Agenda and minutes

The Members had before them:

A.    The Agenda papers (previously circulated);

B.    A copy of the summary presentations from the public participants invited to speak (previously circulated); and

C.   The Minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2021 (previously circulated).

Cllr Tom Wells for Cllr Martin Allen.

An apology was received from Cllr Martin Allen.

Cllr Richard Udall declared an interest that he had submitted a letter regarding the application at Agenda item 5 but after seeking legal advice, indicated that he would be speaking and voting on the application.

The Council has put in place arrangements which usually allow one speaker each on behalf of objectors, the applicant and supporters of applications to address the Committee.  Speakers are chosen from those who have made written representations and expressed a desire to speak at the time an application is advertised.  Where there are speakers, presentations are made as part of the consideration of each application.

Please note that due to Covid requirements places at the meeting are limited. All members of the public who wish to attend the meeting should register by e-mail with the officer below and places will be allocated on a first come first served basis.

Those presentations made are recorded at the minute to which they relate.

To confirm the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2021. (previously circulated)

RESOLVED that the Minutes of the meeting held on 23 March 2021 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

The Committee considered the proposed new cycle/footbridge to span the River Severn and associated access paths to the local highway on land including and between Gheluvelt Park, Waterworks Road on the east side of the River Severn and the restored landfill site, Hallow Road, on the west side of the River Severn, Worcester.

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

The report set out the Head of Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Residential Amenity, Landscape Character, and Visual Impacts, Historic Environment, Contaminated Land, Traffic, Highway Safety and Public Rights of Way, Ecology and Biodiversity, Water Environment and Flood Risk, Other Matter: Lighting, Green Space, Crime and Safety, Safeguarding Waste Management Sites, Utilities, Economic Impacts, Human Rights Act 1998, and Consultation.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that the bridge deck would measure approximately 143 metres long and would have a useable width of approximately 3.5 metres wide, and the bridge pylon would have a maximum height of 30 metres. The shared use path across the restored Kepax landfill site would measure approximately 405 metres long by 4 metres wide. The shared use path on the east side of the river in Gheluvelt Park would measure approximately 130 metres long by 3 metres wide. It was considered that the scale, massing and design of the proposed development would not have an unacceptable adverse impact upon the character and appearance of the local area. Furthermore, on balance, it was considered that the development would not cause an unacceptable overbearing, overshadowing or overlooking implications that detracts from residential amenity due its design, size and location, subject to the imposition of appropriate conditions, including the detailed design, colour palate, surfacing details, CEMP, LEMP and associated method statement for planting and habitat creation, and details of outdoor seating.

It was considered that the proposal would lead to 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of the designated heritage assets of Riverside Conservation Area, Registered Park and Garden of Gheluvelt Park, Gheluvelt Park Band Stand, Nos. 1-12 Gheluvelt Park, Gheluvelt Park Arch, Gates and Railings, Octagonal Lodge, and Hallow Bank. Paragraph 196 of the NPPF (2019) stated "where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use".

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning considered that the proposal would be an addition to the family of bridges over the River Severn, providing a new vantage point where residents and visitors would be able to enjoy a view of the river and Riverside Conservation Area. The proposal would provide a new east-west link and cycle / pedestrian crossing over the River Severn, improving access and allowing the riverside to be enjoyed by more people, increasing the leisure use of the riverside and Gheluvelt Park.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1076.

The Committee considered the Planning application made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to vary condition 1 (Approved Plans), remove condition 6 (requiring all doors to the building to remain closed), remove condition 22 (requirement for installation of roller shutter door) and to vary condition 23 (requirement to install acoustic fencing) of planning permission ref: 19/000016/CM, so as to remove the requirement to install a roller shutter door and reduce the extent of the acoustic fencing to be installed at Digaway and Clearaway Ltd, Grove House Yard, Tewkesbury Road, Upton-Upon-Severn, Worcestershire.

The report set out the background of the proposal, the proposal itself, the relevant planning policy and details of the site, consultations and representations.

The report set out the Head of Planning and Transport Planning’s comments in relation to Landscape Character and Visual Impacts, Residential Amenity, Ecology and Biodiversity and Other Matters – Water Environment and Flood Risk, and Traffic and Highway Safety.

The Head of Planning and Transport Planning concluded that based upon the advice of Worcestershire Regulatory Services and the Environment Agency, it was considered that this application would have no adverse noise, dust or odour impacts on residential amenity or that of human health, subject to the imposition of the relevant extant conditions and revised conditions including  compliance with the submitted Dust Management Plan and the maintenance of the installed acoustic fencing.

Based on the advice of the County Landscape Officer, it was considered that this application would not have an adverse or detrimental impact upon the character and appearance of the local area, subject to the imposition of appropriate extant conditions.

Based on the advice of the County Ecologist and Worcestershire Wildlife Trust, it was considered that this application would not have an unacceptable impact upon ecology and biodiversity at the site or in the surrounding area, subject to the imposition of the relevant extant conditions and a revised condition requiring compliance with the submitted Dust Management Plan.

Taking into account the provisions of the Development Plan and in particular Policies WCS 1, WCS 2, WCS 3, WCS 6, WCS 8, WCS 9, WCS 10, WCS 11, WCS 12, WCS 14 and WCS 15 of the Adopted Worcestershire Waste Core Strategy and Policies SWDP 1, SWDP 2, SWDP 3, SWDP 4, SWDP 8, SWDP 12, SWDP 21, SWDP 22, SWDP 25, SWDP 28, SWDP 29, SWDP 30 and SWDP 31 of the Adopted South Worcestershire Development Plan, it was considered the proposal would not cause demonstrable harm to the interests intended to be protected by these policies or highway safety.

The representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning made particular reference to the local councillor’s comments set out in the report and read them out to the Committee.

In the ensuing debate, the following points were raised:

·         In response to a query, the representative of the Head of Planning and Transport Planning explained that since the last application, the applicant had installed the acoustic fencing.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 1077.