Agenda and minutes
PDF 366 KBContact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies Minutes: An apology for absence was received from Councillor P. M. McDonald, with Councillor H. Rone-Clarke present as substitute.
Due to technical issues Councillor R. Deeming was unable to join the virtual meeting. |
|
|
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 S. J. Baxter declared in relation to Agenda Item 5, Application 20/00095/FUL- 24 Silver Birch Drive, Hollywood, Worcestershire, B47 5RB, that she had a predetermined view on the matter and would withdraw from the meeting in order to speak on this item as Ward Councillor under the Council’s public speaking rules. Following the conclusion of public speaking, Councillor Baxter took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on the matter.
Councillor S. G. Hession declared in relation to Agenda Item 5, Application 20/00095/FUL – 24 Silver Birch Drive, Hollywood, Worcestershire, B47 5RB, in that she was aware of one of the objectors. Having advised that, she had not commented on the Application, Councillor Hession participated and voted on the matter. |
|
|
Minutes: The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 2ndMarch 2020 were received.
RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 2nd March 2020, be approved as a correct record.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application has been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor S. J. Baxter, Ward Member.
Officers presented the report and explained that planning permission was being sought to create a two storey rear extension measuring approximately 2.24 metres from the existing rear wall, together with a single storey element measuring approximately 3.38 metres from the proposed two storey element. The overall height of the single storey extension would be 3.57 metres (to ridge). The overall height of the two storey extension would be 6.85 metres. In order to accommodate the development, an existing conservatory at the rear of the property would be demolished.
The first floor extension would form an enlargement to an existing bedroom whilst the ground floor extension would create an enlarged kitchen / dining area.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. M. Bevan, addressed the Committee in objection to the Application. Councillor S. J. Baxter, in whose Ward the Site was located also addressed the Committee.
The Committee went on to consider the application with officers responding to a number of points raised during that debate; and in doing so, Officers commented that a right to a view and the number of objections received, were not a material planning consideration.
Officers also clarified the terms of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015, as detailed on page 15 of the main agenda report.
Having considered the Officer’s presentation, the information provided by the speakers and clarification from Officers of a number of points which had been raised, Members were minded to approve the application.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the Conditions as set out on pages 16 and 17 main agenda report. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application has been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor K. J. May, Ward Member.
Officers presented the report and informed the Committee that a pre-application meeting with Officers had taken place and that the original proposal for the site had been for eight dwellings; Officers had discussed and explained development in the Green Belt and openness with the Applicant. The Applicant had reduced the redevelopment of the site to provide four dwellings and two detached garages.
With regard to openness, Officers further informed the Committee that the application site currently consisted of 11 ‘structures’ consisting of polytunnels and a brick structure. These structures were low lying single storey and most were of unsubstantial construction consisting of no more than a wired frame and mesh. Given the slope of the land and the high hedge along the front boundary the visual impact of these structures was considered to be minimal.
Officers further clarified that, with regard to whether the site was a Nursey or Garden Centre, advice had been sought from the Council’s Independent Agricultural Consultant on this matter, as detailed on page 34 of the main agenda report.
Members were being asked to consider the openness and sustainability of the proposed site and to have regard to the reasons for refusal, as detailed on page 38 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. D. Howell, (the Applicant’s agent), addressed the Committee.
In response to questions from Members, Officers highlighted that the Highways Authority had raised no objections in terms of highway safety matters, but had objected to the proposal due to its unsustainable location, as detailed on page 36 of the main agenda report.
At the request of the Committee, Officers further clarified the areas defined on the presentation slide, highlighting that the red outline indicated the proposed dwellings and that the blue outline covered the entire site under the ownership of the Applicant, as detailed on page 41 of the main agenda report.
Members continued with their debate and in doing so, commented that the Council could not currently demonstrate an up-to-date 5 year housing land supply and referred to the limited infilling in villages and small settlements.
In response Officers explained that the Applicants had made reference to exceptions 145 € and (g) within their planning statement; however, these exceptions referred to the limited infilling in villages and the redevelopment of previously developed land subject to preserving openness. With regard to small settlements as set out in the Bromsgrove District Plan, BDP2.4, Table 2; Bell Heath was not identified within that table as being suitable for development. For planning policy purposes, the application site was located within open countryside.
Officers further clarified that sustainability of a development was a key characteristic of planning, which required the planning system to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, with accessible services, and avoiding isolated new homes in the countryside.
Having had regard to all of ... view the full minutes text for item 5/20 |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: This matter was withdrawn from the Agenda by the Applicant and was not discussed. |