Agenda item

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 107 to 113 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for Attwell Farm Park, Seafield Lane, Portway, Worcestershire, B98 9DB and sought the variation of four conditions that were attached to the existing planning permission on site. The conditions relate to the layout of the overspill parking area (Condition 2), external lighting (Condition 5), biodiversity/ecology/overspill parking (Condition 6) and the opening hours to visiting members of the public (Condition 8).

Officers drew Members attention to the update reports and detailed that comments had been received from the Tree Officer and Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) with further comments from the Resident’s Association and Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways). However, Officers clarified that the submissions did not affect the Officers Recommendation.

The existing and proposed overspill parking areas as detailed on pages 109 of the Public Reports pack. The Application sought to amend the approved layout, including surfacing and marking there would also be an increase in the number of spaces, with some parking spaces under the tree canopies and positioned closer to both Seafield Land and Chery Pit Lane. Furthermore, the amendment to Conditions 2 and 6 sought to extend the acoustic fencing and it was noted that the overall number of trees provided remained the same.

There was no objection from the Tree Officer or WRS, conditions were recommended.

The main issues for Members to consider were shown on page 113 of the Public Reports pack.

At the invitation of the Chairman Roy Hoffmeister, on behalf of Health green Farm and Councillor James Urry, of Beoley Parish Council addressed the committee in opposition to the application. Mr A Murphy, Planning Agent spoke in support.

Officers commented that the proposed alteration to Condition 5 was to permit the applicant to submit details under a planning condition, as the current condition did not allow any lighting to be provided in connection with the development. Members noted the light up decorations observed during their site visit and questioned if details of these would be submitted under a retrospective application. Officers advised that a lighting scheme had been requested but the request had been declined by the agent stating it would be a future management decision for the applicant whether to submit the details. Therefore, Officers clarified that no lighting schemed had been submitted as part of the application, nor was there any indication from the applicant to do so.

Members were given some assurance that WRS would be involved in consulting on any submitted lighting schemes (under a varied Condition 5) or assessing the impact to local residential amenity due to noise (from the variation of Condition 8). Members accepted that with current data, WRS had no objection to the application. There was still some concern that the alteration to those conditions could have a detrimental impact on local residents.

During the debate It was explored by Members if it was possible to require that the applicant consult with their neighbours before submitting any lighting plans. Officers advised that it was not reasonable to require the applicant to consult with residents and therefore it would not meet the “reasonable” test that a Condition needed to comply with. However, Members may consider the inclusion of an informative added which stated that it would like the applicant to discuss with residents. Officers further advised that the wording of the proposed condition on page 104 requires a Lighting Assessment to demonstrate suitability with regard to the impact on, amongst others, residential amenity of neighbouring properties and Heath Green Farm.

Members felt that the site did not necessarily need to open from 9am to 9pm each day and that to do so might affect the amenity of the local residents. Furthermore, permitting one of two days would still allow the business to accommodate SEN visitors and those wishing to visit during an evening. Officers advised that it was within the gift of Members to change the proposed opening times, however, they would need to provide sound planning reasons to do so.

In exploring the possibility of amended the opening hours Condition, it was noted that during the original application, opening hours were Conditioned as 9am to 5pm to safeguard the amenity of local residents. This was due to WRS raising an objection on noise grounds, primarily due to the lack of evidence that it would not affect the residents. However, with the current application a noise assessment has been carried out, and a noise management plan had been submitted, both of which were absent from the original application. These had been assessed by WRS who found it to be robust and therefore, no objection had been raised for the current application. Officers noted that this was a different situation as it was the lack of evidence which led to concerns regarding opening hours.

Councillor R. Lambert proposed an Amendment the substantive recommendation to amend Condition 8 for only one day a week and retain the 9am to 5pm for the other days. The reasons given were to safeguard the amenity for local residents. The amendment was Seconded by Councillor A. Bailes.

However, on being put to the vote the amendment was not carried.

The Substantive Recommendation as detailed on page 81 of the public reports pack and was considered. On being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that Full planning permission be granted and that delegated powers be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Culture Services to agree the final scope and detailed wording of the Conditions as outlined on pages 104 to 105 of the Public Reports pack.