Agenda and minutes

An apology for absence was received from Councillor R. J. Laight.

The following declarations of interest were made:-

The minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 20th June 2011 were submitted.

RESOLVED that the minutes be approved as a correct record.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported the receipt of an amended development scheme, together with a related Structural Survey.  In addition, she reported the comments of the Tree Officer, and stated that two further third party representations had been received.

The Chairman read out a statement which had been submitted by Councillor Mrs. R. L. Dent who had registered to speak at the meeting, in her capacity as Ward Member for the area in which the application site was located.  However, in the event, Councillor Mrs. Dent was subsequently unable to be present at the meeting.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. R. Richardson addressed the Committee and spoke in objection to the proposals, whilst Mr. G. Fowler spoke in favour of the development.

RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the conditions and notes set out or referred to on pages 14 and 15 of the report, together with additional appropriately worded conditions in respect of:-

(a)       Fenestration details for Elmshurst;

(b)       Details of safety measures to the wall dividing the site with 15 New Road; and

(c)        Land level details.

RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the conditions and notes set out or referred to on pages 21 and 22 of the report.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported the receipt of additional comments from West Mercia Constabulary, together with five additional letters of objection to the proposals.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms. D. Blakeway addressed the Committee and spoke in opposition to the application.  Councillor J. S. Brogan also addressed the Committee in his capacity as one of the Ward Members for the area in which the application site was located.

Consideration was then given to the application which had been recommended for approval by the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services.  However, on the matter being put to the vote, Members considered that the development would:-

(a)       result in overdevelopment of the site, and therefore be at odds with the character of the locality;

(b)       be detrimental to existing residential amenity through loss of privacy and outlook; and

(c)        lead to unacceptable traffic implications and negatively impact on the amenities of existing residents by virtue of exacerbating on-road parking issues inherent in Chadcote Way.

RESOLVED that permission be refused for reasons (a), (b) and (c) above.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported additional views received from the applicant in respect of a further bat survey which had been carried out.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Dr. S. Bodnar addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application.

RESOLVED that permission be granted subject to the conditions and notes set out or referred to on pages 42 to 44 of the report.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Dr. S. Bodnar addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application.

RESOLVED that listed building consent be granted subject to the conditions and notes set out or referred to on pages 49 to 51 of the report.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported the views of Lickey and Blackwell Parish Council, Worcestershire Highways, Western Power Distribution and the Environment Agency.  She also stated that an additional statement and email had been received from the applicant in support of the application.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. J. King addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application on behalf of Lickey and Blackwell Parish Council.  In addition, Mr. P. Grove and Mr. D. Jones spoke in favour of their application.

RESOLVED that permission be refused for the reasons set out on page 58 of the report.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported additional information which had been received from Councillor C. R. Scurrell.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Dr. J. Jenkins spoke in support of her application.  In addition, Councillor C. R. Scurrell spoke in his capacity as one of the Ward Members for the area in which the application site was located.

RESOLVED that permission be refused for the reason set out on page 63 of the report.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported the views of Hagley Parish Council, together with an objection from one of the Ward Members for the area, and stated that two further letters of objection had been received.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. A. Brown addressed the Committee on behalf of Hagley Parish Council and spoke in opposition to the proposals.  In addition, Councillor C. R. Scurrell addressed the Committee and spoke in his capacity as one of the Ward Members for the area in which the application site was located.

Consideration was given to the application which had been recommended for approval by the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services.  However, on the matter being put to the vote, Members considered that the application should be refused on the basis that the proposals:-

(a)       adversely impact on the visual amenities of the locality; and

(b)       cause undue highway safety issues due to distraction.

RESOLVEDthat permission be refused for reasons (a) and (b) above.

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported the views of Belbroughton Parish Council, Hagley Parish Council and the Wildmoor Residents' Association, and stated that three further letters of objection had been received.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. J. Spooner addressed the Committee and spoke in opposition to the proposals.  Ms. L. Harvey also spoke against the application on behalf of Belbroughton Parish Council.  In addition, Councillor B. Lewis F.CMI addressed the Committee and spoke in his capacity as the Ward Member for the area in which the application site was located.

Consideration was given to the application which had been recommended for approval by the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services.  However, on the matter being put to the vote, Members considered that the application should be refused on the basis that the proposals:-

(a)       adversely impact on the visual amenities of the locality; and

(b)       cause undue highway safety issues due to distraction.

RESOLVEDthat permission be refused for reasons (a) and (b) above.

Consideration was given to a report which detailed the outcomes in several appeals.

RESOLVED that the report be noted.