Agenda and minutes

Venue: Guildhall

Contact: Committee Administration 01905 722027, 722006, 722085 

Note: To view the live broadcast go to https://www.youtube.com/user/WorcesterCityCouncil 

Media

Items
No. Item

34.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

The following declaration of other disclosable interest was made:

 

Application 21/00567/NMA – Rose Villa, Nunnery Lane

(Minute No. 39)

 

Councillor Agar – Acquainted with one of the speakers but had not discussed the details of the application. Councillor Agar left the room during the consideration of this item, but prior to that addressed the Committee as Ward Member.

35.

Minutes of Previous Planning Committee pdf icon PDF 141 KB

of the meeting held on 29th July 2021 to be approved and signed.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 22nd and 29th July 2021 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

 

Matters arising:

 

With regard to Minute 31, 29th July 2021 – Counsel’s  Opinion in relation to 21/00462/FUL – Land at Everard Close the Chair provided an explanation for the requirement for the Committee to go into exempt session, as follows:

 

On a point of clarity the legal advice that was sought on the reasons for refusal needed to heard in private so that the Council’s position was not prejudiced and it would be able to defend its position in any subsequent appeal.  Having received the advice the Committee moved quickly back into public session where the item was publicly debated.

36.

Minutes of Previous Conservation Advisory Panel pdf icon PDF 262 KB

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel be received.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

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

37.

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.

38.

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:

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

39.

Application 21/00567/NMA - Rose Villa, Nunnery Lane pdf icon PDF 775 KB

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grant approval for the non-material amendment to planning permission 20/00088/FUL subject to the amendment to condition 2 as set out in  Section 8 of this report.

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered a retrospective application for a non-material amendment for the re-siting of five roof lights to the rear roof slope, addition of one new roof light to rear roof slope, alteration of the central first floor window in the front elevation, omission of the previously proposed chimney, alteration to the first floor Juliet balcony windows on the front elevation, alteration of the gable windows on the front elevation and the alteration of the porch roof at Rose Villa, Nunnery Lane.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Carver for the reason set out in paragraph 1.2 of the report.

 

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 representation s and consultations where applicable.

 

The Committee were being asked to grant approval for the non-material amendment to planning permission 20/00088/FUL, subject to the amendment of condition 2 as set out on section 8 of the report.

 

The application is for a retrospective non-material amendment to Application No. 20/00088/FUL which was allowed at appeal.  The retrospective amendments that are sought by this application were highlighted at paragraph 3.1 of the report.

 

There were no later papers circulated.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

Public Representations

 

The following persons had registered to speak on the application:

 

Kevin Ruff and Paul Chambers (Objectors)

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         The objectors in addressing the Committee expressed their concerns over the impact of the proposed changes which they did not see as minimal.  They did not agree that the development was being built in  accordance with the consent granted by the Planning Inspector at appeal.

 

·         The Chair asked the Interim Head of Planning to explain/clarify to the Committee, Section 96A applications (Non Material Amendment).  The Committee were informed that they need to consider whether the changes in place are material or not.  If the application is refused then it is considered the amendments are material.  There is no recourse for Section 96A applications, the applicant would need to apply again.

 

·         The Interim Head of Planning responded to Members on points of clarification around the process. 

 

·         During the debate it was considered by some Members that the retrospective amendments cumulatively are considered to be material and it was proposed that the application be refused.

 

A proposal to refuse the application had been made and this was 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 refused for the reasons set out above as follows:

 

For - 5

Against - 4

Abstentions - 1

 

Contrary to Officer recommendation it was:

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee refuse the application  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

40.

Application 20/00775/FUL Ketch Field, Broomhall Way pdf icon PDF 950 KB

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance 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 in accordance with the agreed Heads of Terms and subject to the Corporate Director - Planning and Governance being satisfied with the nature of such an Agreement delegate to the Managing Director approval to grant the necessary planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 3 of the report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the development of 92 affordable dwellings and improvement of existing access, including green infrastructure and associated works at the Ketch Field, Broomhall Way.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application was referred to Planning Committee on 29th July 2021 at which it was deferred in order to negotiate amendments to the scheme with regard to the design and appearance of the proposed apartment blocks,  In addition, an additional condition was requested requiring a further noise impact assessment in  order to inform the mitigation measures already recommended.

 

The previous report to Planning Committee on 29th July 2021 was attached as Appendix 1.  An extension of time for the determination of the application had been agreed until 31st October 2021 to allow determination by the Planning Committee and in the event that Members are minded to grant planning permission, completion of the Section 106 Agreement.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the comments of the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance whereby amendments to the application had been sought in accordance with the resolution of the Planning Committee and amended elevations of the proposed apartment blocks have been submitted, together with computer generated images of the proposed development from certain vantage points around the site to illustrate the visual impact of the scheme on the site and from the surrounding area, as set out in the report.

 

The amendments to the apartment blocks were summarized at paragraph 2.2 of the report.

