Transcript

[BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] It's six o'clock, so we make a start and welcome everybody to tonight's planning committee meeting. Please note that this meeting is being live streamed. I'm Councillor Mick Marshall, I'm the vice chair of the planning committee and I'm standing in tonight for Councillor Helen Jones. Let me start by introducing the offices to my left. We have Mr. Dale Birch, who is the development management manager to my right. We have Mr. Amarr Hussein, who's our legal advisor. Over here on the left, we have Mr. Paul Lester, who's a principal planning officer. He'll be introducing all the applications. And we have Ms. Pauline Ross over here, who's our Democratic Services Officer. Could I remind everybody, please, as usual, to please speak clearly into your microphones. In the event that we do have any loss of connections to public speakers, on the Microsoft Teams link, then there will be a short pause while we reconnect them. Just to complicate matters further, I will be standing down as vice chair in order to address the committee as award Councillor for items number six and seven. So I need another member of the planning committee to chair the meeting for those two agenda items. So class for nominations for a vice chair for the vice chair, please. Councillor Gray. I nominate super extra if she kindly take that place. Yeah, so happy to take that. Councillor Baxter, do I have a seconder? Councillor Houghton. Any other nominees? Fine. So Councillor Baxter, if you're happy with that, if you could take over from me for those last two items. So all members should have received a paper copy of tonight's agenda, which included the officer's presentations and hopefully you've had the opportunity to read a committee update which went out earlier this afternoon. Just to make things a little more complicated, in order to ease the flow of the agenda, given that we've got a number of external speakers and Councillors who want to speak as ward members, we've changed the running order to agenda items numbers 9, 5, 8, 6 and 7. So we're starting off with agenda item 9, then 5, 8, 6 and 7. So if I could move on to the agenda proper, please, do we have any apologies or substitutes? Who you chair? I have had apologies from Councillor Jones and apologies from Councillor Bales with Councillor Houghton's substituting. Any more? No? Okay. Any declarations of interest? Councillor Robinson. Thank you. Just on a agenda item 9, one of the consultees is Highways England, a work for National Highways, thought charge, and I got dispensation for that so I'll be starting in the road. Okay. Councillor Buxter. Thank you. A agenda item 8, 24, 0, 0, 0, 25, I'm a member of Whittle Parish Council who have discussed this application. I haven't been involved in those discussions. I've also, my ward is on the other side of the road. So I've also spoken to resident within my own ward and however I express note, opinion whatsoever, so intend to just express an interest and stay in the meeting. Up for the record. Okay. Councillor Houghton, I think, was next, was that? Yes. Thank you, Chairman. Item 9, I'm the ward member and I will be speaking on the issue. Once I've spoken, I will leave the room to allow the committee to deliver. Thank you. And Councillor Falsall. So I'd like to declare an interest in agenda existing number 8. I am the ward Councillor, I've been speaking to residents about the problems and others who spoke to the case officer. Right. Any others? Well, for myself, I need to declare an interest for items 6 and 7. Like other Councillors, I've spoken to residents under the case officer. And I'll be speaking as ward Councillor on those two items, number 6 and 7. So I think that concludes the declarations of interest. Could I go on to item 3, please, to confirm the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting held on the 19th of February this year? Does anybody have any questions or points on those minutes? Councillor MACKLEDOWNE. Yes. Excuse me, sir. It's probably just a very minor comment. It's basically on page 8, which is page 2 of the week when it's paragraph 5, it makes reference to accessibility for disabled child living at the address. The actual applicant under some aim to the meeting and he's quite clearly an adult, probably 18-20. So basically, it should be a disabled adult rather than a disabled child. It might be a bit vindicative, but, you know, sir, I've mentioned that. Sure, we can make that amendment. Yeah. Any of this? No. Could I have a proposal, please, and a seconder? Councillor interjecting. Absolutely great. I'm happy to propose. Okay. Councillor MACKLEDOWNE. Need a second. Thank you. Could I have a show of hands then all those in favour of accepting those minutes as an accurate record? Yeah. Good. I think that's unanimous. Fine. Item four was updates. I think everybody had the committee update this afternoon that went out, so it's everybody had a chance to read that. Yes. Okay. That takes us then to agenda item number nine, which is lands to the rear of one to six smedily crook place, like to ask Mr Lester to present the report, please. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. This is a full planning application for the erection of 34 affordable dwellings associated landscaping site works and the construction of a new access off arm from the a 441 and the B4120 roundabout. This is a resubmission of planning application 22011419. This application was refused by members, contrary to the officer's recommendation at the November 2023 planning committee. The reasons for refusal related to green belt matters and concerns regarding the sustainability of the site, the full reasons for refusal are outlined on page 93 of the committee report. I'll just wait for Councillor Hoeven to. Okay. Thank you. The resubmission is essentially the same application package as the previously refused application. However, it's part of the resubmission, the applicant has provided further justification regarding green belt matters and also a note regarding the sustainability of the site. As outlined on page 93 of the report, a planning appeal against the refusal of the previous application has been received by the planning spectra, however, while the appeal has been accepted, it doesn't currently have a start date. Moving on to the application itself, the application relates to a 0.8 hectare parcel of land, located to the east of the A441, a reddish road and adjacent to the B4120 roundabout. The site is predominantly open scrub land with some areas covered with been crushed stone, and it's currently being used for the storage of materials and porter cabins. The site is located within the green belt and outside of the village envelope, as defined in the development plan. Moving on to the next slide, this gives an idea of its current use in terms of the storage of porter cabins and other materials. I've provided a number of slides showing the view of the existing site and its existing access. As part of the proposal, the existing access will be closed, and the new access will be created from the existing roundabout. Moving on, that's the crossover to the roundabout. This slide shows the approximate location of the new access. The site is within the green belt, as previously outlined. The application poses 100% affordable housing, and as outlined on pages 94 of the committee report, this will be socially rented, and Bronford Housing Association is the proposed operator. A confirmation letter from Bronford has been uploaded onto public access regarding this particular matter. The mix of dwellings is shown on the next slide, but it's outlined in more detail on pages, within the actual committee report, there's a mix of two, well one bed, mason ex, two bed, two and three bed dwellings. Moving on, as outlined in the report, the application site has a long planning history, which is summarised on pages 92 and 94.3, and I think it's important to recognise that the application is with the proposal of 100% affordable housing. It's different from the majority of the previous applications. The current position regarding affordable housing in Bronford is summarised on pages 100 to 101, which outlines the affordable housing completions table, which is substantially lower than that would be required. There are a sort of multitude of issues to consider regarding this site, however, it's not the purpose of this presentation to go into detail regarding the areas that are considered acceptable, including the design of the units, landscaping, trees, ecology, drainage and contamination. But to quickly, as part of the presentation, there are details large regarding the proposed materials, the landscaping, the scheme, the proposed house types, as well as details regarding the proposed access from the roundabout. The last slide in the presentation relates directly from the sustainability note that has been provided in addition by the applicant. I'll just move back to the proposed layout for members. As previously outlined, the site is in the greenbelt for assessment of the redevelopment of the site to provide 34 dwellings has been made and overall it's concluded that it would have a greater impact on the openness to the greenbelt than the existing use. And then for these reasons, the proposal would result in substantial harm to the openness of the greenbelt. They will therefore not constitute an exemption specified within the MPPF and in particular paragraph 149G of the framework and would therefore be inappropriate development. As outlined on pages 101 to 103, the proposal is also contrary to certain elements of the Albert Church neighbourhood plan, in particular in criteria A and criteria F of policy H2. The proposal, the scheme proposes a new form of arm, outlined on pages 105 and 106. The highway authority determines that this new form of arm is acceptable. In terms of the sustainability of the site, this issue is assessed on pages 106 to 107. It summarizes the technical note that was produced by the applicants transport consultant and also includes details of a relevant residential appeal case which was in Hotwood and this is essentially considered Hotwood to be a sustainable location for development in a rural area and in general, it accorded with a relevant policy. As outlined in the report, neither WCC highways nor offices consider that this site is an unacceptable, unsustainable location. Overall, in considering the relevant matters in terms of the Green Valley case, it's obviously assessed in the report that there are a number of considerations that weigh heavily in favour of this proposal. This includes the government's objective to significantly boost the supply of housing as well as providing 100% of affordable housing as well as less significant economic and environmental benefits that have been set out in the report. Set against this, obviously the government attaches great importance to the Green Valley and the framework requires substantial weight to be given to any Green Valley harm. However, for very special circumstances to exist, the other considerations would need to be clearly outweighed by the structural harm to the Green Valley by reasons of inappropriateness. Along with the limited harm to the character and appearance that resulted in the being country to the Abhishech neighbourhood plan, in other words, for this application to succeed, the overall balance would have to be have to favour the applicants case not marginally but significantly and decisively. In this case, it's considered the contribution to housing land supply and that the proposal will provide 100% affordable housing material considerations that weigh very strongly in favour of the proposal. It's concluded that the Green Valley arguments are no longer sort of finally balanced in this particular case and for this application, it's considered that the benefits of the proposal clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Valley and consequently very special circumstances do apply. Having considered all the matters raised, the recommendation is that the application should be approved subject to conditions, they are outlined on pages 110-17 and subject to the signing of a sectionalistic agreement. Thank you. Thank you Paul. We have two public speakers on this application commencing with the applicants representative, Mr Robinson. Would you like to approach the microphone