Agenda and minutes

Venue: Guildhall

Contact: Committee Administration 01905 722027, 722006, 722085 

Items
No. Item

160.

Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

Minutes:

The following declarations of interest were made:

 

Application P18B0548 – Middle Battenhall Farm, Upper Battenhall

(Minute No.     )

 

Councillor Stephen – had visited the site and spoken with members of the public but had not expressed an opinion.  Councillor Stephen elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Councillor Johnson – had attended a meeting in respect of the adjacent barn and during that meeting the hedgerow application was referred to but he had not expressed an opinion.  Councillor Johnson elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Councillor Mitchell – had received an email from an objector to the proposal but had given procedural advice only.  Councillor Mitchell elected to speak and vote on the item.

 

Other Councillors had received an email from an objector to the proposal but had not responded. 

161.

Minutes of Previous Planning Committee pdf icon PDF 114 KB

of the meeting held on 21st February 2018 to be approved and signed.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 21st February 2019 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

162.

Minutes of Previous Conservation Advisory Panel pdf icon PDF 775 KB

Minutes of the meeting held on 9th January 2019 to be received.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel meeting held on 9th January 2019 be received.

163.

Site Visits

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 Services Manager of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately prior to the meeting (19th March 2019) 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.

 

Minutes:

The Committee visited the following site which was the subject of an application to be determined:-

 

Applications P18D0503 and L18D0063 – 27 Friar Street

164.

Public Participation

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.

Minutes:

Mr Andy Taylor, Warndon Parish Councillor, in addressing the Planning Committee made reference to his question (circulated to Members prior to the meeting as a reminder) at the 24th January 2019 meeting whereby he was informed that he would receive a formal written response.  He stated that despite a number of reminders he has received no response.

 

He stated that he had been made aware verbally that the evidence wouldn’t be considered within the Development Management (DM) Challenge and that the Planning Advisory Service advisor had indicated that he did not feel that it would be appropriate for this exercise.  He was also made aware that a key part of the DM Challenge exercise had already taken place earlier that week.

 

The first part of his question to the Chair of Planning Committee today was:

 

“When can I expect a formal written response to my question of January 24th”?

 

The second part of his question was

 

“In retrospect, are Members content that the Planning Advisory DM Challenge is a suitable vehicle for an audit of planning processes?

 

If so, why has Warndon Parish Council’s evidence been rejected?

 

If not, when will these matters be properly addressed”?

 

The Chairman asked the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning for her comments on the first part of Mr Taylor’s question.  She stated that she was waiting for a response from the Planning Advisory Service.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Taylor for his questions and made a commitment that a formal written response would be provided to him before the next Planning Committee meeting.

 

Mr Andrew Cross, Warndon Parish Councillor, addressed the Planning Committee asked the Chairman the following questions:

 

“Does the Committee plan to repeat the planning review exercise on a regular schedule to review progress and to make sure the recommendations are implemented”?

 

“Will the Committee ensure that quality (meaning integrity and probity) of the planning process is a stated aim in these reviews i.e. not just an efficiency review of quantity and throughput”?

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Cross for his questions and made a commitment that a formal written response would be provided to him before the next Planning Committee meeting.

165.

Public Representation

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.

 

Minutes:

Those representations made are recorded at the minute to which they relate.

166.

Application P19D0005 - Lowesmoor Trading Estate, St Martin's Gate pdf icon PDF 253 KB

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that planning permission is granted, subject to the retention and variation of condition 3 and the conditions set down in the schedule to this report.

 

 

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the variation of conditions 1, 6, 7, 9, 18, 22, 23, 28 and 29 and removal of condition 3 of planning application P15D0510, site at Lowesmoor Trading Estate, St Martin’s Gate.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application was referred to Planning Committee for determination on the grounds that it related to a planning application that was originally determined by the Planning Committee at it’s meeting on 21st July 2016, at which it was minded to approve subject to conditions and a Section 106 Agreement.  Upon completion of the Section 106 Agreement the planning permission was issued on 11th January 2018.

 

Site Visit

 

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

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

 

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

 

  • amendment of conditions 8 and 15 due to minor errors in formatting; and
  • consultee response from Worcestershire County Council Highway Authority having no objection to the proposal.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

 

Members were informed that the proposal related to archaeological conditions and sought to give flexibility to allow the demolition to take place before archaeological investigations began.

 

In referring to the removal of condition 3 Members were informed that it was recommended that this was retained in an amended form in order to ensure that re-development of the site would commence within a reasonable time period following demolition.  The applicant had confirmed their agreement to this.

 

Members were reminded of the previously approved scheme in the form of a powerpoint presentation.

