Agenda and minutes
PDF 592 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 M. A. Sherrey and P. McDonald, with Councillors S. Webb and H. Rone-Clarke in attendance, respectively as substitute Members. |
|
|
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 H. Rone-Clarke, M. Glass and A. D. Kriss declared in relation to Agenda Items 5 and 6 (Minute Nos. 64/21 and 65/21) – 21/01617/FUL and 21/01835/PRIOR, The Artrix, School Drive, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 1AX; in that Councillor M. Glass was a member of the Bromsgrove Arts Development (Holding Trust), Councillor A. D. Kriss’ partner was also a member of the Bromsgrove Arts Development (Holding Trust) and Councillor H. Rone-Clarke volunteered at The Artrix. Councillors H. Rone-Clarke, M. Glass and A. D. Kriss withdrew from the meeting room for the duration of these items and took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on the matters.
Councillor S. P. Douglas declared in relation to Agenda Item No.7 (Minute No. 66/21) - 21/013721/FUL 111 Stourbridge Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B61 0AN, in that she 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 S. P. Douglas left the meeting room.
Councillor A. B. L. English declared in relation to Agenda Item No.9 (Minute No. 68/21) - 21/00684/HYB, Bordesley Hall, The Holloway, Alvechurch, Birmingham, Worcestershire, B48 7QA, in that she 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 A. B. L. English left the meeting room.
Councillor M Glass declared in relation to Agenda Items 8 (Minute No. 67/21) – 21/01700/FUL, 1/1A Maund Close, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 3JU, in that he knew the Applicant and that he would be withdrawing from the meeting room for this item. Councillor M. Glass withdrew from the meeting room for the duration of this item and took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on the matter.
Councillor A. D. Kriss asked for it to be noted, that in relation to Agenda Item 8 (Minute No. 67/21) - 21/01700/FUL, 1/1A Maund Close, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 3JU, in that he knew the Applicant in a professional capacity, but he did not think that his knowledge of the applicant would have an effect on his judgement on this application.
Councillors H. J. Jones, A. D. Kriss, A. J. B. Beaumont, G. N. Denaro, S. P. Douglas, A. B. L. English, M. Glass, J. E. King, H. Rone-Clarke, C. J. Spencer and S. Webb, declared other disclosable interests in Planning Applications 21/0754/FUL and 21/01755/LBC, Stoney Lane Farm, Stoney Lane, Alvechurch, Worcestershire, B60 1LZ; in that the applications were from a District Councillor who they were acquainted with. |
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 6th December 2021 were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 6th December 2021, be approved as 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 she asked all Membersif they had received and read the Committee Update. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration as the applicant was Bromsgrove District Council.
Officers presented the report and in doing so informed Members that the application proposed the installation of an air source heat pump to service the existing theatre roof.
Officers commented that the air source pump would not be highly visible. No objections had been received from Worcestershire Regulatory Services with regard to potential noise pollution.
Overall, it was considered that the proposed development complied with the provisions of the development plan and would be acceptable.
Following a brief discussion, it was
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the Conditions as detailed on page 19 of the main agenda report. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration as the applicant was Bromsgrove District Council.
Officers presented the report and in doing so informed Members that the application proposed the installation of a solar Photovoltaic (PV) System to the existing roof of the theatre.
Officers highlighted that the proposed solar PV equipment would be sited on the flat roof of the Artrix. It would all of the criteria set out in Class J.1 to J.3 including that the equipment would not be higher than 1 metre above the highest part of the roof and that it would not be installed within 1 metre of the external edge of the roof. Due to this it was not considered that the equipment would be highly visible from within the street scene.
No objections had been received from Worcestershire Regulatory Services with regard to light nuisance.
RESOLVED that
a) Prior Approval was not required and that the proposed development be carried out in accordance with the approved plans and documents, as detailed on page 26 of the main agenda report; and
b) the solar panel PV equipment to be removed a soon as reasonably practicable when no longer needed. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor S. P. Douglas, Ward Councillor.
Officers reported that an additional comment had been received from one of the original objectors to the application, with regard to the reason for refusal on two grounds; and that there should be a third reason for refusal. The third reason being inadequate provision off-street parking and the difficulty of parking in nearby streets. The officer’s response refers Members to the views of Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways, as detailed on page 32 of the main agenda report and further detailed in the published Committee Update, 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 informed Members that the site was located in a residential area of Bromsgrove.
Members’ attention was drawn to the following presentation slides: -
· Site Location · Proposed Plans and Elevations · Site Photos
Officers referred to Amenity Space and Bromsgrove District Council High Quality Design SPD, and policy BDP19, as detailed on page 35 of the main agenda report.
Officers further referred to the 5 objections received, as detailed on page 33 of the main agenda report; and the comments received from WCC, Highways, as detailed on pages 32 and 37 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Council’s Principal Solicitor, read out Mr. S. Blades speech in objection to the Application.
