Agenda and minutes

Planning - Wednesday, 28th April, 2021 7.00 pm

Venue: Microsoft Teams

Contact: Sarah Sellers  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

115.

Chair's Welcome

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed the Committee members and officers to the virtual Planning Committee meeting being held via Microsoft Teams.  The Chair explained that the meeting was being live streamed on the Council’s YouTube channel to enable members of the public to observe the committee.

 

 

116.

Apologies

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bill Hartnett and Councillor Roger Bennett.  Councillor Anthony Lovell attended as substitute for Councillor Bennett, and Councillor Mark Shurmer attended as substitute for Councillor Hartnett.

117.

Declarations of Interest

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and / or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

 

Minutes:

There were no declarations of interest.

118.

Update Reports pdf icon PDF 16 KB

Please see Update Reports attached

 

Additional documents:

Minutes:

The Update Reports were noted.

119.

Application 20/00599/FUL - Land opposite 24 Droitwich Road, Droitwich Road, Feckenham, Worcestershire, B98 8JE - h2land pdf icon PDF 299 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Development of 2 no. Dwellings

 

Officers presented the application for the construction of two residential dwellings on a plot of overgrown land located on the opposite side of the road to number 24 Droitwich Road, Feckenham, and took Members through the plans and photographs in the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.

 

Members were referred to the Update Report and the fact that a satisfactory Badger Mitigation Survey had now been received, in light of which an additional condition was being sought.

 

Officers explained that the application site had been subject to two previous applications for dwellings (under reference numbers 19/01588/FUL and 19/00716/FUL) which had been refused by the Local Planning Authority and appealed to the Planning Inspectorate.  The appeals on both applications had been dismissed and copies of the decisions were attached to the Committee report and summarised on page 5 of the agenda pack.

 

Officers referred Members to the main issues in relation to the application, including the location of the site within the Feckenham Conservation Area, the relevance of Policy 9 (Open Countryside), the fact that the proposed dwellings would align with existing dwellings on either side of the plot and not impose on the Manor House opposite, and the fact that officers, following consultation with the Council’s Conservation Officer, deemed the vernacular design of the two dwellings to be acceptable.

 

Notwithstanding the past use of the site in connection with the Manor House, as a historic kitchen garden, when looking at the weight to be attached to the competing considerations, and taking into account the improvements in design specifications compared to the two previous applications, the conclusion reached by officers was that the proposals were acceptable and the application was recommended for approval.

 

At the invitation of the Chair the public speakers listed below addressed the Committee, the first three in objection to the application and the fourth in support : -

 

·       Dr Hugo Hammersley - local resident

·       Mr John Fisher – local resident

·       Mr Alan Smith - Chair of Feckenham Parish Councillor

·       Mr Neil Pearce - Planning Agent for the Applicant

 

In response to questions from Members, officers confirmed that: -

 

In the context of the two appeals, the Planning Inspector had placed weight on the poor design of the proposed dwellings, rather than rejecting the principle of development at the site.  One of the designs (for two dwellings) had been in the style of a barn that was out of character for the setting, and the other design for a single dwelling was considered to be poor.

There had been no objections to the application from County Highways and the use of the existing access onto the B4090 was suitable.

 

The Planning Inspector had considered the past use as a kitchen garden and in that context had regarded the site as a Non-Designated Heritage Asset, although a low amount of weight had been attached to this factor, and it was found by the Inspector to be outweighed by arguments in favour of use of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 119.

120.

Application 20/01638/FUL - Land To The South of Alfrick Close, Enfield, Redditch - LNT Care Developments pdf icon PDF 209 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Erection of a three story 66 bed care home for the elderly with associated works

 

Officers outlined the application and described the location of the site and the proposed layout of the residential home with reference to the plans and photographs in the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.

 

The use class would be C2 (nursing home) and the site would be accessed from Alfrick Close.  The application had been assessed as complying with the relevant policies and would not affect the amenity of other nearby dwellings.  There were no objections on highways grounds and Members were referred to the updated information regarding provision of 24 onsite parking spaces as set out in the Update Report.

 

At the invitation of the Chair Mrs Tracy Spence addressed the committee on behalf of the Applicant.

 

In debating the application Members welcomed the proposal for the land to be used to provide a nursing home which Members felt was a suitable use for that particular location and would provide a benefit to the town and local residents.

 

RESOLVED that 

 

Having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure to GRANT planning permission subject to: -

 

a.     The satisfactory completion of a planning obligation (unilateral undertaking) ensuring that:

 

·       Contributions are paid to the NHS Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) towards GP Surgeries.

·       A section 106 monitoring fee is paid to the Borough Council

 

And

 

b.    The conditions and informatives listed on pages 43 to 49 of the main agenda