Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

The following declaration of interest was made:

Application 21/00937/VARCO – Rose Villa, Nunnery Lane

(Minute No. 61)

Councillor Udall – Known to the objector who had registered to speak on the item, Councillor Udall had not discussed the application with him.  Councillor Udall elected to speak and vote on the item.

of the meeting held on 28^th October 2021 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 28^th October 2021 b e approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel be received.

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

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.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee approves the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 20/0088/FUL and grants planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of this report.

The Interim Head of Planning informed the Committee that a number of concerns had been raised by neighbours that some changes had taken place on site, which were not covered by this application.  In response to the concerns raised, the Enforcement Officer visited the site and confirmed that some changes had taken place which were not included in the current application. It was also noted that there were anomalies in the plan.

It was suggested by Officers that Members may wish to defer the application in order for the changes to be included in the application and to also allow for the anomalies in the site plan to be rectified. 

The deferral of the application was agreed by Committee Members for the reasons given.

RESOLVED: That the Committee defer the application in order to allow the applicant to amend the application to include all changes and for the anomalies in the site plan to be rectified.

The Corporate Director – Planning and Governance recommends that 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, delegates to the Corporate Director - Planning and Governance on her being satisfied with the nature of such an Agreement 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 demolition of three existing dwellings and erection of 50 affordable dwellings, access, public open space and associated development including re-routing of public footpath at 15 Darwin Avenue.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Delegation as it is a major application.

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 draft Heads of Terms for a Section 106 agreement were attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

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

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

Ms Jan Scrine (Objector on behalf of local residents) and Jonathan Adams (Agent – Tetlow King Planning for the Applicant)

A local Ward Member, Councillor Roberts also addressed the Committee.

Key Points of Debate

·         The local Ward Member, Councillor Roberts again addressed the Committee expressing his concerns for the proposal which he considered did not conform to the South Worcestershire Development Plan as the site had now extended and referred to a revised plan.  The Interim Head of Planning explained this for the benefit of Members and clarified the planning history.

·         The objector, on behalf of local residents, stated that she was disappointed to see the proposal brought back as a new application, when it had been refused twice by the Planning Committee.  She considered the application to be in breach of the South Worcestershire Development Plan and the Review of this was unlikely to take place until 2023.  The proposal was considered a poorly designed scheme on all counts.  The objector responded to questions from Committee Members.

·         The agent for the applicant provided the background to Bromford Housing Association and stated that there was a need for more affordable homes in the city and the reason for the large number of houses proposed for the development. The proposal now provides significantly enhanced landscaping.  He asked that the Committee agree the Officers recommendation.  The agent also informed the Committee that the applicant would withdraw their current appeal against the refusal of their previous application  and claim for costs from the Council if this application was granted.  The agent responded to questions from Committee Members.

·         Members noted the last comment made by the agent and stated that this was not the way in which the Committee would arrive at their  decision.  The Interim Head of Planning stated that if the applicant/agent decided to go to appeal it would be entirely their own decision and the Council would defend.

·         In referring to the refusal grounds of the last application at paragraph 5.3 of the report, it was asked whether there were exceptional circumstances as alluded to in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.

The Corporate Director – Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee is minded to grant planning permission subject to:-

(i) the conditions set out in section 9 of the original report attached as Appendix 1; and

(ii) 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

(iii)subject to being satisfied with the nature of such an Agreement delegates authority to the Corporate Director - Planning and Governance to grant the planning permission.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the change of use from retail to 24 residential units at Unit 7, St Martin’s Quarter.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application was referred to Planning Committee on 28^th October 2021.  At this meeting Members were minded to refuse planning permission, contrary to Officer’s recommendation, on grounds of lack of amenity for proposed residents in terms of lack of external amenity space, the relationship with the public realm and concern this will lead to noise and disturbance and the perception of overlooking from passing pedestrian traffic.

The previous report to Planning Committee on 28^th October 2021 was attached as Appendix 1.

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report set out the comments of the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance which related to the grounds for refusal given at the last meeting.  In the summary of the report, at paragraph 4.3, Members were asked to note that if the application is refused contrary to officer recommendation and an appeal is lodged against the decision then it will be necessary to appoint external consultants to act on behalf of the local Authority.

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 which had been provided for Members at the previous meeting.

The Senior Planning officer drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 5.1 of the report, which provided a suggested reason for refusal in the event that the Committee reached a different conclusion and resolved to refuse the application, contrary to Officer’s recommendation.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·         In considering the proposal again, Members were still of the opinion that the proposal lacked amenity space for residents and this was a reasonable ground for refusal.

·         The site was still considered unsuitable and inappropriate for residential development, particularly on the ground floor, which fronts onto a busy main shopping area.

·         Members commented that amenity space was important which has been made more key during lockdown.

