Agenda item

Application 19/00444/FUL - 'Mayfield', 282 Malvern Road

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 - Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the necessary planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of  the report annexed at Appendix 1.

 

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing building and the erection of a detached block of 6no. 2 bed flats and 3no. detached bungalows with associated open space, car parking and road infrastructure.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application was referred to Planning Committee on 19th December 2019.  At this meeting Members were minded to refuse planning permission on the grounds that the proposal would be unsustainable development in relation to:

 

  • The loss of garden land/green space;
  • Out of character with the surrounding area; and
  • Over-looking/over –bearing impact.

 

In accordance with procedure the application was deferred to enable Officer’s to examine the proposed grounds of refusal and provide their professional opinion on the robustness of the same.

 

The previous report to Planning Committee on 19th December 2019 was attached as Appendix 1.

 

Site Visit

 

The application was not the subject of a site visit but had been at the meeting held on 19th December 2019.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the comments of the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning on the robustness of the following matters:

 

  • Loss of garden land/green space;
  • Impact on the character of the surrounding area; and
  • Over-looking/over-bearing impact.

 

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

 

  • Letter from the Agent, RCA Regeneration in support of the application; and
  • Neighbour correspondence maintaining their objections and requesting an amendment to the Officer’s report.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

 

The Development Management Services Team Leader continued to recommend the application for approval but if Members resolved to refuse the application then suggested reasons for refusal were given at paragraph 5.1 of the report, although it remained his opinion that the reasons were not sufficiently robust to be defended in the event of an appeal.

 

Public Representations

 

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

 

Neil Sharpe (Objector) and Ian O’Gorman (on behalf of the Applicant).

 

Key Points of Debate

 

  • The objector informed the Committee that following consultation by the applicant to an earlier scheme, residents comments had been taken into account.  He informed the Committee that no consultations between the applicant and neighbours had taken place for this application which was still for a block of 6 2no.bed flats, resulting in a three storey building which was unacceptable  and out of character for the area.

 

  • The objector responded to questions from Members around the lack of consultation and the removal of hedges to the north of the site which the applicant said were to be retained.

 

  • The applicant in response informed the Committee that it was appropriate to convert unkempt gardens into residential space and referred to the South Worcestershire Development Plan which focuses on development in urban areas.  The site is in an urban area and surrounded by residential properties.

 

  • In referring the Committee to their decision at the December meeting of ‘Minded to Refuse’ the applicant stated that they had been disappointed with the outcome and that the reasons given were not robust enough to stand up in an appeal.  He considered that the proposal would not have an unacceptable impact on neighbours or its residents.

 

  • The applicant responded to questions from Members around the changes to the scheme during the negotiations with Officers and what meetings had taken place.  He was also asked about the consultation process.

 

  • The Chairman asked the Development Management Services Team Leader to clarify the changes made to the scheme and consultation with neighbours on the amended plans.

 

  • For clarification the Development Management Services Team Leader also explained the difference between ‘infill, backland and windfall’ development.  ‘Windfall’ development was explained in more detail and Members were informed that this site was one of those by demolition of the existing property.

 

  • Some Members were still not happy with the proposal and stated that approving it would be setting a precedent in this area and the rest of the City.  It was proposed that the application be refused contrary to Officer recommendation for the reasons given at paragraph 5.1 of the report.

 

  • Other Members felt that the proposal fitted in with other developments in the area and saw no reason for refusal.  The Development Management Services Team Leader after listening to the debate by Members suggested additional conditions relating to details of finished floor levels; refuse/ cycle storage and tree replacement.

 

The proposal to refuse the application was seconded.  On being put to the vote the recommendation to refuse the application was lost.

 

It was then proposed and seconded that the application be approved, as per the Officer’s recommendation. On being put to the vote the proposal was agreed, with the additional conditions.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee is minded to grant planning permission, subject to the applicant and all other 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 – Economic Development and Planning to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 9 of the report annexed at Appendix 1 and additional conditions relating to details of finished floor levels; details of refuse storage; cycle storage and tree replacement.

Supporting documents: