Agenda and minutes
PDF 339 KBContact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor R. J. Deeming with Councillor M. S. Sherrey in attendance as the substitute member and Councillor S. J. Baxter, with Councillor C. Hotham 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: Councillor C. Hotham declared an interest in Agenda Items 5, (Minute No. 51/20) and 6, (Minute No. 52.20) as follows:
Agenda Item 5 - An other disclosable interest in that he was acquainted with one of the GP’s at Hillcrest GP surgery.
Agenda Item 6 – that he would be speaking on this item as Ward Councillor under the Council’s public speaking rules. Following the conclusion of public speaking, Councillor Hotham took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on the matter.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 22nd September and 5th October 2020, were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 22nd September and 5th October 2020, be approved as correct records. |
|
|
Updates to planning applications reported at the meeting Minutes: The Vice-Chairman announced that a Committee Update had been circulated to all Planning Committee Members and he asked if all Members had received and read the Committee Update report.
Councillor M. A. Sherrey stated that she had been unable to access the Committee Update report therefore, it was agreed by Members that officers would cover the contents of the Committee Update report during their presentations.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers reported that further comments had been received from Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council and officers responses to those comments, as detailed in the published Update Report, 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 paragraph A1 on page 17 of the main agenda report.
Officers explained that this was a matter being presented at appeal and therefore Members were being asked to reach a resolution on what their decision would have been, had they been in a position to consider the application under normal circumstances. The decision will ultimately be taken by the Planning Inspectorate, but in order for officers to prepare a statement of case in respect of this appeal it was necessary, because of the nature of this application being a major one, to firstly seek a resolution from Members as to what their decision would have been.
Members needed to be mindful that they would not be making a decision as such, they would be giving officers a mandate for approval or refusal of the application to be included in the statement of case to be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate.
The Chairman commented that Planning Committee Members had previously been asked to do this, so this was not unusual.
Officers continued and informed the Committee that the proposed development was on the edge of Webheath and the north side of Foxlydiate Lane. The site was wholly in the district of Bromsgrove but at the boundary with Redditch Borough Council; who were a consultee on this application. The site was located within the larger Foxlydiate development site.
The application provided an appropriate portion of affordable housing included an allowance for vacant building credit as detailed in paragraph 63 of the main agenda report.
The properties had been designed to have a distinct 1930s architectural style inspired by the Arts and Crafts movement and would incorporate timber and tile with a mix of brick and render and eaves detailing.
As noted in the main agenda report there would be walking and cycling routes which would connect from this site to the large Foxlydiate site; enabling residents of this smaller site access to the facilities on the larger Foxlydiate development, without having to walk onto Foxlydiate Lane.
Barn House Farm comprised a collection of historic barns converted to residential use, with more modern barns to the north. The proposal entailed the demolition of all existing buildings on the application site. The buildings were non-designated assets and officers considered that the scale of the harm arising from their loss would not outweigh the benefit of redevelopment of the site for housing.
As agreed with the Chairman, officers briefly summarised the additional representations received from Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council and representations received from local residents; since the application was withdrawn from the agenda of the Planning Committee meeting held on Monday 5th October 2020, and officers ... view the full minutes text for item 51/20 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application has been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor C. Hotham, Ward Member.
Officers reported that further photographic evidence had been provided in objection to the application, as detailed in the published Update Report, 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 informed the Committee that the application was for retrospective planning permission for the retention of the existing lambing shed onsite.
Prior approval application reference 20/00606/CUPRIO was submitted to the Council to convert the lambing shed into a dwelling under Schedule 2, Part 3, Class Q of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended). As part of this application it came to light that substantial works had taken place in March / April 2020 to repair the building following storm damage.
The extent of the works to the building which included a complete replacement of the frame structure and rebuilding of the fourth bay were considered to be commensurate to a new build and exceeded what could be considered as repairs. For this reason, the building did not benefit from the Permitted Development Rights under Class Q and the Prior Approval was refused.
Officers highlighted that when considering whether there was a need for an agricultural building it was necessary to consider whether:
· the use of the building was appropriate; · the size of the building was appropriate for the intended use; · it was of a suitable design for its intended use; · the siting of the building was appropriate in agricultural terms; · whether there were any other buildings that were suitable to meet the needs of the enterprise onsite.
The use of the building as a lambing shed for the general keeping of sheep, in additional to the storage of hay/straw bales was considered appropriate. An officer site visit and photos provided by the applicant demonstrated that the building was in use.
The proposal was to be sited in the same position as the building it had replaced and within the cluster of existing buildings on site and was therefore an appropriate siting for this development.
There was another agricultural building onsite which was currently being used by the pigs onsite. The applicants currently used a cubical per pig to give them a good amount of space, for the reasons as detailed in the report.
The structure had been replaced with a steel frame and metal clad roof. The independent agricultural consultee had not objected to the use of these materials and had also stated that the building currently being used by the pigs was not suitable for lambs.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. R. Smith, speaking on behalf of Mr. & Mrs. Sambhi addressed the Committee in objection to the Application. Mr. A. Murphy, the Applicant’s Agent addressed the Committee; and Councillor C. Hotham, Ward Member also addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the application, which officers had recommended ... view the full minutes text for item 52/20 |
Copyright Bromsgrove District Council