Agenda item - 21/01836/FUL - Change of use of land and buildings (units 1 and 2) from agriculture and equestrian use to mixed-use agriculture, equestrian and education, replacement roof to unit 2 (parts 3 and 4), new windows to north-east elevation of unit 2 (part 1) and associated foul drainage works. Thornborough Farm, Redhill Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham. Riverside Education

Agenda item

21/01836/FUL - Change of use of land and buildings (units 1 and 2) from agriculture and equestrian use to mixed-use agriculture, equestrian and education, replacement roof to unit 2 (parts 3 and 4), new windows to north-east elevation of unit 2 (part 1) and associated foul drainage works. Thornborough Farm, Redhill Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham. Riverside Education

Minutes:

Officers drew Members’ attention to Committee Update 3, page 3 which detailed an additional representation that had been received and the amended recommendation that planning permission be refused.

 

A copy of Committee Update 3 was provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

 

Officers further informed the Committee that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor C. A. Hotham, Ward Councillor. 

 

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 42 to 55 of the main agenda report; and in doing so, highlighted that the application sought a change of use of land and buildings (units 1 and 2) from agricultural and equestrian use to mixed-use agriculture, equestrian and education, replacement roof to unit 2 (parts 3 and 4), new windows to north-east elevation of unit 2 (part1) and associated foul drainage.

 

Officer drew Members’ attention the ‘Background’ and ‘The Proposal’, as detailed on pages 29 and 30 of the main agenda report.

 

Officers further highlighted that the site was located wholly in the Green Belt.

 

Officers explained that an existing timber building within the site was subject to an Enforcement Notice requiring it to be demolished.  The Enforcement Notice was issued on 12th January 2021 and was subsequently upheld on appeal in September 2021, as detailed on page 29 of the main agenda report.  

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to page 55, the “Application Site, other land in applicant’s control, Hazeldene” slide.  Officers further referred to the close proximity to Hazeldene and that a number of the residents had expressed their concerns, as detailed in the report.  Therefore, it was considered that the development would result in a loss of residential amenity, in particular associated with Hazeldene.

 

Officers further reiterated that the mixed use proposal related to the whole of the application site and it would not be possible to restrict the use of the land or limit the number of people present by means of a planning condition.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. R. Smith, addressed the Committee in objection to the Application.  Mr. A. Murphy, the Applicant’s Planning Agent addressed the Committee.  The Council’s Legal Advisor read out the statement submitted by Councillor C. A. Hotham, Ward Councillor. 

 

Members then considered the application, which officers had recommended that planning permission be refused.

 

In response to questions from Members with regard to foul drainage, officers clarified that currently there was a shared sewerage treatment plant with Hazeldene.  However, permission was being sought for the installation of a new sewage treatment plant to serve the site, should the application be approved. So currently there were no specific details on foul drainage.

 

Officers informed the Committee that enforcement action with regard to the continued use of the site as an education facility was not open for discussion.  As detailed in the report, there was an unauthorised development on the site, whereby an Enforcement Notice had been issued, as shown in the preamble above.

 

Some Members commented that they lived in close proximity to a similar educational site and could empathise with the concerns raised by those residents living in close proximity to this site. Although some Members understood why the school wanted this additional facility, it was felt that it was not in an appropriate area.  The site was wholly in the Green Belt and concerns had been raised.  Members further referred to the daily traffic movements, as detailed on page 31 of the main agenda report; and that as detailed in the report, there were no Very Special Circumstances. 

 

Other Members also commented that support should be given for such a specialised educational facility, as there were not many places like this and that Members should show some compassion.  Therefore, Members questioned, if Planning Conditions with regard to foul drainage and pattern of use could be included, should Members be minded to approve the application?

 

Officers explained that any Conditions had to be precise.

 

At this stage in the meeting, Councillor S.P. Douglas proposed an Alternative Recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor J. E. King, that

 

Delegated powers be granted to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure Services to determine the application, and to include Conditions with regard to:-

 

·         Drainage

·         Pattern of use

·         Opening hours

·         Limiting the number of children on site

·         Electric Charging Points

·         Cycle storage

 

In response to Officers, Councillor S.P. Douglas went through the reasons for refusal, and in doing so gave her opinion as to why these were not justifiable.

 

Officers further responded to questions with regard to noise mitigation and the entrance to Hazeldene.

 

On being put to the vote, the Alterative Recommendation was lost.

 

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused, subject to the reasons as detailed in the amended Recommendation, on Committee Update 3, page 3. 

Supporting documents: