Skip to main content

Meeting Details

Planning Committee
19 Nov 2019 - 18:30 to 20:00
Occurred
  • Documents
  • Attendance
  • Visitors
  • Declarations of Interests

Documents

Agenda

Public Session
1 pdf Minutes (139Kb)
To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 15 October 2019
31
RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 15 October 2019 be approved and signed by the Chairman
2 Apologies

To receive any apologies for non-attendance.

32
Apologies for non-attendance were submitted on behalf of Councillors B Cox and I Ford
3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

33
The Corporate Director Governance David Pattison stated that with regards to application 19/00738/FUL, under the Localism Act 2011, all members have a standing dispensation negating the requirement to declare an interest

 

Report of Development Management Team Manager

 

34

The Committee received the report of the Management Team Manager, together with information and details received after the agenda was prepared

19/00140/FUL Land Adjacent Park House And Parkfield Cottage, Park Lane, Lapley

There was one speaker, Jim Malkin, the Agent, who spoke for the application.

Councillor Lawrence commented that he could understand why a refusal might be considered to be unfair, based on the amount of reasonably recent development on the other side of the road, but he would support a refusal.

RESOLVED: that the application was refused as recommended

19/00562/FUL The Meadows, Middle Lane, Oaken

There was one speaker, John Anslow, who spoke against the application.

Councillor Spencer was concerned about the principle of the development, which represented 110% increase over the existing; all the Green Belt around Codsall is of high sensitivity; the fall back position should not be taken into account.

David Pattison responded that it was all about balance – is the harm clearly outweighed by very special circumstances? The fall back position is a legally acceptable argument, which has been accepted by Planning Inspectors.

Councillor Allen commented the proposal was an incursion, inappropriate and overly large and supported Councillor Spencer.

Councillor Cope queried whether costs would be awarded against the Council if the application was refused, when there was a fall back position.

David Pattison said generally costs were not awarded in Green Belt cases, but whether costs might be awarded should not drive the decision.

Councillor Reade commented he was comfortable with a refusal.

Councillor Spencer moved a motion for refusal on the grounds of being contrary to GB1, which was seconded by Councillor Allen.  Councillor Steel also supported refusal.

RESOLVED: that the application was overturned refused on the following grounds:

1.The proposed development is contrary to policy GB1 in the adopted Local Plan, in that it would result in a new building which is materially larger than the building it replaces and is therefore inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

 

2. The Local Planning Authority has considered the reasons advanced, including the proposed fall back position, but does not consider that these reasons constitute the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness.

 

19/00738/FUL South Staffordshire Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall

There was one speaker, Brian Holland, Chairman of Codsall Parish Council who spoke against the application.

 

David Pattison repeated his advice to Councillors that the Council had a legal duty to determine the application and confirmed that a dispensation had been granted to members of the Committee in relation to declarations of interest.

 

Councillor Ewart raised a number of areas of concern:

-The use of and colour of the proposed cladding

-The 1 metre overhang of the eaves – is this a current trend or will it stand the test of time?  

 The existing building continues to look good because of its simple style.

-If we were not the applicant, would we approve this?

 

Councillor Mason re-iterated that this application must be treated as any other. In his opinion, many of the objections raised by the Parish Council already applied to the existing building.

 

Councillor Boyle commented that all Council Buildings stand out.

Councillor Allen was not keen on the cladding and wondered if it could be more natural, possibly wood. She regretted the reduction of green space, but thought all Council buildings should be imposing.

 

Councillor Steel preferred brickwork rather than cladding and proposed a motion that the application was deferred to allow the materials to be re-considered. This was seconded by Councillor Allen. This motion was defeated.

 

Councillor Spencer queried the amount of car parking proposed. Simon Hawe confirmed that the Council’s parking standards were met.

 

Councillor Lees also queried the parking provision and commented the Hub was part of the Councils MTFS.

 

David Pattison reminded Members the decision should only be made on its planning merits.

Councillor Reade commented that a delay would be a disaster – the design of the existing building was probably not liked in the 1970’s. Councillor Mason emphasised only planning reason should be considered.

 

Councillor Cope asked if there were planning reasons to refuse the application. David Pattison said design was a question of taste – the test is not about whether one likes the design or not but rather does the proposal comply with policy or not?

 

RESOLVED: that the application was approved as recommended with 2 additional conditions:

 

12.The proposed car parking, servicing and circulation areas as shown on the approved plan, drawing CCH-KBS-ZZ-XX-DR-A-1200 Rev C01 shall be sustainably drained, hard surfaced in a bound material, lit and marked out prior to the first occupation of the extension hereby permitted. Thereafter these parking/servicing areas shall be retained in accordance with the approved plans for the lifetime of the development, unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

 

Reason

 

12. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

 

13. Secure, covered and safe cycle parking facilities shall be provided within the site prior to the first occupation of the extension in accordance with a scheme that has first been submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The approved facilities shall be retained in perpetuity.

 

Reason

 

13.In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Report of Corporate Director Governance
35

The Committee received the report of the Monitoring Officer informing the committee on key matters including training; changes that impact on National Policy; any recent appeal decisions; relevant planning enforcement cases (quarterly); and latest data produced by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government.

RESOLVED: that the Committee note the update report
Report of Assistant Director Democratic & Regulatory Services
36

The Committee received the report of the Monitoring Officer informing the committee on performance within the planning enforcement team and highlighting any key issues.

RESOLVED: that the Committee note the Planning Enforcement Update

Declarations of Interests

Member NameItem Ref.DetailsNature of DeclarationAction
No declarations of interest have been entered for this meeting.

Visitors

Visitor Information is not yet available for this meeting

Contact

Get in touch


Address

South Staffs Council

Wolverhampton Road, Codsall

South Staffordshire

WV81PX

Show on map

Opening Times

Calls

08:30 - 17:30

open

Visits

08:45 - 17:00

open

We are closed on weekends

     Contact details