Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

The following declaration of interest was made:

Application 23/00018/FUL – The Myriad Centre, St Georges Walk

(Minute No. 83)

Councillor Lewing – Attended a public consultation event at The Myriad Centre.  Councillor Lewing elected to speak and vote on the item.

The following declaration of other disclosable interest was made:

Application 23/00957/HP – 63 Waterworks Road

(Minute No. 85)

Councillor Lewing – As fellow Ward Councillor and a close personal friend.  Councillor Lewing elected not to speak and vote on the item and left the room during the consideration and determination of the application.

Of the meeting held on 18^th January 2024 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th January 2024 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel of 10^th January 2024 be received.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel meeting held on 10^th January 2024 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 Service Manager – Development Management of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on Monday 19^th February 2024 and reasons for the request.

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

Application 23/00018/FUL – The Myriad Centre, St Georges Walk

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

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the redevelopment of the Myriad Centre site, St Georges Walk involving the demolition of the existing building and replacement with a part one storey, part two story new development.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application has been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Bisset, highlighting issues of parking and overdevelopment.

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

The following people had registered to speak on the application:

Claire Summers, objector on behalf of residents in Henry Street, St Georges Lane, St Georges Walk and Sunnyside Road;

Jonathan Davey, Associated Architects, agent for the applicant, Richard Whateley, Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the Myriad Centre; and

Local Ward Member, Councillor Bisset.

Key Points of Debate

·        The objector, in addressing the Committee, stated that there were already major parking problems in the area and raised concerns that the redevelopment of the centre would make this worse.  The proposal was considered an overdevelopment/overcrowding of the site.  There are residential parking schemes in the area, so this makes it even more difficult to find parking spaces.  Reference was made to the disabled bays on St George’s Walk for use by any blue badge holder but is primarily used by the centre.    The redevelopment of the centre was considered a benefit to its users but would create more parking issues. The objector responded to questions from Committee Members related mainly to parking issues.

·        The agent for the applicant stated that this had been specifically designed to meet the needs of the Myriad Centre’s staff and clients.  It will offer a warm and welcoming environment, giving access to a garden and outdoor space, and unlike the current building will have wheelchair access.  Throughout the planning process they have worked with the City Council and County Council Highways to ensure that the proposal would not cause significant problems to the highway network, which is outlined in the officers’ report.

·        The CEO of the centre provided background to the Myriad Centre which has delivered care and support to people with profound and multiple disabilities since 2007.  He stated that there was a growing need for the service and provided statistical information for this.  He stated that the property is an adaption and not a purpose designed facility, it has not been fit for purpose for some time.  The Charity wanted to stay in this location where it is part of the community, and the clients have access to amenities such as Gheluvelt Park. 

·        The speakers both responded to questions from Committee Members which related mainly to the parking of the minibuses, increased usage of the centre and parking related  ...  view the full minutes text for item 83.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission pursuant to Regulation 3 of

The Town and Country Planning General Regulations 1992 (as amended) and listed building consent subject to the conditions set out in Section

9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered applications for landscape enhancements and pedestrian access improvements, re-grading existing footpath within the park, new steps, path resurfacing work, tree works and planting and demolition of two sections of existing low boundary wall at St Andrew’s Gardens, Deansway.

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 applicant is Worcester City Council.

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.

Members were informed that the applications were for full planning permission (23/00806/FUL) and listed building consent (23/00807/LB).

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·        Reference was made to the railings, and it was asked if they would be going into the existing stonework that supports the current boundary or were they being retained.  The Deputy Service Manager – Development Management in response stated some of the stonework around the existing is to be removed but reused within the gardens where the stonework is retained, then the railings will be placed within those, subject to conditions with regard to construction.

·        With regard to the removal of trees, it was asked what age they were and whether they were mature trees.  The Deputy Service Manager stated that she was not aware of the ages of the tress but confirmed that the City Councils’ Landscape Officer and Tree Officer had no objections to their removal, subject to replacement planting of appropriate size and species, which will be conditioned.

·        Concerns were raised about some of the archaeological aspects of the application and reference was made to paragraph 7.18 of the report and it was asked whether a watch and brief was adequate.  The Service Manager – Development Management in response stated that there were no substantial foundations in terms of works proposed, just looking at landscape works which are minimal depth, and the condition is considered appropriate, but would be amended accordingly if needed.

·        Committee Members were impressed by the inclusivity of the proposal, the wider paths and the sensory garden in particular.

·        In referring to the paint scheme of black for the existing benches and their cast ends, the Chair asked if it would be possible for badges to be placed on each end of the benches, similar to those in Gheluvelt Park, which would reflect the heritage of the area.  It was asked if this could be conditioned, which was supported by Committee Members.

·        The Service Manager – Development Management agreed to add an additional condition which require details of the benches to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local authority prior to installation.  This  ...  view the full minutes text for item 84.

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee Grant Planning Permission subject to the conditions set out in Section 9 of the report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a rear single storey extension and rear outbuilding, loft conversion with front dormer window at 63 Waterworks 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 applicant is related to a Local Councillor.

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 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.

Committee Members were informed that the proposals for the outbuilding/home office complied with Permitted Development Rights.  Other works required planning permission.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·        In relation to the current footage, it was asked how much bigger in percentage terms the building would be taking into account the proposals.  It was considered that it was important to have these figures to enable a decision to be made.

·        The Service Manager – Development Management stated that he did not have these figures to hand but directed Committee Members to paragraph 7.5 of the report and clarified the number of extensions and considered that the percentage figure would be fairly low.  A reminder was given that the outbuilding benefited from the fallback position of Permitted Development Rights.

·        It was asked if the application was only before the Committee as the applicant is a local Councillor, the Service Manager stated that there had been no objections to the proposal and would have been dealt with by officers under delegated powers were it not for the Scheme of Delegation which requires the application to be put before the Committee as the applicant is related to a local Councillor.

A proposal to approve the application 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 were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was agreed as follows.

For - 8

Against - 0

Abstentions - 2

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

COUNCILLOR LEWING IN THE CHAIR

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee gives delegated authority to the Corporate Director - Planning and Governance to prepare and complete a Deed of Variation in accordance with the draft heads of terms in Appendix 1.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a deed of variation to amend the section 106 agreement of planning approval 20/00246/FUL to remove the affordable housing contribution at 4-14 Mayfied Road.  The draft Heads of Terms for a s106 Agreement had been agreed with the applicants and were attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

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 proposed amendments relate to the removal of financial contributions in respect of affordable housing replacing the obligation with full policy compliant provision on site along with consequential amendments that are required.

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 process to amend or modify a s106 Agreement was outlined in section 7 of the report.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

·        The Service Manager – Development Management, in response to questions about whether these proposals could change in the future, it was confirmed that the Deed of Variation will be written that 30% will be provided, although the provider may provide more.  The Deed of Variation is also attached to the land whoever the provider is.

·        The applicant, Platform Housing, will provide 100% affordable housing scheme on site.  The tenure of the units to be controlled through the s106 Agreement for social rent. 

·        Committee Members welcomed the proposal which was also fully supported by the City Council’s Housing Team.

A proposal to approve the amendment of the Deed of Variation 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 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 delegates authority to the Corporate Director – Planning and Governance to prepare and complete a Deed of Variation in accordance with the draft Heads of Terms in Appendix 1.

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

Annual Review of Planning Decisions

The Service Manager – Development Management reminded Committee Members that this was to take place on Thursday 29^th February 2024 departing from Copenhagen Street at 10.00am.  The list of sites to be visited had been circulated to all Members.  This was open to all Members to attend and not just those who sit on Planning Committee.

March 2024 Meeting

The Service Manager – Development Management referred Committee Members to the forthcoming meeting in March and informed them that the Scala Theatre application is likely to be on the agenda.  It has been agreed with the Chair and Vice Chair that a site visit will be carried out for this application.