Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14^th August 2025 were presented to Members.

A typographical error was identified in that the minutes referenced “Sandycross Centre”, the correct name being “Sandycroft Centre”.

RESOLVED that

subject to the amendment detailed in the preamble above, the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14^th August 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)

Members indicated that they had enough time to read and consider the Update reports, therefore, the Update Reports were noted.

The 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 5 to 15 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Morton Stanley Park, Windmill Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire and sought the Installation of a 24m by 15m multi-use games area (MUGA) with 2m high fencing.

The application was deferred by Members at the Planning Committee meeting on 11^th September 2025, to assess the impact of the development on the protected Brown Hairstreak butterfly. Members also requested additional information on the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) risk in the area.

Regarding the protected species, additional information was supplied on pages 11 and 12 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, which detailed that the Brown Hairstreak butterfly was found exclusively on Blackthorn scrub, the locations of which were detailed on page 12. Therefore, as the development was not near the Butterfly habitat it was deemed inappropriate to request a full survey to be undertaken by the applicant.

Officers detailed that although there was a concern regarding ASB linked to MUGA, installations there had been very few incidents reported to the police in the preceding years. Additionally, the seating had been removed from the MUGA, which had reduced ASB impact at other sites. Therefore, Officers did not consider the risk of ASB to be a major concern and on balance, had come to the conclusion that it did not outweigh the advantages that the application provided.

At the invitation of the Chair, a statement was read out by Officers on behalf of Ishrat Karimi Fini, Parks and Events service Manager, in support of the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.

• That no trees would be removed as part of the development, therefore, any actions such as imposing Conditions to manage trees on site would be unreasonable and would not meet the tests necessary.
• There was no CCTV at the site and that Officers had not considered the option due to the low risk of an ASB increase. Additionally, there was no existing infrastructure to accommodate its inclusion.
• No plan was in place to lock the MUGA overnight, which would not be possible considering the proposed open design.

Members then debated the application which Officers had recommended for approval.

Members questioned if there was adequate natural surveillance from the Café area as there were trees blocking line of sight. Another factor noted was the railing bar spacing, which Members stated appeared quite narrow which may limit natural surveillance unless looking straight at the facility.

The lack of facilities for young people was highlighted and that the park was a destination point rather than having passing or incidental visitors. Members noted several areas at the site which could be used by individuals intending to take part in illegal activities, these included the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 38.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because part of the application site fell within the ownership of Redditch Borough Council. As such, the application fell outside of the scheme of Delegation to Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 17 to 38 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Unit 1, Glover Street, Smallwood, Redditch

B98 7BG and sought the demolition of the existing building and the creation of 4 bungalows for supported living (Class C2 use)

Officers drew Members attention to the location of the application site as detailed on page 18 of the site plans and Presentations pack. Officers further highlighting that part of the application site was owned by Redditch Borough Council which was a carpark used by the site as part of the lease.

The building was a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) which was under a general industrial use (class B2), historically it was a wartime manufacturing facility producing compressors in WW2. Officers noted that NDHAs were afforded little protection and although it would be regrettable to lose the heritage asset, on balance, the principle of development was deemed acceptable.

Although the development was for four new dwellings, no off-street parking was proposed, which was deemed acceptable by Officers. The reason for this conclusion was that the current industrial facility was afforded a significant number of spaces compared to the proposed development, therefore, the application would see a reduction in the overall parking impact of the site.

Comments from Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) stated that based on the current Streetscape Design Guide the development would generate a demand for 10 spaces. Furthermore, as the current building use was for employment (B2 industrial use Class), there was a generated a parking demand of 28 spaces, 11 of which were accommodated by the car park attached to the current lease, and 17 spaces on-street. When comparing the 17 on-street parking spaces with the proposed demand of 10 cars, the development would cause a net gain of on-street parking in the area. Therefore, it was deemed acceptable by County Highways not to require the provision of off-street parking as part of the application.

The current and proposed site plans were detailed to Members. The design of the development maintained similar elevations to the existing building and sought to replicate some of the current features such as the high ridges, in an attempt to replicate the character of the original building.

However, Officers had concerns regarding the materials and construction of the proposed development, which was not in line with the surrounding dwellings, having a disproportionately high ratio of brick to render. Additionally, the proposed development had a gap between the buildings for a courtyard, this changed the Streetview and in the Officers opinion was not in preserving the character of the wider area.

Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) commented that development should be sympathetic to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the applicant was related to an employee of 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 39 to 47 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for 5 Clent Avenue, Redditch, B97 5HH and sought a Single Storey Rear Extension & Garage Conversion.

Officers drew Members attention to the existing and proposed floor plans detailed on page 42 and 43 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. Officers highlighted that the rear extension was not visible from the street scene with the exception of a 1.3m length to the east of the property, therefore the impact was minor.

The works to the garage were covered under permitted development, however, for transparency were included as part of the application.

Officers found the proposed development acceptable in regard to the visual amenity impact and there were no objections from neighbours for the development.

Members were aware of the area and building and supported the officer’s assessment that there would be no impact on the visual amenity of the area. Therefore, on being put to the vote it was

RESOVED that

having had regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to conditions as detailed on pages 43 and 44 of the Public Reports pack.