Agenda and minutes

Venue: Remote Meeting

Contact: Committee Administration 01905 722027, 722006, 722085 

Items
No. Item

57.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

The following declarations of interest were made:

 

Application 19/00520/FUL – Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Charles Hastings Way

(Minute No. 62)

 

Councillors Agar and Johnson – as Members of Worcestershire County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Councillors Agar and Johnson elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Application 20/00503/FUL – Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Charles Hastings Way

(Minute No. 63)

 

Councillors Agar and Johnson – as Members of Worcestershire County Council Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee.  Councillors Agar and Johnson elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Application 20/00524/HP – 310 Bath Road

(Minute No. 64)

 

Councillor Berry – knows the objector registered to speak on the item and had advised her on procedure matters only.  Councillor Berry elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Application 19/00860/FUL – Pitmaston House, Malvern Road

(Minute No. 66)

 

Councillor Mitchell – has previously stayed in this property. Councillor Mitchell elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Application 20/00685/CLE – Astwood Crematorium , Astwood Road

(Minute No. 68)

 

Councillor Stalker – as a City Council appointed representative on the Worcester Crematorium and Cemeteries Forum.  Councillor Stalker had no prior knowledge of the application and elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

58.

Minutes of Previous Planning Committee pdf icon PDF 233 KB

of the meeting held on 24th September 2020 to be approved and signed.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 24th September 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed remotely by the Chairman.

59.

Minutes of Previous Conservation Advisory Panel pdf icon PDF 160 KB

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel be received.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel are received.

60.

Public Participation

Up to a total of fifteen minutes can be allowed, each speaker being allocated a maximum of five minutes, for members of the public to present a petition, ask a question or comment on any matter on the Agenda or within the remit of the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 10.

Minutes:

None.

61.

Public Representation

Members of the public will be allowed to address the Committee in respect of applications to be considered by the Committee in accordance with Committee Procedure Rule 11. Members of the public will address the Committee during the Committee’s consideration of the respective item.

Minutes:

Those representations made are recorded at the minute to which they relate.

62.

Application 19/00520/FUL - Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Charles Hastings Way pdf icon PDF 2 MB

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in section 9 of this report. 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered a retrospective application for the installation of 5no. air handling units and 2no. air cooled chillers at Aconbury East Building, Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Charles Hastings Way.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Roberts on grounds of impact on local residents.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and the representations and consultations where applicable.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late papers which related to the following:

 

·         response from Worcestershire Regulatory Services in relation to comments submitted by neighbouring residents as outlined in Appendix 1 attached to the Officer’s report;

·         comments received on behalf of the applicant as set out in Appendix 1 and 2; and

·         amendment to condition 4 (highlighted in red) following advice from Worcestershire Regulatory Services.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

The Development Management Team Leader informed the Committee that consideration had been given to the provision of the screening to the installation but had been discounted by the applicants on structural and cost grounds for the reasons as set out in the report at paragraphs 7.16-7.17 of the report.

 

Public Representations

 

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

 

Brian Perry (Objector) and Kirstie Clifton (Agent on behalf of Applicant) Simon Wills (Scheme Architect, Pinnegar Hayward Design LLP) and Anthony Harper (Acoustic Consultant, Sandy Brown Associates)

 

A local Ward Member, Councillor Roberts also addressed the Committee.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

The Chairman and Committee Members agreed that local Ward Member, Councillor Roberts could address Committee before the registered speakers to allow him to put the impact of the development into context, rather than speak on the merits of the application.

 

·         The Ward Member provided the Committee with background to this retrospective application which had been ongoing since 2017.  Members were informed that residents were only consulted following a complaint made by one of them to indicate that the air handling units were not part of the original application that was approved in 2017.  He also identified that additional plant had been added and it was determined that screening would no longer be provided

 

·         The Chairman reminded Members that the Committee are looking at material planning considerations of the application and whilst the background and retrospective application is relevant, it is an enforcement issue.

 

·         The objector, on behalf of local residents, in addressing the Committee stated that residents are concerned that when the plant is fully operational there would be increased noise from the Aconbury East roof top plant.  The residents other main concerns related to the visual impact, glare from the building/roof top plant and noise.  It was felt that the noise assessment carried out was inaccurate and it was asked that the application is rejected pending  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

63.

Application 20/00503/FUL - Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Charles Hastings Way pdf icon PDF 511 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the creation of a new roof plant room at Aconbury Link Building, Worcestershire Royal Hospital, Charles Hastings Way.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of the Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning who considers that the proposals should be considered at the same time as another separate application within the site is considered by the Planning Committee. This submission, reference 19/00520/FUL, has generated significant public interest and given that the proposals have some similarities, it considered that the two matters should be determined in conjunction with each other.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and the representations and consultations where applicable.

