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
- Out of character with
the surrounding area; and
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.
The application was not the subject of a site
visit but had been at the meeting held on 19th December
The report set out the comments of the Deputy
Director – Economic Development and Planning on the
robustness of the following matters:
- Loss of garden
- Impact on the
character of the surrounding area; and
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
correspondence maintaining their objections and requesting an
amendment to the Officer’s report.
The information in the report was presented as
set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and
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.
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
- 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 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
- For clarification the
Development Management Services Team Leader also explained the
difference between ‘infill, backland and windfall’
development was explained in more detail and Members were informed
that this site was one of those by demolition of the existing
- 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
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
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.