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 Office, Upper Clifton Road, Sutton Coldfield - 2011/08087/PA
Upon being put to the vote, it was:-
8716 RESOLVED :-
That consideration of this application be deferred minded to refuse and pending further information. ______
Report No. 11 - Royal Mail Delivery Office, Upper Clifton Road, Sutton Coldfield - 2011/08056/PA
8717 RESOLVED :-
That planning permission be granted for the reason(s) set out in the report, subject to the conditions specified therein. ______
1092 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
Planning Applications in respect of the East area
Councillor Henley declared an interest in Reports Nos 12 and 13 and left the meeting during consideration thereof.
Report No. 12 - 160a Common Lane, Sheldon - 2012/00103/PA
The Area Planning Manager (East) reported back suggesting wording for a refusal for extended hours of operating having an adverse effect on noise and disturbance for the local residents, following Members deferral minded to refuse resolution at previous Committee.
8718 RESOLVED :-
That planning permission be refused. ______
Report No. 13 - 160 Common Lane, Sheldon - 2012/00601/PA
Councillor Anderson spoke against the application and raised the following points amongst others:-
• This was a convenience store which now wanted to sell alcohol.
• This was predominantly a residential area with an elderly community residing in bungalows.
• A previous approval had restricted the hours of operation to safeguard the amenities of residents.
• This retail shop was useful for the local area but the request to extend the hours of operation was inappropriate and not required.
• If approval was given then this would set a precedent for others in the future.
• Other stores only opened until 9pm.
• As a result of alcohol being purchased anti-social behaviour would increase.
The applicant’s agent then spoke in favour of the application and raised the following points amongst others:-
• There were no objections received from Regulatory Services, West Midlands Police and Transportation.
• The objections were largely about the noise and nuisance that would be caused if approval of extended opening hours was granted, but there was no evidence provided to clarify this.
1093 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
• The reason to open earlier would be for providing newspaper service and the late closing would allow it to compete with other businesses.
• The precedent had already been set as other traders already operated longer hours and therefore the applicant should also have the same opportunity.
• Supermarkets sold alcohol and operated 24 hours, why should the smaller shops not be able to have the same opportunity for their businesses.
• The approval of a 3 year period should be granted.
The Area Planning Manager (East) reported that Regulatory Services, Transportation and the West Midlands Police had no objections to this application. She then clarified to the agent who spoke in support of the application, that Condition No 4 as set out in the report was a standard implementation timeframe and not a temporary approval, but should Members wish to consider a temporary consent they could do so.
Councillor Linnecor and Jones considered that this application should be deferred minded to refuse.
Councillor Hutchings concurred with Councillor Anderson’s objections. He commented that the agent speaking on behalf of the applicant had made reference to comparisons between the applicant’s shop and a supermarket which was not the same. He then considered that this Committee should be consistent when determining this application as that of 160a Common Lane which was considered prior to this report.
8719 RESOLVED :-
That consideration of this application be deferred minded to refuse.
Councillor Henley then returned to the meeting. ______
Report No. 14 - 526 Church Road, Yardley - 2011/07176/PA
The Area Planning Manager (East) reported an update on the report in relation to the amended elevation of the existing building to be substituted into the planning condition.
Councillor Jones made reference to the previous planning history and queried whether work would be carried out to the original application and questioned whether this could be targeted.
1094 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
8720 RESOLVED :-
(a) That planning permission be granted for the reason(s) set out in the report, subject to the conditions specified therein and amended below:-
Amend Condition 1
Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans. The development hereby approved shall be implemented in accordance with the details submitted with the application and shown on drawing numbers 100; 103B; and 103
Reason: In order to define the permission in accordance with Paragraphs 3.8 and 3.10 of the Birmingham UDP 2005.
b) that the application premises be targeted. ______
Report No. 15 - Former DHL Depot, Landor Street, Nechells - 2011/08680/PA
The Area Planning Manager (East) clarified that the application would allow for small elements of food waste found within recycling waste to be safely dealt with on site.
Councillor Smith sought clarification as to what percentage of small food the applicant was referring to. The Area Planning Manager (East) responded that it was not possible to clarify the percentage but it would be food waste accidentally contained within recycling waste. The facility was not suitable for processing significant quantities of food, and the revised condition would still prevent this.
8721 RESOLVED :-
That planning permission be granted for the reason(s) set out in the report, subject to the conditions specified therein ______
Planning Applications in respect of the South area
Report No. 16 - Harborne Village Mews Ltd, 343-353 High Street, Harborne - 2011/07631/PA
The Principal Planning Officer advised that she wished to highlight issues raised by an objector stating that this part of the High Street was not primarily retail or commercial. She also wished to add a Condition to confirm that there was no therapy unit being applied for although it was indicated on the drawing.
An objector spoke against the application and raised the following points amongst others:-
1095 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
• The developers had changed their mind regarding the application.
• The development was poorly designed as it was adjacent to a busy bus stop.
• There were only 18 car parking spaces.
• There was only one car club operating in the city centre
• He urged the Committee to reject the application. The age condition would still be needed even if the rest of the application was approved.
The applicant’s agent then spoke in favour of the application and raised the following points amongst others:-
• The apartments were age restricted.
• They were located at the busiest part of the High Street.
• They were well served by buses.
• The apartments were not selling and there was a shortage of apartments, the age condition was a very real constraint.
• A ground floor apartment would be for commercial use, resulting in 22 apartments being for sale.
• The apartments were sustainable.
• No objections had been received.
Councillor Clancy commented that he was familiar with the area and was unsure what the use would be. He raised concerns that the area was busy, there was inadequate parking and as the hairdressers had been granted approval of this did not mean it would set a precedent. He agreed to the removal of the condition but was concerned that the Committee was not being informed of opening hours.
Councillor Jones concurred with Councillor Clancy’s views regarding parking and queried whether any of the apartments were occupied
Councillor Henley made reference to 3.3 in the report and the previous application to remove Condition C8 that had been refused and he emphasised that the condition should remain. He also stipulated that in relation to the reduction in price of the apartments, that this was not an issue for Planning, but for the developers. He also stressed that there should be laws that allowed developers to stop re-applying previous identical applications.
1096 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
Councillor Smith concurred with colleagues’ view and the majority of older people did not need cars and spoke of the importance of keeping the age restriction.
Councillor Hutchings concurred with those views in relation to Condition C8 and the issues of the change of use of the shop and extra parking spaces.
Councillor Smith proposed that the application be deferred minded to refuse.
The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that the previous refusal was a delegated decision. This new application had the number of residential units reduced and two extra parking spaces. The application for this commercial use within the wider centre accorded with policies in the UDP and PPS4. She understood there to be limited occupation of the apartments.
The Transportation Officer advised that the application predated PPG3 guidelines. He went onto explain that due the parking spaces and on-street available, there was merit in relaxing the age restriction. He confirmed that there were no objections and due to the concerns raised, he stressed the need to re-evaluate the site.
Councillor Henley seconded the motion to defer minded to refuse. The Area Planning Manager (South) then sought clarification as the reasons for deferral mindful to refuse. Councillor Smith then advised the reason was that it would have an impact on residents’ amenity value.
The Area Planning Manager (South) advised the Committee no objections had been raised by officers. Councillor Henley then commented that there was no material change and nothing had changed previously.
8722 RESOLVED :-
That consideration of the application referred to in the report be deferred with the Committee mindful to refuse, on the grounds of amenity for existing residents, and parking. ______
Report No. 17 - Land Adjacent To 26a Elvetham Road, Edgbaston - 2011/07607/PA
Councillor Hutchings, after seeking legal advice, declared an interest in the following item and left the room.
The Principal Planning Officer (South) confirmed that a letter had been received from the agent wishing to respond to objections, she confirmed that the pre- application discussions had taken place and the current plan was an appropriate design. The Principal Planning Officer (South) also confirmed that a further response had been received from local residents objecting that a 3 storey house was unacceptable.
1097 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
An objector spoke against the application and raised the following points amongst others:-
• He was representing local residents who were concerned that a three storey house was unacceptable.
• The report went against the Conservation Officer’s advice • Why was advice given and not considered.
• The development was not in keeping with the area.
• The Planning Inspectorate did not encourage the development.
• No development should be carried out and the application should be refused.
• There would be a loss of public open space.