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 reason set out in paragraph 5.1 of the Officer’s report as follows:

For – 9

Against – 0

Abstentions – 0

Contrary to Officer recommendation it was:

RESOLVED: That the Committee refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The site comprises a mix of vacant units Units 7a, 7B, and 7C and the currently occupied 7D. Within the city centre and with a mix of surrounding well use retail and other uses it helps link key areas of the city and is subsequently an active well used route in from the building.

The proposal  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.

That the Planning Committee grants delegated authority to the Corporate Director - Planning and Governance  to grant planning permission, subject to the recommended conditions set out in section 9 of this report, upon the expiry of the statutory consultation period further subject to:-

i)     there being no new issues or objections  raised; and

ii)   the applicant and all persons having an interest in the land entering into an agreement under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990  to the satisfaction of the Corporate Director - Planning and Governance in accordance with the agreed heads of terms; and;

iii)  the grant of a satisfactory listed building consent.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a mixed use refurbishment retaining the Commercial use (Class E) at ground level with 13 studio flats on the upper floors at 42 Foregate Street.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Delegation as it is a major application.

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 and consultations where applicable.  The draft Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement were attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

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.

The Interim Senior Planning Officer informed Committee Members that this item would be considered in conjunction with Agenda Item 10 related to Listed Building consent.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·         Members noted this application was still out for consultation and was it premature to be determining the application at this time.

·         In response the Legal Team Manager referred Committee Members to the recommendation, which providing Planning Committee approved, would delegate authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance to grant planning permission subject to there being no new issues or objections raised following the expiry of the statutory consultation period which ends early December.

·         Members were also informed that if an objection was received there would be a need to look at the application further.  The main objections had been to the 4 storey building at the rear, but this has now been removed from the scheme.

·         Following comments by Committee Members on pollution, noise and air flow, Officers confirmed that this was covered in the report.  It was also acknowledged that the unit sizes were small, which were due to the constraints of the Listed Building.

·         Members acknowledged that the building had been empty since 2019 and it was important that the building was being brought back into use.  Officers confirmed that as the ground floor was to be retained for Commercial Use (Class E) it would be subject to a noise assessment condition.

·         Reference was made to car parking and the comments of the County Council Highway Authority, paragraph 6.1 of the report, in relation to restricted parking on Farrier Street to the rear of the site and where would cars park.  The County Council Highways representative confirmed that the proposal was fully in line with the adopted Streetscape Design Guide.  There would be a need to purchase tickets to park in other car parks.  For clarification Committee Members were informed that the residential units were accepted as ‘parking free’ whilst the commercial use will retain 2 parking spaces.

·         Generally Members agreed that the City Centre did need studio flats and its location was close  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64.

That the Planning Committee grants listed building consent  subject to:-

i)             the conditions set out in section 9 of this report; and

ii)           the grant of a satisfactory planning permission.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a Mixed use refurbishment retaining the Commercial use (Class E) at ground level with 13 studio flats on the upper floors at 42 Foregate Street.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Delegation as it is a major application.

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 and consultations where applicable.  The draft Heads of Terms for a Section 106 Agreement were attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

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

See previous item – Application 21/00470/FUL.

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 Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was agreed as follows:

For - 7

Against - 2

Abstentions - 0

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant listed building consent, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report and the grant of a satisfactory planning permission.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance 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 erection of a ground and first floor side and rear wrap-around extension with pitched roofs to match existing at 31 Georgina Avenue.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Alan Amos.

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 comments from the applicant on the proposal.

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.

The Planning Officer provided context with regard to the withdrawn application, pre-application enquiry and the current application as outlined at paragraph 5.1 of the report.  The current application had been designed to mitigate the concerns with regard to the previous proposal.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·         Members considered the proposal an overdevelopment of the site which was unsuitable for this property and the area.

·         Officers were of the opinion that whilst the proposed extensions were substantial, it was felt that the site was significant enough for it not to be deemed overdevelopment.

·         Members considered the proposal as a complete rebuild rather than an extension.  It was considered that if approved it would set a precedent for the area as it would change the character of the street.

·         Officers in their assessment of the application recognized that the decision is finely balanced but considered that on balance the impacts of the proposal would not be to such a detrimental level as to warrant refusal of the application.

A proposal to be minded to refuse the application had been made and this was seconded on the grounds that it would impact on the character of the area, would be visually intrusive to the streetscene and was overdevelopment due to the size, mass and bulk of the proposed extensions. 

If ‘Minded to Refuse’ the Legal Team Manager stated that the application would need to be referred back to the next available meeting in accordance with the current adopted procedure.

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 deferred minded to refuse for the reasons set out above as follows:

For - 9

Against - 0

Abstentions – 0

Contrary to Officer recommendation it was:

RESOLVED: That the Committee is minded to refuse planning permission on the following grounds:

1.   Impact on character of the area;

2.   Concerns that the proposed extension is incongruous and is a visually intrusive addition to the streetscene; and

3.   Is overdevelopment due to the size, massing and bulk of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 66.

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

None.