Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

The following declaration of other disclosable interest was made:

Application19/00694//RM – Land at Sherriff Street Industrial Estate, Sherriff Street

(Minute No.     )

Councillor Agar – as a close friend of Ron Smith whose business is affected by the proposal.  Councillor Agar left the room during the consideration of this item, but prior to that addressed the Committee as Ward Member.

of the meeting held on 23^rd January 2020 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd January 2020 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel meeting held on 15^th January 2020 be received.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel held on 15^th January 2020 be received.

Such inspections of current application sites as may have been recommended by Officers and as may be approved by the Committee.

Members of the Committee should inform the Development Services Manager of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately prior to the meeting (18th February 2020) and reasons for the request.

Members of the public should contact the Democratic Services Administrator either by email: committeeadministration@worcester.gov.uk or telephone: 01905 722085 on the day before Planning Committee so the Administrator can advise of the start of the meeting.

Site visits will be conducted in accordance with the procedure attached which forms part of the Council’s Good Practice Protocol for Members and Officers dealing with Planning Matters.

There were no site visits.

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.

None.

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.

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

To  adopt  the  Field  Terrace  Conservation  Area  Appraisal  as  a  material consideration in development management decisions.

The Conservation Officer presented a report on the Field Terrace Conservation Area Appraisal.

The Committee were being asked to consider that the Field Terrace Conservation Area Appraisal, attached as Appendix 1 to the report, is adopted as a formal Council document to be used as a material consideration in the planning process.

The character appraisal was subject to a six week consultation from 14^th October until 22^nd November 2019.  The owners or occupiers of all properties within the Conservation Area, and other key stakeholders, were consulted by letter an d invited to respond on the draft appraisal, and the consultation details, full draft appraisal document and survey form were made available on the Council’s website.

A manned public exhibition was held at the Anchor Inn Boathouse, Diglis Road on Wednesday 13^th November 2019.  The exhibition was also on display at the Guildhall from Thursday 14^th November until Friday 22^nd November 2019.

All issues raised during the public consultation were considered.  With regards to the management plan for the conservation area, a number of management proposals have now been put forward in the final appraisal document to address comments as outlined in paragraph 3.5 of the report. 

The adoption of the conservation area appraisal is considered to be a positive move towards the management of the Field Terrace Conservation Area.

RESOLVED: That the Committee adopt the Field Terrace Conservation Area Appraisal, at Appendix 1, as a material consideration in development management decisions.

That theCommitteenotethecontentsof theupdated 2020 Heritage at Risk Register and approve it for publication.

The Conservation Officer presented a report on Heritage at Risk in Worcester, update and review.

An updated Heritage at Risk Register (HAR) was approved for publication by Planning Committee in July 2019.  Since publication a HAR review has been carried out by officers in order to monitor progress and enable a structured and proactive approach to identifying actions for each asset as identified in the Register.

The 2019 Register identified eight buildings as having approved planning applications in place and should be on target for removal by the next review.  Other buildings with approvals will remain on the Register until the successful completion of the schemes.

An updated Heritage at Risk Register has been provided and was attached as Appendix 1 to the report.  It is proposed to continue to monitor all entries on the Heritage at Frisk Register quarterly, update actions, and update the register on a yearly basis.

Members were pleased to see that 18-20 Silver Street had now been removed from the ‘at risk’ register, together with other buildings as identified in the report.

Concerns were raised by Members of those buildings which had been added to the ‘at risk’ register and felt that the Council should be taking tougher action on landlords/developers, who allow these buildings to fall into disrepair and should be served notices.

The Conservation Officer informed the Committee that adding the building onto the list was the first step to a solution and negotiating and working with building owners was preferred in the first instance.

RESOLVED: That the Committee note the contents of the updated 2020 Heritage at Risk Register and approve it for publication.

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.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a garage extension and canopy to front and detached garage to rear at 20 Camp Hill Avenue.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Griffiths on grounds as highlighted at paragraph 1.2 of the report.

Site Visit

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

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 representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to additional neighbour comments on the proposal.

Officer Presentation

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

The Development Management Services Team Leader drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 7.14 of the report which identified that the land ownership is not considered a material planning consideration and would therefore be a private legal matter which would need to be rectified with the owners of the shared drive.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application.  However a local Ward Member, Councillor Griffiths addressed the Committee objecting to the proposal, as outlined in paragraph 1.2 of the report.

Key Points of Debate

• The local Ward Member, in addressing the Committee, stated that resident’s concerns related to the proposals at the rear of the property and not at the front.

• The resident’s concerns were that the proposed garage would require access to a private right of way, although not a planning matter, would increase vehicular access which would increase noise and disturbance.  There were concerns for the proposed garage and its intended use as a business.

• In response to a question the local Ward Member stated that the rear access drive was not generally used for vehicles and was left to promote local wildlife and a degree of nature conservation, it was also used by children where properties backed onto it.

• Members questioned the amount of development proposed at the front and rear of the property and was there a limit as to how much should be used.   The Development Management Services Team Leader stated that the land did have the capacity without reducing amenity space.

• In raising concerns over the use of the proposed garage the Members were referred to condition 5 within the report which identified that the development shall not be used as an independent self-contained dwelling.  If used for alternative reasons would require an application for a change of use.

• Some Members felt that there was no reason to refuse the application as access was a private matter and the permission would be protected by conditions.

• The County Council Highway representative stated that the authority had originally requested a deferral but amended plans submitted had shown an over provision of car parking spaces and a condition (number 3) had been requested for a visibility display.  The access  ...  view the full minutes text for item 145.

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.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a new hockey centre to include two international standard water based professional hockey pitches, a single storey pavilion with changing block and club house, floor lighting, upgrade of existing access, re-provision of existing football pitches with associated landscaping and car parking, at the former site of the Royal Porcelain Recreation Ground, Droitwich Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application has been referred to the Planning Committee in accordance with the Adopted Scheme of Delegation.

Site Visit

The application was not the subject of a site visit.

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 representations and consultations where applicable.

The proposed draft Heads of Terms were attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late papers which related to the amendment of conditions 3 and 6.

Officer Presentation

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

Public Representations

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

John Stagg (Objector) and Richard Savory (Project Manager on behalf of the Applicant) and Andy Waters (Vice Chairman of Worcester Hockey Club).

Key Points of Debate

• The objector, speaking also on behalf of a Dr Nixon, in addressing the Committee referred to the loss of Green Belt and inappropriate development of the open space.  The openness of the area was important and needed to be retained and could not be compromised any further.

• The objector referred to the floodlighting poles and the illumination which would destroy the character of the area.  He referred to a previous application for floodlighting on sites nearby which had been refused.  He indicated that the site at Perdiswell would be more appropriate for this proposal.

• The objector responded to questions from Members in relation to the Green Belt and floodlighting.  In referring to related paragraphs within the report, the objector referred to NPPF paragraph 145 and the last line as outlined in the report at paragraph 7.7.  With regard to floodlighting he stated that this would have an effect on the openness of the area which was important and needed to be retained and could not be compromised any further.  He stated that the matter needed to be referred to the Secretary of State.  The objector was referred to paragraph 7.16 of the report by Members which considered that the area to be illuminated was a lot smaller than the previous appeal dismissals.

• The Project Manager, on behalf of the applicant informed the Committee that he had worked many months with planning officers and local residents who were supportive of the proposal, subject to amendments, which had been made.

• In referring to paragraphs 131 and 145 of the NPPF he stated that there were certain levels of development not appropriate in certain cases.  The specialist centre for hockey is a fundamental consideration.  In referring  ...  view the full minutes text for item 146.

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee be minded to grant approval of all matters reserved by condition 5 of planning permission 19/000693/REM, subject to the applicant and all persons having an interest in the land entering into a Deed of Variation to the existing agreement made under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in accordance with the draft 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 10 of this report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the approval of all matters reserved by condition 5 of planning permission 19/000693/REM, land at Sherriff Street Industrial Estate, Sherriff Street.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee in accordance with the Adopted Scheme of Delegation.

Site Visit

The application was not the subject of a site visit.

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 representations and consultations where applicable.

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

• additional information related to the level of car parking proposed to serve the development in comparison with the approved hybrid application that has been taken into account by the County Council Highway Authority in its assessment of the application;
• statement in support of the application from the applicant and responses to objections raised by the Conservation Advisory Panel; Historic England and the Council’s Archaeology Officer; and
• a table of amendments to the Deed of Variation

Officer Presentation

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

The proposals would be delivered in 4 phases which were outlined in paragraph 3.5 of the report.  The main changes to the quantum of the development from the originally approved scheme were outlined in paragraph 3.6 of the report.

As part of the powerpoint presentation the Members were shown the previously considered/approved and the proposed scheme.  The general scale fits in with the original at outline stage although a slight increase in height.  Members were also shown the proposed scheme from different vantage points taking into account the ancient monument.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

• The Chairman informed the Committee that there was extant permission for this site and that consideration should be given for the changes only.

• Members queried the reduction in car parking spaces as outlined in the late paper.  The Development Management Services Team Leader referred Members to the comments set out in paragraph 7 of the report which identified the County Council Highway assessment made based on current standards.  In particular paragraph 7.11 of the report.

• Members were concerned that the area could become gull nesting sites and asked if a condition around gull proofing the site could be made.  This was agreed.

• It was asked if refuse/recycling facilities had not been considered previously could this also be added as a condition.  This was also agreed.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was unanimously agreed, subject to the additional conditions related to gull proofing and refuse/recycling.

RESOLVED: That the Committee is minded to grant approval of all matters reserved by condition 5 of planning permission 19/000693/REM, subject to the applicant and all persons having an interest  ...  view the full minutes text for item 147.

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.

Introduction

The Committee considered a retrospective application for the installation of a combined shed/summer house at 9 Wordsworth Avenue.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application was deferred by the Planning Committee at its meeting on 21^st January 2020 for clarification regarding reference to the submission of an anonymous objection to the application.

Paragraph 1.4 of the report explained that the objectors wished to remain anonymous and for their objection not be published on the application website.  For this reason the Local Planning Authority is not in a position to consider the objections.

Site Visit

The application was not the subject of a site visit.

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 representations and consultations where applicable.

Officer Presentation

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

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

• Members questioned the process of submitting comments online and were the public aware that comments would be published on the website.

• The Development Management Services Team Leader stated that the Council was governed by General Data Protection Regulations and were required to make it clear on the website when inviting comments on applications and what the terms of engagement are.

• Members were satisfied that the anonymous objector had been given the opportunity to share their objections and also commented that neither of the adjoining residents had objected.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was unanimously agreed.

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

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.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda.

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.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application under Regulation 3 of The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 for the construction of a concrete ramp and steps to the front entrance door at 145 Bromyard Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

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

Site Visit

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

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 representations and consultations where applicable.

Officer Presentation

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

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

• Members welcomed and fully supported the proposal.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was unanimously agreed.

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

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.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the proposed display of 4 signs; 2 fascia signs; 1 freestanding welcome sign and 1 wall mounted service sign at Motorline Hyundai, Everoak Indsutrial Estate, Bromyard Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Alan Amos in view of the potential loss of amenity to a number of residents.

Site Visit

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

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 representations and consultations where applicable.

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to the amendment of the wording for condition 3 to provide greater clarity.

Officer Presentation

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the powerpoint presentation which identified those living in Bromyard Road.  It was considered that any impact of the proposed signage is mitigated due to the distance between the neighbouring properties.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

• In light of the amendment to conditon3, that the lighting for the illuminated advertisements be switched off no later than 9.00pm, it was asked if the objector, referred to in paragraph 6.1 of the report, could be informed.  The Chairman stated that it would not be normal practice to do so but asked the Development Services Management Team Leader if he would write to them in this instance.

• It was asked if a timer could be part of the condition, so the illuminated signs would automatically switch off.  The Chairman stated that the applicants could be asked but we cannot enforce them to do so.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was agreed, subject to the amendment of condition 3.

Councillor Alan Amos asked for his vote against the proposal to be recorded in the minutes.

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in paragraph 9 of the report, and to the amendment of condition 3 as set out in the later paper.

Retrospective Applications

Concerns were raised by Councillor Alan Amos with regard to retrospective applications which he considered to be unfair and not adhering to the rules of applying for planning permission.  Councillor Amos felt that enforcement around this needed to be more robust.

Representations and Consultations for Applications

Reference was made to the current planning IT system that produced the neighbour consultee comments for Members to view on each of the applications.  Councillor Berry stated that the current process was cumbersome and it was agreed by the Senior Planning Officer that she would look at ways of improving this process for Members.  The ‘Track my App’ was referred to which Members could use instead.  It was also suggested that the wording on the website for those wising to comment on applications could be made clearer, particularly with leaving personal details.

Committee Report Templates

Members were asked for their comments on the current report template which had now been in use for 12 months.  Generally the report was seen as more digestible although a lot of comments on the NPPF and planning policy were in every report.  The Development Management Services Team Leader did suggest a master copy of planning policy matters and just a bullet point in the report.  Members felt that wording in italics was useful as they were seen as important.

Late papers circulated prior to the meeting in respect of items to be considered and determined.