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.