Agenda item

Application 21/00411/VARCO - Manor Farm, Worcester Early Years Centre, Malvern Road

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




The Committee considered an application to vary condition 3 of planning approval 19/00195/FUL to amend operating hours of the lighting at Manor Farm, Worcester Early Years Centre, Malvern Road.


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 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 application sought to vary condition 3f of planning permission 19/00195/FUL.  For clarity condition 3 was highlighted in paragraph 3.3 of the report. The proposed variation to the condition was highlighted in paragraph 3.4 which proposed to amend the operating hours of the lighting.


Committee Members attention was also drawn to paragraph 3.6 of the report which highlighted that the approved plan under condition 2 of the approved planning permission only showed 4 bollards, despite 6 being approved by conditions and the development condition.  The plan in figure 1 at paragraph 3.2 of the report had been received to allow for correction of this as an approved plan. 


Paragraph 3.5 of the report also confirmed that the hours of lighting should follow the hours that the facility is operational to facilitate safe and convenient access to and from the facility from the car park.


Public Representations


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


Key Points of Debate


·        The proposed hours of lighting were highlighted, which some Members felt were a significant change.  It was commented that when condition 3 was applied originally it was done so for a good reason, neighbours and wildlife were still there and it was considered that the application should be refused.  It was also noted that the hours of this application were identical to those of the previous application.


·        In referring to the objections at paragraph 6.1 of the report and the comments of one objector, it was noted how many of the officer’s responses related to the fact that they were subject to separate investigation and enforcement action.  The Chair in response commented that those matters were being dealt with separately as they raised issues outside the application consideration and the lighting of the bollards and that this application needs to be determined on its own merit.


·        Some Members felt that if this application is to be considered on its own merit, then a refusal on the impact on residential amenity should be recommended, the hours that were approved previously reflect the conditions, nothing has changed so does not need the hours to be changed. 


·        The Head of Planning stated that the potential benefit for approving this application is to identify where the bollards will be situated.  If moving towards a refusal, then reasons need to be articulated.  There is a need to make a safe dependable position.


·        In referring to paragraph 3.5 of the report some Members were mindful if the application was refused this could result in an accident and deemed it sensible to request longer lighting hours.  It was felt that there were no sound reasons to refuse the application.


A proposal to refuse the application on the grounds of impact on residential amenity had been made and this was seconded.  The Chair asked the Legal Team representative to request the voting of each Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote.  Following the recording of the votes the proposal was lost as follows:


For - 3

Against - 6

Abstentions - 1


A proposal was then made to approve the application as per the recommendation and this was seconded.  There being no further points made the Chair asked the Legal Team representative 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 - 6

Against - 4

Abstentions – 0


Councillor Alan Amos asked for his vote against the proposal to be recorded in the minutes.


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


Supporting documents: