Agenda and minutes

Venue: Remote

Contact: Committee Administration 01905 722027, 722006, 722085 

Items
No. Item

27.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

None.

28.

Minutes of Previous Planning Committee pdf icon PDF 75 KB

of the meeting held on 25th June 2020 to be approved and signed.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 25th June 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed remotely by the Chairman.

29.

Minutes of Previous Conservation Advisory Panel pdf icon PDF 47 KB

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel be received.

Minutes:

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

30.

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.

31.

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.  However, Councillor Udall, as a local Ward Member, addressed the Committee with regard to Agenda Item 9.

32.

Application 20/00249/OUT - University Park Development, Bromyard Road pdf icon PDF 468 KB

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee is minded to grant outline planning permissionwith access agreed (matters of landscaping, layout, the external appearance of the buildings and scale reserved for subsequent approval), 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 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 - Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the necessary planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an outline application for the development of up to 120 dwellings together with access, green infrastructure and associated engineering works at University Park Development, Bromyard Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee as it is a major application and a departure from 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.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late papers which related to the amendment of conditions 8, 21 and 22 and the inclusion of the proposed draft Heads of Terms.

 

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 were informed that this was an outline application for residential development of up to 120 dwellings.  It sought agreement of means of access, with two points being proposed from Oak View Way.  All other detailed matters are reserved for later approval (i.e. landscaping, the detailed layout of the site, the external appearance of the buildings and scale of the development.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the comments of the Planning Policy Team outlined in paragraph 6.1 of the report.  They had concluded that it is considered that whilst this planning application conflicts with the adopted development plan, there are material planning considerations related to this application which justify a departure from the adopted development plan.

 

The Development Management Services Team Leader also referred Members of the Committee to the request for contributions from the Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust.  The Committee were informed that it is not recommended that the developers be required to make a financial contribution towards healthcare services in this case. This was explained in paragraphs 7.39-7.54 of the report.

 

Public Representations

 

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

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         In response to a question from Members on the request from the NHS Acute Trust, the Development Management Services Team Leader confirmed that Section 106 monies were one off contributions and not an ongoing funding mechanism.  As part of the SWDP review engagement will take place with the NHS Acute Trust.

 

·         It was asked whether the Council anticipated a request for monies for capital development.  It was confirmed that Section 106 monies were capable of being used for capital development, if not through that process then through CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy).

 

·         The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning informed Members that the South of Worcestershire has £2m of CIL money to spend on strategic projects across the area.  There is an existing infrastructure development plan (IPD) which contains a list of projects required to deliver the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP).  These projects will therefore be prioritised.  The NHS Acute Trust did not have any requirements for any capital projects  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

33.

Application 20/00144/FUL - 24 Sebright Avenue pdf icon PDF 95 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 the report shown at Appendix 1.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the conversion of an existing outbuilding to 1 no. bedroom dwelling at 24, Sebright Avenue.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application was referred to Planning Committee on 25th June 2020. At this meeting Members were minded to refuse planning permission on the following grounds:

 

  • Development Plan policies SWDP 4 and SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 require development to address road safety ensuring that development is able to access the highway safely. The National Planning Policy Framework also requires that in assessing specific applications for development safe and suitable access to sites can be achieved for all users.

 

The proposed development is located to the rear of 24 Sebright Avenue in a densely residential area. This section of Sebright Avenue beyond Arundel Drive towards the traffic signals is one-way traffic and there are known parking issues. Vehicles park on both sides of the road, often mounted on the footway which causes a hazard to those using the footway and traffic flow is restricted to a single width.

 

There is no parking proposed for the 2no. bedroom dwelling which requires 2 spaces and this is contrary to parking standards in the Streetscape Design Guide. The site does not meet the criteria for a ‘parking free’ development as there are no parking restrictions on Sebright Avenue to prevent displacement parking on to the highway.

 

Moreover, the proposed parking for the existing dwelling which is constrained by the walls of the buildings, will be difficult to access. Vehicles will be required to negotiate the existing narrow driveway and manoeuvre into a specific position to allow pedestrian access to the dwellings. Where parking is difficult to access, drivers typically don’t use it and will opt to park in a more convenient place. Moreover, there are no controls available to ensure that vehicles will comply with the layout.

 

Therefore, there are no guarantees that the shared driveway will be kept clear for pedestrians or those with bicycles and other vulnerable users such as those in a wheelchair or those with a pushchair to access the dwellings. The risk of conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movements in this location has not been addressed by the proposal.

 

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority, the proposed development does not comply with parking standards in the adopted Streetscape Design Guide and the resulting displacement parking represents a highway safety hazard and an impact on the free flow of traffic. The potential conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles represents a further highway safety hazard and safe and suitable access has not been shown. Priority first has not been given to pedestrians and cyclists. The proposal would thereby also be contrary to policies SWDP 4 and SWDP 21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan 2016 and paragraphs 108, 109 and 110 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

 

·        Whilst the out-buildings could potentially be converted to a separate and independent commercial use that would generate additional  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

34.

Application 20/00305/HP - 23 Bozward Street pdf icon PDF 865 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.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the proposed erection of a single storey rear and side extension to an existing 5 bedroom House in Multiple Occupation property (Use Class C4) at 23, Bozward Street.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Alan Amos on the grounds of previous decisions on this same site both by the Committee and the Inspector.

 

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 Appendix 1 attached to the report which related to a copy of the appeal decision with regard to Application P18K0466 which was refused planning permission.  The appeal was dismissed on 26th July 2019.  In respect of the Inspector’s conclusions at paragraph 13 of the decision, application 19/00801/CLPU was submitted for a certificate of proposed lawful development.

 

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

·         clarification by officers regarding the implementation/changes of Application 19/00801/CLPU and the fallback position;

·         email correspondence from the agent to Councillor A. Amos and the applicant; and

·         consultee comments from the County Council Highway Authority.

 

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.

 

Members were informed that since the publication of the report that was withdrawn from the agenda for the meeting on 25th June 2020, the agent has confirmed in a revised planning statement that there are currently 6 occupants living at the HMO.  The agenda has also confirmed that the applicant intends to update their existing HMO licence accordingly should consent be granted.

 

The Development Management Services Team Leader stated that the applicant would not implement the scheme under 19/00801/CLPU if the current application is approved.  This scheme no longer included the rear dormer window.  In terms of design and appearance Officers have no objections.

 

Public Representations

 

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

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         A local Ward Member, Councillor Udall addressed the Committee objecting to the proposal identifying that there were two concerns, over occupation of site and no parking.  In referring to the City Council’s Housing Officer’s consultee comments he stated that the rooms were not adequate.  There are neighbour objections to this proposal.

 

·         It was noted that the difference between this application and the previous one is that the Highway Authority now recommends refusal.  Some Members felt that the proposal was inappropriate with no parking and issues regarding occupancy and should be refused.  A fallback position has now been developed.

 

·         It was clarified that the Certificate of Lawful Development had been issued but the scheme had not been implemented.  A material consideration to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

35.

Any Other Business

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

Minutes:

23rd July 2020 Meeting

 

The Committee were informed that due to insufficient business the Planning Committee meeting scheduled for Thursday 23rd July 2020 is to be cancelled.