• Boundary A was incorrectly positioned on the plans.
The Principal Planning Officer (South) confirmed that the Inspector did not rule out approval of the application, the design of the property had been improved from previous scheme and was in keeping with character of Conservation Area.
The Area Planning Manager (South) confirmed that the previous scheme was for three dwellings and was of poor design. The current scheme was for one dwelling and would be appropriately sited and a very different design from previous one. She noted that the Conservation Officer thought the design was significantly improved.
Councillor Beauchamp commented that the size of the site was large and expected there to be discrepancies with the boundary, he welcomed the design and that it was situated in the correct location.
Councillor Smith noted that the Conservation Officer still had objections and had issues relating to openness of the site and queried whether it would reflect the open nature of a listed building.
Councillor Henley welcomed the design of the property, he sought clarification as to whether if the application could be refused if inappropriate building materials were used.
The Principal Planning Officer (South) confirmed that information relating to the boundary on the plan was only slightly different to that of the report with it being closer to Vicarage by 4m on the Elvetham Road boundary. She also confirmed that the proximity to 26a Elvetham Road was 33m from the rear elevation.
The Area Planning Manager (South) confirmed that the discrepancy relating to the boundary was very limited and would not affect the decision of the Committee, and confirmed that the condition for building materials was indeed very important.
1098 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
8723 RESOLVED :-
That planning permission be granted for the reason(s) set out in the report, subject to the conditions specified therein. ______
Report No. 18 - 274 Vicarage Road, Kings Heath - 2012/00080/PA
The Principal Planning Officer (South) confirmed that this application was for a change of use which would be considered under the new SPD guidelines.
Councillor Henley welcomed this and made reference to recommendation 8.2 and that the Brandwood Ward Councillors had strong views against takeaways. He welcomed the recommendation to defer minded to refuse. Councillor Henley questioned whether the word “consent” should be replaced with “refusal” in 8.I and it was agreed it should be corrected.
Councillor Willis welcomed the work carried out by officers in relation to 4.2, 4.3 and 6.3 within the report and in the production of the SPD, and stressed that applications relating to takeaways needed to be addressed.
8724 RESOLVED :-
(a) That the refusal of the permission be deferred until the 19 March, to allow the notification period for the Brandwood Ward Councillors to expire;
(b) that, subject to the Brandwood Ward Councillors not raising substantial support to the proposal, the application be refused for the reason set out in the report. ______
Report No. 19 - 331-337 Reservoir Road, Selly Oak - 2011/07887/PA
The Principal Planning Officer (South ) advised that Councillor B Jones requested a condition be attached to prohibit change of use, and that it was already attached, and Councillor B Jones also expressed car parking concerns. She also made reference to 4.4 of the report and comments had been received from the Selly Oak Labour Party to clarify their comments.
Councillor Smith sought confirmation as to whether West Midlands Police’s comments relating to boundary treatment could be more robust. It was confirmed that Condition 4 was attached that would address this.
8725 RESOLVED :-
That planning permission be granted for the reason(s) set out in the report, subject to the conditions specified therein. ______
1099 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
BIG CITY PLAN: EASTSIDE MASTERPLAN (CURZON DISTRICT)
The following report was submitted:-
(See document No. 2)
Councillor Beauchamp made reference to the equipment failure and he stressed that the room needed to facilitate the nature of the presentation.
Councillor Henley whilst welcoming the plan, was concerned that the HS2 train station would be in a separate location from the others, resulting in commuters having to travel by foot with luggage to other stations. He stressed that the walkways needed to be addressed for example a shuttle service. He also commented that there was no mention of vehicles for example taxis arriving/departing. He commented that the scheme was good but needed some fine tuning.
8726 RESOLVED :-
That the views of the Committee be noted. ______
APPEAL DECISIONS RECEIVED FROM THE PLANNING INSPECTORATE IN FEBRUARY 2012
The following schedule was submitted:-
(See document No. 3)
The Area Planning Manager (South) commented on three of the cases. Councillor Beauchamp was concerned that the application at 438 Meadway, Kitts Green had been overturned and as a result this could have serious consequences. He thought the health concerns around telecommunications applications was scaremongering. They were now an every-day factor in modern life, but the decisions at St Pauls Square were the right thing.
