Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors R.E. Lambert and J. Robinson, with Councillor S. M. Evans in attendance as the substitute Member for Councillor J. Robinson.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9^th July 2024, were received.

Councillor A. Bailes requested the following amendment to Minute Number 25/24:-

‘WCC Highways would ensure that the Conditions were adhered to and fully complied with;’.

RESOLVED that, subject to the amendment, as detailed in the preamble above that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 9^th July 2024, be approved as correct record.

The Chairman announced that a Committee Update was 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.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which detailed the updated consultee responses from: -

·       Worcestershire Highways

·       North Worcestershire Water Management

·       Waste Management

·       Community Safety;

and the revised Recommendation, highlighting that the published report had referred to the application as ‘outline’ and that the application was a ‘full’ planning application, as detailed on pages 3 and 4 of the Committee Update. A copy of the Committee Update was 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 highlighted that the application was for the demolition of a function room and the erection of 23 apartments with associated parking provision and landscaping.

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 32 to 40 of the main agenda pack.

Each residential unit would be dual aspect (east/west). With this orientation each apartment would benefit from sunlight in addition to daylight at different times of day. It would result in a satisfactory outlook for future residents and overlooking of outdoor areas from both the front and rear elevations to aid surveillance and security.

The report highlighted that Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) – Noise, having received the revised noise impact assessment (Walnut Acoustics Document Ref: WA/0520/NA-355 rev1); had commented that it appeared satisfactory and predicted that acceptable internal noise levels should achieved by the installation of glazing products that met the recommended specifications, as detailed at Table 14 of the assessment.

Full planning permission was being sought for the demolition of the existing function room located to the rear of Rubery Social Club and the construction of a 3-4 storey high block of 23 no. 1-bed units, plus accommodation in the roof space.  Amended plans had been submitted to address identified deficiencies on the proposed bin store arrangements, with a separate bin store close to the existing entrance drive (positioned to the rear of the Social Club building).

The site was level ground and set within the Local Centre shopping area. It was bounded to the north by the A38 and Callow Brook and to the west by a residential garden, the photographs showed the trees in the gardens of neighbouring properties. An existing sycamore tree located close to the site entrance would be retained.

It was noted that there were no public speakers registered to speak.

Members then considered the application which officers had recommended be granted.

Councillor E. M. S. Gray stated that the application site was within her ward area, so she was very familiar with the building and layout, she had not received any complaints or concerns from residents.  However, she asked if officers had considered the level of noise from the road for residents occupying the proposed dwellings; and entry for the fire and rescue service.

In response officers explained that access for the fire and rescue services would be considered as part of building regulations, it was not a planning consideration. With regards to potential noise, officers drew Members’ attention to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30/24

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which highlighted that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor D. Hopkins, Ward Councillor. Councillor Hopkins comments were also included in the Committee Update.

The Committee Update further detailed comments from Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) – Noise, which included the following statement: -

‘Therefore, I have no objection to the application in terms of noise but would recommend that deliveries are restricted, by condition, to the daytime only 07:00 – 23:00hrs’.

A copy of the Committee Update was 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 highlighted that the Reserved Matters application (Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping) to outline planning permission 16/1132 (granted on appeal APP/P1805/W/20/3245111) was for the erection of a retail unit and associated infrastructure within Site A, Land at Whitford Road, Bromsgrove.

Officers further presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 52 to 61 of the main agenda pack.

The site formed part of the Bromsgrove Town Expansion Site BROM3 allocated for development in the District Plan. It formed part of a larger site (Site A) with outline planning permission granted by the Planning Inspectorate.

Following the grant of outline planning permission and the approval of Access by the Planning Inspector, this application sought consent for the remaining 4 Reserved Matters: Appearance, Landscaping, Layout and Scale, as detailed on page 47 of the main agenda pack; for the erection of a retail unit and associated infrastructure.

Glazing was proposed to both the front elevation and part of the side elevation towards Whitford Road. An internal refuse storage area was also included within the retail unit. The building was shown to be located behind the proposed parking area. 10 car parking spaces were proposed (including 1 no. disabled bay); and cycle parking.

Residential dwellings would be located adjacent to the boundaries of the retail site. Consideration must be given to the impact of the development on residential amenity. A shadow study was submitted with the application, showing that the impact from any overshadowing would be transient and was therefore considered acceptable, as detailed on pages 57 and 58 of the main agenda pack.

Officers highlighted that the Planning Inspector had considered and allowed the Reserved Matter of Access. This included consideration of traffic movement and highway safety together with a proposed mitigation package and approved 2 vehicular access points into Site A from Whitford Road. Separate vehicle and pedestrian access points would be taken from the internal roadway serving Site A. As stated in the report, ‘For clarity, the matter of external Access has already been determined and approved, thus does not fall to be considered as part of the current application.’

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. J. Griffin, the Applicant’s Planning Agent and Councillor D. Hopkins, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee.

Members then considered the Reserved Matters application which officers had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31/24

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which detailed that the Council’s Tree Officer had served a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (15) 2024 on two oak trees along the boundary of the site with Blackwell Road; and that due to this Refusal reason No. 6 had been updated, as detailed on pages 4 and 5 of the Committee Update.

A copy of the Committee Update was provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Officers further drew Members’ attention to the Recommendation and reasons for refusal.

The application sought permission for the use of the site to facilitate a gypsy lifestyle. The application was part-retrospective for the change of use of land to create 2 Gypsy/Traveller pitches, each comprising of the siting of 1 mobile home,1 touring caravan and 1 dayroom per pitch, alongside the formation of an access road and associated landscaping.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 112 to 119 of the main agenda pack.

Officers stated that some Members may already be aware that certain works had been undertaken at the site without the benefit of planning permission. This application sought to regularise that work hence the application being described as part-retrospective. The exact layout onsite currently may differ from the proposal, however, for the avoidance of doubt permission was being sought for the development as shown on the proposed drawings, as detailed on the presentation slides.

The definition of gypsies and travellers was set out in Annex 1 (Glossary) to the Planning policy for traveller sites 2015 (PPTS) and as detailed on pages 67 and 68 of the main agenda pack.

The site lay in the Green Belt. Policy E of the PPTS stated that traveller sites, whether temporary or permanent, in the Green Belt were inappropriate development. Paragraph 152 of the NPPF stated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The prominent location and public visibility of the site and the proposed development would have a significant negative impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Overall, the development would harm the Green Belt through inappropriateness, there would be spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt and harm to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the NPPF goes on to state that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Members were further informed that as of 1st April 2024, the Council could demonstrate a 2.59 year’s supply of Traveller pitches. The Bromsgrove Local Plan was being developed and sites would be proposed for allocation to meet the identified shortfall in traveller pitches in due course as the plan progressed.

The Council held a Call for Sites exercise in 2019-2023, seeking suggestions of sites for all forms of development, including traveller sites. The application site was part of a much larger 5ha  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/24

Members were asked to consider a report which detailed Article 4(1) – Removal of Permitted Development Rights to Demolish (Part11) and to consider confirming without modification.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 132 to 135 main agenda pack.

Members were informed that report proposed the long-term protection of a building, namely the former Severn Trent Building, Alcester Road, Burcot, Bromsgrove, which was considered to be a heritage asset that made a positive benefit to public amenity. The purpose of the Article 4 Direction was to restrict permitted development rights in relation to demolition and to achieve its retention in the longer term.

Article 4 Directions were a means of removing Permitted Development Rights in order for the Local Planning Authority to regain some control over premises. The particular rights being removed should be specified and their removal should be justified in planning terms. It should be done in the public interest. When it was considered expedient to do so, an Article 4 Direction was made which could come into effect immediately and would remain in force for a period of six months. During this time, there was a consultation period whereby interested parties could make representations against or in favour of the Direction. If a decision were not made at the end of the six-month period, the Direction would lapse and would cease to have effect.

Following the consultation period, a decision must be made to either confirm (i.e. make permanent) the Direction or not. If the decision was not to confirm, then the Direction lapsed at the point the decision was made or 6 months from the making of the Direction, whichever was sooner.

Officers explained that as detailed in the report, that on 12th March 2024, an application for the prior approval of the demolition of the building was received under the provisions Schedule 2, Part 11, Class B of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended). It was noted that the building was on the draft local list and a heritage asset of merit and thus that planning policy, if it were applied, would seek the retention and reuse of the building. Such matters could not be taken into account in the determination of a prior approval application and, as such, the building was considered to be at risk.

Therefore, on 3^rd April 2024, a Direction was made to remove the permitted development rights in relation to the demolition of the building, this took effect immediately and the application for prior approval was refused on 4^th April 2024 and the applicant was notified accordingly.

Publicity of the Direction was carried out in accordance with the requirements of Schedule 3 (1) of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and a consultation period for representations was carried out and ended on 28^th April 2024. The Secretary of State was notified in relation to the Article 4 Direction.

Officers drew Members’  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33/24

The Chairman took the opportunity to remind the Committee that the report was for noting only.

The Development Management Manager explained that the Planning Performance Information was for Quarter 1 – 1^st April to 30^th June 2024; and that he was happy to take any questions on the information provided.

The Development Management Manager further stated that the figures were still healthy and that he did not have any concerns with regards to the speed of decisions or decision making. As requested by Planning Committee Members, the information also included whether applications had been determined by officers under delegated powers or by the Planning Committee.

Members expressed their thanks and commented that the report was incredibly positive and useful.

RESOLVED that the Planning Performance Information report, Quarter 1 – 1^st April to 30^th June 2024, be noted.