 

With regard to the noise impact assessment, the applicant had agreed to a condition for a further assessment to be undertaken in order to reflect current traffic conditions and inform proposed mitigation measures.  The condition was set out in paragraph 2.6 of the report.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late papers which related to comments received from Alan Tucker, Chairman of St Peter the Great County Parish Council, opposing to aspects of the application for the development, together with comments from Parish Councillor, Roger Knight, opposing to the proposed three storey apartment block.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members of the Committee that the list of plans that form condition 2 would need to be updated, which had been amended, as outlined in the presentation.

 

As amended, Officers remained of the opinion that the proposed apartment buildings would be acceptable in terms of siting, size, scale, mass, design and appearance.  The landscape buffer in the form of an acoustic bund would partly screen and shelter the development.  This is considered a key landscape feature that would help mitigate the visual impact of the proposed apartment buildings, particularly as the proposed landscaping matures.

 

Public Representations

 

In accordance with the City Council’s Constitution, Part 5, Committee Procedure 11.3.8, as public representations had been made at the 29th July 2021  ...  view the full minutes text for item 40.

41.

Application 21/00624/FUL - Land adjacent to 97 Foley Road pdf icon PDF 685 KB

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

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing garage and the erection of 1No. dwelling on land adjacent to 97 Foley Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Alan Amos due to the principle involved of building on garden land.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

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

 

The Senior Planning Officer informed Members that the proposal was a re-submission of planning application 20/00112/REM that was previously approved by Planning Committee at its meeting on 25th June 2020,  but has subsequently lapsed.  The proposal is the same as the scheme approved under 20/00112/REM and there has been no change in site or relevant policy circumstances in the meantime.

 

There were no late papers circulated.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information was presented as set out by the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation for the item.

 

Public Representations

 

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

 

Key Points of Debate

 

·         As outlined in paragraph 1.2 of the report the principle of whether the Committee allows building on garden land, unless there is exceptional circumstances was questioned, as it was considered there were no exceptional circumstances in this case.  It was felt that the Committee needed to decide whether this is the right location for a house and the need to protect green space.

 

A proposal to approve 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 Members of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was agreed.

 


 

For – 8

Against – 2

Abstentions - 1

 

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

42.

Planning Committee Procedure - Decisions Contrary to Officer Recommendation pdf icon PDF 274 KB

That the Planning Committee:

 

1.   considers the options set out in the report regarding decisions contrary to   Officer recommendation and identifies a preferred option; and

 

2.   makes a recommendation to Council if the preferred option requires changes to the Constitution.

 

 

Minutes:

The Committee considered a report on the Decisions Contrary to Officer Recommendation procedure.

 

The Corporate Director – Planning and Governance in presenting the report stated this this was an options paper which explores the ‘minded to refuse’ process, the advantages and disadvantages.

 

The report set out proposals to amend the process to be followed by Planning Committee when the Committee wishes to make a decision contrary to officer recommendation.  The procedure was last reviewed on 19th April 2018 where it was resolved to leave the procedure unchanged.

 

The Interim Head of Planning took Members through Options 1-4.  Options 1 and 2 had been identified, Option 1 to remove the existing ‘minded to’ process and in its place introduce a delegated authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair procedure.  Option 2 seeks to retain an amended version of the existing process.

 

The Corporate Director – Planning and Governance and the Interim Head of Planning responded to questions from Members on the various aspects of the options.  The majority opting for Option 1.

 

It was confirmed that applications deferred either for negotiations or further information would come back to the Committee for a decision.  It is only those applications either refused or approved contrary to officer recommendation that would be delegated to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance in consultation with the Chair and Vice Chair.  If either the Chair or Vice Chair do not agree with either the wording of the ground for refusal (in the case of a refusal) or the conditions to be attached (in the case of an approval) then the item would return to Committee for Members to agree the wording of the same. 

 

The Legal Team Manager clarified the difference between Options 1 and 2, in response to queries raised.  Clarification on the meaning of Chair and Vice Chair was requested if Option 1 chosen.

 

It was proposed and seconded that the Option 1 be selected, with clarification on the meaning of Chair and Vice Chair.  There being no further points made the Chair asked the Legal Team Manager to request the voting of each Members of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes Option 1 was agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair clarification and recommendation to Council for the Constitution to be amended.

 

For – 9

Against – 2

Abstentions - 0

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

 

1.   agree to Option 1 – Remove the ‘Minded to’ procedure but replace it with a Delegated Authority process with clarification on the meaning of Chair and Vice Chair; and

 

2.   agree to recommend to Council that the Constitution be amended to reflect the new process.

43.

Any Other Business

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

Minutes:

None.

44.

Item Involving the Disclosure of Exempt Information

The Sub-Committee is invited to pass the following resolution:-

 

That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of information as defined in Schedule 12A of the said Act.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of information as defined in Schedule 12A of the said Act.

45.

Minutes (Exempt Item)

Of the meeting held on 29th July 2021 to be approved and signed.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes (exempt item) of the meeting held on 29th July 2021 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.