 

Public Representations

 

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

 

Key Points of Debate

 

  • Reassurances were given to Members that the amendments/variation of the conditions would not result in any disruption to vehicles/pedestrians on the highway.

 

  • Confirmation was given that the Archaeological Officer was content with the proposed changes which would not cause any additional risk to archaeological remains, as set out in paragraph 7.1 of the report.

 

  • Members were pleased to see that the development must be begun not later than 10th January 2021 but asked how this was to be enforced.  The Development Services Management Team Leader referred Members to condition 3 on page 158 of the report.

 

  • A comment was made that a more detailed summary of the proposal would have been useful at the beginning of the report as there was a lot of information to get through before it was evident what was being requested.  This was noted for future reference.

 

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the retention and variation of condition 3 and the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 166.

167.

Application P18B0548 - Middle Battenhall Farm, Upper Battenhall pdf icon PDF 136 KB

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the planning committee authorises the issuing of a notice allowing the removal of the two 15m lengths of hedgerow. The potential exemption of the proposed works to the western hedge is noted, subject to a requirement to fill the existing gap at the south-eastern corner of the western field.

 

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the removal of hedges,  Middle Battenhall Farm, Upper Battenhall.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Griffiths following concerns raised by a number of residents relating to the proposal.

 

Site Visit

 

The application had not been the subject of a site visit.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

The report set out the background to the proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself, the Hedgerows Regulations 1997, planning history and representations and consultations where applicable.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to a supporting statement from the applicant.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

 

The hedgerow removal notice application is made under The Hedgerows Regulations 1997.  The Regulations were made under Section 97 of the Environment Act 1995.  The overall aim of the Hedgerows Regulations was to secure the retention of important hedgerows, and the government’s guidance to the Regulations encourages local planning authorities to ‘adopt a common sense approach, based on co-operation rather than confrontation’.

 

Paragraph 8.2 of the report highlighted what needed to be considered when determining a hedgerow removal notice application.

 

The Hedgerows Regulations 1997 allow a number of exemptions and any one exemption would be sufficient to permit the removal of the hedges.  The proposal for Hedge 1 was considered to be exempt, as the applicant can be required to infill the existing hedge access. There is no such exemption for Hedge 2.

 

A hedge must be ‘important’ to be considered under the Regulations.  Under the Regulations it must be at least 30 years old, of a sufficient length, and also satisfy at least one from a series of defined archaeological, historical, landscape and wildlife criteria.  It was agreed that both hedges were over 30 years old and that the length was sufficient.

 

The other important criteria were highlighted at paragraphs 8.15-8.26 of the Officer’s report.  It was agreed that both hedges were considered to be important based on criterion at paragraph 8.21 of the Officer’s report.

 

Public Representations

 

The following person had registered to address the Committee and spoke in respect of the application:

 

Jason Whittall (objector) on behalf of Middle Battenhall Farm Land Action Group.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

  • The objector, on behalf of the Middle Battenhall Farm Land Action Group, referred to the planning permission given to the applicant for the conversion of a cowshed to a residential dwelling.  He had indicated that un-approved development had taken place outside of the current permission boundary, had dumped soil alongside the existing hedgerow and had now blocked the existing field access.  He stated that Officer’s had not addressed this matter and had not considered it as part of this application.

 

  • The objector stated that it is agreed that the hedgerow is classified as important within the Hedgerow Regulations and there must be strong reasons to remove it.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167.

168.

Application P18K0195 - Land to the rear of 31 Hopton Street pdf icon PDF 178 KB

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee be minded to grant planning permission, subject to the applicant and all persons having an interest in the land entering into an agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act in accordance with the agreed Heads of Terms, and subject to the Deputy Director - Governance being satisfied with the nature of such an Agreement delegate to the Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning approval to grant the necessary planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this report.

 

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for the erection of 25 dwellings following demolition of an existing dwelling and creation of new site access, land to the rear of 31 Hopton Street.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as the land is currently in the ownership of the City Council furthermore it does not fall under the scheme pf delegation due to the scale of the development.

 

The application was originally referred to Planning Committee on 18th October 2018.  The item was deferred to enable detailed consideration by Officers and the applicant of the flooding and drainage issues raised in the late paper by an objector.

 

Site Visit

 

The application was not the subject of a site visit on this occasion but had been in October 2018.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

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

 

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

 

  • Draft Heads of Terms and Officer comments on Developer Contributions;
  • A letter from Councillor Udall, local Ward Member dated 7th March 2019;
  • Letters from Mr Greenway dated 12th and 20th March 2019;
  • Consultee response dated 13th March 2019 from the City Council’s Archaeological Officer, having no additional comments or recommendations;
  • Further neighbour objections;
  • Consultee response from Hayley Perry, Site Representative, Windsor Avenue Allotments;
  • A letter from Zebra Architects dated 18th March 2019 (on behalf of the applicant) in response to Councillor Udall’s letter;
  • A letter from the applicant in response to the comments of the Allotment Holders Association dated 18th March 2019;
  • A letter from BSP Consulting (main body of letter circulated only,  the full document available online) dated 18th March 2019 (on behalf of the applicant) in response to the letter of objection from Mr Greenway;
  • A letter of objection from Councillor Lamb, local Ward Member dated 18th March 2019;
  • Letter of objection dated 20th March 2019 and supporting documents from neighbour Mrs Jami-Sophia Rodgers;
  • Consultee response from the Lead Local Flood Authority dated 20th March 2019, having no objection, subject to conditions.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

 

The Principal Planning Officer referred Members to the site visit in October 2018 and refreshed their memories in the form of a powerpoint presentation.

 

As a result of the re-examination of the flooding and drainage information the submitted proposal has been amended.  The overall number of dwellings has now been reduced from 37 to 25 and the application is supported by an updated Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy which sought to address the issues raised in October 2018.  The Lead Local Flood Authority had no objection subject to conditions.

 

Members were also informed that play facilities were not necessary on a development of this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 168.

169.

Application P18K0195 - Footpath Diversion, Buck Street pdf icon PDF 91 KB

That the Planning Committee  authorise the making of an Order to divert  part of footpath no. 681 pursuant to S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Deputy Director - Governance be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the proposed diversion.

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the proposed diversion of public footpath no. 681 at Buck Street.

 

The public footpath was affected by the proposals made under Application P18K0195, full planning application for the erection of 25 dwellings.

 

The application had been advertised as affecting a public right of way in accordance with statutory procedures.  The consultation period expired on 13th August 2018.  No comments from statutory or non-statutory consultees regarding the proposed diversion had been received.

 

The diversion of the footpath was required in order to facilitate the proposed development of the site for residential purposes.  The diversion of the footpath allows for the diverted route to run along side the proposed new site road.

 

The City Council had been requested by the applicants to commence diversion procedures for the footpath on behalf of the developers under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The developers would meet the reasonable costs incurred by the City Council.

 

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was agreed.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee authorise the making of an Order to divert footpath no. 681 pursuant to S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Deputy Director – Governance be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the proposed diversion.

170.

Applications P18D0503 and L18D0063 - 27 Friar Street pdf icon PDF 279 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee: -

 

                      i.        grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this report; and

                    ii.        grant listed building consent, subject to the conditions set out in the schedule to this report.

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered applications for the re-determination of planning application P18D0230 for change of use of 27 Friar Street from Class A1 Retail to Class A3 Restaurant and re-determination of application for listed building consent L18D0024 for works of conversion at 27 Friar Street, including the creation of an opening between 27 and 28 Friar Street.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The applications were referred to Planning Committee for re-determination following a judicial review in respect of planning application P18D0230 and application for listed building consent L18D0024. The decisions to grant planning permission under reference P18D0230 and listed building consent under reference L18D0024 dated 1st August 2018 were quashed on the grounds that the Local Planning Authority failed to take account of a material consideration in the determination of the planning application, being the objections raised by the neighbouring resident, Mr Lock, and had made a material error as regards the interaction between Schedule 2, Part 3, Class C, Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 and South Worcestershire Development Plan policy SWDP 10. The applications were therefore remitted to the Local Planning Authority for re-determination accordingly.

Site Visit

 

The applications had been the subject of a site visit.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

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

 

The following were attached to the Officer’s report:

 

  • Appendix 1 - copy of Application No.4444;
  • Appendix 2 – letters of objection on behalf of the resident at 27a Friar Street;
  • Appendices 3 and 4 – agent’s response to the representations made on behalf of the applicant and concerns raised regarding fire safety.

 

The Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to a letter of objection from Harrison Clark Rickerbys on behalf of their client Mr Graham Lock.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

 

The Committee were reminded of the site visit in the form of a powerpoint presentation, that included a plan of the development of the properties over the years.  It was also reported that a fire safety audit of 29 Friar Street had been carried out by Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service and that the standard of fire safety had been deemed satisfactory.

 

The main issues raised by the proposal were outlined in the Officer’s report at paragraph 8.1 onwards.

 

Public Representations

 

The following person had registered to address the Committee and spoke in respect of the application:

 

Ms Chloe Smart of Ridge Planning on behalf of the objector Mr Graham Lock.

