Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Juma Begum with Councillor Paul Wren in attendance as substitute.

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.

During consideration of Agenda item 6 (Minute No48) Councillors Bill Hartnett and Jen Snape declared an interest in that they were Rubicon Board Members.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 16^th January 2025 were presented to Members.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 16^th January 2025 were approved as a true and accurate record and were 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 update report was presented to Members, The Chair permitted Members 10 minutes to familiarise themselves with the content as the report was 22 pages in length.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the application required a Section 106 Agreement. Furthermore, eleven (or more) objections had been received, and the recommendation was 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 17 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for the 131 - 135 Birchfield Road, Redditch, Worcestershire, B97 4LE and sought planning permission for the demolition of the current building and the construction of a convenience store with associated parking.

The application had come before Members on 5^th December 2025 and the decision at that time was for deferral, to attain additional information from Worcester County Council Highways (County Highways). The requested information had been attained and formed part of the Committee Report. However, the responses to the four questions were summarised as follows:

1. The likelihood of a Toucan crossing being installed and when? – there was no guarantee of a crossing being installed, this would be subject to an assessment being carried out.
2. Were the people who undertook the Traffic Audit aware of the two schools? – County Highways were aware of the schools.
3. Why was the traffic survey undertaken in August and why is this acceptable given it is during school holidays? – the survey was a traffic speed survey to ascertain stopping and viewing distance and therefore it was deemed acceptable to be undertaken at this time.
4. Did a County Highways Officer visit the site and adjacent roads? – an Officer from County Highways visited the site and adjacent roads.

Officers proceeded to draw Members attention to the Presentation which had not changed from the last Committee with the exception of a single slide detailed on page 9 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. The additional slide highlighted the differences between the existing and proposed site layout.

The current site usage Class (Class E) permitted the building to be used as a convenience store. Should the application be refused, the applicant could choose to open a convenience store retaining the existing layout, without the additional landscaping, parking provision (EV, Bike and Bicycle) and could retain both entrances with no delivery time restrictions.

The Update Reports document from the Committee on 5^th December 2024 was incorporated into the new Committee Report before Members. Officers guided Members through the changes to the report detailing the additions to Members.

Officers highlighted that County highways had clarified their position in that they considered the development could be safely operated with the existing or proposed configurations, therefore, they could see no reason to refuse the application on Highways grounds.

At the invitation of the Chair, local residents Emma Ravenscroft and Leslie Champion, addressed the committee in opposition of the application, Councillor Ian Woodall also addressed the Committee in opposition as a Ward Member. Tony Aspbury addressed Members in support of the development.

The  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47.

As noted in the Declarations of Interest under agenda item 3 (Minute No45), During consideration of this agenda item, Councillors Bill Hartnett and Jen Snape declared an interest in that they were Rubicon Board Members. Both Members left the room and took no part in the voting thereof.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the application required the removal of a Section 106 (S106) Agreement. Therefore, 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 19 to 24 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for 2 Grove Street, Redditch, B98 8DX and sought the removal of the S106 agreement attached to the planning permission 2004/066/FUL.

Officers detailed to Members the location shown in red on page 20 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, it was further clarified that before Members was not a planning application but an application to remove the Section 106 agreement from the planning permission 2004/066/FUL.

The S106 agreement covered three areas:

1. The provision of pedestrian footway / pavement improvements
2. Pedestrian linkage improvement including contributions to enhance the subway and its approaches. A figure of (£9,500) was required for these purposes.
3. The free use of the car park including the use of disabled spaces for the parking of private motor vehicles on a first come first served basis by users and staff of the Palace Theatre between the hours of 6pm and 12 midnight on every Saturday and Sunday

Numbers 1 and 2 had been completed in full and were discharged in May 2007 and therefore were not a consideration for Members. However, Number 3 was an ongoing agreement which was the subject of the application before Members.

Officers stated that the site had been up for purchase since Feb 2023 when Hughes ceased trading, and it was determined that the applicant may have more success if the carpark did not have a S106 agreement attached.

Officers were in support of the removal of the agreement as it was not reasonable to enforce one business to provide free parking to another.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr. Scott Bracken, the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers:

• That there were a number of disabled parking sites in close proximity to the Palace Theatre which included two 24hour carparks.
• That it was unknown why it was deemed necessary 20 years ago to include the parking provision in the S106 agreement, however, it would not stand up to the current tests of necessity and reasonableness.

Members then debated the application

Although Members were sad to see the loss of parking provision, particularly for disabled users, they noted that removing the agreement was the right thing to do and if that permitted the site to come back under use it would be of a great benefit to the wider  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the applicant was Redditch Borough Council. 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 25 to 30 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for the Land at Church Green East, Redditch and sought the erection of a CCTV Camera and steel column

Officers detailed the location of the new CCTV Column on pages 26 and 27 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, with Pictures on Page 28 to detail the areas which it would be monitoring.

The CCTV camera was installed to close a blind spot in the current system’s coverage, and oversee an alleyway between two buildings which was of some concern.

The new CCTV Pole would be slightly taller (10.6m) than existing units in the area (8m), the reason for this was due to the proximity of some trees and to permit good CCTV coverage without needing regular trimming of the trees.

Officers clarified that the Camera would cover a 360 degree range and in conjunction with the current units, enabled a consistent coverage in the town centre.

On being put to a vote it was

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be granted subject to the conditions as outline on page 57 of the Public Reports pack.