Members of the authority’s planning committee rejected the application on the basis of concerns about highway safety, lack of parking and over development. Council planning officers had recommended approval of the scheme to redevelop the Halesowen United Church on Hagley Road. The committee was asked to consider a revised application after a scheme for 13 units was revised following worries over the impact of the design on the townscape, adjacent trees, residential amenity and highway safety. The revised plan attracted a total of 29 letters of objection from two rounds of consultation including highway safety concerns from Cllr Jeff Hill who represents the Halesowen South ward. Cllr Hill said: “The car park is small and there is insufficient space for larger vehicles, or even the average car if all spaces are occupied, to turn around. “This is likely to lead to vehicles reversing onto the road, close to a junction which is often taken too fast. “Delivery vehicles (or the refuse lorry) choosing to stop on the road are going to cause an obstruction which will be difficult to navigate safely given the proximity to the island, and the reduced visibility as vehicles come round the bend from the island.” In their report, council planning officers said: “Whilst the highway engineer does identify there remains a risk of collisions in this location, the level of trips associated with the new residential use would be reduced. “Therefore, whilst some risk remains, the reduced trip generation from the new use makes the highway impacts acceptable.” Councillors at the committee meeting, on July 16, approved a retrospective application for a change of use from residential use to beauty treatment rooms and the addition of a single storey extension at a property on Zoar Street, Lower Gornal. Council planning officers recommended approval, in their report they said: “It is considered the proposal would not have any detrimental impact of the vitality and viability of the centre. “Furthermore, subject to conditions, the neighbouring occupiers would not be detrimentally affected by the proposal.”