 

Key Points of Debate

 

  • Ms Smart, acting on behalf of the owner/resident of 27a Friar Street, the objector, made reference to the judicial review as outlined in paragraph 2.1 of the Officer’s report.

 

171.

Application P17E0327 - Worcester Garden Centre, Droitwich Road pdf icon PDF 199 KB

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee refuse planning permission for the following reason:

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework and is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The National Planning Policy Framework confirms that substantial weight attaches to any harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, by reason of its siting and the scale of the proposed development, result in a material reduction in the openness of the Green Belt in this location, and would cause significant encroachment into the countryside, in conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. No very special circumstances are considered to exist that are sufficient to outweigh the harm that would be caused by the development to the Green Belt. 

The proposal would thereby also be contrary to the aims and interests that policy SWDP 2 and the National Planning Policy Framework seek to protect and promote with regard to protecting Green Belt land.

 

Minutes:

Introduction

 

The Committee considered an application for a display area for the erection of conservatories and garden buildings for the purpose of sales only at Worcester Garden Centre, Droitwich Road.

 

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

 

The application had been referred to Planning Committee as it related to the interpretation of national and local Green Belt policy.

 

This was a retrospective planning application as outlined in paragraph 3.2 of the report.

 

The application had not been referred to the Planning Committee until now due to detailed discussions being undertaken with the applicant to establish the nature and extent of any very exceptional circumstances that may exist in support of the application and to await the outcome of the SWDP Green Belt review as a material consideration in this regard.

 

Site Visit

 

The application was not the subject of a site visit.

 

Report/Background/Late Papers

 

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

 

There were no late papers circulated.

 

Officer Presentation

 

The information in the report was presented as set out by the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning.

 

Public Representations

 

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

 

Key Points of Debate

 

  • Some Members did not see the harm of the proposed development which was visually well screened and would not be overlooked by residents.  To refuse would mean a loss of jobs and a business.

 

  • Other Members felt that the proposal was inappropriate and that Green Belt land needed protecting.  There was also no evidence that the proposed development was covered by any of the exceptional circumstances to allow the development to take place.

 

A proposal of minded to approve the application contrary to the officer’s recommendation was made and this was seconded.  On being put to the vote the recommendation of minded to approve the application was lost.

 

A recommendation was then proposed to refuse the application as per the Officer’s recommendation, this was seconded and on being put to the vote it was

 

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

 

The proposal would constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt as defined by the National Planning Policy Framework and is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. The National Planning Policy Framework confirms that substantial weight attaches to any harm to the Green Belt and very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

In the opinion of the Local Planning Authority the proposal would, by reason of its siting and the scale of the proposed development, result in a material reduction in the openness of the Green Belt in this location, and would cause significant encroachment into the countryside, in conflict with the purposes of including land within the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 171.

172.

Footpath Diversion - Land east of Parsonage Way/Trotshill Way pdf icon PDF 94 KB

That the Planning Committee  authorise the making of an Order to divert  footpath no. 564(C) pursuant to S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Deputy Director - Governance be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the proposed diversion.

 

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Committee considered an application for the proposed diversion of public footpath no. 564(C) on land east of Parsonage Way/Trotshill Way.

 

The public footpath was affected by the proposals made under Application P18P0485, variation of conditions 1, 2, 19 and 20 of planning application P17P0247 to enable amendments to the permitted scheme (proposed development of land for employment uses (Use Classes B1/B2/B8), access and car parking, landscaping and associated works).  Planning permission was granted by the Committee at it’s meeting on 14th January 2019.

 

Planning application P18P0485 had been advertised as affecting a public right of way in accordance with statutory procedures.  No comments were received in response to this aspect of the proposals.

 

The diversion of the footpath was to enable the full development shown on the Landscape Masterplan and for which planning permission had been granted, to be carried out.  One of the proposed buildings obstructs the current alignment of the footpath.  The building cannot be built without the diversion.

 

The diversion would ensure that the public retain the right to enter the site at the same point as present, and walk in a broadly north easterly direction to link into other footpaths across the northern part of the site.  The proposed route would be through an attractive landscaped setting.

 

The City Council had been requested by the applicants to commence diversion procedures for the footpath on behalf of the developers under Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The developers would meet the reasonable costs incurred by the City Council.

 

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was unanimously agreed.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee authorise the making of an Order to divert footpath no. 564(C) pursuant to S257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and that the Deputy Director – Governance be authorised to take all necessary action in connection with the proposed diversion.

173.

Any Other Business

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

Minutes:

None.

174.

Late Papers pdf icon PDF 18 MB

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

Additional documents: