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.
In conclusion officers had recommended that planning permission be refused for the reasons as detailed on page 52 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. O. Cooper, Planning Agent, on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. Mr. P. Williams, Chairman, Stoke Parish Council, also addressed the Committee in objection to the Application.
Members then considered the application, which officers had recommended be refused.
Members questioned if the footpaths would have dropped kerbs, as it would prove difficult to access the village on a mobility scooter, taking into consideration that the proposed development would be for the over 55s.
Members also raised some concern that there was no external storage provided at the park homes (for storing gardening and sports equipment and mobility scooters).
Members raised further concerns with regard to traffic. Commenting that the area had grown and was accessed by very narrow roads and that during the busy periods in the day, that the area did become a bit of a ‘bottle neck’ due to the volume of traffic. Therefore, some Members expressed concerns from a safety point of view and commented that whilst admiring the proposed development for the over 55s, the proposed development was in the wrong location. There would be increased traffic entering / exiting the proposed development as residents would be unable to safely walk on / off the proposed site.
Members thanked the public speakers and further commented that this was a difficult application to determine, due to the need for additional homes. However, it was not an application that could be determined in isolation. Members also needed to consider the number of public objections received; and the objections received from North Worcestershire Economic Development and Regeneration (NWEDR) and Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS), Noise, as detailed in the main agenda report.
Members further referred to the ‘Planning Balance’ information, as detailed on pages 51 and 52 of the main agenda report. Members also stated that there was a shortage of employment land within the district and that the land should be kept as employment land.
In response to the concerns raised by the Committee with regard to highways safety. Officers reiterated that Worcestershire County Council, Highways, had not raised any objections to the proposed application.
On being put the vote, it was
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for the reasons as detailed on page 52 of the main agenda report.