►
From YouTube: Planning Committee - 08/07/2021
Description
BCC Planning Committee
Link to Agenda Papers -
https://birmingham.cmis.uk.com/birmingham/Meetings/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/12204/Committee/4/Default.aspx
A
That's
brilliant!
Thank
you
good
morning,
everyone
and
welcome
to
this
morning's
planning
committee.
I'm
councillor
karen
mccarthy,
I'm
the
chair
of
the
planning
committee
and
for
this
morning,
once
again
I
am
a
disembodied
voice.
You
can
see
the
rest
of
the
the
committee,
but
I'm
actually
sitting
below
the
the
camera
at
the
the
front.
Hopefully
they'll.
Let
me
be
shown
on
camera
again
soon,
but
for
this
morning,
that's
where
we
are.
A
So
even
if
you
really
hate
something,
you
have
to
say
the
right
side
of
the
the
law
in
expressing
your
concerns
so
over
to
the
agenda,
and
as
I
mentioned
last
time,
we
are
changing
over
to
a
new
webcast
system.
This
meeting
will
be
webcast
for
live
and
or
subsequent
broadcast
by
the
council's
youtube
meetings
site.
It's
a
very
long
reference
which
is
included
in
the
agenda
item.
A
Item
two
is
declarations
of
interest.
Members
are
reminded
that
they
must
declare
all
relevant
pecuniary
and
non-cunery
interests
arising
from
any
business
to
be
discussed
at
this
meeting.
If
a
disclosable
pecuniary
interest
is
declared,
a
member
must
not
speak
or
take
part
in
that
agenda
item
and
any
decorations
will
be
recorded
in
the
minutes
of
the
meeting.
A
A
We
were
expecting
to
have
a
speaker
on
item
six,
so
I'm
just
going
to
ask
officers
whether
there's
any
sign
of
the
speaker,
I'm
going
to
take
item
seven
first,
if
that's
okay,
just
to
give
a
potential
speaker
a
few
extra
minutes
to
get
here
so
I'll,
take
it
seven
and
then
we'll
come
back
to
our
item
six.
I
think
that's
fair.
I
won't
be
able
to
delay
it
beyond
that
point.
C
A
D
D
D
A
C
I
think
we
need
to
to
identify
that
as
a
proposal
or
a
small
holy
sack
of
an
existing
cultist
in
an
area
where
there
are
quite
a
number
of
the
full
assassins,
so
there's
no
objection
in
principle
to
holy
sac
development
in
this
location.
In
fact,
it's
something
which
the
sun
inspectorate
on
a
planning
appeal
many
years
ago
identified.
C
C
The
fundamental
changes
between
this
scheme
and
the
previous
scheme
is
that
there
was
a
additional
house
being
proposed
on
the
access
onto
farm
code
drive
and
which
resulted
in
a
very
narrow
access,
which
was
deemed
to
be
out
of
character
in
terms
of
the
three
houses
to
the
rear
of
the
site.
At
the
end
of
the
polysack.
That's
now
been
designed
so
there's
better
enclosure.
C
So
so
really
officers
feel
it's
it's
it's
it's
good
design.
It's
the
place
making
fundamentally
it's
a
far
superior
scheme
to
previous
schemes,
we've
seen
on
the
sides
in
terms
of
parking
and
access.
It's
been
looked
at
by
our
transportation.
Colleagues,
the
parking
provision
within
the
site
is
is
meets
the
maximum
standards,
which
is
two
hundred.
E
Thank
you
chairman.
Yes,
certainly,
the
the
development
proposal
in
front
of
you
today
has
sufficient
parking
and
access
requirements
to
accommodate
not
only
the
residence
and
visitor
parking
on
the
development,
but
it's
also
been
demonstrated
that
a
fire
engine
can
also
turn
within
the
turning
space
within
that
development
and
also
advanced
or
is
located
within
proximity
to
vanco
driving
itself,
noticing
also
the
comments
of
that
planning
inspector
back
in
2005.
E
F
E
A
A
F
Thank
you,
chair
6.2
of
the
report,
references
the
birmingham
development
plan
and
mentions
that
there's
no
policy
directly
relating
to
hmo
use,
but
also
states
in
their
phoenix
to
create
a
sustainable,
mixed
and
balanced
community,
and
I
feel
that
residents
have
suggested
in
this
report
that
hmos
in
this
particular
community
that
there's
quite
a
lot
of
them.
But
our
figures
unfortunately
suggest
differently.
F
The
concern
that
I
have
is
the
living
space
and
four
for
seven
bedrooms
on
those
two
floors,
but
I
do
appreciate
is
the
the
park.
Opposite.
That's
been
mentioned
in
the
report
when
you
have
cold
winter
months,
that
doesn't
become
an
option
and
it's
quite
a
condensed
amount
of
space
for
seven
people.
B
C
Thank
you
chair.
I
echo
some
of
the
concerns
that
council
johnson
has
raised
with
this
application
and
particularly
in
terms
of
the
the
immunity
space
that's
been
offered
for
teacher
archives.
I'm
also
slightly
concerned
because,
if,
if
I
understood
the
plan
correctly,
it
would
appear
that
the
entrance
to
this
this
hmo
would
be
through
the
bins
or
the
retail
unit
as
well,
which
doesn't
strike
me
a
particularly
welcome
environment.
If
that's
the
case
and
now.
C
So
I'm
just
rather
concerned
that
we've
been
far
too
dismissive
and
I
think
we
need
to
look
further
to
actually
understand
what
it
is.
That's
taking
place
within
the
area,
rather
just
simply
say:
no,
there's
no
planning
history
of
it,
because
actually
somebody
particularly
prior
to
the
article
didn't
need
planning
missions.
So
I
think
we
need
to
look
at
this
further
before
we
system
to
simply
say:
there's
not
there's
no
hms.
G
C
Which
shows
the
kitchen
and
also
sort
of
general
socializing
space
as
well.
It
also
shows
the
rear
door,
which
leads
on
to
a
rear
yard,
which
has
been
cleared
of
other
levels
and
outbuilding
that
has
been
cleared.
Officers
do
consider
that
there
is
sufficient
or
adequate
space
for
the
individuals,
their
own
personal
space
in
terms
of
their
bedroom,
but
also
the
communal
space
for
a
maximum
of
seven
residents
and
you've
seen
the
officers
report
that
there's
a
condition
limiting
it
to
a
maximum
of
seven
residents
at
any
one
time.
C
It's
a
very
a
very
valid
point
about
the
park.
Yes,
the
park
is
immediately
opposite.
There
are
no
standards
in
terms
of
how
how
much
outdoor
amenities
they
should
be
should
be
given
there
isn't
absolutely
a
standard.
So
it's
very
much
a
judgment.
Officers
do
feel
that
40
square
meters,
which
is
the
rear
yard
here,
is
sufficient
for
descending
residents.
It's
an
existing
situation.
In
fact,
it's
been
improved
in
terms
of
the
outbuilding
being
been
being
removed.
C
The
park
is,
is
a
very
large
department's
hamsworth
park.
It's
a
very
hard
part.
People
do
use
parts
at
all
times
in
the
years.
You
know
it's
not
that
fast
close
up
during
the
winter
people
do
view,
but
it
is
about
important
that
you're
more
likely
to
use
the
part
during
better
weather,
but
there
is
a
part
there
which
is
open
it's
publicly
accessible
and
because
of
the
size
of
the
park.
C
There
are
lots
of
additional
things
you
can
do
within
the
park,
which
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
do
in
say,
for
example,
a
smaller
park,
so
so
it
is
a
good
location.
In
that
context,
the
comment
about
the
police's
recommendations
about
cctv
and
locks
on
the
doors
officers
feel
that
that
force
outside
the
remitter
planning
and
doesn't
mean
six
relevant
tests
set
out
in
legislation.
C
But
those
details
have
been
passed
over
to
to
the
applicant.
We
all
officers
always
do
that,
where,
where
information
is
provided
by,
for
example,
west
midlands
police,
which
falls
outside
our
remit,
we
will
still
pass
those
details
on.