please and if you could check that your mic is working? Yes, you have three minutes commencing when you're ready please. Thank you very much. Good evening Councillors. By way of introduction, I am the Planning Consultant for this application. I would like to thank Mr Lester for his presentation. He and I have a long association with this site so I think it is fair to say that we both know it well. I will not repeat anything that he has written or said, I just wish to highlight a few points tonight. The reasons for the resubmissioned so soon after a previous refusal are three-fold. Firstly, the context against which this proposal must be considered with my application or appeal has changed considerably since December 2023. Mr Lester's report correctly notes that the tilted balance presumption in favour of the ballot now applies within Brom's group. However, this has given greater significance in light of the ministerial statement of 19th December 2023, which this committee did not have before it when it considered the earlier application. In this ministerial statement, which is a material consideration and which is titled the next stage in our long-term plan for housing, the Secretary of State states, the overturning of a recommendation made by a professional and specialist officer should be rare and infrequent. Secondly, at the same time as the ministerial statement, the government published its latest housing delivery test results. Unfortunately, Brom's Grove District's position has worsened, such that it has a delivery rate of just 41% and is now the ninth-first performing council in England. This puts a greater weight upon your council's need for housing. Thirdly, in light of this committee's previous concerns regarding the site's sustainability, the applicants have undertaken more work to demonstrate that the site is sustainable in form and location. Mr Lester refers to the Ashlane appeal in his report, and I would add the Bridge Farm application in Hopwood, which is also outside the village envelope and within the Greenbelt and which this council approved in 2022. In the supporting report, Mrs Bamford stated, whilst the site has some shortcomings with respect to its location, the development is not considered to be wholly unsustainable, having regard to policies contained within the MPPF and development plan. And finally, I wish to refer briefly to the issue of Greenbelt. This was examined thoroughly in 2029 and the then inspectors' very clear conclusions have perhaps not been explained in full in Mr Lester's report. Whilst that appeal related to a smaller development, the inspectors' conclusion on the site's contribution to the five roles for the Greenbelt remain material and he found, in view of my findings with regard to the effects of the existing storage use on the Greenbelt's openness, it is clear that this site's effectiveness in all these roles is already heavily compromised. On this basis, I thank you. Thank you very much, Mr Robinson. That's exactly three minutes, thank you. So could I ask you to withdraw to the public area, please, and invite Councillor Houghton as the ward member to come forward. Do you like to test you, my Councillor? Hello, your three minutes starts when you're ready. Right, thank you, Chairman. Well here we are again. This application, in my view, has already been decided by yourselves. Little has changed. I'm surprised that this application is back before you. An official appeal has been launched by the applicant with the planning inspector. This seems to be casting you in the planning committee in the role of an appeal hearing and I don't believe that is your role. I would like to re-emphasize that the site is not in a sustainable locality. It is in the Green Belt and outside the village envelope. It was therefore considered by yourselves as an inappropriate development and harmful to the Green Belt. Nothing has changed. No such circumstance existed then and it doesn't now. Please consider the first reason for the previous refusal on page 93. What new evidence has been provided to counter the reasons for refusal 1? In relation to the reason for refusal 2 sustainability, the applicant has provided a note from their transport consulted. Again, I feel as failed to see how this adds to their previous application. These points raised on page 106 have already been considered by yourselves and the site was found to be unsustainable. Once again, the very special circumstance being claimed is that the intention is to apply 100% housing and that is the reason for the special circumstance. A logical conclusion is that the development on any Green Belt field or land that is proposed to be 100% affordable would demonstrate also this very special circumstance. I would suggest this sets a very dangerous precedent and should be resisted. I would also like to understand the need for an additional 34/4 houses within the Hopwood. The affordable housing completions within the ward is high. Bronze Cove needs affordable housing but not on this site and it should be an appropriate mix of market sale and affordable housing. I therefore respectfully ask for the committee to stand by its original decision and reject this application, nothing has changed. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Houghton. I can ask you now to withdraw from the committee, please, on the room. Thanks. Can I open the item up to any questions anybody has, Councillor MACKLE, downy? Yes. As alluded to back, Councillor Houghton and also as mentioned in the papers, an appeal has recently been submitted to the Planning Inspector, I'm just wondering, is it appropriate for us even to be hearing this before the Inspector has at least had the opportunity to make that decision. Secondly, when the inspectors make that decision, will they base it on the position before the change of the national planning framework in December or will they take it to a kind of change in December? In terms of the most recent changes to the MPPF, the Inspector will consider the most up-to-date version of that particular document as part of their wider considerations. In terms of pre-determining the application with an outstanding appeal, obviously an applicant, there is scope to resubmit planning applications, in this case the applicant has taken up that opportunity, but alongside that, it's also submitted a planning appeal. They've submitted, obviously, further information to assist in the consideration of this application, that you shouldn't be making a decision regarding this application, but it's in front of you tonight. Thank you and Councillor Buxter. Thank you. There aren't really any changes to the application, I accept the fact that the MPPF has changed slightly, which perhaps puts more importance on the five-year land supply, I don't know, but this is sort of a question really. Our planning policy is up to 40% affordable, and I think that's for a very good reason. One is it delivers affordable housing for us, and the other is it actually allows us to develop communities, balanced communities that are a mixture of market housing and social housing. And thirdly, it allows the developer to develop something that is financially viable. Now, my concern with this is that if you actually look at the application, it involves highway's changes, and a lot of development work, and none of those come cheap. And I struggle with the financial viability of this proposal, and I accept that that's not actually a material planning matter for us. However, if we were minded to approve this, is there any sort of condition that we could put on that would mean that at some time in the future, the applicant couldn't just use this as a stepping ladder to then submit a viability test and change the development into being market housing instead? Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Baxter. In terms of the viability of this particular site, just to make it clear, no viability information has been submitted regarding this proposal, the applicant and their agent have accepted all the required contributions set out by WCC highways and the health and the various other contributions that are required. Obviously, if this application was approved subject to the conditions in the section 106, any future amendments or change in the mix of dwellings, whether it's markets or all the affordable housing mix or whatever it might be, wouldn't be able to be dealt with as a non-vertuperate amendment, it would be a further planning application of which and members would ultimately make the final decision on following officer's assessment and recommendation. That's the assurance that members would have. Everything else is, I wouldn't want to sort of supposition really in terms of what Councillor Baxter raised. Did you want to come back on that, Councillor? Can I? At what point does that piece of land come out of the Greenbelt then? Is it the point at which this application is granted, if it is, in which case of a subsequent application came in, which switched it all to market housing, then it wouldn't be a Greenbelt issue? Yes, just so Councillor Baxter and other members are clear. If the application was approved, it does not alter the Greenbelt boundaries that are identified within the development plan, that the site would still remain within the Greenbelt subject to the relevant tests. The granting of planning permission on any Greenbelt site doesn't remove that site from the Greenbelt as such. Councillor GROAN? I remember discussing this vividly and we're having the same discussion again. Councillor Baxter is echoing my thoughts, but the other thing that I want to know is where do Bromford fit into this? Are Bromford going to buy all of these properties? Should we grant them this? Are all of them going to be for rent? Are I going to sell some as affordable housing and are we not isolating this community? As Councillor Baxter has pointed out, one of the beauties of the Brom School District plan is that we no longer have, I don't like this word, I can't think of it in other words, so I'm just going to use it, ghettos of people who need more support and are cut off in that area because we haven't got the highways, we haven't got the buses, we haven't got the doctor surgeries associated with it, we haven't got the youth and things that go around it, on the other side of a busy road opposite Hopwood village, it's outside really of the envelope of Alve Church and Hopwood, it's sort of cut off and that was one of the reasons why I wasn't in favour of it because I'm not averse to building on a brownfield site which is more or less what this is because it's a dumping ground which is not being used, but I'm not happy that they've understood all of those aspects when they've brought it back to us. Before you answer that, or can I just ask a related question of clarification, if you look at page 89, the proposal talks about the provision of 34 affordable dwellings on the site, social rented, but then on page 101 it talks about 100% affordable rented, so is one a mistake or maybe you can clarify on that, thank you. Yeah, thank you Chair, that is an unfortunate typo, the scheme is for 100% socially rented units, any potential planning permission regarding these units would be secured by a Section 106 legal agreement in terms of how those units would be operated and their use in perpetuity as such, in terms of housing association as outlined, they have submitted a letter in support of the application which outlines that they are, is their intention of the subject to plan permission to sort of operate these socially rented units. In terms of the position of 100% affordable housing scheme and development, ultimately this is 34 units, it's a mix of three two and one bed units that would meet the needs of a wide range of the community due to the size of these units, ultimately it's the housing team obviously following consultation, should we say support the proposal and it is not considered that the number of units proposed or its location on the well outside but adjacent to the village envelope has any concerns regarding the potential, the Councillors were potential sort of get toisation of the hotwood or the wider area. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Councillor interjecting. Thank you, Chair, and I'll come on to a point in one minute but it's really important that we use of language in Council meetings as someone who was brought up in an account of absolute state and I know this is not what people are meaning but when you talk about 100% affordable and then use of the word, get toisation, I think it's a really disrespectful word to be used and I hope just people learn from that and I'm going forward. But you look at this compared to what it was previously and as Councillors have said, there's not anything that's changed since previously, you know, very special circumstances for the green belt to me seems to be that it's special circumstances to that side. So one of the things is saying it's 100% affordable and that we'll need it because we've not got our five-year land supply just opens up. You could say that for a lot of green belt across Brahmsgroves so that to me doesn't give very special circumstances and on sustainability I still don't know where they will go to the shop or walk in or by the bus and there were the two issues we had last time and I don't say how they've been answered this time, welcome to Clarification. Thank you, Councillor and apologies for any misuse of language. In terms of the, I'll address the sustainability point first, I fully understand the members concerns regarding this matter, however, I can only, you know, my assessment within the report is based on personal experience on the ash lane planning appeal of which had a very similar reason for refusal that was supported by county highways in that case. That proposal was for housing and as part of that assessment the planning spectra carefully considered the relevant matters and did not, while the ash lane appeal was ultimately dismissed, the reasons for dismissal did not include the sustainability of that site. Ultimately, the inspector considered that, well, the spectra's conclusions are summarized in the report and I won't reiterate them, but ultimately considered that it did accord with relevant planning policy and did not support county highways position on that site which obviously offices also supported. In relation to the Greenbelt considerations, ultimately the position from the previous application has not changed, the housing land position ultimately has not got better, arguably with the housing delivery test, it's in a worse position, ultimately on this particular site that there are very special circumstances in terms of the council's housing lands position and the affordable housing position, ultimately, I don't agree that it would be a precedent in terms of other Greenbelt sites and other brownfield Greenbelt sites within the authority as members will have heard many times. Which applications is considered on its own merits, ultimately, in my experience with the Veronica of Council over the last five to six years, I'm not aware of many 100% of affordable housing schemes that have been proposed within Brown's Grove, ultimately the applicant following previous refusals and dismissal planning appeal has looked at this site again, has identified an affordable housing need within the authority and has submitted the scheme to partly address that need, and ultimately that's obviously a bit assessed that and obviously subject to conditions and the section on a six agreement, consider it to be acceptable in this case. Just to come back to the word out of my mouth at the end, we take each application separately but at the same answer I was given about a separate appeal and how that gives you judgment on this application, so I don't know how the two match up to be honest that we can say in a report that we have to take on previous appeals, where you were taking on the previous appeals notice and how that should weigh on what we're deciding today, but also in the future that each application should be taken in its own, and that would be good to clarify things. Thank you, Councillor. In terms of the other appeal on Ashlane in Hopwood in terms of sustainability, I believe it's relevant, essentially it's very similar locations in terms of, they're both essentially in Hopwood, they both have access to the same facilities, very similar, and would access the same sort of facilities in the vicinity of Hopwood, ultimately in that case it assessed the sustainability of the site and considered it to be acceptable, and having direct experience on that site ultimately, I think it is an important consideration, clearly in terms of considering other appeals and their relevance, again, it's very much a case-by-case basis and where there is relevance or statements or whatever it might be within an appeal decision, then that is, obviously identified within any committee report and officers weigh up the rates and how much weight to give to that particular appeal decision. As I've indicated, there is no current appeal decision or outstanding application that proposes 100% of audible housing in bronze grove, and certainly not one in this location. I can't direct you to an appeal or otherwise regarding that matter, obviously there is a reason for refusal regarding sustainability and following members' consideration of that matter, following the submission of a further high-way sustainability note by the applicant and based on my own experience in the area, the specific reference made to that ash lane decision, as I do believe it is relevant to the consideration of this application. I would like to move us on if I can, but I'll take one final last question from Councillor Muckelbaum. I accept that the MPPF has been revised in December, but I think it's questionable as to whether that revision dramatically sort of moves the goalpost to the point where we have to dramatically change the decision that we recently made at a planning meeting. Also, bearing a mind as an inspectorate appeal underway and also there's a local plan review where at some point we'll be identifying some Green Bank land for development to seem to some that is prudent to wait for the outcome of those. So the question is, can you roughly estimate or guesstimate when the planning inspectorate and the local plan review will be able to report on their particular investigations? No. Because the answer to that and the inspector have their own timetable. We can't comment on that and I think members, you can't rely on that, you're here to make a decision on the application before you rather than rely on other mechanisms or processes that could or could not take place. Thanks. Thanks, Del. We've got a lot of business to get through. So... One very quick comment. What I struggle with is with sustainability is one of the 106 things that I've not seen on an application before, which is a contribution for necessary school transport services. Why do you need necessary school transport services in a sustainable area? Okay. I'll take it. That's a rhetorical question. Is it right? Okay. So maybe we could move back to the recommendations now, please, which are the recommendations on page 110 followed by the conditions which go on to page 117. So the recommendation is that the application be granted. Can I see a proposal and a seconder for that recommendation, please? Nobody wanting to propose it or second it. Does that mean that it falls? It's only an alternative recommendation. We need an alternative recommendation. Are you able to help us out with that, Del? I may assist members on page 93 is the previous reasons for refusal with the caveat that does refer to previous MPPF references as stated in the report. I'm gauging from the views of members that they feel that nothing has changed, therefore reasons one and reason two would be your reasons this evening subject to the caveat those MPPF references would alter if that's this. So is there a form of words that we need which says that the recommendation would be that we would refuse permissioned on the basis of those two grounds referencing the earlier decision? You don't need to reference the earlier decision. I think you would just say that the wording of one and two, so you've got Greenbelt Harm and Sustainability issues and number two, Remain and therefore that's the view that members are taking this evening. Councillor Baxter. Could we add in, I mean, the sustainability bit to me is key to this. Could we add in as evidenced by the need for a necessary school transport services section 106 agreement? So if we worded this as a recommendation that the application be refused on the grounds of Greenbelt Harm and Sustainability issues evidenced by the need for a condition for school transport services, those words, anybody get up? Yes? It depends on what Mr Burch said. If he was in the previous report, I would be cautious about members introducing this when that was apparent to them as part of the decision making on the 22011419 application. How is on here to justify that approach? I would be cautious. So the words would be— Councillor interjecting. It was part of the discussion. Sure, but in order to move us forward with this, if the recommendation is to be refused the application on the grounds of Greenbelt Harm and Sustainability issues, full stop. Does that work? That's consistent with what? Yes. I'll just come in for Councillor Baxter. Obviously, in terms of that reason for refusal, obviously it specifically references distance from essential services as part of any—which will include schools as part of any consideration at any—well, the future planning appeal, distance to schools, the contributions required by County Highways will be examined by the planning inspector. Okay. So we're happy with the words that I've proposed? Yes. So we're recommending—are you mind proposing it? I'm hoping some words for somebody else to propose that the recommendation being that we refuse the application on the grounds of Greenbelt Harm and Sustainability issues. We don't really like to propose that. Councillor Lambert, are you proposing? Yes. Anybody? Secondly? Councillor Michael Downey? Okay. So I put that to the vote. All those in favour of that recommendation? Any against? Any abstentions? No, I think that is unanimous. So that recommendation stands. Do we need to get Councillor Houghton back into the room? And logically, we now move on from agenda item number 9 to agenda item number 5. Thank you very much, Mr Lester. Now handing over to Ms Rosie Pudgett, who I think is the principal planning officer, to introduce item 5, which is a Rosa, the Holloway Albert Church. Let's wait for Councillor Houghton to return to the room, please. Here it comes. I'll do some water. It looks like I have a room, maybe something to go to and make some. There you are. Rosie. Thank you, Chair. So members can see on screen the application reference. The address that arose there, the Holloway and Albert Church, with the proposal for the subdivision of the dwelling into six self-contained apartments. And the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions. Members can see on screen the site location plan. So the application site is edged here in red. And you can see the existing dwelling shown here with the cursor highlighted. And then the garage door across to the west. It's got two access points off the Holloway and all of this area of hard-standing exists. This is the garden area of the dwelling currently. This is an area or photograph of the site, whereby you can see again the Holloway, the A441, set down at a lower level to the application site, there is boundary treatments, landscape, and then the dwelling, which you can see in the middle of the site. This is a picture in, or a photograph in context. So the Holloway is down here with the red icon, you then have round of green over here and then out church over here. So just placing the site in its context of the nearby small settlement as it comes with BDP2 and larger settlement. This is a Google Street View image of the Holloway looking west. So back towards the A441 and the dwelling is to the left of the screen just here. And then looking the other way. So looking to the east with the dwelling across to the right-hand side. Proposals mapped. So the site is contained within the green belt shown by this green hue across the screen. And then we have the existing floor pan. So a roser is a five-bed dwelling and the proposals are to subdivide this into six dwellings, which are four two beds and two one beds. Existing elevations, this is dwelling as it looks now, this is the front elevation as if you were from the Holloway. And then the proposed elevations. So there are some changes to the elevations, you've got the