Birmingham City Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL PLANNING COMMITTEE 15 MARCH 2012 MINUTES OF A MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMITTEE HELD ON THURSDAY, 15 MARCH 2012 AT 1100 HOURS IN COMMITTEE ROOMS 3 AND 4, COUNCIL HOUSE, BIRMINGHAM PRESENT :- Councillor Douglas Osborn in the Chair; Councillors Beauchamp, Clancy, Cornish, Delaney, Henley, Hutchings, Jones, Linnecor, Smith and Willis. ****************************** PUBLIC ATTENDANCE 8705 The Chairman welcomed members of the public to the meeting, indicating that a leaflet had been circulated explaining how the Committee operated. He stressed that, because the Committee was a quasi-judicial one, no decisions had been made before the meeting. _______________________________________________________________ APOLOGIES 8706 Apologies for non-attendance were submitted on behalf of Councillors Fazal, Griffiths, Sharpe and Zaffar. _______________________________________________________________ CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS (A) Future Meetings 8707 The Chairman reported that the next 3 meetings were scheduled on Thursday 22 March, Wednesday 4 April and then Thursday 12 April 2012. _______________________________________________________________ (B) Letter Received 8708 The Chairman reported that a letter had been received from the University Hospital concerning parking, which was circulated to all Members. _______________________________________________________________ 1088 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012 MINUTES 8709 The Minutes of the meeting held on 1 March 2012 were approved as a true and correct record subject to the following insertion:- Councillor Smith requested the following be inserted to Report 20 – Royal Mail Delivery Office, Upper Cliton Road, Sutton Coldfield – 2011/08084/PA (8694 refers):- Councillor Smith commented that English Heritage listed the 1942 Building for a reason, namely its heritage value and not its aesthetics. _______________________________________________________________ MATTERS ARISING 8710 There were no matters arising. _______________________________________________________________ NOTIFICATION BY MEMBERS OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS THAT THEY CONSIDER SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY COMMITTEE Planning Application No 2012/00392/PA – Land to rear 174 Baldwins Lane, Hall Green, Birmingham, B28 0QA 8711 Councillor Smith requested that this application be referred to Committee for determination in view of the access way and properties in the surrounding area. _______________________________________________________________ PETITIONS 8712 There were no petitions received. _______________________________________________________________ REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION The following report was submitted:- (See document No. 1) Planning Application in respect of the City Centre Report No. 7 – 1-3 Bond Street, Hockley - 2011/08319/PA Councillor Smith welcomed this application and expressed her appreciation of the way in which this locally listed building was to be retained. 8713 RESOLVED :- That planning permission be granted for the reason(s) set out in the report, subject to the conditions specified therein. _______________________________________________________________ 1089 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012 Planning Applications in respect of the North West area Report No. 8 – 156 Birmingham Road, Wychbold Hotel, Sutton Coldfield - 2011/08638/PA Councillor Maureen Cornish expressed her concerns in relation to the applicant requesting a further 3 year extension period for the implementation of the development. She considered that the current state of the property was poorly maintained and posed a health and safety issue. She also suggested that an additional condition be inserted in relation to this. Councillor Beauchamp concurred with Councillor Maureen Cornish’s views and further added that the site was not being looked after and that the applicant should be asked to commence with the development. The Chairman then sought clarification from Members in relation to referring their concerns over the conditions of the site to Regulatory Services, which was agreed by all. 8714 RESOLVED :- That the matter be referred to Regulatory Services in relation to the concerns raised above in relation to the condition of the site. _______________________________________________________________ Report No. 9 - Royal Mail Delivery Office, Upper Clifton Road, Sutton Coldfield - 2011/08088/PA The Area Planning Manager (North West) reported updates on the report as follows:- (1) Condition 15 to be removed as an amended road and car park layout had been received and was now satisfactory. (2) Condition 17 – Tree works – to be amended to require specific compliance with the arboricultural report. (3) Amendments to the structure of remaining conditions to allow the separate discharge as conditions relating to the residential/office and delivery office elements of the scheme. Councillor Maureen Cornish commented that she supported Option A which would be better for local residents. She considered that whilst Option B met the requirements, a large number of trees would have to be removed. She indicated that this site would need to be redeveloped one way or another and emphasised that both options A and B should have been presented at the same time. Councillor Clancy sought clarification as to whether or not there would be loss of the woodland as per the model displayed. 1090 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012 Councillor Jones indicated that she did not agree with Option A and had some concerns with Option B. She made reference to potential access problems to Tudor Hill as whilst on the site visit the coach was having great difficulty in turning around. She emphasised that there could be 27 houses using this access, removal vans and future delivery problems. She also sought clarification as to how many visitors were estimated to visit the 1879 listed building. Councillor Hutchings concurred with Councillor Maureen Cornish’s comments and considered that this application was unsatisfactory and that he would be voting against it. Councillor Smith sought clarification as to what percentage of the listed building would be lost, to which the response was 50%. The Area Planning Manager (North West) in responding to Members’ queries emphasised that each application should be considered on its own merits. He reported that the proposal had been developed in conjunction with the advice from the Conservation Officer to obtain a balance in order to preserve the building and allow the post office to operate their business. The Area Planning Manager (North West) then indicated that any impact on trees would be inevitable, however, Option B would have a lesser impact than Option A. He then reported that there would be a loss of some trees around the woodland edge which would be replaced and the long term plan would be to achieve healthier trees on the site. The Transportation Officer reported that Option B allowed improved turning facilities for vehicles to access the Tudor House site. An assessment was carried out on residential traffic and there were no highway issues. Councillor Linnecor sought clarification as to what percentage of trees would be lost. The Area Planning Manager (North West) reported that in terms of the tree survey the aim was to retain as many trees as possible but there were a selection of trees that had to be removed. The Tree Officer looked at the future of the woodland and ways to maximise the health of retained trees. Councillor Beauchamp considered that Option A was a far better proposal than Option B as Option A would have a Heritage Centre which would allow visitors to visit, whereas Option B would have an emphasis on commercial business. He expressed his disappointment at the Post Office for presenting the proposals in this manner and, therefore, it would be a difficult decision to make. Councillor Smith highlighted that it was important to respect the views of the English Heritage as it was crucial that the heritage was not lost. The Area Planning Manager (South) highlighted that the proposed Option B was a good way forward in achieving both an opportunity for the post office and 1091 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012 also to preserve the 1879 listed building. He considered that Option B offered a wide package of benefits within the scheme: the listed buildings, improving a run-down site, maintaining the Post Office on site, maintaining access to the potential future railway station next door, new housing, and long-term tree management. It was then put to the vote to approve the application, 2 voted in favour, 6 voted against, and 2 abstained. Councillor Linnecor proposed deferring the application in order to see an Option C, seconded by Councillor Hutchings. The Area Planning Manager (South) noted that discussions for the site had been in progress for years and that there was no Option C, and that the Committee needed to determine the application before them. Councillor Linnecor proposed reasons for refusal: demolition of the listed building, insufficient Section 106 monies, ecology, and transportation. The Transportation Officer stated he would wish to discuss further any possible highway reasons for refusal. It was then moved to defer the application in order to receive further advice on the four areas of concern: 5 voted in favour, 3 voted against and 2 abstentions. 8715 RESOLVED :- That consideration of this application be deferred minded to refuse and pending further information. _______________________________________________________________ Report No. 10 - Royal Mail Delivery