Agenda and minutes

The Chair confirmed that this would be the last Planning Committee meeting for Councillor Judith Rowley, who would not be standing for re-election in May 2018.  The Chair referred to the 16 years of hard work and dedicated service given by Councillor Rowley, including her time as Chair of the Planning Committee and thanked her on behalf of the Committee.

Councillor Rowley stated that it had been both a challenge and a pleasure and thanked the Chair for his comments.   

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Page.

Councillor Banger referred to agenda item 5, application 17/01089/FUL, Former Wednesfield High School, Lakefield Road, Wolverhampton WV11 3ES and to the presentation arranged for members of the Committee last week. 

Councillor Banger requested clarification as to whether it would be appropriate for Councillors who had attended that presentation to declare an interest.

Lisa Delrio, Senior Solicitor advised that Councillors who had attended the presentation would not need to declare an interest solely on the basis that they had attended the presentation, as the meeting had been arranged to provide information to members of the Committee and the Head of Planning would be referring to the presentation during his introduction of the item.

[To approve the minutes of the previous meeting as a correct record]

Resolved:

That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 14 November 2017 be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

[To consider any matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting]

There were no matters arising from the minutes of the previous meeting.

[To consider the application]

The Committee considered a report regarding application 17/01089/FUL, proposed residential development comprising 210 houses and 56 apartments with associated landscaping, highway amendments, parking and ancillary buildings.

Stephen Alexander, Head of Planning confirmed that the application had been deferred at Planning Committee on 14 November 2017 for additional information and clarification on several issues, which were referred to in the report and a meeting had been held last week with the applicant and members of the Committee.  He thanked Councillors for their involvement and support.

He referred to additional information received from the applicant which had been circulated as an Addendum report.

Ms Jane Trethewey, Service Lead Housing Development, City of Wolverhampton Council addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application.

A number of Councillors welcomed the application and the provision of essential, quality housing and it was noted that the questions raised by Councillors at the last meeting had led to further enhancements in the scheme. 

Resolved:

That planning application 17/01089/FUL be granted planning permission subject to conditions, including those below:

• Affordable housing

·       Submission of materials

·       Landscaping (including street furniture)

·       Accordance with recommendations of ecology survey

·       Bird and bat boxes

·       Signalised junction improvements

·       Archaeological watching brief

·       Submission of drainage details

·       Travel plan

·       Traffic calming measures

·       Electric charging points

·       Renewable energy

·       Boundary treatments

·       Management company

·       Tree protection fencing

·       Construction Management Plan

·       Acoustic/thermal glazing and vents

·       Bin store design

·       Provision of cycle storage

·       Finished floor levels

·       Lighting for public open space

·       Land remediation and gas protection measures

·       Provision of play facilities at Coleman Avenue.

Note for Information – Mining advisory.

[To consider the application]

The Committee considered a report regarding application 17/01363/FUL, change of use from Class A1 (Retail) to Sui Generis (Sunbed Salon).

Councillor Phil Bateman addressed the Committee and spoke in opposition to the application.

Ragbir Sahota, Planning Officer referred to the proposed change of use and confirmed that the unit had been vacant for 18 months and no alternative uses had been put forward.  In respect of traffic issues, the site was located in a highly accessible location and it was considered unlikely that the sunbed salon would generate a greater parking demand than for the existing use.

A Councillor referred to previous similar debates where there had been a conflict of uses and in this particular location it did not appear to be inappropriate and there appeared to be a demand for the service.

Resolved:

That planning application 17/01363/FUL be granted planning permission subject to conditions, including those below:

·       Hours of opening 9am – 10pm Monday to Friday, 9am – 7pm Saturday and 9am – 5pm Sunday and Bank Holidays

·       Details of plant and machinery

·       Ventilation systems

·       Hours of deliveries 8am – 6pm Monday to Saturday and 9am – 6pm Sunday and Bank Holidays

·       Refuse details

Cycle storage.

[To consider the application]

The Committee considered a report regarding application 17/01234/FUL, conversion of property into a five-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

A Councillor expressed concern at the loss of a family home and the growing trend of conversions to HMOs, the existing parking problems would be exacerbated and if the application was permitted it could have considerable local implications.

Resolved:

That planning application 17/01413/FUL be granted planning permission subject to conditions, including those below:

• Cycle parking
• Limit to the number of occupiers

Remove permitted development rights.

[To consider the application]

The Committee considered a report regarding application 17/01228/FUL, erection of one, four-bedroom house.

Ragbir Sahota, Planning Officer reported an update to the report since it had been published.  He confirmed that the applicant had submitted a plan detailing a smaller house.

Mrs Gill Shinton addressed the Committee and spoke in opposition to the application.

Ragbir Sahota advised that the character and appearance of the proposed new dwelling was considered to be in keeping with the surrounding area as was the scale and mass of the building.  He confirmed that the previous appeal had been in respect of two semi-detached dwellings and as part of that appeal, the Planning Inspector had not been concerned about the drainage or the parking.  An alternative access had not been proposed and a separate planning permission would be required to change the house into a HMO.

In answer to a question regarding the proposed size of the dwelling, Ragbir Sahota confirmed that the design and appearance would remain as per the original submission; however, it would be reduced off the boundary to make it more in keeping with the existing street scene.

A Councillor stated that applications for new houses in the city were welcomed; however, the application required further consideration and should be deferred to request additional information and further clarification.

A Councillor stated that given the history of the site and the options that were available to the applicants, a previous application for a two-bedroom dwelling would be more in keeping with the local area.

Resolved:

That planning application be refused, contrary to the recommendation in the report, for the following reason:

The scale, massing, size, appearance and design of the proposed dwelling would not be in keeping with the established character and appearance of the street scene contrary to UDP Policies D4, D6, D7, D8 and D9, BCCS Policies CSP4 and ENV3.

[To consider the application]

The Committee considered a report regarding application 17/01282/FUL, conversion of property into a six-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

Councillors John and Judith Rowley confirmed that neither of them was the Councillor referred to paragraph 5.1 of the report.

Several Councillors reiterated concerns regarding the increasing rise in conversions to HMOs and suggested that the Council should consider having a policy to give guidance for future applications.

Resolved:

That planning application 17/01282/FUL be granted planning permission subject to conditions, including those below:

• Provision of covered bin store area
• Provision of cycle store
• Restriction to no more than six residents

Remove permitted development rights for any extensions.

[To consider the application]

The Committee considered a report regarding application 17/00885/FUL, change of use from two semi-detached dwellings to a 12-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO).

Stephen Alexander, Head of Planning reported an update to the report since it had been published.  He confirmed that there was now a highway safety objection as the proposed driveway would create a one-way route which would result in cars having to either reverse on to the road or wait on the pavement, leading to a significant risk to pedestrian and highway safety and it was proposed that an additional reason for refusal be agreed.

Mr P. R. Baker addressed the Committee and spoke in opposition to the application.

Mr Bisla addressed the Committee and spoke in support of the application.

Several Councillors commented on the importance of the Committee receiving reports on HMOs and referred to the objections made by the Police.  In many cases the Police did not make comments and when they did it was significant and should be recognised.

In answer to a question regarding the ‘communal rooms’, Stephen Alexander confirmed that a new planning application would be required if it was proposed to change the use of those rooms.

Resolved:

That planning application 17/00885/FUL be refused planning permission for the following reasons:

• Impact on the Conservation Area and the character of the local area
• Loss of amenity
• Contrary to the promotion of a safe and cohesive community exacerbating crime and/or the fear of crime

Significant risk to pedestrian and highway safety.