 

There were no late papers circulated.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

The Development Management Team Leader drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 7.9 of the report referring to Worcestershire Regulatory Services, who have no objection, subject to a condition related to the noise report.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         Concerns had been raised about the accumulative noise impact this proposal would have at this stage and the comments made by Christopher Allen, objector, in paragraph 6.1 of the report.  The Chairman asked the Environmental Health Officer of Worcestershire Regulatory Services to respond. 

 

·         The Officer referred to the Acoustics Consultant, Sandy Brown, who had addressed the impact of noise and the impact of moving plant items into the location.  It was stated that the movement of the plant is minimal and poses no concern because of its location and will be enclosed in a plant room.

 

A proposal to approve the application was made and this was seconded.  There being no further points made the Chair asked the Legal Team Manager to request the voting of each Member of the Committee, who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

 

64.

Application 20/00524/HP - 310 Bath Road pdf icon PDF 539 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for a loft conversion to include pitched roof dormer to front, box dormer to rear with Juliette balcony and new side gable roof at 310 Bath Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Stephen on the grounds of the loss of privacy to neighbouring residents from overlooking.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and the representations and consultations where applicable.

 

There were no late papers circulated.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

Public Representations

 

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

 

Jan Vale (Objector) and Zehra Hanif (wife of the Applicant)

 

A local Ward Member, Councillor Stephen also addressed the Committee.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         The objector, in addressing the Committee, stated that the proposed large dormer with bi-fold doors and a Juliette balcony will visually dominate and be overbearing.  It was considered that this would be more intrusive than a regular window.  The objector felt that their privacy was already compromised because their rear garden is overlooked by their neighbours unusually high garden.

 

·         The applicants’ wife, in response informed Committee Members that the proposal would not be out of character for the area and referred to the different types of properties in Bath Road.  She disagreed with comments about the hipped to gable roof made by neighbours and agreed with the comments made by officers in relation to the Juliette balcony.   The only purpose for the proposal is to ensure that developing family needs are met in particular children and elderly relatives.

 

·         A local Ward Member, in addressing the Committee, shared on screen with the Committee, a photo taken from the rear garden of 308 Bath Road which identified the different levels, which is some 3-4 feet higher than floor level, meaning the height difference is of significance when looking through the window. 

 

·         He stated that the major issue was the Juliette balcony with the bi-fold doors which will open into the property.  Because of the raised nature of the garden and a window that goes all the way down to the ground he asked Committee to either reject the application or seek amendments to reduce the amount of overlooking by replacing with a window that does not go all the way down to the ground.

 

·         In response to a question from the Chairman, the Development Management Team Leader stated that in his view a Juliette balcony would not have any greater impact on privacy than if it were a standard window.

 

·         Members, although understanding the neighbour’s concerns on balance were quite sympathetic to the proposal.  It was noted that the application had been amended to prevent a lot of the overlooking and that the dormer window  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

65.

Application 20/00627/PIP - Land to the north of Ankerage Green pdf icon PDF 623 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant Permission in Principle.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for Permission in Principle for up to 6 dwellings at land to the north of Ankerage Green.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Roberts on the grounds of the level of interest and concern expressed by local residents.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and the representations and consultations where applicable.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to the following:

 

·         further neighbour objections; and

·         comment from local resident on lack of preliminary Ecological and Tree Surveys and response from the officer on these matters.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

The Senior Planning Officer in presenting the report informed the Committee that when assessing applications for Permission in Principle, the scope for assessment is strictly limited to issue of location; land use and amount of development.  All other matters which go beyond these areas should be reserved for consideration at technical details consent stage.

 

The Committee were also informed that on a Permission in Principle application conditions cannot be applied, but there is an opportunity to include informatives.  The proposed information to be included, to set out the level of documentation and supporting information required at the technical details consent stage, were highlighted in slide 65 of the powerpoint presentation.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.  However a local Ward Member, Councillor Roberts addressed the Committee objecting to the proposal, as outlined in paragraph 6.1 of the report.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         A local Ward Member, Councillor Roberts, in addressing the Committee stated that this site is described as being brownfield land which needs to meet certain criteria i.e. needs to be available or suitable.  The availability of the land is referred to in the report, but is under dispute, so cannot come under the definition of a brownfield site.  The relevant tests have not been applied to say this is a brownfield site.  He stated that the Committee were being asked to reserve matters because it is a Permission in Principle application but referred to the comments of the objectors.

