Agenda item

At this stage in the meeting Councillor M. Marchall withdrew to the Public Gallery, having declared an interest and his intention to speak as Ward Councillor for this application.

Officers detailed that agenda items 7 (minute No 7/24) and agenda item 8 (minute No 8/24) were deferred from a previous meeting of the Planning Committee held on 8^th April 2024 to allow Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Highways to be in attendance.

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

Officers further detailed that due to the similarity between agenda items 7 and 8 it had been requested that the presentations and debate take place at the same time, however, it was further clarified that as they were separate applications votes would be taken separately.

Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that the applications were both for the demolition of existing garages and the erection of new build dwellings in their place including associated access and landscaping. Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 41 to 51 of the main agenda pack.

The sites were located in residential and sustainable locations and the principle of development was deemed acceptable.

The sites had existing vehicular access with good visibility in both directions. Willow Gardens had footways and street lighting on both sides of the road and no parking restrictions were in force in the vicinity. The sites were located within walking distance of amenities, bus route and bus stops.

It was noted there would be a loss of garages, however it was clarified to Members that there was no right to park for residents and the garages could be closed at any time by an operational decision taken by the landowner.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the proposed design and floor plans for the developments, highlighting that all of the garages would be demolished with the exception of a single garage retained under private ownership as part of application 23/01401/FUL.

The Chairman made the decision that due to the similarity between the two applications that the public speaking would be heard concurrently.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr D. Shipley and Mr W. Bowen, Local Residents, Mr. K. Lawrence, the Applicant’s Representative and Councillor M. Marshall, Ward Councillor addressed the Committee with regards to the two applications.

The Committee then debated both applications, with Officers highlighting that decisions and votes would be taken for each application separately.

At the invitation of the Chairman and following direct questions from Members, WCC, Highways Officer addressed the Committee. It was stated that several physical site visits were undertaken at different times of the day to ascertain the availability of parking and occupancy of the garage units. During the most recent visit undertaken on 20.05.24, it was found that 12 of the 30 garages were occupied, and there were 28 free on-street parking spaces in the local vicinity.

The WCC, Highways Officer further stated the following:

• The visibility was deemed acceptable due to the less intensive use of the site.
• That the national standards dictated that when considering alternative parking, it must be within 300m of the location.
• There would be an estimated 22 less trips generated from the change of use of the sites.

The WCC Highways Officer concluded that with sufficient parking within the area to accommodate any displacement of vehicles from the garages, the net impact in highways terms would be 22 less trips generated, therefore, no objections were raised by WCC, Highways.

The following was also clarified following questions from Members:

• That although the WCC Street Scape Design Guide was only a guide, it was referenced in the national standards and therefore formed part of the development plan.
• That 12 garages were occupied (9 for application 23/01400/FUL and 3 for 23/0104/FUL). It was further noted that not all of these would be used for vehicles some were used as storage.
• That the site access was between 3.2 and 3.3m in width, which was deemed acceptable by WCC, Highways.

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.

Members expressed further concerns with the lack of an extensive parking impact assessment for the surrounding area giving a consistent analysis of the available parking within the locality.

Councillor R. J. Hunter proposed an alternative recommendation to defer the application to allow Officers to address the concerns raised around fire safety and parking. The alternative recommendation was seconded by Councillor C. A. Hotham

Members stated that the application had already being deferred at the meeting held on 8^th April 2024, the applicant could therefore apply for non-determination and costs could be awarded against the Council if no decision was made.

On being put to a vote the Alternative Recommendation was rejected.

Members expressed the opinion that additional information was unnecessary by Officers and a deferral would give the applicant grounds for non-determination. Members further stated that the access was neither safe nor suitable and contravened various policies including: -

·       NPPF paragraphs 114b) and 116b) and BDP1 and BDP16.1 for safe access for all users

·       NPPF paragraph 115 and BDP1 and BDP16 as the developments would have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the wider highway network.

Members also stated that there was concern about parking which would be impacted by the development and not adequately addressed.

Councillor A. Bailes proposed an Alternative Recommendation to refuse the application as the associated access would be unsafe. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor J. Elledge.

On being put to a vote it was.

RESOLVED that having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be refused subject to the reasons as detailed in the preamble above.