Councillor S. P. Douglas, Ward Member, also addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which officers had recommended be refused.
Members queried if a Condition could be imposed following the comments received from North Worcestershire Water Management and if the proposal was for a two-storey dwelling.
Officers commented that Members needed to consider the application as presented, and further clarified that the proposal was for the erection of a two-bedroom dwelling house; and that the proposed dwelling house was shown to be two storey, with a height of approximately 6.4 metres with the first-floor accommodation being situated in the roof space.
In response to further questions from the Committee, officers referred to the Amenity Space information on the rear garden overall area and length, as detailed on page 35 of the main agenda report.
Following a further brief discussion on amenity space it was
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused, subject to the reasons as detailed on pages 38 and 39 of the main agenda report. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor M. Thompson, Ward Councillor.
Officers reported that additional information had been received from the Applicant. This information was sent directly by the Applicant to all Members of the Planning Committee and included on the Council’s website by officers for Public Access.
The information related to:-
· Parking · Amenity Space · Examples of residential developments in the locality, which included photographic evidence.
The officer’s response was also detailed in the published Committee Update, 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 explained that the application was for a detached 2 bed house. Officers drew Members’ attention to the following presentation slides: -
· Site Location · Aerial View · Amended Block Plan (it was noted that this slide was different to the slide as presented on page 56 of the main agenda report). Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways had been consulted on the amended Block Plan and they were still recommending refusal; as detailed in the Committee Update. · Proposed Floor Plans · Proposed Elevation Plans · Site Photos
Officers read out the reasons for Refusal, as detailed on page 51 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Applicant, Mr. J. Leavesley addressed the Committee.
Councillor M. Thompson, Ward Member, also addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which officers had recommended be refused.
In response to questions from the Committee with regard to amenity space, officers clarified that; the application sought to utilise an area of garden to the rear of 1/1A Maund Close. The proposed dwelling footprint would be 6.5m wide by 6m deep and would extend approximately 5.5m forward. This would visibly reduce the spaciousness and visual openness. Officers had looked at private amenity space for both the proposed dweliing and exisitng residents which would be limied.
WCC, Highways officer further commented that they had raised objections due to the unacceptable access to the proposed relocated parking area, with insufficient turning space and the dimension of the car parking spaces. Vehicles would have to reverse backwards and forwards in order to manoeuvre and this was unacceptable and raised highway safety concerns.
Following further discussion with regard to the proposed development being overbearing and the proposed relocated parking and existing parking, it was
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for the reasons as detailed on page 51 of the main agenda report. |
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Officers reported that with regard to Planning Application 21/00684/HYB, Bordesley Hall, The Holloway, two further comments had been received, as follows: -
Councillor A. B.L. English on behalf of Mr. James McManus, Chair of the Rowney Green Residents’ Association had forwarded photographs of The Holloway, which had been sent directly to all Members of the Planning Committee and included on the Council’s website by officers for Public Access.
One further objection letter had also been received and a summary of the comments received were detailed in the published Committee Update, copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
As highlighted at the commencement of the meeting, the Committee received a joint presentation for Planning Applications 21/00684/HYB and 22/00092/DEM, Bordesley Hall, The Holloway, Alvechurch, Birmingham, Worcestershire, B48 7QA.
Officers presented the joint presentation and in doing so explained that: -
Planning Application 21/00684/HYB The hybrid application consisted of the demolition of employment buildings and the conversion of Bordesley Hall into 3 apartments and on outline application (with all matters reserved with the exception of access) for the construction of up to 46 dwellings and all associated works.
Planning Application 22/00092/DEM Prior notification of the proposed demolition of redundant buildings and structures.
Officers further drew Members’ attention to the following presentation slides: -
· Satellite View · Bordesley Hall photographs · Existing Buildings · Sketch Layout · Bordesley Hall Existing Layout
With regard to Planning Application 21/00684/HYB – Members were referred to Table 1 – Indicative number per housing type, as detailed on page 68 of the main agenda report.
The proposal would involve the demolition of an extensive employment site, which comprised one, two and three storey buildings as well as areas of parking and hardstanding.
The site lay within the Green Belt where there was a presumption against new development save for a number of exceptions as outlined at Paragraphs 149 and 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).
One of these exceptions, at paragraph 149 g) was “the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development”; further information was included on page 70 of the main agenda report.
Officers referred to the comments received from Highways – Bromsgrove and their objection to the application on sustainability grounds, as detailed on pages 62, 75 and 76 of the main agenda report.
Officers further drew Members’ attention to Loss of Employment Use and Affordable Housing and Vacant Building Credit, as detailed pages 71 and 72 of the main agenda report.
The applicant had provided substantial evidence in the form of a Statement on Employment Land and Financial Viability Assessment. Furthermore, evidence had been provided that demonstrated that the neither the refurbishment of the existing buildings for office/industrial uses would be viable at the site, nor would the site’s redevelopment top deliver new ... view the full minutes text for item 68/21 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that Planning Committee Members had previously considered a smaller proposal for 3 detached dwellings along the frontage of Ash Lane. This proposal was refused and subsequently dismissed at appeal, as detailed on pages 110 and 111 of the main agenda report.
This proposal was for the construction of No. 15 affordable (Discounted Market Sales Housing) dwellings including No. 3 retirement bungalows with associated provision for car parking, open space, landscaping and infrastructure works.
Officers referred to the following presentation slides:_
· District Plan Map · Satellite View · View of site from Ash Lane · Existing Access from Ash Lane · View of site from Hopwood Garden Centre Access · Existing Site · Proposed Layout
The application site related to a 1.3ha parcel of land located on the northern side of Ash Lane in Hopwood. The site was located in the Green Belt as defined in the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) and was within the Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan area and was located adjacent to but not outside of the defined Village Envelope of Hopwood.
At the parish level, Policy H1: Locations for New Housing Development of the Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan stated that new housing outside of Alvechurch Village was inappropriate development and would not be supported by national, local or neighbourhood level policies.
Members’ attention was drawn to the Five Year Housing Land Supply information, as detailed on page 112 of the main agenda report.
Officers further referred to the reasons for refusal, as detailed on pages 123 and 124 of the main agenda report.
At the request of the Committee, officers displayed the Proposed Streetscene, the Proposed Dwellings and Proposed Access presentation slides.
In response to queries from the Committee, officers confirmed that there were no footpaths in the vicinity and referred to Highways and Accessibility information, as detailed on pages 118 and 119 of the main agenda report.
Officers concluded that the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt, causing substantial harm to the openness, as detailed on page 123 of the main agenda report.
Officers further referred to the Applicants Case, as detailed on pages 121 and 122 of the main agenda report. At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. J. Rees, addressed the Committee in objection
Mr. C. Whitehouse (via Microsoft Teams, the Applicant’s Planning Consultant, also addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which officers had recommended be refused.
Officers and Worcestershire County Council (WWC), Highways officer responded to Members questions with regard to no footpaths in the vicinity and virtual footpaths.
The WCC, Highways officer reiterated that WCC Highways had reviewed the application and that in the immediate vicinity Ash Lane did not benefit from footpaths and that there was not enough room to put in a segregated footpath and that a virtual footpath was not acceptable.
Some Members commented that having read and listened to the comments from WCC, Highways, the planning inspectorate decision at appeal and the objections from Alvechurch Parish Council; that they ... view the full minutes text for item 69/21 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Applications had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration as the applicant was a Bromsgrove District Councillor.
Officers reported that for consistency purposes in order to align with condition relating to Planning Application 21/01755/LBC, that Condition 1 on page 159 of the main agenda report, be amended to read 18 months and not 3 years, as detailed in the published Committee Update, copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
As highlighted at the commencement of the meeting, the Committee received a joint presentation and report for Planning Applications 21/01754/FUL and 21/01755/LBC, Stoney Lane Farm, Stoney Lane, Alvechurch, Worcestershire, B60 1LZ.
Officers presented the joint report and in doing so asked the Committee to note that planning permission and listed building consent was granted in February 2017 (ref 161028 and 161029) and that those previous permissions had now lapsed, and that this application was a resubmission of the previously approved schemes.
However, it should also be noted that with regards to sustainability for the proposed residential dwelling when the original application was submitted in 2017 sustainability was not considered to be a major reason for refusal but with the recent policy changes this had now become a reason for refusal.
Stoney Lane Farm consisted of a group of buildings comprising a Grade II listed Georgian farmhouse, connected to a 18th century timber-framed barn, a single storey range of 19th century brick barns and a separate brick dovecote. The site was located in the Green Belt.
It was proposed that the main farmhouse and adjoining barns would be converted and used for holiday lets, and the separate rear barns converted to form a single dwelling. Members’ attention was drawn to the detailed proposed development information, as shown on page 147 of the main agenda report.
The dovecote would be restored including the reconstruction of its original pyramidal form roof and would be used a shared storage for Units 2 and 4.
Officers stated that as detailed on page 150 of the main agenda report, that in terms of the access and parking arrangements, Members were asked to note that no new surfacing was proposed to serve either the access route or the parking area itself. Having carefully considered this aspect of the scheme, officers were of the view that in the balancing exercise, that the access and parking proposals were integral to providing the designated heritage asset with a new use and ultimately a future. An appropriate soft and hard landscaping scheme had accompanied the scheme that had been sensitively designed to reduce the impact of this aspect of the scheme.
Officers concluded that the substantial weight given to the harm arising from inappropriate development and its effect on the openness of the Green Belt was clearly outweighed by the benefits identified within the main agenda report.
The scheme raised no issues affecting highway safety, residential amenity or flooding and would have no adverse ... view the full minutes text for item 70/21 |