 

·         The Ward Member referred to the comments of the City Council’s Landscape Officer, which were on the website but did not form part of the consultee section of the report.  The comments of the Landscape Officer were read out to Members.  The Ward Member stated that the professional view of the Landscape Officer should prevail and does not conform to SWDP 38.

 

·         Members had also picked up on the comments of the Landscape Officer and agreed with what he had to say.  The Warndon Villages Estate was planned to have lots of green spaces in it and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65.

66.

Application 19/00860/FUL - Pitmaston House, Malvern Road pdf icon PDF 341 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report for a temporary two year period.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the change of use from residential to mixed use residential dwelling and holiday let at Pitmaston House, Malvern Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Delegation at the request of the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning due to public interest concerns.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies, planning history and the representations and consultations where applicable.

 

There were no late papers circulated.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the Worcestershire Regulatory Services consultee comments at paragraph 6.1 of the report relating to complaints received from neighbours in relation to noise and if not controlled would be enforced via the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Although they had no objections, the Development Management Team Leader felt that a 2 year temporary approval would be an option so use of the premises can be monitored and then reviewed after this period of time.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         Concerns were expressed by some Members on the proposed level of use and the complaints that had been received. It was felt that the comments made by Worcestershire Regulatory Services were contradictory in relation to short term lets.  It was also noted that that this was a retrospective application and it was asked when did enforcement become involved and why it had taken so long to come before the Committee.  A proposal to refuse the application was made on significant adverse impact on neighbouring amenity.

 

·         The Development Management Team Leader stated that a limit of the use of the property could be imposed between certain time periods but that may not address Members concerns.  With regard to the comments by Worcestershire Regulatory Services this was linked to noise complaints initially only later did planning become involved.

 

·         It was agreed that this was a grand building and its use was welcomed.  It was suggested that as there had been a lot of objections around noise and disturbance that it should be limited to 1 year and not 2 and then reviewed.

 

·         The Development Management Team Leader responded to questions from Members on points of clarification with regard to the use of the building from a 7 bed dwelling to a mixed use of residential dwelling and holiday let.  He confirmed that the holiday let element would be for approximately 30% of the year, with the remainder of the year being used by the owner.

 

·         In response to a question placing a restriction on playing music after a certain time, the Development Management Team Leader referred Members to condition 2 and the Noise Complaints Policy.  The policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

67.

Application 20/00559/REM - Waitrose, 223 London Road pdf icon PDF 453 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant permission subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

Minutes:

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

68.

Application 20/00685/CLE - Astwood Crematorium, Astwood Road pdf icon PDF 234 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant a Certificate Of Lawful Development.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for a Certificate of Lawful Development for the use of additional land as burial ground at Astwood Cemetery, Astwood Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Delegation as the application had been submitted by the City Council.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant planning history and the representations and consultations where applicable.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to an updated plan of the application site.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation.

 

The role of the local planning authority when dealing with this type of application is to assess whether or not the use stated had been undertaken for a continuous period of 10 years or more.  The Development Management Team Leader is of the opinion that on balance this was the case.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.

 

A proposal to approve the application was made and this was seconded.  There being no points made the Chair asked the Legal Team Manager to request the voting of each Member of the Committee, who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Committee grant a Certificate of Lawful Development.

 

69.

Dickinson Court - Deed of Variation to Section 106 Agreement pdf icon PDF 180 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee is minded to approve the variation of the Section 106 Agreement dated 19th May 1999 subject to the applicant and all parties with an interest in the land entering into a Deed of Variation to the satisfaction of the Deputy Director Governance.

 

Minutes:

The Committee received a report on the proposed variation of the Section 106 Agreement relating to planning application P98E0205, 28 Dickinson Court.

 

The Development Management Team Leader in presenting the report provided the Committee with the background to the proposal.

 

The two routes to vary a Section 106 Agreement were highlighted at paragraph 2.2 of the report.  If this is not secured then a formal application for the modification of the Section 106 Agreement, and thereafter the appeal to the Secretary of State against any refusal.

 

The rationale behind the proposal was highlighted in paragraphs 3.1-3.4 of the report.

 

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning and the Head of Strategic Housing had no objection to the proposal as this would not alter the permitted use of the site and would provide an additional unit of accommodation for those with need for support, subject to its use being retained for a household with support needs.

 

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the variation to the Section 106 Agreement was unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED:  That the Committee is minded to approve the variation of the Section 106 Agreement dated 19th May 1999, subject to the applicant and all parties with an interest in the land entering into a Deed of Variation to the satisfaction of the Deputy Director – Governance.

 

70.

Any Other Business

Which in the opinion of the Chairman is of sufficient urgency as to warrant consideration.

Minutes:

None.