Agenda item

Councillors Richard Farrell and John Morgan had each declared a personal and prejudicial interest in this application and in accordance with Standing Order 34 they withdrew from the meeting room during its consideration.

Councillors Roger Cox and Bob Johnston had each declared a personal in this application.

The Committee noted that the rear elevation had been amended showing a reduced number of windows due to the impact on the amenity of properties in Bromsgrove. There was now a single window and a small window on the end wall with a main window around the corner.

It was highlighted that the CountyEngineer had no objection to the proposal and was satisfied with the access and parking arrangements.  It was reported that the applicants had been in discussion with the County Council regarding a financial contribution. The total amount sought by the County Council was £28,405.50 towards local schools and public transport.

The Officers referred to distances commenting that the reduction in window openings addressed the relationship of the proposal to the gardens in Bromsgrove being 20 metres.  It was commented that Officers considered that the relationship of the proposal to the rear of Portway was acceptable. It was noted that some concern had been raised regarding the rear garden pedestrian access.  However, Officers felt this was just a private domestic access and the proposal could not be refused on this basis.

Officers explained that the Committee was recommended to delegate authority to approve the application to the Deputy Director subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure the financial contributions and in the absence of this within 13 weeks then authority to refuse the application.

John Payne made a statement objecting to the application, raising concerns relating to matters already covered in the report. Whilst agreeing that the site should be used for housing, he particularly raised concerns regarding the following: -

·                    overdevelopment;

·                    the orientation of the housing blocks and car park not relating satisfactorily to the site thus having a detrimental effect on future residents, existing neighbours and the local community;

·                    orientation generally in that with the block of 5 two storey houses at rights angles to the line of the existing 8 three storey houses, problems would be created, although if sited in line with the existing frontages overlooking and traffic dangers at the site entrance and neighbours’ driveways would be overcome and better accommodation would be given to the new occupants;

·                    overlooking and overbearing with concern as to whether it was acceptable to propose replacing a two storey elderly persons block of flats with a three storey block of family flats, two metres away from a neighbours’ boundary;

·                    harmful impact from the three storey element in that the setting back of the 3 storey block by 1 metre made no difference;

·                    the lack of consideration by the Officers of the proposal from the neighbours’ perspectives;

·                    pedestrian safety in that the front doors of the block of 5 houses would lead straight into the traffic lane of all vehicles going into and out of the car park;

·                    traffic movements and traffic safety in that there was an established right of access drive to the rear of 11 and 13 Bromsgrove with vehicles reversing out to Portway.  Any openings leading onto that driveway from adjacent properties would be dangerous and the developer and this Council could be liable for any accident;

·                    access to the 3 storey block by disabled persons;

·                    design; and

·                    disagreement with the comments on the Consultant Architects Panel.

Colin Keegan the applicant’s agent made a statement in support of the application commenting: -

• there would be no loss of privacy as the distances between neighbouring properties exceeded minimum standards;

• there would be no loss of light as the nearest property would now have a building further away than the existing;
• there would be no adverse impact from lighting as this would be ordinary domestic lighting, not flood lighting;
• there would be no safety hazard to vehicles as there would not be any vehicle exits from the terrace of 5 units; which was owned by the Vale Housing Association;
• boundary treatment was suitable to the area;
• 11 dwellings would not create significantly more traffic in the area
• drainage was being investigated;
• the design was acceptable; and
• the proposal was for affordable housing.

One of the local Members commented that he considered that this proposal had taken account of the previous objections and attempted to address them.  He reported that the nature of the ground was important when considering the design, as it sloped away from the Bromsgrove properties and was at the bottom of their gardens, some distance away.  Moreover, windows had been reduced in size and were 12 metres from No 20. He explained that he had looked at the properties with occupants of 9 Bromsgrove at the previous submission.  Whilst acknowledging the constructive comments of the objector who was looking at the proposal from a fresh point of view he noted the improvements made with the current application.  He noted that the disabled parking and access issue should be revisited in detail. Furthermore, he noted that the comments of the Consultant Architect and the Architects Panel which were supportive of the design.  He commented that there would be ample parking for 22 vehicles and the boundary treatments appeared sufficient.
The new build would be in the similar relation as existing buildings to the neighbours, albeit the highest would be at the Hart Avenue end where there was a raised roadway and the 2 storey houses would be nearest the Bromsgrove properties.  The local Member considered that the application was acceptable.

In response to a comment made regarding this authority seeking a financial contribution the Officers reported that planning guidance was now in place to obtain this but as yet an Officer to process such powers had yet to be appointed.  It was explained that in any event the proposal was not of a scale which would warrant the seeking of a financial contribution.

One Member commented that any contribution should be equitable to the scale of development proposed and that the cost of obtaining a contribution should be less than the financial contribution secured.

The Officers clarified that once adequate resources were in place Officers would be seeking financial contributions on a per dwelling basis. 

One Member commented that the development had regard to the specifics of the site but considered that further consideration should be given to the disabled parking and the proximity of the parking area/access to the houses.  The Officers responded that it was not unusual to have a shared vehicle and pedestrian surface in residential areas.

By 13 votes to nil (with 2 of the voting Members not being present) it was

RESOLVED

(a)        that the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the local Members be delegated authority to approve application GFA/16154/2 subject to: -

(1)       the completion of the S106 Agreement to secure the required contributions towards local services and facilities; and

(2)        conditions relating to materials, drainage, slab levels, boundary treatment, landscaping, parking and access details and external lighting.

(b)        that in the absence of the completed Section 106 Agreement by the 13 week deadline the Deputy Director (Planning and Community Strategy) in consultation with the Chair and Vice-Chair of the Development Control Committee and the local Members be delegated authority to refuse application GFA/16154/2.