Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor S. M. Evans with Councillor R. J. Hunter substituting.

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.

Councillor A. Bailes declared an Other Disclosable Interest, in relation to Agenda Item Number 7 (Minute No 24/24) – 23/00324/FUL – Alvechurch Sports and Social Club, Radford Road, Alvechurch.

Councillor A. Bailes left the meeting room for the duration of the relevant agenda item and took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on this matter.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 21^st May and 4^th June 2024, were received.

With regards to the minutes of the meeting held on 21^st May 2024, Councillor E.M.S Gray asked for the following amendments: -

Page 7, Minute No. 3/24 typographical error, respectively and not respectivly.

Page 10, Minute No. 7/24, paragraph be amended to read: -

Members expressed some concern with the width of the access in particular with regards to the fire services access as they were not consulted as part of the application. Officers explained that they were not a statutory consultee, to which Members disagreed in that they believed they should be consulted with on any application where the proposed highway was under 3.7m. It was further detailed that the current width of the access was 3.3m and was poorly lit and without a footpath, therefore, should these issues be rectified it would make the access much smaller and less than the 3.2m width required by the Worcestershire County Council Streetscape Design Guide.

Councillor M. Marshall asked for the following amendments: -

Page 7, Minute No. 4/24 typographical error, Councillor M. Marshall and not Councillor C. Marshall.

Page 8, Minute No. 7/24 typographical error, Councillor M. Marshall and not Councillor M. Marchall. Also, that the paragraph be amended as follows: -

Councillor M. Marshall withdrew to the public gallery prior to the Officer’s presentation and left the meeting room after addressing the Committee, as the Ward Councillor, under the Council’s public speaking rules.

Page 10, Minute No. 7/24. Councillor M. Marshall felt that the Officer’s Decision Notice, available on Public Access, reflected more accurately the comments made by Members and should therefore be included within the minutes, as follows: -

The proposed development would, by reason of its consequential displacement of vehicles to the public highway, have a severe residual cumulative impact upon the surrounding road network. Accordingly, it would be contrary to Policy BDP1 and paragraph 115 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

RESOLVED that, subject to the amendments, as detailed in the preamble above that the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 21^st May and 4^th June 2024, be approved as correct records.

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.

The Committee considered a report which detailed proposals to consider the confirmation without modification Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (N0.2) 2024, relating to two trees on land at The Oasis, Hagley, Worcestershire, DY9 0AT.

The Tree Officer provided a detailed presentation, and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the recommendation, as detailed on page 23 of the main agenda pack.

The officer further informed the Committee that the provisional order was raised on 8^th February 2024 following on from an initial enquiry made, by a tree surgeon, regarding the status of two Cedar trees, situated within a grassed area at the southern end of The Oasis’s access road as detailed at Appendix 1 to the report.

The officer drew Members’ attention to the objections raised, as detailed at Appendices 2 and 3 to the report; in respect of the provisional TPO having been raised. A further neutral letter was also received, as detailed at Appendix 4 to the report.

The officers’ comments in relation to the points raised in the objections were detailed on page 24 of the main agenda pack and referred to: -

·       Age and size of the trees.

·       Waterlogged soils and movement of the water table.

·       Shading out of gardens.

·       Needle drop and acidification of soils.

The officer highlighted that the trees were coming into full maturity and their growth would be expected to slow considerably as they matured. There was no evidence of any structural deficit or disease, as they were reasonably young trees. There was no evidence of waterlogged soils. The trees were very prominent to the residents of Willow Close, The Greenway, Cavendish Drive, The Oasis, and highway users and pedestrians.

Members then considered the TPO.

In response to a query from the Committee on Appendix 4 being a neutral response, it was explained that the letter did not make any negative comments or any objections to the proposed TPO.

The officer further responded to a query about there being no Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) included with the report, which would have provided further evidence for Members consideration. Members were informed that following the guidance tool used it was not felt necessary to include a TEMPO for this TPO. The trees had more than 40 years of life. However, this was a valid point and the officer agreed to be mindful to include a TEMPO with any future reports they presented to the Committee.

A TPO did not prevent work being carried out on the trees, an application to carry out appropriate work on the trees could be submitted to the Council for consideration and subsequent approval being agreed prior to any work being carried out on the trees.

The officer clarified that as stated in the report, that an initial enquiry was made by a tree surgeon. The tree surgeon had been asked by a management company to remove the trees.  The officer then met the tree surgeon and the management company’s agent on site. The agent was not  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/24

The Committee considered a report which detailed proposals to consider the confirmation without modification Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (N0.3) 2024, relating to trees on land at 21 and 23 Hawthorne Drive, Hollywood, B47 5QT.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer provided a detailed presentation, and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the recommendation, as detailed on page 37 of the main agenda pack.

Members were informed that the provisional order was raised on 8^th February 2024, as shown at Appendix 1 to the report; in response to an indication received by the Council that the owner of the tree at 23 Hawthorne Drive had intended to fell the Oak tree on that property.

A Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was carried out on the trees, as detailed at Appendix 2 to the report. The TEMPO showed that the trees had accrued a score worthy of consideration of a TPO.

Three objections were received in respect of the provisional TPO having been raised. The officers’ comments in relation to the points raised in the objections were detailed on page 38 of the main agenda pack and referred to: -

·       Public Amenity Value.

·       Risk of Subsidence and Root Invasion to Property.

·       General Deris Fall Nuisance.

·       Risk of Root Invasion to Drains.

·       Shadowing.

It was noted that on page 39 of the main agenda pack, that under the paragraph ‘Shadowing’ that the house number should read 27 Beech Road and not 23 Beech Road.

At this stage in the meeting there was a technical issue with the Live Streaming. Therefore, the Chairman announced a short adjournment and comfort break for Members and officers.

