Agenda and minutes
PDF 536 KBVenue: Parkside Suite - Parkside. View directions
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillors A. Bailes, with Councillor C. A. Hotham in attendance as the substitute Member; and Councillor R. Lambert with Councillor S. T. Nock in attendance as the substitute Member. |
|||||||
|
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: Councillors M. Marshall and D. G. Stewart both declared a Non-Pecuniary Interest in relation to Agenda Item No.5 – 23/00869/REM, Land at Perryfields Road, Bromsgrove, having made previous public statements with regard to previous applications in respect of Land at Perryfields Road, Bromsgrove. Councillors M. Marshall and D. G. Stewart left the meeting room for the duration of this item and took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on this matter.
Councillor C. A. Hotham declared in relation to Agenda Item No.6 – 22/01419/FUL, Land to rear of Smedley Crooke Place, Redditch Road, Hopwood, Worcestershire, in that he 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 C. A. Hotham left the meeting room.
Councillor J. Robinson declared in relation to Agenda Item No.5 – 23/00869/REM Land at Perryfields Road and Agenda Item No.6 – Land rear of 1-6 Smedley Crooke Place, Redditch Road, Hopwood, Worcestershire; in that he was employed by National Highways who were one of the consultees on planning applications. Councillor J. Robinson explained that he had been granted a Dispensation and remained on the Committee for the consideration of both of these items. |
|||||||
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 4th September 2023, were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 4th September 2023, 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 and asked all Members if they had received and read the Committee Update.
All Members agreed that they had received and read the Committee Update. |
|||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: The Chairman reminded the Committee that as detailed in the Officer’s report, that the application before them was a resubmission of the Reserved Matters Application; and that this was an allocated development site and that outline planning permission with the Reserved Matters of Access had been allowed on appeal in 2021.
Therefore, for consideration by Members at tonight’s meeting was the Reserved Matters Application which sought consent in line with Condition 1 for detailed matters of appearance, landscaping, layout and scale.
Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which detailed additional comments submitted by The Bromsgrove Society and the technical comments submitted by the applicants Highway Consultant in response to the issues raised by The Bromsgrove Society. Additional information in respect of minor drainage detail matters, and that North Worcestershire Water Management were satisfied with the details submitted. The applicant had submitted a briefing note which was distributed to all Planning Committee Members on 27th October 2023.
Officers presented the report and the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 36 to 66 of the main agenda report.
Officers reiterated that the current planning application was a resubmission of planning application 21/01626/REM. The Phase 1 development would take access from the proposed signalised junction with Stourbridge Road connecting via a new proposed spine road.
The section of the spine road relevant to this planning application had been designed in accordance with the principles agreed as part of the outline planning consent set by the Planning Inspectorate; and that the required 20mph design speed had been achieved through appropriate horizontal alignment, as referred to in the Transport Statement (TS) submitted for application 23/00869/REM.
Members were reminded that planning application 21/01626/REM was considered by the Planning Committee on 3rd July 2023 and that the application was refused, for the reasons as detailed on pages 23 and 24 of the main agenda report.
It was noted that Worcestershire County Council, had recalled the concerns raised by Planning Committee Members in respect of the previous application (21/01626/REM). WCC Highway Authority had now acknowledged that the supporting TS submitted by the applicant, for application 23/00869/REM, had provided an overview of transport matters and had sought to address the specific issues raised by Planning Committee Members during the meeting held on 3rd July 2023; as detailed on pages 28 and 29 of the main agenda report.
Officers referred to the ‘Active Route Corridor’ and the comments received from Active Travel England (ATE), as detailed on pages 30 and 16 respectively; and that ATE had recommended approval of the application (23/00869/REM). Members were further reminded that a total of 149 dwellings were proposed in this phase generally comprising of 2 storey dwellings, however, 6 No. bungalows were proposed and 10 No, dwellings would be 2½ storeys incorporating dormers.
Officers drew Members’ attention to the Relevant Planning History, as detailed on pages 22 to 23 of the main agenda report.
The outline planning permission was allowed on appeal subject to a condition that the Reserved Matters ... view the full minutes text for item 36/23 |
|||||||
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the report, which highlighted that the application was for the development of 34 affordable dwellings, associated landscaping, site works and construction of a new access from the existing highway roundabout.
Officers referred to the Site Description and Proposal, as detailed on page 71 of the main agenda report. The site was in the Green Belt and was also within the Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan area; and was located adjacent to but outside of the defined Village Envelope of Hopwood. Page 77 referenced the Alvechurch Neighbourhood Plan and Policy H2 which stated
‘Policy H2: Housing for Hopwood and Rowney Green of the Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan (ANP) was relevant in the consideration of this application, Policy H2 supported housing developments, subject to several detailed criteria as to their location’.
Officers also referred to the following presentation slides:-
· Satellite View · View of site from Birmingham Road · View of site · Proposed Layout · Proposed Mix of Dwellings · Proposed Landscaping · Proposed Access
The application proposed that all of the dwellings to be social rented. The proposed housing mix was detailed on page 72 of the main agenda report.
Officers further referred to the ‘Relevant Planning History, as detailed on page 70 of the main agenda report, and in doing so, explained that the new application before Members proposed a very different scheme with 100% affordable housing. Officers drew Members’ attention to the ‘Affordable Housing’ information and the ‘Affordable Housing Statement’ submitted by the applicant, as detailed on page 81 of the main agenda report.
Officers referred to the comments received from Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highway Authority, as detailed on pages 82 and 83 of the main agenda report. The Highway Authority had determined that the impact would not be severe based on the evidence supplied.
Several factors had been promoted by the applicant as comprising benefits which could clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt (and any other harm) to comprise the Very Special Circumstances (VSC) necessary to approve inappropriate development.
Officers concluded that in reaching a conclusion on Green Belt issues, a judgement as to the balance between harm and whether the harm was clearly outweighed by other considerations, including the benefits of the development, must be reached. In the context of the NPPF paragraph 148 which states: “Very Special Circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”
In this case, it was considered that the contribution towards housing land supply and that the proposal would provide 100% affordable housing were material considerations that weigh very strongly in favour of the proposals.
However, these benefits must be weighed against the harm to the Green Belt. It was concluded that the Green Belt arguments were no longer finely balanced. For this application, it was considered that the benefits of the proposals now clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt, and consequently, VSC did apply.
At the invitation ... view the full minutes text for item 37/23 |
|||||||
|
Local Government Act 1972 "RESOLVED: that under Section 100 I of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended, the relevant paragraph of that part, in each case, being as set out below, and that it is in the public interest to do so:-
Minutes: RESOLVED that under Section 100 I of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended, the public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, as amended, the relevant paragraphs of that part, in each case, being as set out below, and that it is in the public interest to do so:-
Minute No. Paragraphs 39/23 2 & 6
|
|||||||
|
Enforcement Matters Minutes: (During the consideration of this item, Members discussed matters that necessitated the disclosure of exempt information. It was therefore agreed to move to exclude the press and public prior to any debate on the grounds that information would be revealed which related to; information relating to any individual, information which was likely to reveal the identity of any individual and information which revealed what the authority proposed (including the authority holding that information)).
|