changes to the garage doors, changes to some windows, and then a change to the garage door, which is creating a new unit in there. And then some site photographs. So this is the front elevation if you were viewing the property from the Holloway. And the same over here from the other entrance. And this is a picture from the rear. So I'll just take it back, perhaps, a aerial image for any questions and member discussions. Thank you. We have one public speaker on this application who is Louise Casey. Hello. If you'd like to approach the mic and just test that it's working. How's that? Okay. And you have three minutes when you're ready, thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, Members of the Committee. My name is Louise Casey and I'm here tonight as the planning agent for the application. And I'll be speaking on behalf of the applicant Karl Cross Watson. So the application seeks to subdivide the existing dwelling into six self-contained apartments, an identical application to subdivide the dwelling was approved by the Council in 2019. The application before Members this evening is simply seeking a renewal of a consent already confirmed as acceptable by the Council. There are no technical objections to the application with the Committee report confirming matters of highway safety, heritage, ecology, drainage, noise, and residential immunity. All to be acceptable. The report also confirms the proposal is compliant with Greenbelt policy and that it will contribute to the district's housing land supply, especially smaller one and two bedroom homes. The carbon savings that will occur through reusing an existing building to create new homes must also be given weight. Whilst we're mindful of local concerns regarding the location of the site, national policy sets are a hierarchy in relation to rural housing, which the development would fall within. Paragraph 84 of the MPPF sets out several circumstances which allow for the creation of isolated homes in the countryside, one such circumstances subdivision of an existing residential building which is isolated as proposed here at erosa. It's clear that by the very nature, isolated locations may not have good access to local services and facilities. So by including Paragraph 84, national policy clearly recognises that there are certain instances where the location of new homes outside of a settlement is acceptable and would still be consistent with the promotion of sustainable development. The plan officer has concluded that proposals meet at Paragraph 84 and with this in mind the location of development is acceptable. The 2019 application was also granted on the basis that it met with Paragraph 84 and because it would boost the supply of housing by five dwellings, the development plan in 2019 is the same plan that's enforced today. Therefore, nothing is changing policy terms that should lead to the council making a different decision. In fact, the district's housing land supply has worsened and therefore grades away should be attributed to the benefits associated with increasing the supply. We acknowledge the comments made by the Riley Green Association about the redevelopment of Baudsley Hall and note the planning officer has addressed these within the report. In terms of the cumulative impact on the highway network, the MPPF confirmed development should only be refused on highway safety grounds if these impacts would be severe. The highway authority have however not object on a highway safety grounds and the committee report confirms the impacts would not be severe. On the matter of isolation, the officer has rightly considered the wording of the brain tree judgment which is the leading case law on the matter. So the brain tree judgment confirmed the phrase isolated times in the countryside simply means a dwelling that's physically separate or remote from a settlement. The case officer has considered the relevant case law has confirmed that a roast is isolated. In conclusion, the proposals before you tonight have already been granted by the council and nothing has changed which would warrant an alternative decision, there are no technical grounds on which to refuse this application and we would therefore ask that this development be supported. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Miss Casey. Could I ask you to withdraw to the public area please. Thank you and open it up to questions, comments from members, Councillor Muckel-Dalney. Yeah, Louise, as you have already referenced it, I'm just a bit confused. A previous similar application was approved in 2019. Why was that an up progress, why was it coming back to us again, basically? Rosie? Thank you, Chair. The application has expired, so that's why the applicant has had to resubmit their proposals to the Council for consideration. Any more? Councillor Baxter. Just a quick check, the application hasn't changed since the approved one. Is there anything in the NP-PF that would now make the Council's decision different toward it was in 2019 to hard one? Thank you, Chair. No, I think specifically, I think it was mentioned, excuse me, in the previous application that members discussed in terms of the ministerial statement that was issued at the same time which the changes to the NP-PF were made, paragraphs have changed, which again came up in the previous item. However, the particular paragraphs pertinent to this application are, yeah, verbatim the sign. Councillor Houghton. Thank you, Chair. In relation to the cumulative traffic impact, I think it says in here, or what I have read somewhere, that we're looking at 60-plus housing units that have got in the name of the place now, and the tip of my tongue, the hall up the road. Boreds legal, of course, yes. Boreds legal, and that is going to generate very significant traffic to a T-junction on a slope, and I believe that that was considered in that application as potentially being an issue but wasn't sufficient to cause the application to be refused. Now, what we're talking about here is adding another five units onto that, close to 10%. I'm struggling with this sentence, the cumulative impact of the development have been raised, they've been raised by objectors, but it wasn't raised by county highways. Has that been discussed with county highways in relation to the cumulative impact, or is it that county highways just haven't mentioned it? Was there a positive input to county highways? They'd say, hang on a minute, there are 60 going in up the road, we're looking at nearly another 10% here. What is that cumulative impact, or is it the county highways just haven't picked it up? I was a positive conversation about it. Thank you, Chair. No, it wasn't something which has been discussed explicitly with county highways, they haven't raised any matters within their consultation response in relation to a cumulative impact. What boards do you call or any other development in the locality? Right, because, of course, we've got this ongoing situation in bronze grove with cumulative traffic, cumulative traffic, cumulative traffic, and it's not being raised as an issue by county highways, and this is causing me significant concern with this particular application. I'm very surprised that we haven't had a suggestion that a roundabout is put in instead of the t-junction at the bottom. My second concern is the statements about cycling, and again, this has come from county highways. I think they're saying that they need to put in a cycling shed, or worth that effect. Now, I do cycle up that hill, I'm sure Councillor Bail cycles up that hill, and it is incredibly hard work. It's probably, in my old money, a 1 in 25 hill, and I suggest that this shows that nobody from county highways has been to look at the site or really understood the implications of this development on the road network and on people in these properties. If they think that a proportion of the 60 units on Bosley Hall are going to cycle and a proportion of the five extra units on the Holloway are going to cycle, I think they are severely mistaken. Councillor Baster? In the absence of anything from county in terms of cumulative impact, what would be the impact of actually deferring this until we get some response on that because we don't have anyone here tonight from highways? Thank you. The application is due for determination by Friday, so in the apps, if it was to be deferred, then we obviously run the risk of the applicant not agreeing to an additional extension of time and there could be a possible appeal on the grounds of non-determination. I struggle with this non-determination thing because surely they then have to go to appeal for non-determination and knowing how long it takes at the moment for anything to go through the appeal process, we get it back at the next planning committee before you could say, Jack Robin? That's your optimism. Thank you. On that point, the number of Bosley Hall relevant, wouldn't the cumulative, because this would have been previously approved and we're just looking to remove it, wouldn't the cumulative traffic from that decide and Bosley Hall being assessed when you did the Bosley Hall application? I think the Bosley Hall application receded, it's coming after the '19 application, so at that point in time, highways wouldn't have considered that because it wouldn't have been apparent. Councillor Grey, for helping everybody, I'm looking at page 24, there's a section now which says, as there are no technical concerns with the proposal, it is considered— That was balanced. The modest harm arising through the use of vehicles and two of the dwellings falling below technical housing standards would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal as a whole. Is there no—not that you could say to explain about the dwellings falling below technical housing standards? Secondly, the modest harm, what do you mean by modest harm? I actually am not overly concerned about the number of vehicles because this is just a very large building, instead of being lived in by one family, it's been divided up to make dwellings for more people, but I'm not sure that a few extra cars, as opposed to the 10 or whatever it was for Bosley Hall, 60, it says there. On my notes, you said it is quite why we should refuse this one, over and above the problem you've got with Bosley Hall, I'm still confused of rubbery here. I'm sure it applies to that. Well, highways did not raise an objection to Bosley Hall. Sorry, and the technical falling below the usual standards, is that acceptable? Yes, I think as planned as we accept, there's a shortfall on the standard taking this a whole and on the balance we consider the scheme to be acceptable. Any other questions or points? No. Well, should we go to the recommendation and conditions that are on pages 24 and 25, then the recommendation is that planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions, set out on those two pages, could I see a proposal and a seconder for that recommendation? I'm happy to propose, and I think, Councillor Michael Downey got in there, just a seconder. Okay. So, could I put that recommendation to the vote then, please? Could I see all those in favour? 2, 3, 4, and all those against? I think that is correct. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So, we now move on from, let me get this right, from item number 5 to agenda item number 8, which is 1, 3, 5, Shorehurst Lane in Hollywood, and again, asking us Rosie Pudget to present the report. Thank you, Chair. So, as members can see on screen now, the application at 1, 3, 5, Shorehurst Lane in Hollywood, the application is for the change of views from a dwelling house to a children's home, and the recommendation is for approval subject to conditions. So, on screen, members can see the site location plan with the application site outlined here in red, located to the north of Shorehurst Lane. This is an area of photograph of the site, so just again showing the layout of the site with the main road access taken from, and then you have the garden area to the rear. The Council's proposals map, so the site is identified with a staff that doesn't identify any proposal, it's just to identify the site, and then over here we have local centre for shopping, and this is the residential area with this sort of pinkish hue. Existing floor plan at the top of the screen, proposed floor plan at the bottom of the screen, it is minor changes internally that you can see with sort of the red lines identifying partitions, changes to doors, they are minor proposals internally that don't require planning permission. And this is a photo externally off the site, just showing a picture from Shorehurst Lane, so the minor alterations as I mentioned don't require planning permission, it is the change of views which members are considering. The accommodation would be for up to three children, aged between eight to eighteen. There will be two staff present on site for a standard shift, which would be 24 hours, and one member sleeps during the night, and one member of staff remains awake during the night. And just taking it back to the location plan perhaps for discussion, thank you, Chair. Okay, thank you. We have two speakers on this, commencing with the applicant's representative who is Mr. Schwab Ahmed, if you would like to approach the microphone, please, sir, and to test your mic. Can you hear me now? Yeah, we can now, thank you. So your three minutes start when you're ready, thank you. So thank you for allowing us for the opportunity to address you today, and before I start we would like to express our admiration of the Hollywood Community and its initiative to mobilize. I also recognize that this is an opposition of our application, it is nonetheless encouraging to see the passion the community has for its resident interest and welfare, and this is something we hold in great respect. We'd also like to thank the consultees who have all recommended their approval or have raised no objections to the application, in particular, WCC High Authority, WRS, Whistle Parish Council, and Rosie Padgett in the capacity as case officer. We'd now like to turn to general concerns raised by the members of the public. The two material concerns we'll address are our background location and a supposed increase of crime in the area. In respect of our background location, we are a Birmingham-based institution, we are through and through bromise, as you can probably tell the accent, and we hold local interest in the highest regard. They've been concerned that we are a murder side based, we assume the confusion was born out of the application containing documents relating to a livable business, but this document was for the council's reference to help consider application, but to clarify we are a Birmingham-based business. In respect of an increase in crime, many consultees are worried a change of use will attract more crime in the area. As confirmed by the planning officer in her report, there is no evidence to suggest that a change from C3 to C2 results in the increase of crime. Furthermore, there was a national inquiry into children care services commissioned by the competition and market authority, and in it, the CMA found that much of the public and institutions have a misconception that children's homes bring with it an increase of crime. They too agreed that based on the facts and extensive research, there is no evidence to suggest that this is true, they have recommended that local authorities do more to dispel this misconception and to allow the interests of children to be fairly considered. We therefore submit that the application is not refused on grounds of crime considering there is no substantial or material evidence of this. Finally, we'd like to finish up by sharing some information about who we are and why we are different from the traditional provider. Firstly, we care about children. We are a mixture of people who have been brought up in care, are foster parents and have helped many children transform their lives to become civic members of society. We therefore truly understand the needs of children, but most importantly, we have the experience and expertise to deal with such children with minimum impact on the community. Secondly, we will be an ESG accredited institution. This means we will place particular focus on the environment, society and governance. The environment insofar as we want to be carbon neutral and we look after the planet, so for example, energy efficient appliances, electric cars to minimize noise and ensure adequate quality, society in so far as ensuring we maintain open communication with our neighbors, sponsoring local businesses where we can and looking to recruit local residents also where we can. And governance in so far as a corporate structure and corporate governance will be published annually for transparency purposes. We trust this has alleviated any concerns and submit that the planning community approve our application. However, if anyone has any questions or concerns, we'd like to maintain an open line of communication and are happy to speak with any stakeholders. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Ahmed, I could ask you to return to the public area, please, and call on Councillor for Syf to come forward as the Board Councillor. Would you like to test your mic, Councillor? Thank you, Chair. As the district and parish Councillor for Hollywood Award, I have received several emails on text messages from concerned residents about the change of use from Class III C3 semi-detached swelling to our Class C2 boarding home. As a result of the communication and emails and letters submitted to the Brumsgrove District Council, I requested a call and notice in order that the planning committee have the opportunity to approve or reject this application. One of the key concerns is the impact this will have on two elderly residents living in their joining property who have enjoyed a peaceful life living in their property for many years. There is a perception due to the children's on-the-one background that they may be disorderly, including creating disturbances in the late evening and into the early hours of the morning. A further concern is the possibility of conflict between the boarding children and the school children walking to and from the junior and high schools which are approximately 200 metres further up the road. Whilst there are parking restrictions on the road by the site entrance, this does not apply to the opposite side of the road which is congested by a school traffic each weekday during term time. Traffic overtaking the parked cars need to drive past the site entrance on the wrong side of the road making reversing off the site extremely hazardous. To add to this risk it is possible that the boarding children may be at the same time being picked up by their transport. To add further to the risk of reversing off the site the view is obscured by a thick hedge on the western boundary which protrudes onto the pavement. Whilst the proposal suggests that the hedges should be driven back, it should be noted that the western boundary belongs to the resident of 133's shoulders lane hence their approval would be needed. In summary, I understand the local residents concern. In particular, the potential for increased noise, the effect on the two elderly residents next door, the increased comings and goings and the hazards of exiting the site on the very busy shoulders lane. Thank you Chair, thank you Councillor, can I now ask you to withdraw from the committee on the room please. Thank you and open it up to members of the committee. Councillor Gray. I haven't got any interest in this particular home or this particular space but I happen to be on behalf of Bronzco District Council, a member of the Corporate Parenting Board in Worcestershire. I happen to know from having done that for a year now, I've learnt from the problems that Worcestershire are having with finding spaces for looked after children across this county and in Harrofordshire are extremely short. Having said that, I'm in favour of trying to find spaces for these children to be cared for properly. I cannot understand what the difference is between this number of children in this house next door to them being any worse off than by having any other neighbour you might just get that you can't keep your good neighbours and they can come and go at any time. So I can't see any justification for this problem. Thank you. Councillor interjecting. Thank you very much. I suppose my slightly concern was whether the size of the property was big enough for Worcesters being envisaged. It does mention that it's a three-bedroom house but actually looking at it, it seems to have had an extension. It looks like a three-bedroom house with an extension, but obviously if you say three bedrooms, three bedrooms it is. But the talk is to have two members of staff working 24/7 and one will stay up all night and obviously one will be in bed. Do we know if the staff members will have separate bedrooms? Secondly, it's also suggested that up to three children will be staying at the house. I take it to be sharing bedrooms at some point. It's also mentioned that the staff turnover will be or change will be at 8 o'clock in the morning. If the two staff members have their own cars and then the other two staff members turn up in the morning with their two cars, there will be four cars and its provisions for up to three cars, and of course parking restrictions kick in at the eight o'clock. I'm just raising those concerns probably a bit too much, but just basically raising those things I've picked up. I'm just wondering personally whether it's big enough for what's being planned. Is that a question? I think it is a question. Well, there was some questions slipped in there. Basically, it's regard to change over and also whether or not the staff members will be sharing bedrooms and will the children be sharing bedrooms as well? I assume they will. Thank you, Chair, thank you, Councillor. As you can see, I've flipped now to the existing and proposed floor plan. So you can see the property upstairs is showing the bedrooms and then there's a downstairs and staff sleepover is what that red text says. The property does appear to be sufficient in size for the proposal. The exact arrangements, i.e. would a child share a room with another child, would be a operational matter rather than a planning matter, so something which we wouldn't prescribe or understand in that level of detail for what's material to planning. Secondly, with regards to your question about the coming and going of staff that has been considered by County Highways, they don't have any objection to the proposals. They have looked at that time of switch, exactly as you mentioned, and they haven't raised any concerns. Thank you, Councillor Baxter. Thank you. I think first of all, I'd like to thank the speaker, the applicant, for such a passionate and enthusiastic presentation. Having said that, I've certainly picked up locally the local concerns about what's happening here. We never have any control over who our neighbours are. As I said, you quite easily have the family from hell living next door to you, and there's absolutely nothing you can do about it. I would like to think, in this instance, the operational would actually have far more control over the children and what they're doing, so I would like to think that the residents next door, who I respect, everyone wants a peaceful and quiet life, at my age, I certainly do, but I'd like to think that they will have a more guaranteed, peaceful life, having an organisation like this next door. My concern, my only real concern is around highways, and I know they haven't mentioned this, but it's the fact that if the kids are all, if the three children are all at school age and they're all being picked up at the same time in the morning, which will be, by definition, the same time that that bit of road is already horribly congested because of the, because of the school, the proximity of the school, I think some thought needs to be given around how they can actually manage that transition, but, you know, I hope that if we do grant permission that the organisation actually does blend in well with the community within, with all that Hollywood, thank you. Any other points or questions, Councillor Stewart? This is more for enlightenment than to make a point, but this isn't a traditional planning application. No one wants to build a house or knock a house down, so what criteria are we actually judging this application against, on what grounds should we accept it, on what grounds would we have for refusing it, not probably demonstrates my ignorance rather than anything else. I think it's just a change of use, but it looks, so if I say, I'm against this, what grounds, what grounds would