Agenda and minutes

Venue: Remote

Contact: Committee Administration 01905 722027, 722006, 722085 

Items
No. Item

80.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

The following declarations of other disclosable interest were made:

 

Consultation on Regulation 3 Planning Application 20/0000035/REG 3

(Minute No. 90)

 

Councillor A. Amos – as Worcestershire County Council Cabinet Member for Highways.  Councillor Amos left the meeting during the consideration of this item.

 

The following declarations of interest were made:

 

Application 20/00767/FUL – Barbourne Medical Centre, 44 Droitwich Road

(Minute No. 86)

 

Councillor Agar – as a Member of Health Overview and Scrutiny at Worcestershire County Council.  Councillor Agar elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Councillors Berry and Hodges – as patients of Barbourne Medical Centre.  Councillors Berry and Hodges elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Application 20/00856/FUL – Garibaldi Inn, 80 Bromyard Road

(Minute No.  87)

 

Councillor Barnes – lives at 54 Bromyard Road but has no connection with the property at 80 Bromyard Road.  Councillor Barnes elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

81.

Minutes of Previous Planning Committee pdf icon PDF 142 KB

of the meeting held on 19th November 2020 to be approved and signed.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 19th November 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed remotely by the Chair.

 

Matters Arising:

 

Minute 77 – Application 20/00246/FUL – Land at 4 Mayfield Road

 

Councillor Barnes understood that planning conditions for this application have already been breached and asked whether any enforcement action would be taken. The Development Management Team Leader stated that technically there has been no breach as the planning permission has not yet been issued, pending completion of the Section 106 agreement.  Councillor Barnes was asked to provide the details of the activities considered to be unlawful for officers to investigate.

82.

Minutes of Previous Conservation Advisory Panel pdf icon PDF 170 KB

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel be received.

Minutes:

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

83.

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.

84.

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:

None.

85.

Application 20/00579/FUL - 'Mayfield', 282 Malvern Road pdf icon PDF 2 MB

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the applicant and all persons having an interest in the land entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the agreed Heads of Terms, and subject to the Deputy Director - Governance being satisfied with the nature of such an Agreement delegate to the Deputy Director of Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the necessary planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

Minutes:

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

 

Councillor Alan Amos, who had referred this application to the Planning Committee, asked for the reasons for the withdrawal of this item from the agenda.  The Chair, in response, confirmed that a decision was taken at the Chair’s briefing to withdraw the item, if the issues around the refuse storage location, could not be resolved in time for the meeting.

86.

Application 20/00767/FUL - Barbourne Medical Centre, 44 Droitwich Road pdf icon PDF 1 MB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee refuse the application for the reason set out in section 10 of this report.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the provision of a stand-alone pandemic clinic within the existing car park of Barbourne Medical Centre, 44 Droitwich Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Laurenson for the reasons of car parking, the possibility of infecting people going in or out (especially if they have been unable to park) and overshadowing of the houses at the north end of Bromsgrove Street.

 

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:

 

·         Additional neighbour objection from 13 Kipling Close, available in full on the website; and

·         Worcestershire County Council Highway Authority response to the rebuttal of the applicant/agent to the original highways comment.  This was received on 3rd December 2020 and is referenced in the officer’s report as appendix 1 in paragraph 8.28 of the report.

 

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 Policy Officer outlined her reasons for refusal of the proposal to Members, which were outlined in paragraph 10 of the report.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on application.  However, a local Ward Member, Councillor Laurenson addressed the Committee objecting to the proposal.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         A local Ward Member, in addressing the Committee, opposed the application stating that it was unrealistic and that the site was not suitable.  The title says it is temporary but it would appear that this would not be the case.  He stated that the existing medical centre could be used instead.  The proposal would result in the loss of car parking spaces.  The proposed new building would use Bromsgrove Street as the exit which is already congested with residents parking.  It was preferred that the existing building be utilised, especially for the long term usage and asked that the Committee refuse the application.

 

·         It was asked whether the proposed extension was for the patients of the practice only or for patients from a number of other health centres.  It was confirmed that it would be for practice patients only.

 

·         Members agreed that this would be a permanent structure and not temporary and that there would be an impact on parking as the number of spaces would be reduced. 

 

·         It was agreed that there was a strong case for refusal on the grounds of the effect on local residents and the lack of long term thinking by the practice on car parking.  Members agreed with the officer’s recommendation of refusal.

 

A proposal to refuse 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  ...  view the full minutes text for item 86.

87.

Application 20/00856/FUL - Garibaldi Inn, 80 Bromyard Road pdf icon PDF 388 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 extension and conversion of a public house into 6 flats (re-submission of application 20/00377/FUL) at the Garibaldi Inn, 80 Bromyard Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Udall on the grounds of, lack of parking for residents, highway safety, overdevelopment and cramped living conditions.

 

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 principle issue is the provision of car parking to serve the proposed development. The Committee’s attention was drawn to the objection from the County Council Highway Authority with regard to parking at paragraph at 6.1 of the report and to the differing views of officers as outlined in paragraphs 7.22 to 7.27 of the report, namely the ‘fallback’ position of the public house coming back into use.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on application.  However, a local Ward Member, Councillor Udall addressed the Committee objecting to the proposal.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         A local Ward Member, in addressing the Committee, respected and accepted the demise of public houses but did not accept the conversion of the site into 6 flats, which would be over occupation of the site and that 4 is more than enough.  Parking is already a concern in this area and 3 spaces for 6 flats is insufficient.  He was pleased with the condition to retain the existing public house hanging sign but asked that the Committee either defer or refuse the application.

 

·         Members generally agreed that parking was an issue and that there were differing views between County and City officers.  The ‘fallback’ position was noted but it was felt that the comments of the Highway Authority, as a statutory consultee, should be taken seriously.

 

·         Some Members felt that there was an argument for a degree of betterment and how could the parking situation be made less worse.  It was noted that the applicant had put forward proposals and had listened to the inspector and addressed issues raised by officers.  It was accepted that a reduced number of flats would be unviable, but the alternative would be to leave the site to become vandalised.  It was proposed that on balance the proposal should be accepted.

 

·         It was commented that the site was right for development, it was unlikely to return to a public house in the current circumstances, but  because of the concerns about parking and overdevelopment it was suggested that the application be deferred for a more considered approach due to resident’s concerns.

 

A proposal to approve the application had been made and this was seconded.  The Chair asked the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 87.

88.

Application 20/00729/FUL - 13 Edmonton Close pdf icon PDF 507 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 sub-division of a 4 bedroom dwelling to become a 3 bedroom property and a 1 bedroom attached dwelling at 13 Edmonton Close.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Alan Amos on the grounds that a recent Appeal was dismissed for the erection of a similar dwelling on this site as it would cause a loss of amenity to neighbours and be in conflict with the development plan.

 

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 the previous scheme in the planning history for a 1 bedroomed detached bungalow which was subject to refusal, then dismissed at appeal. This proposal is the sub division of the existing property to create 1 no. 3 bedroom property and 1 no. 1 bedroom property.

 

With regard to neighbour consultations, no comments had been received and no objections had been received from any other consultees.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on application.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         Members asked for the definition of an attached dwelling as identified in the description of the development in the report.  It was asked if it becomes a new house would it then have Permitted Development Rights.

 

·         The Development Management Team Leader, in response, apologised for the description of the development and stated that it is basically the conversion of a detached house to a pair of semi- detached houses and it would come with Permitted Development Rights.  He confirmed that this had not been covered in the recommended conditions but would include for the host property and the proposed.

 

A proposal to approve the application was made and this 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 unanimously agreed, subject to the additional condition for the removal of Permitted Development Rights for both dwellings.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report and to the additional condition for the removal of Permitted Development Rights for both dwellings.

 

89.

Application 20/00776/REM - Aldi, Tybridge Street pdf icon PDF 584 KB

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

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for changes to condition 7 of application P15K0134 to alter the delivery times from the approved 07.00 to 23.00 to 06.00 to 23.00 at Aldi, Tybridge Street.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation as the original application was determined by the Planning Committee.

 

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 Senior Planning Officer referred Members to the Ministerial Statement issued on 13th March 2020, whereby Local Authorities were being asked to act flexibly to ensure that goods can be delivered to stores to support the response to Covid-19.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to paragraph 7.12 of the report which identified that a trial of night time deliveries had been undertaken by the store which had not resulted in any noise complaints to Worcestershire Regulatory Services. Officers were confident that to give permanent planning permission would not give rise to a significant adverse impact. However, in light of the recommendation from Worcestershire Regulatory Services a permission for a period of 12 months was recommended ass per condition 1.

 

Public Representations

 

There had been no one registered to speak on application.

 

A proposal to approve the application in accordance with officer recommendation was made and this 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 unanimously agreed.

 

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

 

 

90.

Consultation on Regulation 3 Planning Application 20/0000035/REG3 pdf icon PDF 833 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee raises no planning objection, subject to the conditions recommended by the Archaeology Officer and Contaminated Land Consultant set out in section 6 of this report.

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application under Regulation 3 of the Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for a proposed new cycle/footbridge to span the River Severn and associated access paths to the local highway on land including and between Gheluvelt Park, Waterworks Road on the east side of the River Severn and the restored landfill site, Hallow Road, on the west side of the River Severn.

     

The consultation was received on 17 September 2020 with a request for any comments to be made by 22nd October 2020, although verbal communication has been made with the County Council requesting that any decision is not issued until after the City Council have been able to comment.

 

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

 

The Development Management Team Leader informed Members that internal consultations have been undertaken on the proposal, particularly with the Archaeological Officer and the Contaminated Land Consultant who had both recommended conditions, as set out in paragraph 6.1 of the report.  He considered that this is a scheme that should be supported and hoped that the Planning Committee endorse the recommendation, subject to the conditions.

 

During the debate Members asked that the following comments be included as part of the consultation response:

 

·        provision of car parking as a result of increase in demand for car parking on Waterworks Road by those visiting and crossing the bridge;

·        advance notification to neighbouring residents of construction;

·        ‘bat friendly’ lighting;

·        replacement tree planting scheme; and

·        enhance appearance of flood walls.

 

Members agreed that this was an attractive feature and would enhance the areas.

 

On being put to the vote the proposal was agreed, subject to conditions and to the additional comments made by the Committee.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee raise no planning objection, subject to the conditions recommended by the Archaeology Officer and Contaminated Land Consultant as set out in section 6 of the report, and to the additional comments for the provision for ‘bat friendly’ lighting, replacement tree planting, enhance appearance of flood walls, a Construction Environment Management Plan for construction traffic and advance notification of construction programme/construction traffic route to neighbouring residents and concerns expressed regarding potential for increase in demand for car parking on Waterworks Road and on St Clement’s side by people wishing to visit and cross the bridge as an attraction and recommend that provision is made for car parking to obviate this demand for car parking and to serve Gheluvelt Park.

 

 

 

 

 

91.

Any Other Business

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

Minutes:

None.