Agenda and minutes

To receive any declarations of interest.

None.

of the meeting held on 18^th October 2018 to be approved and signed.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting held on 18^th October 2018 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Minutes of the meeting held on 3^rd October 2018 to be received.

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the Conservation Advisory Panel meeting held on 3^rd October 2018 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 Services Manager of any requests for site visits by 5.00 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately prior to the meeting (20^th October 2018) 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 visited the following site which was the subject of an application to be determined:-

Application P18H0303 – 55 Glenthorne 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 Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grants planning permission to remove these conditions.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the removal of conditions 3, 4, 5 and 6 from planning permission P17C0259 at 5 Nursery Walk.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee as the host application P17C0259 was determined by the Planning Committee at their meeting held on 7^th September 2017.

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 paper which related to comments from the City Council’s Housing Property Standards and Enforcement Team Leader. 

Officer Presentation

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

The removal of conditions 3,4,5 and 6 related to the following:

• pedestrian visibility (condition 3);
• security measures (condition 4);
• cycle parking (condition 5); and
• management of the House of Multiple Occupation (HMO) (condition 6).

The applicant had implemented the measures required by these conditions before an application for approval of details reserved by the above conditions was submitted, and as such, could not now be discharged.

Members were informed that an additional condition had been recommended to ensure that all of the measures implemented were retained in connection with the use of the property as an HMO.

The Development Services Management Team Leader drew the Committee’s attention to paragraph 8.1 of the report which outlined his comments to each of the conditions to be removed.

Public Representations

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

Key Points of Debate

• With the revised ‘Standards, Conditions and Management of Houses in Multiple Occupation for licence holders’ adopted by the Communities Committee it was confirmed that it overlapped both planning and licensing of HMO’s and that the Article 4 covered both.

• Whilst accepting the removal of condition 6 related to the management plan Members sought reassurance that the tenants would be bound by it.

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

RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission to remove conditions 3, 4, 5 and 6 of planning application P17C0259.

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that planning permission is granted, subject to the conditions set down in the plans list.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the installation of new vehicular gateway feature and pedestrian gates on land at Rose Bank, London Road.

Site Visit

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

Report/Background/Late Papers

The report provided the background to the application which had been minded to refuse at the Planning Committee meeting on 19^th July 2018 (report attached as Appendix 1, reference P18D0064)) and then minded to approve at the Planning Committee meeting on 20th September 2018 (report attached as Appendix 2).  Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 of the current Officer’s report provided further background to this.  The Development Services Management Team Leader explained the reason ‘Minded to Refuse’ for the benefit of Members and the public.

Following the meetings, the applicant had re-submitted an identical application to enable the resolution of the Planning Committee at the meeting on 20^th September 2018 to be formalised with a planning permission accordingly and had confirmed that if this application was approved in accordance with the resolution of the Planning Committee at the meeting on 20^th September 2018 then the current appeal on grounds of non-determination would be withdrawn.

Following receipt of the current application (reference P18D0406) formal consultation had been undertaken and the comments received from statutory and non-statutory consultees were highlighted at paragraph 2.4 of the Officer’s report.

Officer Presentation

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

For the benefit of Members of the Committee who had not been present at previous meetings for this application a powerpoint presentation was provided.

The Development Services Management Team Leader emphasised that the proposals were identical to those considered by Planning Committee at the meeting on 20^th September 2018 under Planning Application P18D0064 and there had been no changes in site or policy circumstances since then.  The Development Services Management Team Leader explained that although the current planning application P18D0406 is identical to the previous application P18D0064, nevertheless it is a separate, new application. As such, the decision of the Planning Committee in respect of the current planning application P18D0406 would not have any bearing on the appeal on grounds of non-determination which relates to planning application P18D0064, other than to allow the appeal to be withdrawn if planning permission was granted in accordance with the resolution of the Planning Committee at the meeting on 20^th September 2018 to be minded to approve.

For the reasons set out in the previous reports at Appendix 1 and 2 Officer’s continued to recommend the application for approval.

Public Representations

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

Mrs Claire Perry (Objector).

Key Points of Debate

• The objector in addressing the Committee stated that if these gates were allowed they would visually ostracise the affordable housing residents and exclude them from the market homes behind the gates.

• Paragraph 2.3 of the Officer’s report was highlighted by the objector  ...  view the full minutes text for item 108.

The Deputy Director - Economic Development and Planning recommends that the Planning Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the erection of a detached 2 bedroom dwelling on land adjacent to 55 Glenthorne Avenue.

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to the Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Adrian Gregson on the 14^th October 2018 on grounds relating to the principle of development, significant local objection, impact on neighbouring residents amenities and car parking. The neighbouring resident of 57 Glenthorne Avenue had also confirmed that he wished to make representations at the Planning Committee and, as such, the application would also be outside the adopted scheme of delegation.

Site Visit

The application 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 Committee’s attention was drawn to the late paper which related to a consultee response from the County Council Highway Authority who had 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.

Public Representations

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

Carl Chaloner (Objector)

Key Points of Debate

• The objector in addressing the Committee stated that if the proposed property had been set further back he would not have an issue with the proposal.

• The objector had provided, prior to the meeting, a document entitled ‘building line plus extra’ and a video showing a shading analysis which identified how the new build would shade his extension and his daughter’s bedroom.  The shading would also affect the house as well as their amenity area.  For the benefit of the Members this information was displayed and played by Officers as part of the presentation.  The objector also displayed a 3d perspective model of the proposal.

• Members asked questions of the objector on points of clarification on the overlooking/overshadowing of his property.  The objector referred to his plan on the powerpoint presentation.  The objector also confirmed when asked that his amenity area would be shaded between approximately 9.00am-2.30pm.

• A concern was raised with regard to the provision of cycle storage as it could not be seen from the plans that there was sufficient space or even where it was to be located. The Development Management Services Team Leader referred to the Planning for Parking document related to cycle racks etc which did not specify what was easily accessible.  He commented that the County Council had no objection, subject to condition 4 of the plans list.  Some Members were still concerned that this could not be seen visually on any plan, although Members were referred to the powerpoint presentation and directed to a point where the cycle storage could be placed.

• Members asked a question about the amenity space and what was the requirement for a 2 bedroom property.  The Development Management  ...  view the full minutes text for item 109.

The Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning recommends that Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in the plans list.

Introduction

The Committee considered an application for the demolition of an existing builder’s yard and the construction of 5 dwellings including parking, landscaping and associated infrastructure at 24A McIntyre

Reason Why Being Considered by Planning Committee

The application had been referred to Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Udall on grounds of overdevelopment of the site, impact on the streetscene, parking, amenity space provision and loss of employment land.

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 a letter of objection from Councillor Lamb, local Ward Member.

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

• In response to questions from Members Officers confirmed that the dwellings would be 1 bedroomed.  It was not a material condition if rental or private and there was an obligation to provide some amenity space but it needed to be proportionate.

• The County Council Highways representative confirmed that the proposed access arrangements and general layout was considered to be acceptable and there were no proposals to change the layout of the road.

• Reference was made to whether the application was essentially backfill.  It was confirmed that the use of the site as a builder’s yard could be traced back to 1963 and, as such, was considered to be a ‘brownfield’ site rather than garden land. Guidance set down in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out a preference for development on 'brownfield' sites, such as this. The principle of residential redevelopment of this site for residential use would thereby be consistent with the guidance set out in the NPPF.
• Members agreed that the proposed would provide relatively affordable housing with dedicated parking spaces and met the standards.

• It was also acknowledged that the proposal was to use solar photovoltaic panels which Members welcomed together with the amenity space and cycle storage.

• A question was asked about un-adopted roads and their maintenance.  As this was an un-adopted road Members asked if there was a condition to enable the road to be adopted.  The County Council Highways representative stated that this would not be a condition that would normally be recommended and could not force anyone to offer up an un-adopted road and cannot control the actions of privately owned roads.

• Members were concerned that the road would fall into disrepair as with some other private roads in the City.  On this basis a condition was suggested with regard to treatment of the access road and its maintenance.  This was agreed.

On being proposed and seconded and put to the vote the proposal was agreed, subject to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 110.

None.