Agenda item

The Corporate Director - Planning and Governance recommends that the Planning Committee refuses planning permission for the reasons set out at Section 9 of this report.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for a new mixed-use development comprising 2no. ground floor commercial units (Class E) and 4no. upper floor apartments on the former Mister Construction Ltd, site in South Street.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

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

Report/Background/Later 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 further representations from Anthony Cupper, Seats and Sofas.

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 Head of Planning, in presenting the item, stated that the application is recommended for refusal by officers in terms of the proposed design, which is inappropriate for this site and this location, and the close proximity of the paint spraying activity.  He also referred to the comments made by Worcestershire Regulatory Services. 

The full reasons for refusal were set out in paragraph 9.1 of the report.

Public Representations

The following person had registered to speak on the application:

Robert Collis, Miller and Lloyd (Objector)

Key Points of Debate

·         The objector, owner of Miller and Lloyd (car repairers), South Street, informed the Committee that the only access to his business is along South Street from the City Walls Road.  He requires constant access along South Street for his business and this development would result in additional vehicles, pedestrians or parking on the road.  Construction traffic would block his access plus there was no where to turn and vehicles would need to reverse onto the City Walls Road.  The very nature of his business also created noise, dust and odour which would be disruptive for residents.  He informed the Committee that he planned to relocate to other premises in the near future.

·         In referring to the potential for the site to contain human or historical remains on the site, the Chair confirmed that if approved, contrary to officer recommendation, then an appropriate condition would be added.

·         Members agreed that the proposal would have an adverse impact on the streetscene and there was overwhelming evidence to refuse the application.  It was suggested that should an application be presented in future it should take into account the whole site and not just a stand-alone development.  This was agreed by other Members.

·         The proposal was considered to be an isolated building with a lack of ventilation and problems with the elevations and potential for overheating. 

·         It was highlighted that applications that show cycle parking in vertical or semi vertical positions are not conforming with the County Council’s Streetscape Design Guide. Developers need to give a bit more thought to the distance, probably a further 30cm to enable the cycle to remain flat and non-discriminatory.

·         The Chair stated that whatever may be happening in the future we cannot foresee so need to look at the situation as it is today as presented to the Committee.

A proposal to refuse 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 refused as per the Officer’s recommendation as follows:

For - 10

Against - 0

Abstentions - 0

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

1.      By virtue of the extent of the full height glazing at all three levels in the front elevation of the proposed building and its blank flank and rear elevations and the size of the proposal, projecting above the two storey business premises to the rear of the site, the proposed development would have an adverse impact upon the street scene. The impact would be exacerbated by the size, bulk and massing of the proposed development and its prominence in the street scene.  The proposed development is therefore contrary to Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016), the South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021); and

2.      By virtue of its nature and the odour arising from it, the adjacent paint spraying business would have a significant and harmful impact upon the amenities of the future occupiers of the development. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy SWDP21 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016), the South Worcestershire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2021).