be legitimate grounds for turning down such an application? So I'm not going to give you that as an answer to a question, Councillor. I think if you refer to your laminated sheet that gives you water, material, planning considerations, you should be referring to that when you're making your judgement called on the scheme. If you listen to Councillor Forsyth and he raised the concerns of residents, so those would be things such as amenity, highways, there could be things relating to noise, all of those are issues that you need to balance in terms of what benefit there is arising from this scheme in terms of the children and putting them into the community rather than in institutions away from community and access to services and functions. So you have to balance that if you consider that it does cause harm by virtue of noise deserves a highways, that's your hook to recommend refusal and that be put to the vote. Thank you. So there are essentially the same as any other planning application. Yes, yes, although we have raised some of the issues are not material as Rosie has alluded to this year about how you could have more than one child in a bedroom is not material to the planning authority, that's an operational issue that's covered by other legislation and therefore we wouldn't get involved in that type of decision-making. Thank you. Councillor Houghton. Thank you, Chairman. I can't agree, have been on the corporate parenting board at Worcester County Council. I was actually on it for four years and I think I need to remind all members here that we are collectively corporate parents and the well-being of children should be at the front of what we think of. I understand the concern of residents and understand the concerns of Councillor Forsyth, but I also hear what Councillor Baxter said, what Councillor Grey said, you can't choose your neighbours and you could end up even on the highways issue with a four car family at this particular address, which would be exactly the same as what's being proposed. I just think of the children. Any other final points? Nope. Okay. So can we now move to the recommendation, which is along with the conditions is on page 82, so the recommendation is that Planning Commission be granted. Could I see your proposal? Councillor Grey and a seconder, Councillor Stewart and Colossian Schofans pleased all those in favour. I think that is unanimous. Thank you, so nobody against no abstentions and that recommendation is carried. So at this point, we move to item 6 and 7 on the agenda and I'm going to stand down and hand over to Councillor Baxter. Oh, I beg your pardon, we need to get Councillor Forsyth back into the room whilst, so we'll include him and exclude me. Okay. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So, are we all settled so we move on to agenda item 6 that landed the rear of 1719 Willow Gardens and back over to Rosie to present the report. Thank you, Chair. So members will see on screen the next application, which is for land to the rear of 1719 Willow Gardens in Brumsgrove, demolition of the existing garages and the erection of a new build dwelling, including associated landscaping and access and the recommendation is to grant planning permission. Since the site location plan shown on your screen, the red line is a little faint on the left-hand image, therefore, provided in a large site location plan, so you can see the red edge is here, but then just a larger image, you can see that it is around the site here. So, there is an existing access and garage site shown on the screen with the garages identified here, Willow Gardens along the screen here. Existing and proposed site plan existing on the left and then the proposed on the right, there are 13 garages on the existing site now, which would be demolished to make way for the new dwelling, which is a one bed dwelling. It is a bungalow and this is the floor plan, so you can see the living kitchen area, bedroom, entrance, study, all identified clearly on the plan. These are the elevations, so the front elevation to the south, the entrance door here and the rear elevation to the north is elevation towards 14 to 18 church road with the utility door to the side entrance and the west elevation to the proposed garden with the opening shown here. It is of a traditional brick and tile roof construction, few photos, so this is the site access coming off Willow Gardens, then terminates in this arrangement with the garages and then this is an existing entrance to number 12 church road shown on the very right extreme of the image and the garden to 12 church road is behind. This is the view looking east towards the rear of 14 to 18 church road, so you can see the tops of the property here with the garages in the foreground and the existing hard standing. And then a view looking west towards the rear of 17 to 19 Willow Gardens, again you can see the tops of the properties and then the garages in the foreground with the hard standing. I'll just go back to the site plan perhaps for members to thank you. Thank you. And we have two public speakers for this application, the first one being Christian Lawrence, who's joining us via Teams. Hello. Hello. You have three minutes. Thank you. Good afternoon, Councillors. My name is Christian Lawrence and I'm the planning agent and architect for the application. There are no objections subject to standard planning conditions or from any of the statutory contour teas, most notably Worcestershire highways. The site falls within the existing residential suburb of the city in good access to services. Employment opportunities and public transport choices. It is surrounded by residential properties to all sides and is currently occupied by garaging and hard standing. To be made clear that local concerns relate to parking highway safety concerns for the site. This has been further assessed by County highways who have also confirmed that the sites could be closed at any point by the owners to prevent parking occurring on the site. In respect to this point, however, the two application sites do not actually accommodate parking. They're solely for garaging. The point further outlined by County highways in which they do not count garages, car parking spaces in line with the streetscape design guide. The application sees some better use of the existing site to deliver high quality single storey home. The redevelopment of previously developed land is a key planning policy at both national and local levels. There is no requirement for these sites to be allocated for alternative use in a local plan before redevelopment is accessible in principle. Windfall parcels of land are in important parts of housing supply in the city. The proposed dwelling will be a small in scale and respond to the surrounding context. The properties have been set away from the site boundaries and would not cause adverse loss of privacy or overlooking to nearby residential properties. The property will provide new boundary treatments where the garages are to be demolished with appropriate size gardens achieved to the dwelling. The effort has been made between the landowner and client representative to retain garden access to surrounding properties. This has been provided on the planning application drawings, however, as outlined in the committee report and subsequent highways documentation, these are not material planning consideration. The proposed dwelling will reduce the level of hard-standing on-site, increase ecology benefits and provide attractive property as an outlook rather than the current state of the site in garageing. While local residents have raised concerns related to the highways matters, it is highlighted that there is no objection from county highways or highways officers. The proposed development will achieve parking standards that will comply with the streets scape design guide and will retain the access point of without gardens. In terms of amenity, it is noted that some local residents have raised concerns with reference to noise, disturbance and overlooking. Set within the residential environment, the use is appropriate and compatible with its surroundings that will not cause noise concerns. As referenced in the officer report, the siting and scale of proposed dwelling would not cause an adverse loss of privacy or overlooking it to nearby residential properties. The proposal therefore delivers a high quality living environment whilst not being of detriment to existing occupiers. The development meets the objectives of the development plan and the NPPF and no significant adverse impacts have been identified. The presumption in favour of development applies and planning motion should be sorted. Thank you. Thank you. Now over to Councillor MARSHAL. Thank you Chair. I call in this application as ward Councillor because of the long-standing concerns of residents about parking in the area and the impact this proposed development would have in exacerbating the problem. The applicants supported by the officers contend that the existing parking facility could be withdrawn at any time and therefore is not a matter for consideration under planning regulations. So why did the applicants go to the expense of commissioning a technical survey to prove the non-existence of an irrelevant problem? Anyone of you can undertake your own survey easily by looking at Willow Gardens from the satellite view on Google Maps. You will see vehicles parked on the pavement, vehicles parked on the verges, vehicles parked in residence front gardens that got there by driving across the pavements and verges. The parking problems of this area are self-evident and very well-known. Development of the garage site will displace existing off-street parking and lead to further parking stress in Willow Gardens and neighbouring areas. That in turn will leave elderly and vulnerable residents with mobility issues without a safe and convenient space to park close to their own homes. If the garages are under occupied and disrepair, it's only because they've been allowed by BDHTC to get into that state and the reason for proposing to withdraw the parking facility is precisely to make way for the development that is being considered through the planning system which is why it's before you as members now. So it's disingenuous to suggest that there is no parking impact for you to consider. Building 108E of the National Planning Policy Framework states, Patterns of movement, streets, parking and other transport considerations are integral to the design of schemes and contribute to making high quality places. Removal of this facility will add significantly to parking stress and environmental harm and will hardly contribute to making Willow Gardens a high quality place. BDHT of themselves belatedly recognised the parking problems of Willow Gardens after years of residents lobbying. Recently the trust of ordered work to cover the verges – this is not a joke – with green concrete. This is no substitute for the permanent sustainable off-street parking that Willow Gardens so badly needs. So I urge members to refuse the application, the harms caused by the proposed development include increased parking stress in an already unsustainable location, risks to the safety of road users and pedestrians, reduced access for elderly and vulnerable residents and reduced environmental quality of place. These harms should be given greater weight than the contribution to housing supply of one new one-bedroom bungalow. There are better uses of this land for the benefit of local residents and BDHTs. Think again. