Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

The following declarations of interest were made:

Application 21/01100/FUL – Land at London Road

(Minute No. 129)

Councillor Denham – Had provided technical guidance to residents.  Councillor Denham had not predetermined the application and elected to speak and vote on the item.

Application 21/01127/REM – 55 Sidbury

(Minute No. 131)

Councillor Denham – Had provided technical guidance to residents.  Councillor Denham had not predetermined the application and elected to speak and vote on the item.

Application 19/00693/REM – Land at Sherriff Street Industrial Estate

(Minute No. 132)

Councillors Agar and Denham – Acquainted with the agent for the applicant who was in attendance at the meeting.  Councillors Agar and Denham elected to speak and vote on the item.

of the meeting held on 27^th January 2022 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 27^th January 2022 be 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 Chair drew the Committee’s attention to agenda item 7 which was due to have speakers, unfortunately the agent who was also due to speak was unable to attend for personal reasons and had requested that the item be deferred.  The Chair stated that it is for the Committee to decide whether they wish this item to be deferred.

Members of the Committee were informed that the speakers had been made aware of the situation prior to the meeting.  The Chair said that it was an unfortunate set of circumstances but did not feel it unreasonable to request the deferral.

The Committee agreed to defer the application.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee refuses planning permission on the grounds set out in section 9 of this report.

This item was withdrawn from the agenda as previously agreed.

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.

Introduction

The Committee considered a retrospective application to vary condition 2 of planning application 20/00888/FUL at Rose Villa, Nunnery Lane.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance.

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 application was prepared for the Planning Committee meeting on 25^th November 2021 but was deferred to allow officers further time to assess changes between the development as built and the submitted plans, and if necessary to allow the submission of amended plans.  These had now been received.

The retrospective application sought to vary condition 2 of application 20/00088/FUL which was allowed at appeal.  Some of the changes were previously sought under non-material amendment application 20/000567/NMA.  This was refused at Planning Committee as it was considered that the retrospective changes sought by the application were cumulatively not considered to be non-material in nature.

The retrospective amendments that are sought by this application were highlighted in paragraph 3.2 of the Officers 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:

Paul Chambers and Kevin Ruff (Objectors)

Key Points of Debate

·         Both objectors referred to the previous applications and various plans that had been produced for this site, which they felt still included many inaccuracies.  They objected to the application and asked that the committee refuse and request that the applicant be encouraged to submit a full application with all previous conditions including condition 2 and that it is reviewed by the inspector.  When questioned by Members of the Committee they each explained what they believed to be the inaccuracies/concerns of the site.

·         Some Members felt that given the history of the site there is a complete contempt of the Committee who have a duty to protect its interests and feel that it is not acceptable in the way it has been treated.  The applicants have chosen not to carry out the original planning permission.

·         It was acknowledged that the Committee were being asked to regularise further breaches of the planning permission and asked what reassurance there was that this would not come back to the Committee again.  Some Members felt that it should be deferred as it was believed that not all accurate information was before the Committee, if not then refusal that the 9 changes are material.

·         The Interim Head of Planning stated that a retrospective application is not a reason for refusal and the applicant takes a risk when doing so.  The Committee needed to consider the changes and consider whether they are acceptable or not.

·         It was asked what enforcement action had been carried out on  ...  view the full minutes text for item 130.

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 amendment of condition 2 of permission P14D0330 for the erection of a side extension to the restaurant at 55 Sidbury.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

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

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.

There were no late papers circulated.

The application is for an amendment to condition 2 of P14K0330 (the approved plans) to allow for revised proposals showing an extended roof terrace with a glazed balustrade, a small extension and relocated toilets.  The amendments were highlighted in paragraph 3.1 of the report.  

The applicants stated that they are only changing the approved plans to provide for the balustrading around the roof as there was no restriction placed on the original permission to prevent the roof being used as a terrace for customers; they also conclude that the toilet relocation is minor; and that a S73 application is the most appropriate submission. In the course of the application, they have supported the view that they do not need permission to use the roof as a terrace with a legal opinion which was disputed by officers (appendix 1 attached to the report refers).

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:

Frances Fosh and Sam Coomber (Objectors) and Phillip Rawle (Agent for the Applicant)

Key Points of Debate

·         The first objector, whose property was adjacent to the proposal, raised concerns about the relocation of the toilet block which would be placed up tight to her garden wall.  The property is Grade II listed and the base of the wall is medieval.  It was preferred that the toilet block be moved back to where originally proposed which was less intrusive and would have less of an impact upon the amenities of those living nearby.

·         The second objector, who had properties in Amber Wharf, directly overlooked the roof terrace and was concerned over the increase in noise levels.  The roof terrace proposed is larger than originally allowed and would result in a loss of privacy.

·         The objectors responded to questions from Members in relation to noise and noise prevention, location of the bottle bins and the location of the toilets adjacent to the Grade II listed building wall.

·         The Senior Technical Officer from Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) referred to the Noise Assessment carried out by the applicant, and raised no objection to the application in terms of noise. The proposal for a 2.4m high wall adjacent to the roof terrace was seen as a mitigating measure.

·         The agent for the applicant in response stated that the toilet block would be built independently from the wall and confirmed  ...  view the full minutes text for item 131.

That the Planning Committee is minded to approve the further variation of the Section 106 Agreement dated 13^th December 2018 as previously amended by a Deed of Variation dated 6^th July 2020, subject to:-

i)             the applicant and all persons having an interest in the land entering into a Deed of Variation of the S106 Agreement to the satisfaction of the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance in accordance with the details set out in the report; and

ii)           The applicant depositing a Bond from a reputable financial institution to the satisfaction of the Corporate Director -Planning and Governance for the payment of a sum of monies to Worcester City Council equivalent to the amount of the off-site affordable housing contribution as detailed in section 7.7 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a Deed of Variation under S106A (1)(a) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) at Land at Sherriff Street Industrial Estate.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of the Corporate Director - Planning and Governance in accordance with the Scheme of Delegation.

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.

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 Head of Development Management informed Members of the Committee that the applicant has submitted a request to further vary the terms of the Section 106 Agreement to allow Phase 1 of the development to be completed without any affordable housing provision and for the whole provision to be delivered in Phase 2 instead.

Since the granting of the planning application the National Planning Policy Framework has been updated in July 2021, which has updated the definition of affordable housing which was set out in paragraph 7.3 of the Officers report.

In order to safeguard the Council’s position several options and clauses were suggested by Officers, as set out in paragraph 7.7 a)-d), in particular a bond to secure the payment to the City Council as set out in 7.7 d).

Officers recommended that subject to suitable safeguards that the amended Section 106 Agreement can be progressed.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·         The Chair asked if the applicant was agreeable to the options and clauses as set out in a)-d).  The Interim Head of Development Management confirmed they were and the Legal Team Manager stated that they were quite close to signing an agreement.

·         Members asked about the timeframe for Phases 1 and 2.   It was stated that Phase 1 would be as soon as possible as they have discharged conditions and commencement on site is imminent.  It could take 3/4 years, but Phase 2 can start in the meantime, they are close to finding a registered provider.  It was confirmed that there were no specific dates as yet.

·         Clarification was requested on the affordable housing element of the application and the negotiations that have taken place over time on the numbers to be provided, which had been reduced, together with the definition of affordable housing which had changed the provision.  The Interim Head of Development Management confirmed that the developer did want to provide affordable housing and it is part of the development but there had been a viability issue, that’s why the variation of the Section 106 Agreement had been accepted.  The definition of affordable housing and what is known as now is government guidance and would need to make  ...  view the full minutes text for item 132.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to conditions set out at Section 9.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a variation to drawings listed as approved under condition 2 of full planning approval reference 20/00352/FUL, minor changes to the road alignment and car parking locations at former Tolladine Golf Course, Tolladine Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

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

The application had also been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councilor Mrs Lucy Hodgson as the application has attracted local opposition.

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 Corporate Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a powerpoint presentation.

The Interim Head of Development Management informed Committee Members that the previous planning permission was subject to a number of planning conditions, with a number being discharged, and he confirmed that these would be carried forward.  The updates to the conditions were highlighted in paragraph 7.16.

The County Council Highways representative also confirmed no objection to the minor changes.

Public Representations

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

A proposal to approve 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 agreed as follows:

For - 10

Against - 0

Abstentions - 1

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

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission subject to conditions set out at Section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a proposed new single storey classroom building to provide teaching space for autistic children at Christopher Whitehead Language College and Sixth Form, Bromwich Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the 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.

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 application.

Key Points of Debate

·         Members referred to the consultee comments of Worcestershire County Council Highways Authority, in paragraph 6.1 of the report, who had requested a deferral until clarification of the staff and student numbers were provided and asked for clarification.

·         The Interim Head of Development Management in response referred Members to paragraph 7.13 of the report which stated that the application form set out that there would be no increase in staff or student numbers.  The County Council Highways representative stated that they were happy with the proposal which was to enhance the teaching facilities on site.

·         It was asked if the design of the building was appropriate for this specific need.  It was confirmed that the Design and Access Statement set this out and consideration of the end user had been given.

·         Members welcomed the proposal.

A proposal to approve 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 agreed as follows:

For - 11

Against - 0

Abstentions - 0

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

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

Planning Committee Site Visits

The Chair asked Committee Members if they wished to return to site visits, which had been useful in determining some applications.  It would be on an as and when needed basis and not for every meeting or application.  This was agreed by Committee Members.

Interim Head of Planning

The Chair informed the Committee that this was the last meeting the Interim Head of Planning, Sim Manley would be attending. On behalf of the Committee the Chair thanked him for the immense benefit he had brought to the service and wished him well for the future.  This was echoed by Committee Members who recognised the transformation that had been made during his time at the Council.