Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Baker and Leytham.

The Chairman, Councillor Marshall declared a personal interest in application no. 19/00584/FUL as objector known to him.

The Minutes of the Meeting held on 3 June 2019 previously circulated were taken as read, approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Applications for permission for development were considered with the recommendations of the Director of Place and Community and any letters of representation and petitions of observations/representations together with a supplementary report of observations/representations received since the publication of the agenda in association with Planning Applications 19/00550/FUL & 19/00584/FUL.

19/00550/FUL – Erection of 3 sets of security gates, CCTV and associated facilities (junctions of Keepers Road with Walsall Road, Endwood Drive with Rosemary Hill Road and Park Drive with Rosemary Hill Road)

Little Aston Park, Little Aston, Sutton Coldfield, Staffordshire

For:- LAPRA Ltd.

RESOLVED: That this application be deferred to allow sufficient time for the re-consultation and consideration of the additional information received since the publication of the committee report.

19/00584/FUL – Removal of condition 2 of permission 10/00472/FUL relating to removal of fence

Hawkesyard Estate, Armitage Lane, Armitage, Rugeley

For:- Mrs R Whorton

RESOLVED: That application to remove condition 2 of permission 10/00472/FUL be approved subject to conditions in the report of the Director of Place and Community.

(Prior to consideration of the application, representations were made by Mr Alan Kirkbride (Objector) and Ms Janet Hodson of JVH Town Planning Consultants Ltd. (Applicant’s Agent))

Purpose of report was to highlight to members that a strategic major planning application had been received and to allow members the opportunity to raise any key planning issues that they would wish to be included or expanded upon when the full report comes before them for consideration and determination at a later date.

The Planning Officer explained the proposals and set out the planning context.

Issues raised by Members included:-

Education/Welfare provision – questioned whether welfare facilities would be retained/provided for those using the lake/former borrow pit.  If facilities lost would like assurance that facilities elsewhere would be provided.

Highways – access and egress points throughout the site need to be fully considered particularly following the consequences of the Hawksyard Estate where there are local access and egress issues, with only one access/egress provided and still there’s a second point of access being unofficially used there by residents.

Affordable Housing – would like clarification on the housing mix and provision and the housing numbers to be attributed to Lichfield District verses Cannock District.  Whose housing numbers would this housing development count against?

Welcome retention of the Borrow Pit Lake.

Vehicular Access from Armitage Road – need to consider quantum of housing that would be served by this one access – clarification on the appropriateness of this sought including:–

Impact that it would have on the refuse collections.

Flood Risk & Drainage – need to ensure the drainage of land is addressed fully following the experience from Hawksyard Estate that experience standing water.

Cycles & Pedestrian connectivity – important to ensure good pedestrian and cycle connectivity, including good links to facilities including café and small retail that can walk to in order to reduce motor vehicle use.

HS2 need to be fully reviewed as part of the background to this application including the use of part of the land as a compound for HS2.

Parking provision – need to ensure adequate provision within the development and learn from mistakes elsewhere in district.  Also need road design to include sufficient room for two cars to pass on all roads. 

Health and Wellbeing Strategy - sport and recreation facilities important to us – consider opportunities for people to participate close by to where they live – important to have as many facilities as possible close to the new housing.

Solar panel in middle of site – questioned whether it will be an energy neutral development.

Primary School provision – need to ensure sufficient secondary school provision is provided as well as primary school as Friary school already full.

Sport and Recreation – noted the existing miniature railway within site to be lost – asked if it can be retained and reconfigured/for a community benefit – as of national interest.

Contamination Land – questioned how this is to be dealt with?

Demolition/site clearance and remediation – noted its’ a massive civil project – question how much can be done without disruption? What materials can be used/retained on-site? What protection will be given to public when  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.