Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Juma Begum.

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.

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

There were no Update Reports

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the application was for major development. Furthermore, the application required a Section 106 (S106) planning obligation. 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 16 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Heart of Worcestershire College, Osprey House, Albert Street, Enfield, Redditch, B97 4DE and sought the Demolition of existing building and the erection of a three-storey care home (Use Class C2) with ancillary facilities.

Officers clarified that the site had been before the Planning Committee in July 2024 for a different scheme (23/01108/FUL) which utilised the existing building and proposed an underground carpark for a smaller 83 bed care home with 33 supported living apartments. The application before Members sought to demolish the existing building and erect a 98-bed care home on the site.

In comparing the approved extant and proposed applications, Officers detailed that there was a modest increase in the care home from 83 rooms to 98 rooms, however, the supported living apartments were removed. Although the building would be in a similar position, one part would be removed to make way for parking which would be at surface level only.

Due to the reduction in building footprint, there would be an increase in green space. In addition, there would be a 33% bio-diversity net gain.

Officers deemed the principle of development to be acceptable and there were no objections from Consultees subject to appropriate conditions and a S106 planning obligation.

At the invitation of the Chair Mr Andeep Gill, the applicant’s agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified.

• The 2 disabled and 4 EV charging spaces were included in the 31-place parking provision.
• The underground parking was not included in the application.
• The council could not compel the County Council to installed double yellow lines on the nearby road.

At the invitation of the Chair the applicant’s Agent Mr Andeep Gill was invited to address the committee to clarify the type of care home which would be provided as the information was not available in the report and was necessary for Members to make a decision. Mr Gill detailed that the care home would cater for residents falling under the C2 class use criteria. Further clarifying that although this could be those with dementia, the majority of residents were expected to be those who were elderly infirm and needed some assistance with day-to-day needs.

Officers addressed Members concerns regarding parking and detailed that Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) had assessed the application and determined that the number of spaces provided was adequate for a development of that type and size. Additionally, due to the good transport links of the site approximately 40% of the 25-30 employees would be expected to travel via alternative methods, with 13% (4)  ...  view the full minutes text for item 44.

The application was 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 17 to 24 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for 11 Prospect Road South, Redditch, Worcestershire, B98 8ND and sought the demolition of the rear section of the property and rebuilt like for like.

Officers detailed that due to subsidence of a council owned property, the council sought permissions to demolish the rear section of a council owned property the section to be demolished included the Kitchen & Bathroom and would then be rebuilt in the same position and footprint.

Members attention was drawn to the existing and proposed layouts on pages 21 and 22 of the Public Reports pack, highlighting that the size of the dwelling would remain the same after reconstruction. The only external change of the rebuild was the position of the window. However, due to the property being the end Terrace, there would be no impact of overlooking on neighbouring properties, or residential amenity.

Officers noted that the consultation period of the application had not yet elapsed and therefore, sought Delegated powers to Grant the application subject to no objections being received which raise material considerations not already considered as part of the Officer’s report.

Members were in support of the application and on being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, DELEGATED POWERS be granted to the Assistant Director of Planning, Leisure, and Cultural Services, to GRANT Planning Permission subject to the Conditions and Informative as outlined in page 31 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was reported to the Planning Committee because the land subject to the application was owned by Worcestershire County Council (WCC). 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 165 Walkwood Road, Hunt End, Redditch, Worcestershire, B97 5NS and sought Change of use of highway land to private residential garden.

Officers detailed that the application was a retrospective application, and that the previous owners of the property had extended their garden without permission and planted a hedgerow.

Officers further detailed that the owner of the land did not change, only the land use which would change from highways use to residential garden. However, there would be an improvement to the visibility splays with the hedge being cut back slightly, secured via a Condition.

Members were concerned that the application could set a precedent with owners extending their property boundaries, however, Officers assured Members that the application was an unusual situation and was significantly historic in nature and they would not expect to see an increase of activity as a consequence.

On being put to the 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 outlined on page 35 of the Public Reports pack.