Accordingly, the meeting stood adjourned from 18:44 p.m. to 18:54 p.m.

Having reconvened and at the invitation of the Chairman, the Council’s Legal Officer read out the speech, in objection to the TPO, provided by Mr. and Mrs P. Conlon, who were unable to attend the meeting.

It was noted that under the Council’s Public Speaking rules, that Mr. and Mrs. P. Conlon’s speech had taken three minutes to be read out.

At the discretion of the Chairman, Mr. A. Pickersgill, who had also submitted a representation in objection to the TPO, was allowed one minute to address the Committee.

Members then considered the TPO.

In response to a query from the Committee on the TEMPO scoring, as detailed at Appendix 2 to the report. The Senior Arboricultural Officer explained how the scoring had been determined.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer responded to further questions from Members with regards to ‘Risk of Root Invasion to Drains’ and the estate itself. In doing so, Members were informed that as detailed on page 39 of the main agenda pack; roots did not generally exert any mechanical pressure on drains to create damage, they tended to take the easiest direction of growth and go around any obstruction such as drains. The estate was a modern estate and as such would be expected to have a high quality and robust drainage infrastructure that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23/24

The Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor A. Bailes, Ward Councillor.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, whereby one objector had requested that their comments be withdrawn. One objector had added additional comments to their original response. Other comments made by Alvechurch Residents Association about the conduct of the Applicant, were not addressed as it was not a material planning consideration. Worcestershire County Council Highways had provided an update; and the planning officer’s response was also included.

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 presentation slides, as detailed on pages 81 to 97 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so, highlighted that the application was for the refurbishment of the existing building and extension to accommodate new bed and breakfast accommodation (Use Class Sui Generis).

The Conservation Officer had confirmed that there would be neutral impact on the significance of the Conservation Area, and that the proposals would not harm the significance of the nearby listed buildings.

The proposed extension would measure approximately 6.4m high, 12m deep and 15.4m long. The extension would include 20 bedrooms with a connecting corridor into the main building. The proposed extension would include bedrooms at ground and first floor level.

The introduction of additional fenestration on the existing building alongside the alteration of existing openings was welcomed and an improvement to the overall design and appearance of the building. The proposed windows and frames to the existing building would be painted timber sash, with or without a restrictor. The proposed windows and frames of the proposed extension would be painted timber casement windows, with or without a restrictor, as detailed on the presentation slides on pages 91 and 92 of the main agenda pack.

The existing building was located approximately 2m from the boundary and approximately 18m from the rear of 1 Swan Street. The existing building was built at an angle to the gardens on Swan Street and therefore the distance between the boundary increased in a south-easterly direction to approximately 4m.

At present the site had 48 car parking spaces which would be reduced to 33 spaces (a reduction of 15 parking spaces) which was deemed to be acceptable to Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Highways as the development met the Streetscape Design Guide parking standards and was in a sustainable location.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms. L. Brown on behalf of Alvechurch Residents Association, who were in objection to the application addressed the Committee. Ms. C. McIntyre, the Applicant’s Planning Agent spoke in support of the application. Councillor T. Williams, representing Alvechurch Parish Council and Councillor C. Hotham (substituting Ward Councillor for Councillor A. Bailes) addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

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

Members raised a number of questions with regards to the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24/24

Having reconvened, Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which detailed further comments from North Worcestershire Water Management, with the plans as listed, being removed from Condition 1.

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 presentation slides, as detailed on pages 113 to 129 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so, highlighted that the application was for reserved matters approval, appearance, landscaping, layout and scale. For the construction of 241 dwellings and associated works and infrastructure, pursuant to the outline planning permissions 19/00976/HYB and 19/00977/HYB (Cross boundary application with Redditch BC 24/00083/REM). Phase 5 Development Brockhill East, Hewell Road, Redditch, Worcestershire.

Officers highlighted that the consideration of the impacts of a development proposal was not altered by political boundaries and could not be considered in isolation. Members needed to consider the application as a whole, (not just that part of the development within its own administrative boundary) and come to a decision based upon that consideration. However, Members would only be determining the application in so far as it related to the administrative boundary of Bromsgrove. For reference, this related to land extending from the approved phase 6 north towards the area for phase 4. The proposed housing and green infrastructure areas were split between both authorities.

Hybrid applications 19/00976/HYB and 19/00977/HYB for up to 960 dwellings consisted of a full application for 128 dwellings accessed off Weights Lane, new public open space, drainage system, engineering operations associated works and an outline application (with all matters reserved with the exception of access) for the construction of the remaining dwellings.

Officers drew Members; attention to the ‘Proposal Description’ as detailed on page 103 of the main agenda pack.

The application sought a total of 142 market homes to be provided across the site to provide 30 (21%), two-bedroom dwelling, 51 (36%), 3-bedroom dwellings and 61 (43%) four bed dwellings. The proposals included the provision of 99 affordable housing units, which equated to 41% of the total dwellings proposed. As part of the proposal, mostly 2 storey dwellings were proposed. However, there were also some 2.5 dwellings incorporating dormers.

Officers further drew Members’ attention to the ‘Reserved Matters’ to be considered under this application, as fully detailed on page 103 of the main agenda pack. It was reiterated that the issue of external access had already been determined and approved.

The proposed layout of the Phase 5 proposals had directly incorporated the ideas of the Framework Plan and Design and Access Statement (DAS) into the layout by mirroring the suggested built form and incorporating areas of green open space along the ridgeline and SuDS basins.

Phase 5 had an average density of 42 dwellings per hectare, allowing for efficient use while being sensitive to the site's landscape and topography. This density is slightly higher than Phases 4 and 6. However, this density was not inappropriate, as Phase 6  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25/24