8727 RESOLVED :-
That the report be noted. ______
VISITS TO SITES IN CONNECTION WITH PLANNING APPLICATIONS
8728 There were no site visits arising from this meeting. ______
OTHER URGENT BUSINESS
The Chairman was of the opinion that the following items should be considered as a matter of urgency in view of the need to expedite consideration thereof and instruct officers to act:-
1100 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
CLIMATE CHANGE
8729 The Chairman made reference to the importance of climate change and the implications of this and urged that the ‘Places for the Future’ SPD be considered as an agenda item and sought Members’ views on what should be considered under this item. Councillor Linnecor advised that he wished to see trees be part of this item. The Area Planning Manager noted that he was not certain about the progress of the document, but that the Committee could be updated at the next meeting. ______
BIRMINGHAM POST AND MAIL
The following Urgent Business report was submitted:-
(See document No. 4)
The Planning Officer (City Centre) advised the reason for the report to be tabled at the meeting was that consent was sought for an additional clause to be added to the Legal Agreement stating that the developer would pay £75,000 towards the costs of relocating the telecommunications equipment at Lloyd House following discussions between the developer and West Midlands Police. The Committee were advised that a further letter had been received from solicitors acting for the Police which reiterated their objections to the development requesting that the planning conditions be amended to address potential interference from construction cranes, that they be allowed to address the Committee, that should be party to the legal agreement and confirming that they had suggested a payment from the developer to enable their equipment to be relocated. The Planning Officer explained that the Committee had already resolved to approve the development subject to the legal agreement and that there was no further opportunity for the Police to address the Planning Committee or requirement that they be party to the legal agreement. A construction management condition had already been agreed. The additional clause being recommended was to provide further safeguards to the Police.
Councillor Henley welcomed the report as the costs should be met by the developer and not West Midlands Police. He also sought clarification as to whether the financial contribution could be guaranteed by a bank.
The Planning Officer (City Centre) confirmed that West Midlands Police had no objections to Phase 1 and regarding Phase 2, no work could be carried out until the financial contribution had been settled.
Councillor Hutchings queried who was responsible for the telecommunications equipment. The Chairman advised that it was the responsibility of the Home Office.
1101 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
8730 RESOLVED :-
That planning permission be granted for the reason(s) set out in the report, subject to the conditions specified therein and amended below:-
Amend Condition 35 to read:
Prior to first occupation a package of highway measures shall be agreed with the Local Planning and Highway Authorities and all necessary consents, licenses, permits or agreements shall have been completed or obtained in respect of such measures. The package of measures shall include alterations to St Chad's junction, access requirements on Weaman Street and Printing House Street, any necessary Traffic Regulation Orders, alterations to on-street parking bays with compensation for lost revenue from any lost BCC on-street pay and display bays, redundant footway crossings removal, road markings, street lighting and paving materials and are to be carried out at the applicants expense to Birmingham City Council specification. The development shall not be occupied until all such measures have been substantially completed in accordance with the approved details. ______
Planning Application – 2012/001342/ENF – Baldwins Public House
8731 Councillor Smith had received communication from an objector in relation to the above application, seeking clarification as to the lighting scheme in the car park as lights which were tall were being installed. The Area Planning Manager (South) confirmed that officers would visit the site and report back to Councillor Smith. ______
AUTHORITY TO CHAIRMAN AND OFFICERS
8732 RESOLVED :-
That the Chairman (or in his absence, the Vice-Chairman if appropriate) is hereby authorised to act until the next meeting of the Committee except that, in respect of the exercise of the Council’s non-Executive functions, the appropriate Chief Officers are hereby authorised to act in consultation with the Chairman and that the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to affix the Corporate Seal to any document necessary to give effect to a decision of the said officers acting in pursuance of the power hereby delegated to them; further that a report of all action taken under this authority be submitted to the next meeting and that such report shall explain why this authority was used. ______
1102 Planning Committee – 15 March 2012
EXCLUSION OF THE PUBLIC
8733 RESOLVED :-
That, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, which includes the following exempt information, the public be now excluded from the meeting:-
Agenda Item etc Paragraph of Exempt Information Under Revised Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972
Private Section of the Minutes 3 of Last Meeting
1103