Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Juma Begum, Bill Hartnett, Andy Fry, Tomothy Pearman, Chris Holz and Anthony Lovell, With Councillors Sharon Harvey, Joanna Kane, Kerrie Miles, Emma Marshall and Brandon Clayton in attendance as substitutes.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests and / or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

Councillor Brandon Clayton declared an interest in respect of Agenda item 7 (minute No56), in that he expressed his opinion on the application during a forum and therefore could be considered pre-determined. He left the Meeting for the entirety of item and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8^th November 2023 were presented to Members.

RESOLVED that

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 8^th November 2023 were approved as true and accurate records and signed by the Chair.

To note Update Reports (if any) for the Planning Applications to be considered at the meeting (circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting)

The Chair drew Members attention to the update report circulated to Members prior to the meeting.

Members indicated that they had sufficient time to read the report and were happy to proceed with the meeting.

The application was reported to Planning Committee for determination because the application was a Section 73 application which concerned a major development being recommended for approval, as such the application fell outside the scheme of delegation to Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’attention to the presentation slides on pages 5 to 9 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Dorothy Terry House, Evesham Road, Redditch B97 5ENand was a section 73 application which sought the amendment of Conditions 7 and 8 attached to the planning permission 2010/137/FUL.

Officers detailed the two Conditions which were to be amended by the application. Condition 7 was in relation to updating the plans list for the development and the change to Condition 8 sought to remove a restriction from the original development, Condition 8 stated that only those with a dementia diagnosis could take residency at the care home.

Officers further detailed that the application did not seek to change the C2 classification and would not prevent those with dementia taking residency, however, it would also permit those who fell within the C2 category who also had additional needs but without a Dementia Diagnosis.

There were no proposed alterations to the site which included car parking and the provision of a café, laundry and hair salon exclusively for use of those residents at the care home.

Officers sought delegated approval as an amended Section 106 Deed of Variation was required.

At the invitation of the Chair, Jamie Lindon-Lewis the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• Should approval be granted there would be no changes for those residing at Dorothy House as the C2 classification would still be valid.
• No additional support units were proposed, the application only sought to change those who would be permitted to use the care home.

Members then proceeded to debate the application.

Members expressed their support for local businesses and believed assistance should be given to ensure that they remained viable, Members further expressed the opinion that it would not cause any issues opening up the criteria to allow a wider range of people with additional needs to use the site. On being put to a vote it was.

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other materialconsiderations, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning, Regeneration andLeisure Services to grant planning permission subject to:-

a)    The satisfactory completion of a deed of variation to the extant Section 106planning obligation to an Extra Care Facility.

b)    Conditions as detailed on pages 17 and 18 of the Public Reports pack.

Officers drew Members to the contents of the Update Report.

The application was reported to Planning Committee for determination because the application was for major development (more than 1000 sq metres of new commercial / Industrial floorspace) and it required a Section 106 Agreementand as such the application fell outside the scheme of delegation to Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’attention to the presentation slides on pages 11 to 29 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Honeywell, Burnt Meadow Road, North Moons Moat Industrial Estate, Redditch, Worcestershire, B98 9HJand sought the partial demolition of existing building with the erection of 4 new buildings, parking, landscaping and ancillary works.

Officers drew Members attention to pages 12 and 13 of the Public Reports pack and detailed to Members the proposed changes on site.

Unit 2 identified on page 13 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack would be retained during the development with a slight extension to accommodate office space. Units 1, 3, 4 and 5 would be new units.

There were 3 Trees subject to a Tree Protection Order (TPO) on the site, all were mature oak specimens and their retention was sought and Conditioned under the application. Most of the tree screening especially along the north of the site would also be retained.

Officers detailed that the area was designated as local employment and there were no objections to the development subject to appropriate Conditions.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• The nearest bus stop was next to the site and was serviced by the number 62 bus. A Section 106 contribution was requested by Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Highways, to support the local public transport provision.
• The parking provision was examined by WCC Highways, who had determined that there would be enough parking available to accommodate the units on site occupied at 100% capacity. There would also be Cycling and Electronic Vehicle Charging Points (ECPs).
• That the trees protected by TPOs would be safeguarded under Conditions 12 and 13. It was also detailed that additional trees would be planted to replace any other trees felled during the development.
• Page 19 of the Public Reports pack detailed a number of uses under B2 which would not be permitted under the development. The storage of hazardous materials would fall outside of a B2 use.
• An Air Quality Assessment was submitted dated April 2023, Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) had no objections and welcomed the inclusion of ECPs.
• Condition 14 covered mitigation and enhancement measures, this needed to be approved by Officers and would ensure a bio-diversity gain for the development.

Members then debated the application.

Members welcomed the Section 106 contribution to encourage the use and enhancement of public transport and were satisfied that the amount of parking on site would meet the needs of the development and not contribute to any issues with parking in the wider area.

On being put to a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 55.

Having declared an interest in this agenda item, Councillor Brandon Clayton retired from the Planning Committee and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the application had resulted in a formal objection being received (which was not resolved through Officer negotiation) from a statutory consultee.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’attention to the presentation slides on pages 31 to 40 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for the Agricultural Barn at Moors Lane, Feckenham, Worcestershire, B96 6JHand sought the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of a new dwelling with associated works.

Officers detailed to Members the site location on page 32 of the Public Reports pack and its proximity to local residences along Moors Lane, which was identified as a bridleway.

The application sought to demolish two existing farm buildings at the site and replace them with a singular central dwelling, Officers detailed that there was an extant approved planning permission for the conversion of the existing buildings into a 3-bed dwelling. Officers further detailed that the new proposed dwelling would be a 5-bed dwelling and would be constructed with brick and weatherboard with a tiled roof.

Officers requested an additional Condition which required that the existing buildings be removed prior to commencement and an amendment to a condition to include an additional plan reference.

At the invitation of the Chair, the applicant Mr Richard Eost, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• the site was approximately half a mile from the main road and that there were no obvious dedicating passing points for vehicles apart from various site access points along its length.
• Moors lane was only adopted by WCC Highways for around a third of the distance to the site, therefore, the road maintenance was shared by the adjacent properties.
• That although there were fields immediately adjacent to the property, there were other properties before and after the site along Moors Lane.
• That there was a statutory consultee objection from WCC highways, which deemed the location unsustainable, this was also the position of the Council. However, as there was an accepted fallback position with the previously approved application, on balance the application was seen as acceptable by Officers.

Members then debated the application.

Members expressed a concern with the bridleway and how the property would be serviced especially in regard to refuse collection. It was detailed that the council owns a range of vehicles for different jobs/road Conditions and that the other properties along moors lane were being serviced.

Members were happy with the application in that when comparing it to the existing fallback position there was a reduction in the building footprint on the site, this enhanced the openness of the area and therefore supported the countryside policy.

On being put to a vote it was

RESOLVED that

having had regard  ...  view the full minutes text for item 56.