Worcester County Council (WCC) Highways, it was agreed to change this to “keep clear” markings.
Officers informed Members that the acoustic fence and orientation of the proposed office blocks were used to mitigate the noise pollution to the proposed residential properties, the efficiency of the proposed acoustic measures were detailed on page 45 of the main agenda pack. The measures would reduce the noise reaching the residential properties to acceptable levels. Officers further explained that the acoustic boundary treatment measures would be behind the existing retaining wall, a CGI image highlighting this was shown on page 48 of the main agenda pack.
The Committee then considered the Application.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. S. Stojsavljevic, the planning agent, was invited to speak in support of the application.
Members queried the lack of Section 106 contributions for NHS Hereford and Worcestershire Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) and WCC Community Transport. Officers informed Members that for contributions to be requested it had to be demonstrated that they were both specific and justified in relation to the development proposed, and that for this proposal, that requirement could not be satisfied.
The following points were clarified after questions from Members:
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that the application was for the phased demolition and construction of replacement school buildings, including a new Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), landscaping and associated works for Waseley Hills High School, School Road, Rubery, Worcestershire, B45 9EL.
Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 73 to 91 of the main agenda pack.
The location was situated entirely within the Greenbelt, however, as the development was a phased construction and the final design had all buildings situated within the current footprint of the school, Officers considered the development within the Greenbelt to be acceptable.
Officers further informed Members that the phased construction plan, was detailed on page 86 of the main agenda pack. It was further highlighted that the school proposed to remain open throughout the entire development and that the phasing of the development would enable this.
No objections were raised by WCC Highways and following further consultations and amendments, as detailed on page 4 of the Committee Update report, the initial objection from the Arboricultural Officer had been withdrawn, as they were now satisfied with the overall landscaping and planting scheme proposed.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. T. Hallett, the planning agent, was invited to speak in support of the application.
The Committee then considered the application, which Officers had recommended be granted.
Members discussed the details of Condition 9 which required that the developers submitted details of a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP). Members had expressed the opinion that in the interest of public safety, all construction traffic should not be active during school pickup/drop-off times. Additionally, Members requested that construction vehicles only travelled southwards and not north through the housing estate. Officers agreed to request additional information detailing lorry routes to be included in the CEMP.
Members further questioned the travel plan, as detailed under Condition 8. In that it stated that the policy should be in place within 12 months of occupation. However, the application was a phased development and was currently occupied. Karen Hanchett, WCC Highways clarified that the wording was a standard format for that sort of condition, but accepted that in this instance it was unsuitable, it was further agreed to amend the wording of the condition with Officers.
With regard to the travel plan, Members expressed the opinion that it was not ambitious enough and would like an increased target of a 10% reduction in vehicular traffic by the parents of students, it was noted that it was not possible to enforce how parents transported their children. However, Officers agreed to amend the condition to reflect a more ambitious target for BDC.
On being put to the vote, it was
RESOVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the:
a) Conditions, as outlined on page 65-72 of the main agenda pack, subject to the revisions, as detailed on page 5 of the Committee Update report; and
b) Further revisions to Conditions ... view the full minutes text for item 31/23 |