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor MARSHALL. Sure. We'll wait until you disappear. Any questions? Sorry, Josh. Yeah, so I know that any point BDHT could close the carriages and we wouldn't have any say on that, but I haven't known this area very well. There are parking issues on Willow Gardens as parking issues on Crabtree Lane, for example when the Chipshop is very busy, the buses struggle to get around there, which is good that we have a bus, but you know, it struggles to get around there. It's good that we look to develop on brownfield sites, but the amount of vehicles that would park in this space, and I know we're going to say it's not a planning matter, but it's still there to say and then come out onto Willow Gardens, it does concern me. There is nowhere if people are parking, there's nowhere for them to come and park on Willow Gardens, there's nowhere to come and park on Crabtree Lane, there's no very little space on New Road, it does concern me, it's just a comment more than anything. Thank you. I don't think that was a question, it was just a comment, yes, Councillor MACKANDAUNI. This is also a comment, I'm following the theme here. It seems to me that Eden is the development where they had, it wouldn't actually cause any displacement, parking displacement because the garages are not being used for whatever reason, and there is actually garage space provided with the actual building itself, so to me I don't see any detrimental impact on parking, it's not going to add to what we have already. Thank you, any other questions, yes, thank you. The garages are in disrepair, therefore they cannot be used by the existing residents. I'm maybe writing thinking that some of the existing residents are either tenants of BDHT, which is why BDHT think they can just knock down the garages that were part of something, they gathered to themselves when they took charge of those rented homes for those tenants. Are those tenants happy that their garages are going to be just taken away from them? How much care can we give to that? Nothing in the planning department because it doesn't fall within any of the scope. But what I'm concerned about is that you're building one bungalow with one bedroom with its own garage, which is going to be rather smart, and people are going to drive around the back of their existing gardens for this family or in the middle of back gardens, and you've not done anything at all to sort out the problems for your existing tenants, which is really bad news for the people in Willow Gardens. I noticed that there are other areas of Willow Gardens, which as Councillor Macdonald referred to, where they drive across the grass in front of their house because they were originally built with those garages and those bases, and because they're now all in deterioration. They're now parking on the grass all over the place, like the Wild West, and causing a problem. I'm not sure building a building like this is going to solve all of those problems. It's just adding to the problem by building another building with another garage base and another car. Thank you, yes. Thank you, Chair. Just to clarify for members, this scheme, before it doesn't include a garage, it is parking spaces on the grey on the screen before you. And secondly, the applicant is not here to solve all the problems of existing parking. It's here to wash its own face in terms of its development. Thank you, Councillor Herr some. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm at a loss to separate these two applications, and for one to answer some other comments that are being made on the printed pack on page 39, it states that nine of the garages are occupied, and that a parking survey has been provided that shows the sufficient parking for nine additional cars, all the cars that are in those nine garages. Some could be motorbikes, I presume. On the second one, three of the garages are occupied, so that makes twelve. Has the same parking survey been used in each case, or is there two parking surveys that we've had, and what was the capacity on the road? Thank you. It's about to cue me a little to the effect. If the parking survey says the sufficient for 20 cars, absolutely fine. But if it's saying, well, we can just about squeeze nine in, then I'm starting to have significant problems here. I'm also concerned that the proposed is, as I understand it, Councillor Marshall said, for a one-bedroomed property. Now, a site of this size should be providing more accommodation than a one-bedroomed property. I would have thought that we should be looking at something with a greater capacity than that. Just struggling, is the parking survey the actual quality of that parking survey, and has it actually demonstrated sufficient capacity for the nine cars? Plus the three. Or does the applicant want us to look at their way around? Should we look at the three one first? Because we'd be pretty certain that that would be okay. And then the nine one afterwards. Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Thank you. I know this part of town very well. It's contiguous with my own ward, and I had the pleasure to, a few weeks ago, to join BDHT on their walk around, and we looked at these garages, and they are in a dreadful state of disrepair. But, as Councillor Rotem says, only other 12 cars currently using these garages, despite their stated disrepair. There is also a degree of what I will call ad hoc parking, where because this land isn't used by many cars that residents do use it. And some of these vehicles that I saw were actually light commercial vehicles were transit vans and pickup trucks. So I think that depriving residents of this space would actually shift a lot of quite large vehicles onto the roads, where parking is already chaotic. I wouldn't like to take my car down Willow Grove two or three times a day and thread it through the part traffic. Thank you. Are there any other comments, questions? Any answer about is it cumulative or have both applications been looked at in isolation altogether in terms of parking? Do we know? Sorry, you can't speak. Sorry, you can't speak. I've just been informed that I am actually allowed to ask the agent to clarify that question. Sorry, I was trying to find the unmute person. There are two separate technical notes for the applications. One is class as 10 Willow Gardens. So the parking needs and parking displacements. Have they been looked at separately altogether? Please bear with us. Yes, there's the two reports. Obviously, they would have been addressed independently for each of the scientists. That was the instruction, I believe, that the high-waste consultant was given via the client, whether those he just wants to check that as well. Thank you. Can I go to Council, please? It's not even a question of what the two reports say. It's a question of what highways say about the two reports and without an highway's officer here, I don't think we can go any further. Perhaps this is one that we should consider to differ to get some sense from that. Thank you, Chair. Members need to be careful as to whether this is a material consideration in the assessment of the application given the operational ability of the applicant to close the gate or put a gate up and not allow anyone to park in that position. I know we're looking at this application in front of us. I'm more than happy for Rosie to go through this second application and you can discuss it together if that would assist members. I accept highways aren't here in the room with us. I think they have looked at it individually and then by default, cumulatively, they're even saying that. I don't think they need to have done that. They're just looking at the impact of a one-bedroom unit in terms of the parking provision and how it affects this development rather than looking at what you're displacing. I don't think members should be looking at that. That's my view. In terms of the one-bedroom unit, officers did discuss amendments to the scheme and actually it was a larger unit. It's been reduced in order to comply with your own standards in terms of amenity and privacy. On that basis, your officers are content of the scheme as it stands, is acceptable. I'm not going to give a view to members in terms of looking at a different scheme because that's not what we're here to this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor MACKadourny. Thanks, Chair. I don't know if this is relevant, but I'll ask anyway. It does appear that 13 garages were not being used potentially because they were in a state of disrepair. Do we know if any research has been done with local residents or any contact with local residents in the past, try to tell them why they're not using the garages? If it was because they were in a state of disrepair, were any representations made to BDHT to probably try and prepare them to make them usable, or is it just that BDHT have completed that does not demand for them, in which case they're not maintaining them? I don't whether that's doing that. That is not something that we can consider of this application. Yeah, I thought it does, anyway. That's a dis-wearing me. Thank you, Chair. Just on that, I'll tell you quite clearly what I said. I'm just trying to expand a little bit further to clarify a little bit further. So the cumulative impacts of the cars parking is not a matter because they could just close the garages, but as they put a residential property in there, if the cars were then parked, making the visibility coming out of the driveway problem, would that be a planning matter? Would that be something highways would have considered? Because obviously there's no WL aligns or TROs around, so they could go up. I know it's only a residential 39-hour road, but yeah. That was a question, sorry. I would say that highways would have taken that into consideration when they're looking at using that to use the mouse, so using the access here, which is what you refer to in Councilroom, so I think highways would have looked at the suitability of the visibility space to serve that dwelling because they are looking at it has a new dwelling, and therefore making sure it complies with their current standards. Yeah, just to come back, again, to go back on Council, I hope I'm pointing it out, but without highways, hey, it'd be good if I could just confirm that and go, yeah, and I can't say that I'm not going to miss something. If it's in there, then excuse me, Councilroom, see you're on page 39. On the paragraph, it said site observations. This is a view of Worcestershire highways, I'm going to read out here for me. The site is located in a residential and sustainable location, often unclassified road. The site has an existing vehicle access with good visibility in both directions, so on that basis I would take it that highways have assessed the visibility of that access. Councillor Gray. Thank you. My question is in relation to page 57 further comments at the bottom. This is for Ms. Padgett. It says in the middle of that— This is the next application, sorry. Yes, it says that application number seven. So I'm getting confused between the two, it's just that you'd put something about reconsider just dancing in the middle. I'll come back to that. Councillor interjecting. Okay. We need to sort of— Councillor interjecting. Yes, Councillor Herr, something. Turn off your mic. I'll turn this off. I think it would help me greatly if Mr Dale or Ms. Padgett could put up a street view from Google Earth and then we can just have a quick look and see what the access looks like and what the parking looks like. So random. It's time for him. Okay, so we'd have to come out of this and find the Google image if you want me to do that. Thank you. I think what I suggest we do is we look at the second application now so that we're able to actually consider them both cumulatively. We'll go through the presentation for the second one, the throwsy. We'll then call Councillor Marshall back in and then throw him out again and by then we can look at the Google Earth which would be relevant to both of them. I have to make a decision on each one individually, but I think that's probably the best way forward from here. Everyone in agreement. Thank you. If I can ask that Councillor MARSH comes in now, though, because it certainly can hear the presentations to you. Thank you. [silence] [silence] [silence] [silence] Thank you, Councillor MARSH. We're bringing you back in because the committee felt that it would be helpful if we actually looked at both applications together so that we can understand the collective and cumulative impact of them. So on what we're going to do is Rosie's going to give presentation on the second application. You'll have your three minutes and then we'll have another discussion and the applicant. Yes, sorry. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So the second application is land rear of 8 to 14 evens Willow Gardens. Description is slightly different. Demolition of existing garages and erection of new bill dwelling including associated access, landscaping and garage and the recommendation is to grant. Site location plan. So identified here, the application site in red and then a large site location plan. So access from Willow Gardens to the west is the site. Existing and proposed site plan. So you can see the existing garages identified here. This garage just here is to be retained for the proprietor of number 12. So this one here on screen. All the others will be demolished to make way for the proposed dwelling which is a two bed. That will also have a garage and then this parking space is shown here in the grey hue. Proposed floor plan. So again we can see the living dining kitchen arrangements, the two bedrooms that are proposed, bathroom and hall utility areas. And the proposed elevations front elevation, front door. It's predominantly a hip roof and again it's of brick and tile construction. Rear elevation towards number 3a Willow Road shown here on the bottom right of the screen. East elevation showing the hip roof construction and the west elevation towards the proposed garden with a similar arrangement in terms of access onto the gardener from the dwelling. Site photos. Here's the access way coming from Willow Gardens and then it opens into the arrangement of the existing garages and the hard standing area. And again a couple more photos view looking north towards 3a Willow Road. So you can see just the top of the roof there and then it's garage and the right hand corner of the picture. And then a view looking east towards eight Willow Gardens and the garages and hard standing in the foreground. I'll just go back so that we can have the post and existing plan on the screen. Thank you, Chair. Thank you. It will go over to Christian then please for the agents words. Thank you. I've found the information in the report document so I'll just read an extract of that if that is okay. So the assessment has taken into account the application associated with the land to the rear of 10 Willow Gardens and the additional application sites land to the rear of 19 Willow Gardens just a variation in their numbering and wording system. And the potential displacement of a combined loss of 12 parking spaces that are currently in use within these sites. The results of the survey are provided within a table within this document. It's page 8 of their documentation. It demonstrates that within the survey area the maximum parking capacity was 72 percent which equates to 34 car parking spaces being occupied out of an available 47. Therefore 13 legal and appropriate on-street park car parking spaces remain available to accommodate the 12 vehicles that are currently occupied within the garages at the lands to the rear of 10 and 19 Willow Gardens sites. However, as we have discussed, the garaging isn't sufficient size-wise to facilitate parking but they have justified the loss of said parking within the site. It's also worth pointing out that the transport assessment was undertaken or the parking survey was undertaken at 10pm on a Sunday evening when rapport believed or would expect the majority of local residents to be home and on-street parking to be at its greatest levels. This has also been assessed by County Highways who are in support of the application. I also understand from discussions with the applicants that they're looking to assist current residents with drop curbs to the frontiers which I know that was something that the ward member had also mentioned in his statement. Given that the applications are pretty similar, I've got nothing else to add. I just thought clarification on those points would be beneficial. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor MARSHALL, would you like to come back in? I'm in an interesting position now because, of course, I don't have the benefit of having listened to the arguments that were made during your early discussion, unlike the applicant. But if I can surmise from that that you now accept that the cumulative impact on the parking situation in Willow Gardens and surrounding roads is a material planning consideration, then all I would do is say that I was absolutely astounded by that survey, the technical survey, the type that I read, it brought no relation to observable reality from what I know of that area just by walking up and down it, or just a moment's work looking at Google Maps to see that the vehicles parked all over that road, all over the verges and the idea of that you can displace, I think it was a further 17 cars or vehicles cumulatively from those garage spaces at the moment. And the surrounding roads being able to accommodate them struck me as absolutely ridiculous and I really, really at a loss. So all I can say is that the arguments on this second application is exactly the same as the ones that I put in the first place. The only difference is you now have the benefit of one, two, bedroom bungalow, but the harms in terms of the parking stress, the risk to road safety, the reduced access, the environmental harm are all exactly the same and cumulatively even more severe, given that you've now done what I think is the correct thing to do, which is to look up both of these applications together and assess their cumulative impact. So thank you. Thank you, Councillor Marshall. I have to wait a few to go. Thank you. I'll open it up to questions again on the collective view. I've got Councillor Hirthman, Councillor Michael Downey and Councillor Stewart. We were told that there were 47 parking spaces assessed and 34 were in use. 32, I read down. 32 in use. I'm just after clarification of that. So basically, we're saying that now 44 of the 47 spaces would be used. And the 47 spaces are being assessed on perfect parking, I assume. So it's nice to know that the cumulative impact has been assessed. It's nice to know what the capacity of the road with perfect parking is. And it's nice to know that there might be three spaces available on the Sunday night if they were lucky. Thanks. Thank you, Chair. Yeah. At the bottom of page 59, it makes reference to relevant planning history. It mentions that the adjacent side to the rear of Willow Road and new road, the permission was granted for a minimum of one, and possibly a maximum of two dwellings. I'm just curious, was that land previously where garages were located? I'm just curious whether more garage space has been lost in the same area. Thank you, Chair. Apologies that it might not be as quite as clear. But if you can see the white arrow on the screen in the top left, it's not got the same image around the icon. But this is the application site that comes off the access here of new road. If you can follow my cursor, so it's probably not as clear as when it's in the presentation. But this is the application site that that PIP, that permission in principle that you're quoting refers to. All members follow me. It wasn't a garage site, no. Thank you. Thank you. Councillor Stewart. Thank you to questions/commence. The applicant made some reference to the possibility of dropping kerbs to allow residents access to park on their front gardens. So I've got two issues. First is the environmental aspect of ripping out front gardens to replace them with car parking. And the second issue is for every care view drop, you'll lose a kerbside parking space. So I would suggest the net gain in parking is zero. Thank you. Can I just say that does not form part of this application and there's no guarantee or there's no guarantee or that that's going to happen. That's truly an operational issue. That's not for the planning community to decide yes or no to that procedure. Thank you. Are there any more comments that anyone would like to make or are you ready to go to the vote on this application? Yeah, do we not want to say the— Oh, I thought we'd go to it. Of course, we don't know what time of day and what day of the week this was. So this is from July 2022, but as the chair said, it's obviously day. So that's the first site that we've discussed. So it looks about midday-ish looking at the shadows. It's certainly not late afternoon or early morning. And that's the entrance to the second side that we've discussed. Yeah, sure. Yeah, I think we've all seen that in the middle of the day there are a lot of vehicles there. I think the issue that we have is that the impact of more vehicles there is it a material planning consideration because of the VAT that BDHT could close access to the garages in any case. I must have been on the planning committee for many, many, many, many years. I've seen a few of these go through and not go through over the years. Oh, we're in a position to— Sorry, Chair, sorry to interrupt. Their accounts are great. You had a question about page 57. It was about your change of work and you've changed your mind about something. What was that exactly? Thank you, Councillor Graz. That and Worcestershire Highways. This is a comment, Not we stand in the evidence submitted by the residents regarding on street parking pressures. I have reconsidered my stance. Yeah, so that and agree with where were you? Yeah, that's exactly the bit I'm looking at. So that's under the section, Worcestershire Highways Brahmsgrove. So those are all the comments provided by the county highways. The first section was provided an initial consortee when we initially consult them and then they provided further comments and that's why it's just separated out. So I'm not too sure as to the wording as to why the officer said I've reconsidered my stance because obviously they didn't object in the first instance, they didn't raise any highway concerns. So I think they're maybe saying I've just looked at it again and this is now my additional comments. Their principal objection, you know, that they don't have one remains if that helps. Thanks, Councillor. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Herr. Just one final point and it's to, Mr Bertry, because constantly we're told we must look at the application in front of us. And that's all we need to consider. Now, the application in front of us is not saying that they're going to close the garages or put a gate across. I don't know how that squares with considering the application in front of us and the prospect of a gate being put up to stop the car. Thank you. I think what we're saying is that that is a potential possibility. Yes, I understand that kind of thing in your point. And that's from members to weigh up in terms of the application, isn't it? Yes. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. If there are no further comments or questions. Sorry, Chair, sorry. Keeps on. And I think the issue is that that would not require planning permission, so they put a wall gate or fence that was a metre high, that would not require permission. But it's not part of this application either, is it? Uphases. And I have a show of hands, please, for those in favour of the recommendation for six for the land at the rear of 1719 Willow Gardens. In the absence of a show of hands, do I have an alternative recommendation, please? Councillor Hoth them. I recommend that the planning application is deferred until the highways office accounts the questions that we've raised. Uphases, I can know. Show of hands, please, in support of that. I think that is unanimous. We will now move on to eight. Landed the rear of 814 Willow Road. I'm going to ask Councillor Hoth them if he wants to make the same recommendation. That's really dual. Sorry, I'm still learning, can't you? Right, can I have a show of hands, please, for all those in favour of the recommendation? Right, in the absence of a show of hands, please, can I have an alternative recommendation? Councillor Hoth. I'd like to make the same recommendation that we defer this application until highways office was available to answer the questions. Thank you, and I have a second to please. Happy to second that. Thank you. All those in favour, please raise your hands. Thank you. Again, that's unanimous. Can we call back? Councillor Marshall, please. He's welcome to the chair. Thank you. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. a lot. I genuinely don't know what I'm so where. Okay, you can tell me afterwards. Yeah, so where are we now? That brings us to any other business, I think, which I think the month is that right? And which I think there isn't any. Yeah, so all that remains for me to do is to thank the officers, our members of the public, and members, especially Councillor Baxter, for what has been an interesting logistical evening, I think, and bring the meeting to a close at 8.16. Thank you very much. That's fine, Richard, to stop the live streaming. Thank you. [BLANKAUDIO]