So
the
applicant
is
aware
of
that.
I'm
finally,
just
touching
on
on
what
account
more
race
about
what
really
comes
down
to
the
the
today
valid
issue.
To
do
with
the
cumulative
impact
within
the
identified
area,
we
do
have
a
draft
policy
within
the
development
management
confirming
document
which,
which
is
an
advanced
stage.
C
C
It's
called
the
dmv
document,
the
development
management
in
birmingham
document.
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
we
need
to
use
a
sound
evidence
base
and
and
of
our
officers,
have
looked
at
the
variety
of
data
available,
and
we
have
come
to
the
conclusion
that,
in
terms
of
existing
hmos,
which
are
identified
by
council
and
with
this
proposal
it
would
be
exactly
two
percent
within
100
meters
of
the
application
site
and
that's
included
in
the
application,
francis
and
and
that
represents
394
properties.
C
There
are
other
other
intensive
residential
uses
in
the
area.
These
are
more
historical
identified,
black
conversions
on
the
opposite
side
on
douglas
road,
as
well
as
a
lodging
house.
A
long
established
lodging
house
also
on
douglas
road.
But
it's
fair
to
say
that
officers
need
to
draw
a
line
in
the
sand
in
terms
of
what
data
can
be
used
in
terms
of
looking
at
cumulative
impact,
and
officers
feel
that
we
have
we've
done
that
and
and
for
the
reasons
identified
in
in
the
report.
A
H
How
it
looks
I
have
to
say
this
is
just
a
subjective
judgment.
It
makes
me
feel
extremely
pleasing,
but
the
key
thing
is
really
about
how
you
actually
calculate
the
number
of
the
density
of
victims
and
that's
the
reason
why
it's
in
a
sense,
that's
ashamed
of
speaking
here,
because
I'd
like
to
speak
with
some
position.
F
Yeah
and
I
appreciate
what
you
said
about
the
park-
it's
a
large
part.
I
don't
understand
that.
But
I
just
wanted
to
just
make
the
comment
that
I
think
when
you
look
at
the
proposed
ground
floor
plan,
the
retail
element
of
that
plan,
the
size
of
that
in
comparison
to
the
immunity
area,
that
the
shock
is
going
to
be
bigger
than
the
shared
accommodation
and,
and
that
looks
completely
out
of
proportion.
C
Yes,
thank
you,
chair
johnson,
again
very
valid
about
about
the
shop
and
ultimately,
we
have
to
determine
what's
put
in
front
of
us,
and
I've
already
stressed
officers
do
feel
that
there
is
an
acceptable
level
of
communal
community
space
for
the
seventh
occupant
on
the
issue
of
the
the
theater
room.
It's
very
interesting
on
this
because
they
have
actually
lowered
the
floor
level
of
the
attic
room.
So
so
the
ceiling
height
first
of
all,
has
come
down.
C
A
J
J
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
what
the
police
were
asking
for
and
the
reason
we're
saying
it's,
not
a
planning
manager
is
it's
about
cctv
and
and
locked
doors
within
the
building
and
we're
saying
that
what
goes
on
within
the
building
is
really
a
management
issue
rather
than
external
cctv,
about
public
safety.
So
that's
why
we're
saying
in
this
case
it's
not
relevant.
J
You've
got
an
access
from
the
rear
into
the
garden,
as
I
don't
know
what
you
call
it
and
then
there's
a
rear
access
which
is
into
the
flats.
So
don't
think
it
is
it's
necessarily
dependent
on
coming
through
that
area.
Now
now
don't
think
that
area
is
necessarily
convincing.
It's
not
clear
what
it
is.
You've
got.
J
The
retail
shop
then
outside
the
building
you've
got
bins
for
the
shop.
So
it
looks
to
me
as
a
the
bins
for
the
shop
will
be
installed
outside
then
there's
an
empty
room,
that's
got
roof
lights
and
it's
not
clear
what
that's
for
and
then
off
there
you've
got
stairs
and
a
storage
room.
So
it's
not
it.
Doesn't
it's
not
clear
that
the
room
is
actually
a
bin
store.
It
looks
like
it's
just
an
answering
room
and
I'm
not
clear
from
the
plant
what
that
is.
J
If
you
can
defeat
them,
you
can
come
back
and
clarify,
but
there
are
there's
a
front
door
by
the
winds,
but
there's
also
a
rear
door
which
could
be
used
in
terms
of
the
evidence
around
the
nature
of
marijuana.
I
think
what
you've
heard
is
that
we
have
information
available
for
you,
that's
in
the
report
and
I
don't
think
a
native
flora
was
going
to
produce
any
more
evidence.
J
So
it's
basically
determining
all
the
evidence
you
have
available
and
we
are
talking
of
a
relatively
low
level
of
hmos
within
that
100
meters
radius.
So
it's
it's
three
percent
of
the
muslim
figure,
so
it's
not
just
tipping
on
the
balance.
It's
quite
a
way
below
it
in
terms
of
the
amenity
space.
The
only
points
I
wanted
to
make
two
is
one
is
we
are
seeing
inspectors
where
we,
where
we're
concerned
that
an
empty
space
is
too
small
and
it's
near
to
apart
or
near
to
open
space
planning.
J
So
what
we
can
see,
I
think
in
that
photograph
is:
there
is
a
reasonable
space
to
allow
for
drying
clothes
sitting
out
for
the
usual
activities
associated
with
a
residential
use,
and
we
think
that's
enough,
and
the
part
does,
if
you
like,
make
a
difference
in
terms
of
that
balance
between
the
retail
use
and
the
residential
use.
We're
not
saying
it
couldn't
be
better,
but
the
issue
in
front
of
you
is:
is
it
good
enough
and
our
our
recommendation
is
yesterday?
Thank
you.
A
A
And
there's
again,
and
that
is
suddenly
in
favor
and
three
against,
so
that
is
approved
and,
as
you
can
heard,
from
pete,
there
is
work
going
on
about
how
we
calculate
levels
of
hmos
of
all
types,
and
you
also
be
aware
of
the
work
being
done
on
exempt
accommodation
across
the
city
on
the
day.
We
need
to
decide
on
what's
available
to
you.
Thank
you
for
that.
That's
the
end
of
this
morning's
applications,
but
we
do
have
a
policy
report
which
is
on
the
revisions
to
the
scheme
of
delegation.
A
J
That
was
partially
because
of
the
peer
review,
which
said
we
needed
to
do
that
and
we
needed
to
look
at
modernizing
the
committee,
and
it
was
also
partially
to
do
with
the
fact
that
we
moved
from
physical
to
the
virtual
committee
and
it
was
to
and
enable
that
to
be
handled
a
little
bit
more
easily
to
reduce
the
number
of
applications
we
we
had.
We
had
around
21
22
virtual
committees,
but
we've
now
ended
that
we're
back
into
physical
committees.
J
So
I
thought
it
was
time
to
review
where
we,
where
we've
been
where
we
are.
So
what
what's
in
front
of
you
is
the
scheme
of
delegation,
as
approved
in
may
20..
I
am
during
the
past
year
that
I've
been
working
with
you.
I've
also
reflected
on
some
of
the
items
that
you've
been
dealing
with,
and
I
think
that,
just
from
a
historical
point
of
view,
there
is
some
things
that
you
always
get
that
really
are
fairly
minor.
J
J
What
I've
done
there
is
put
a
note
just
to
clarify
that
that
call-in
shouldn't
apply
to
applications
to
lawful
development
certificates,
so
either
proposal
for
development,
existing
development
or
more
uses,
because
they
involving
legal
determination
based
on
the
evidence
rather
than
a
balance
or
a
matter
of
opinion,
and
so
because
of
that
at
the
moment,
sometimes
are
called
to
committee.
But
essentially
your
hands
are
tied
with
dealing
with
evidence
rather
than
professional
opinion.
J
So
what
I've
suggested
is
that
we
clarify
that
and
say
patient
remains
delegated
items
if,
as
I'm
going
through
any
of
you
want
to
speak
or
ask
me
about
those
particular
issues.
Please
stop
me
because
I
think
that
might
be
easier
than
me
going
through
to
the
end
and
then
doing
it
all.
So,
please
indicate
if
you
want
to
comment
or
have
questions
on
each
punch
point.
The
next
one
is
at
item
c
now.
J
So
I've
made
a
slight
amendment
to
the
working
just
to
make
it
clearer
by
deleting
a
couple
of
words,
but
that
doesn't
change
the
sense
of
the
the
clause,
but
I
have
added
a
note
to
clarify
that
this
does
not
include
applications
where
the
applicant
is
a
relative
or
of
an
officer
or
member.
But
no
member
officer
has
an
interest
in
the
land
itself.
J
The
clarifications,
because,
on
an
application
form
you're
asked
to
declare,
are
you
a
relative
or
are
you
an
officer
or
a
member?
But
just
because
you
are,
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
it
has
to
be
a
committee
item.
So
if
it's
the
it
is
a
relative
there's,
no
legal
interest
in
land,
I'm
saying
that
should
be
treated
as
just
a
normal
application.
D
J
J
J
G
is
relating
to
major
developments
now
this
is.
This
is
a
change,
so,
at
the
moment,
we've
got
the
criteria
there,
which
we've
agreed
previously,
and
what
I'm
suggesting
is
that
that
criteria
is
specifically
about
applications.
We,
as
officers
are
recommending
to
approve,
but
if
it's
some
major
applications
within
that
criteria,
where
it's
recommended
for
refusal,
this
amendment
would
allow
officers
to
refuse
and
delegate
it,
whereas
at
the
moment
they
have
to
come
to
committee,
whether
that
approves
all
of
users.
E
J
If,
obviously,
within
these
changes,
there
is
still
the
scope
that
if
it
is
a
significant
or
a
sensitive
application,
there
is
the
fallback
that
the
they
cannot
be
called
in
any
way
or
that
the
the
officer
can
the
director
can
make
that
decision
for
it
to
be
a
committee
item
because
of
the
sensitivities
of
the
site.
So
that's
always
there
as
a
parachute.
Yes,.
F
Just
at
the
very
bottom
of
that
it
says
only
a
limited
number
of
objections
when
you
say
only
a
limited
number.
What
sort
of
number
of
thinking
previously
on
one
of
the
paragraphs
you
said
substantially,
given
a
figure
of
20
so
limited
to
me,
might
be
one
or
two
but
limited
to
somebody
else
might
be
five
or
six.
G
J
J
J
The
notation
at
the
bottom,
which
is
involved,
is
to
allow
reserve
matter
applications
to
be
dealt
with
on
the
delegating
parents,
where
the
layout
is
policy,
compliant
where
there
are
no
significant
objections
from
consultees,
and
the
number
of
third-party
objections
is
not
substantial
and
I
have
used
the
word
substantial
there.
So
it
is
designed
to
be
let
you
know
if
it's
less
than
20
objections.
J
So
that's
the
cover
instances
where
we
have
a
number
of
large
outlines
sites
that
you've
dealt
with,
that
you've
been
to
committee
and
you've
approved,
and
there
may
be
a
number
of
reserve
match
applications
or
there
might
be
one,
and
if
it's
straightforward,
then
really
it
doesn't
need
to
come
back
to
you.
So
this
is
to
allow
straightforward
reserve
matters
to
just
be
dealt
with
as
a
reserve
method.
Clearly,
if
it's
a
sensitive
or
significant
site,
where
there's
a
history,
then
provision
that
the
office
can
just
refer
it
anyway.
J
J
J
J
You
know
that
are
not
major
applications.
There
is
also
the
reason.
Part
of
the
reason
for
this
is
that
in
august
there's
some
new
regulations
coming
in
which
are
to
give
a
shorter
time
period
for
applications
relating
to
public
buildings,
and
these
aren't
things
like
schools
and
hospitals.
Our
schools,
obviously,
are
council
huffman
council
owned,
so
this
would
enable
those
public
building
applications
as
well
owned
by
the
character
to
be
dealt
with
by
delegating
powers.