70
The Committee received the report of the Development Management Team Leader, together with information and details received after the agenda was prepared.
19/00636/FUL – 1 ESTRIDGE LANE, GREAT WYRLEY, WALSALL WS6 6EL – APPLICANT – MISS SARA JOYCE – PARISH – GREAT WYRLEY
This was a retrospective application in respect of a boundary fence.
Councillor Kath Perry spoke against the proposal as the Local Member. Councillor Perry commented that the fence was inappropriate in the street scene and she had concerns over highway safety. The application was contrary to EQ11 and paragraph 130 of the NPPF.
Councillor Lawrence supported Councillor Perry’s comments. He considered that there was a loss of amenity for the houses opposite and road safety issues. Councillor Lawrence had sent members of Committee dashcam footage of the junction, together with photographs, which were shown to Committee. He proposed that the application was refused on the grounds of highway safety and loss of amenity, contrary to EQ9.
Councillor Janet Johnson seconded the proposed refusal.
Simon Hawe, from County Highways, agreed that visibility had been reduced by the fence. He had no speed data, but he noted the presence of speed bumps and estimated traffic would be moving at approximately 20mph, in which case the visibility was still within the parameters of Manual for Streets for forward visibility.
Councillor Ford considered a hedge would have the same effect and would not need permission.
Councillor Allen was concerned that this would set a precedent in open plan settings. Councillor Bond commented there had been similar issues in Wombourne. Councillor Cox asked if we could have an independent highways opinion.
Manjit Dhillon clarified it was each case on its own merits, the report is clear, there are no highways objections and no objections on the grounds of EQ 9.
RESOLVED: that the application be refused on the following grounds
1. ‘The erection of fencing, by means of enclosing an area of open space within an area characterised by open space and street corners, would have an unacceptable impact upon the street scene and visual character of the area. The proposal is therefore considered not to be in accordance with Core Strategy policy EQ11 and the South Staffordshire Design Guide SPD 2018.’
2.‘The proposed development would be prejudicial to highway safety because it reduces adequate visibility, contrary to Core Strategy policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy
19/00694/FUL – LAND SOUTH WEST OF SOUTH CANNOCK FARM, JACOBS HALL LANE, GREAT WYRLEY – APPLICANT – MR RICHARD DUNKLEY – PARISH – GREAT WYRLEY
Councillor Kath Perry spoke as a member of the public, as she was not a Ward Member. She accepted there were no planning reasons for refusal, but requested an additional condition, requiring an existing building elsewhere on the site, the retention of which had recently been refused, to be demolished before the stables were erected.
Manjit Dhillon clarified that each application had to be considered on its own merits and an appeal could be lodged against the refusal of the other building.
Councillor Reade had concerns that there was no storage and no area for manure.
Kelly Harris and Manjit Dhillon both emphasised it was each case on its own merits
20/00135/VAR – LAND ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF HOBNOCK ROAD, ESSINGTON – APPLICANT - BOVIS HOMES LTD – PARISH – ESSINGTON
A statement was read out by the Corporate Director Planning and Infrastructure on behalf of the applicant supplied as part of the variation of condition application.
Councillor Fisher spoke as a local member and raised his concern that the original drainage condition had not been discharged, putting residents at risk. He requested the application was deferred to consider the breach of condition
Kelly Harris advised that if the drainage can't be resolved we will have to consider enforcement action. If work on site continues, it is at the developers own risk.
Councillor Steel suggested an amended wording to condition 5, to take account of the fact the applicant is in breach. He didn’t support deferral.
Manjit Dhillon confirmed that as a Section 73 application, it would be a stand-alone permission. Any condition must meet the tests in the NPPF.
Councillor Steel proposed the amended wording which was seconded by Councillor Allen
RESOLVED: that approval be delegated to the Team Manager to issue a decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106
If this has not been achieved by 15th September 2020 this application will be referred back to the Planning Committee, with condition 5 amended as follows:
5. Before the 30th June 2020 a scheme for the provision and implementation of foul drainage works shall be submitted for the approval of the Local Planning Authority and concurrently with any relevant discharge of condition application for approved application 18/00450/REM. No further occupation of any property shall be permissible from the date of the decision notice until the approved scheme has been completed.
20/00284/FUL – HILL FARM, BOGNOP ROAD, ESSINGTON, WOLVERHAMPTON WV4 4XF – APPLICANT – MR ROWE – PARISH – HILTON
Councillor Cope as local member had no objection to an extension to the temporary permission.
RESOLVED: that the application be approved as recommended subject to conditions.
20/00341/FUL – PUMPING STATION, DIMMINGSDALE ROAD, LOWER PENN, WOLVERHAMPTON WV4 4XF – APPLICANT – SEVERN TRENT WATER LTD – PARISH – LOWER PENN.
Councillors Reade and Bond supported the application.
RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended.