Update Report for Planning Committee (11.11.2017)

Update Report for Planning Committee (11.11.2017) Committee Planning Manager: Karen Tate

15/00669/S106A Maudslay Park, Great Alne, Alcester

Amended Recommendation: ‘Officers be authorised to modify, in consultation with Great Alne Parish Council, the Local Ward Member and Chairman of the Planning Committee on the final wording, the affordable housing provisions contained within the S.106 Legal Agreement dated 11 October 2011 in connection with planning permission reference 10/00420/OUT (as varied by S.106 Legal Agreement dated 7 January 2013 associated with planning permission reference 12/02231/VARY) so that financial contribution of £5.085m be made for off-site affordable housing in lieu of on-site provision such sum ring-fenced for the purposes of ‘extra- care’ provision for an initial period (such period to be agreed).’

16/03277/FUL Maudslay Park, Great Alne, Alcester

Additional Consultation Responses Received: Great Alne Parish Council: ‘…in the light of the developments on the S106 agreement, and the assurances provided for the PC to be involved in the preparation of the its final wording, the Parish Council has withdrawn its objection to application 16/03277/FUL.’ (06.01.2017)

16/03312/VARY Sibcas Ltd, Brickyard Lane, Studley

A Members site visit was arranged for 1pm on the Wednesday 11th January 2017 to see the site from St Judes Avenue; however, only the Case Officer was in attendance.

Additional comments received from Cllr Kerridge: ‘My objection is on visual impact grounds (Policy CS5. B.1) and design (Policy CS9. B.2). This is also mentioned in Policy CS.22, Economic Development.

Essentially it is the effect of the third tier of containers as viewed from residential streets in Studley. Mainly towards the top of the rise of St Judes Avenue. Whereas 2 tiers of containers are largely hidden from public view by houses and (less so) trees in front of the containers, the third tier rises above these, intruding into views of the countryside surrounding Studley. This is a considerable harm. But it was not appraised by the Appeal Inspector in the appeal. More importantly perhaps it was not a reason considered by the committee or given as an objection by the parish councilor myself when triggering a committee hearing. The committee did not consider any of the visual impact or other reasons but felt that continued applications of a temporary nature were not appropriate in policy and refused on that basis.

As the Committee made their decision specifically about a temporary application and the Inspector made his decision about a temporary application (although he considered the arguments against given by myself and the Parish Council) I think this is very much a new application as it concerns permanent permission. What might be acceptable as a temporary permission to allow for short term economic effects and give a company a helping hand through difficult times must be looked at differently for a permanent business plan. It demands greater scrutiny and this scrutiny may identify concerns that for a short time might be acceptable but in the longer term would be less so.’ (22.12.16) Additional comments from Studley Parish Council: ‘I will be speaking against the proposal as this was the first decision made by the PC, the only reason the PC withdrew their objections was that, when contacted, we were unaware the Ward Member had objected and it would be going to committee.

As you are aware Studley PC is keen to minimise the number of applications that have to go to committee, and whilst we did not want to trigger this going to committee, we were uncomfortable about a permanent permission being granted.’ (11.01.16)

16/02835/FUL Land Adjoining Plot 37, Tything Road East, Kinwarton

No updates

16/03744/FUL The Nook, Perrymill Lane, Sambourne

No updates

16/02849/FUL 6 Tibbets Close, Meeting Lane, Alcester

Additional Plans A revised street scene drawing has been received to accompany the application to demonstrate how the proposed dwelling would relate to the neighbouring properties. The drawings include both Tibbets Close and Meeting Lane elevations. The drawing has been sent out for information purposes prior to the Committee Meeting.

Council’s Conservation Officer’s Comments (verbal comments received 21.12.2016 from HK) Concerns were raised regarding the boxy design, use of timber and brick and windows which could be regularised. Concerns were raised about how the dwelling relates individually and to the wider character of the area. The proposed development was not considered by the Council’s Conservation Officer however, to introduce harm to the dwellings along Meeting Lane due to the scale of the development.

Third party representations 1 further letter of no objection has been received in response to the case.