Agenda item

24/00229/FUL - Retention of 13 storage containers (and hardstanding). Land at Backlane Farm, St Kenelms Road, Romsley, Worcestershire B62 0PG. Mr. M. Hodgetts

Updated Officer presentation due to errors in the previous version.

 

Minutes:

Having declared a Personal Interest in that she knew the applicant, the Chairman Councillor H. Jones retired from the meeting room for the duration of Agenda Items No’s. 6, 7 and 12; and took no part in the debate or decision making thereof. The Vice-Chairman Councillor M. Marshall took to the chair for the remainder of the meeting.

 

At this stage in the meeting the Chairman announced a short comfort break. Accordingly, the meeting stood adjourned from 20:00 hours to 20:06 hours.

 

Having reconvened, the Chairman announced that as agenda item No’s 6, 7 and 12 all pertained to the same site, there would be a combined presentation for all 3 applications. This would be followed by a combined public speaking section. However, the Chairman clarified that there would be separate questions/debate on each of the applications and also separate votes.

 

Officers presented the reports and in doing so stated that the applications were all for the Land at Backlane Farm, St Kenelms Road, Romsley, Worcestershire B62 0PG. All applications were retrospective and recommended for refusal due to being inappropriate development in the Greenbelt without any special circumstances.

 

Officers clarified that following a clerical error, an updated presentation was published for the first agenda item and could be found on pages 3 to 9 of the Supplementary Agenda pack. The application sought the retention of 13 storage units at the northern part of the site.

 

The location and containers were identified on page 6 of the Supplementary Agenda pack. The additional hardstanding, which was also covered under the retrospective application, was highlighted on the images shown on pages 8 and 9 of the same supplementary agenda pack.

 

The second presentation was detailed on pages 77 to 81 of the Public Report pack and sought the retention of a storage compound.

 

Officers detailed the location on page 78 of the Public Reports pack and identified the route to the compound which formed part of the application, this path was not formally marked. Officers further clarified that the application also included the retention of the fencing, CCTV cameras and floodlighting which were required for the security of the compound.

 

The third presentation was detailed on pages 173 to 177 of the Public Report pack and sought the retention of an extended carparking area and seating area to be used by the café on site.

 

Officers referred to the location, as detailed on page 174 of the Public Reports pack and confirmed that there was an existing approved car parking area. Members were being asked to determine the extension to the car parking area and the additional seating area.

 

Officers then highlighted to Members that votes must be undertaken separately on each of the applications.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Liz Nicholson, the applicant’s agent, had 9 minutes to address the Committee, 3 minutes for each of the applications. Councillor S. Nock, Ward Member, addressed the Committee in support of agenda items No’s 6 and 12 only, therefore, he was allocated 6 minutes to address the Committee.

 

After the public speaking had ended, Members asked questions on each application in turn. Questions and voting was covered under each agenda item separately.

 

During the debate of agenda item No6, Officers clarified that the application previously sought to approve 9 units, this was due to a certificate of lawfulness being sought on 4 of the units. However, when it was deemed unlikely that the certificate would be granted, Officers permitted the amendment of the retrospective application to cover all 13 units as opposed to processing a further application.

 

Members noted the economic impact of rejecting the application which would force the current occupiers to move. However, Members did not consider that this economic loss constituted very special circumstances to allow the development within the Greenbelt.

 

On being put to the vote, it was 

 

RESOLVED that permission be refused for the reasons as stated on page 56 of the Public Reports pack.

 

Supporting documents: