Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

The following declarations of interest were made:

Application 21/01023/FUL – St Placides, Battenhall Avenue

(Minute No. 72)

Councillors Barnes and Bisset – As Council appointed Members of the Conservation Advisory Panel.  Both had attended a meeting of the Panel at Mount Battenhall, Battenhall Avenue on 7^th September 2022 and were provided with a tour of the building and hospitality, prior to the meeting, by the Director of Enterprise Retirement Living, the applicants.  Councillors Barnes and Bisset elected to speak and vote on the item.

Councillor Mrs L Hodgson – As Council appointed Member of the Conservation Advisory Panel.  Councillor Hodgson had not attended the Panel meeting on 7^th September 2022.

Application 22/00079/OUT – The Fairway

(Minute No. 73)

Councillor Mrs L Hodgson – As a Member of Warndon Parish Council. Councillor Mrs L Hodgson elected to speak and vote on the item

Councillor Roberts – As a Member of Warndon Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee.  Councillor Roberts elected to speak and vote on the item.

The following declarations of other disclosable interest were made:

Application 21/01023/FUL – St Placides, Battenhall Avenue

(Minute No. 72)

Councillor Stephen -   Had called the application in before Planning Committee and knew the objector who had registered to speak. Councillor Stephen left the room during the consideration of this item, but prior to that addressed the Committee as Ward Member.

Application 22/00714/FUL – 220 London Road

(Minute No. 74)

Councillor Stephen -   Had called the application in before Planning Committee and had spoken with officers and residents, who had objected to the application, and had been drawn into negotiations with the applicant.  Councillor Stephen left the room during the consideration of this item, but prior to that addressed the Committee as Ward Member.

of the meeting held on 20^th October 2022 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th October 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.

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 Management Services Manager of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately prior to the meeting (22^nd November 2022) 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.

The Committee had visited the following site which was the subject of an application to be determined, prior to the commencement of the meeting:

Application 21/01023/FUL – St Placides, Battenhall Avenue

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 Planning Committee grants planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the demolition and construction of 47no. apartments and 4no. bungalows to create a care community for the elderly with communal areas at St Placide’s School Annex site, Mount Battenhall, Battenhall Avenue (Revision of previously approved scheme P17B0507).

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it is outside the scope of the adopted Scheme of Delegation and at the request of Councillor Stephen on grounds as 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 site itself, relevant policies, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

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

·        additional plans to show the replacement bat loft to be provided within the roofspace of the front building; and

·        updated consultee comments from the City Council’s Landscape and Biodiversity Advisor.

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 previously approved scheme was shown to Members alongside the revised scheme for clarity.

Public Representations

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

Andy Baylis (Objector) and James Pegg (Applicant, Early Retirement Living)

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

Key Points of Debate

·        The local Ward Member in addressing the Committee considered this a big expansion increasing from 32 to 51 dwellings, and doubling of the use of green space from 12-24%.  Reference was made to the lack of cycle provision and he questioned County Council Highways on how the four cycle racks to be provided were identified.   Loss of privacy was referred to as there are a number of balconies and flat roof space, in some parts the land is higher than those who live in Goodwood Avenue.  He referred to three reasons for mitigation in relation to green space which were, community recreation use, surplus of green space or an alternative green space being provided, he stated that there are none of these.  The tennis courts could be removed and returned back to green space very simply.  If green space is taken away then BREAM standards should be used.  This is a major increase and he urged the Committee to vote against the application and ask the developer to come back with a reduced scheme which does not affect privacy, and does not reduce the green space available.

·        The objector in addressing the Committee stated that he had knowledge of the site as he lived adjacent to it, in the ‘Eco’ house at 25 Battenhall Avenue.  He considered the proposal an over development in the green space, a 72% increase from the consented scheme. He pointed out that the proposal now had a much reduced area of wildlife, together with the proximity and overlooking of the ‘Eco’ house from the proposed bungalows.

Several  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that Planning Committee refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for outline planning permission for development of up to 6no. residential dwellings (considering access only) at The Fairway.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee in accordance with the adopted Scheme of Delegation and at the request of Councillor Roberts on grounds as 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 site 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 Service Manager – Development Management referred Committee Members to the 5 Year Housing Land Supply, as outlined in the report,  which cannot be demonstrated, and as such the ‘tilted balance’ under paragraph 11(d) of the Framework is applied.  He also outlined the loss of Green Space and the loss of social benefit to the community from the Green Space.

In applying the overall planning balance, when considered against the Development Plan as a whole, the proposals were recommended for refusal by officers.  The reasons for refusal were set out in paragraph 9.1 of the report.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·        When asked if the proposal would reduce public access to the green space, the Service Manager – Development Management stated that it would not affect public access as it is purely private Green Space, but contributes heavily to the visual appearance of that space when viewed from the public right of way.

·        It was asked why this application had been referred to the Planning Committee for determination, in response the Service Manager – Development Management informed Members that the current Constitution, under the Scheme of Delegation, requires any application, whether for approval or refusal, seen as a departure from the Development Plan is to be determined by Planning Committee. 

A proposal to refuse the application, as per the Officers recommendation, had been made and this was seconded.  There being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each Member of the Committee who was eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal to refuse was agreed as follows.

For – 9

Against – 0

Abstentions – 0

RESOLVED: That the Committee refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in section 9 of the report.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee approves the variation of Condition 2 of planning permission 19/00409/FUL and grants planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a single detached dwelling with associated highways works (variation  of condition 2 of planning approval 19/00409/FUL – various alterations to the external appearance of the dwelling and associated works) at 220 London Road.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

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

Report/Background/Late Papers

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

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to further representation from a neighbouring property received following agenda publication, together with officer responses to the concerns raised.

Officer Presentation

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

The Planning Officer highlighted that the application had been submitted under Section 73 to allow for the changes as detailed.  Amended plans had been sought to address concerns regarding potential/perceived overlooking from the roof terrace, these were highlighted in paragraph 3.2 of the report.

Public Representations

There had been no one registered to speak on the application, however a local Ward Member Councillor Stephen addressed the Committee.

Key Points of Debate

·        The local Ward Member in addressing the Committee outlined his and resident’s concerns with regard to the application, drawing attention to the fact that the original application did not include a roof top terrace, which would result in overlooking and loss of privacy, only a flat roof and rooflight. It was acknowledged that the applicant has offered to include a frosted glass balustrade on the top of the previously approved parapet wall, although he stated that residents would prefer not to have the balustrade at all.  This was already a tall building and this would add to the height.

·        He asked that Committee Members refuse the application, if not then consider conditions to support and mitigate the concerns of residents, in terms of removing the balustrade completely, introduce reasonable conditions on noise and light levels and remove permitted development rights to ensure no increase to the height of the wall.

·        Committee Members referred to the concerns raised by residents over the loss of privacy, slides on the powerpoint presentation were highlighted in reference to this.  It was considered that the overlooking resulted in a loss of amenity.

·        The Service Manager – Development Management agreed with the comments, which he stated would result in a significant loss of amenity.  He did however inform Committee Members that this application gives the opportunity to mitigate the harm, approved in the original application.  If refused then this opportunity would be lost.

·        It was asked if more protection could be provided to prevent he overlooking, the Service Manager - Development Management stated that the proposal would include an obscure glazed balustrade and privacy wall totalling to a 1.8m screen, only views across the city will be seen.

·        Clarification  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74.

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

None.

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