Agenda and minutes
PDF 417 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 Councillor M. A. Sherrey with Councillor M. Thompson substituting. |
|
|
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: There were no declarations of interest. |
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 11th April 2022 were received.
RESOLVED that, the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 11th April 2022, 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 she 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: Officers verbally reported the views of the Core Waste Team Leader, which were received on 16th May 2022, and had been included in the published Committee Update.
“The refuse tracking does not appear to show that our fleet would be able to access the properties on this application. We would request a developer contribution towards bins which are currently priced at £18.69/container, with each property needing 2 containers, one Grey (domestic waste) and one Green (recycling waste.”. as detailed in the published Committee Update, which was provided to Members of the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers confirmed that a developer contribution of £3364.20 would be required for waste collection.
Officers presented the report and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 56 to 72 of the main agenda report.
Planning permission was being sought for the use of land for the stationing of 90 static residential park homes for the over 55s, with associated parking, internal service roads, landscaping and acoustic fencing to the north, east and west boundaries.
Officers further reported that the Applicant’s Planning Agent had been in contact, earlier in the day, with regards to an inconsistency between the disposition of proposed caravans detailed on the Acoustic fencing plan, landscaping plan and site location plan not aligning with the correct arrangement as detailed on the Layout Plan Revision C. Officers clarified that this was a very minor inconsistency, and as such did not create an obstacle to determining the application tonight.
Members were informed that an earlier scheme was proposed and deferred, as detailed on page 11 of the main agenda report. The earlier scheme showed a proposed footpath through an area of landscaping running parallel to the southern boundary alongside Worcester and Birmingham Canal. The proposed footpath was deleted at the suggestion of the Local Planning Authority, as it did not connect and was seen as a threat to the important existing vegetation screening alongside the canal.
In the south west corner, there was a pre-existing bridge, however, this did not form part of the proposed application. The bridge was in private ownership and officers had not received a response from the owners, so officers had been unable to explore the potential of using the pre-existing bridge as a further means of pedestrian access to the site. Therefore, there would be a single access as illustrated on the Illustrative CGI presentation slide, as detailed on page 62 of the main agenda report.
Officers drew Members’ attention to page 25 of the main agenda report, and that following a query from the Chairman; officers clarified that there was a Davenal House Surgery in Bromsgrove Town Centre, which was the main GP surgery. However, the Davenal House Surgery referred to in the report, was the Stoke Prior GP surgery on Ryefields Road (part of the same GP practice) and would be a 16 minute walk from the proposed site.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers reported that following the submission of further information with regard to drainage, from North Worcestershire Water Management (NWWM) that Condition 10, as detailed on page 83 of the main agenda report could now be deleted; 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.
Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 86 to 103 of the main agenda report; and in doing so informed Members that the application sought the demolition of no’s 163 and 165 Birmingham Road and the construction of eight detached dwellings; with land to the rear of 151 and 157b Birmingham Road and 73 All Saints Road, Bromsgrove.
As detailed in the main agenda report, the floor area of the development exceeded 1000 square metres, and therefore, under the Council’s Scheme of Delegation had to be referred to Planning Committee for determination.
Members’ attention was drawn to the ‘Relevant Planning History,’ as detailed on page 75 of the main agenda report.
The application sought planning permission to demolish the two existing dwellings and to erect eight detached dwellings. This would result in a net increase of 6 dwellings. The application also sought to substitute house types for previously approved plots 3, 4 and 7 and a revised garage for plot 8.
Plots 1, 2, 3, 7 and 8 would have five bedrooms. Plots 4 – 6 would each have three bedrooms. The application site included part of the rear curtilages of 151 and 157 Birmingham Road and 73 All Saints Road.
The proposed development would be served by two access points onto Birmingham Road.
Members’ attention was drawn to ‘The Site and its Surroundings’ as detailed on page 75 of the main agenda report.
Officers informed the Committee that the proposed application did not entirely comply with Policy BPD7. However, the Committee had approved both previous applications (20/01565/FUL and 20/004863/FUL); and therefore, officers had considered it unreasonable to refuse this application even though there would be a slight conflict with Policy BPD7.
Officers further stated that following the approval of the two previous applications, it was noted that the Conservation Officer had not sought to provide comments on this proposal.
Officers drew Members’ attention to ‘The Planning Balance and Conclusion,’ as detailed on pages 80 and 81 of the main agenda report.
It was noted that Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways, had not raised any objections. Members then considered the application, which officers had recommended be approved.
Officers responded to questions from the Committee with regard to the exact location of Oakland Grove and the exit onto Birmingham Road.
Officers clarified that the site would be accessed off Birmingham Road via 2no. new vehicular access points. The proposal would be adjacent to Oakland Grove.
In response to questions from the Committee with regard to Highways, the Highways Officer, WCC, informed the Committee that Highways were happy with the 2 new vehicular access points ... view the full minutes text for item 93/21 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: It was noted that there was no Committee Update for this Application.
Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor J. E. King, Ward Councillor.
It was noted that Councillor J. E. King, had registered to address the Committee for this item as Ward Councillor. Councillor J. E. King left the meeting room and only returned to address the Committee, under the Council’s public speaking rules.
Officers presented the report and presentation slides, and in doing so, highlighted that the application was a retrospective application for a detached double garage.
The property was detached and was situated at a road junction with ‘Greenhill’ to the south, and St Catherine’s Rd to the east. Access to the property was via St. Catherine’s Rd. The property was constructed in the 1970’s as a single storey bungalow. A loft conversion which included the insertion of several dormer windows was implemented following the granting of planning permission for these works in 2019, as set out in the planning history, as detailed on page 106 of the main agenda report.
An earlier application for a detached garage in this location of the site was submitted under planning ref 17/01401/FUL and was refused planning permission on 26.02.2018 for the reason, as detailed on page 106 of the main agenda report.
Despite this, a detached garage was erected in this location. A new planning application was submitted on 01.03.2021 (planning ref 21/00321/FUL) seeking the retention of the garage. This retrospective application was refused planning permission on 26.04.2021 with no appeal being lodged.
Officers highlighted that, the current application before Members, submitted on 01.04.2022, again, sought the retention of the detached garage.
No.1a St Catherine’s Road sat at the end of a row of dwellings which were mostly detached and were well set-back from the highway. The application site, like its neighbour, 1 St Catherine’s Road had a substantial front garden, and a characteristic and consistent building line existed.
The host dwellings’ plan form and plot size were similar to that of No. 1 St Catherine’s Road and No. 3 St Catherine’s Road which were situated to the north.
The garage was substantial in size and was positioned approximately 8.4m forward of the dwellings' principal elevation. It was located within close proximity of the St Catherine’s Road / Greenhill junction. The garage was considered to be prominent in appearance and the siting of a substantial garage adjacent to the highway was considered to be at odds with the pattern of development locally.
Consequently, the garage appeared as an unduly dominant and obtrusive feature at the core of the village, harming the street scene in this highly prominent location.
Officers referred to the objection received from Lickey and Blackwell Parish Council, who had objected to the application, commenting that the garage was too large and that earlier applications had been refused planning permission.
In summary, the garage as erected was unduly prominent within the street scene and at ... view the full minutes text for item 94/21 |