Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received on behalf of Councillors Roger Hill and Alan Mason.

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

No declarations of interest were made.

To confirm, as a correct record, the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 12^th March 2014.  

(Minutes attached)

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on 12^th March 2014 be confirmed as a correct record 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 two Update reports relating to the Applications to be considered were received and noted.

To consider a Planning Application for the erection of 39 dwellings comprising 37 houses with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms and 2 no. 2 bedroom bungalows.

Applicant:  Mr N Laight

(Report attached – Site Plan under separate cover)

Erection of 39 dwellings comprising

37 houses with a mix of 2, 3 and 4 bedrooms,

and 2 no. 2 bedroom bungalows.

Applicant:  Mr N Laight

The following individuals addressed the Committee under the Council’s Public Speaking rules:

Mr J Lorento – objector

Mrs D Treasure – objector

Mr B Jones – objector

Mr N Laight – applicant

RESOLVED that

having regard to the Development Plan and to all other material considerations, authority be delegated to the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services to GRANT Planning Permission, subject to:

1)            the satisfactory completion of a Section 106 Planning Obligation ensuring that:

a)            contributions are paid to the Borough Council in respect to off-site open space, pitches and equipped play in accordance with the Council’s adopted SPD;

b)           contributions are paid to the Borough Council towards the provision of wheelie bins for the new development;

c)            contributions are paid to the County Council towards County education facilities in accordance with the Council’s adopted SPD;

d)           12 units on the site be restricted to affordable housing in perpetuity;

2)            the Conditions and informatives as detailed on pages 16 to 21 of the main report;

3)            the following additional Conditions:

“15)    During the course of development works and final fitting out, access to and egress from the site for all construction traffic, contractors and deliveries shall be via the Enfield Industrial Estate. 

            No development traffic shall access the site via Dixon Close unless first agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

                        Reason:  In the interests of nearby residential amenity in accordance with Policy B(BE).13 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3;

      16)     Prior to the Commencement of Development, details of an emergency access to the site via the Enfield Industrial Estate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The emergency access works approved shall be implemented prior to the completion of development works on the site. This access point shall be kept available for use by emergency vehicles in perpetuity.

            Reason:  In the interests of residential amenity and in order to provide safe and convenient emergency access to the site in accordance with Policy B(BE).13 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3.

 17)    The approved emergency access shall be kept available as a secondary access / egress for construction traffic, contractors and deliveries during the construction period. Upon completion of development works this access shall be used for emergency vehicles only.

            Reason:  To allow a secondary access would allow all construction vehicles to access the site at all times via the Enfield Industrial Estate without having to access via Windsor Road, thereby safeguarding residential amenity in accordance with Policy B(BE).13 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3”;   

            and

4)            a)         In the event that the Section 106 Planning Obligation cannot be completed by the end of May 2014,  authority be delegated to Officers to REFUSE the application on the basis that without the planning obligation the proposed development would be contrary to policy  ...  view the full minutes text for item 98.

To consider a Planning Application for the erection of an 8 bedroom and sitting room single storey extension, a single-storey laundry extension and associated site works.

Applicant:  Mr B P Sinha

(Report attached – site Plan under separate cover)

Erection of an 8 bedroom and sitting room

single-storey extension, a single-storey

laundry extension and associated site works.

Applicant Mr B P Sinha

RESOLVED that

a decision on this matter be DEFERRED for Officers to seek further information in regard to proposed parking requirements and the Nursing Home’s current classification. 

To consider a Planning Application for a two-storey side extension, conservatory to the rear, new garage to front of the property, and extension of existing tarmac driveway with tarmac or block paving.

Applicant:  Mr Steven Male

(Report attached – Site Plan under separate cover)

Two-storey side extension, rear balconies,

conservatory to the rear, new garage to the

front of the property, and extend existing

tarmac driveway with tarmac or block paving

Applicant:  Mr Steven Male

Mr D Moran, objector addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules.   Mr Male, the applicant, withdrew his request to speak to the application.

RESOLVED that

having regard to the Development Plan and to all other material considerations, Planning Permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

“The overall design of the extension including its height, bulk and location would result in an overlarge, overbearing and obtrusive form of development. The cumulative effect of this extension combined with previous extensions to the property would result in a development that would be over-intensive which would be considered inappropriate with its surroundings. In addition, the extent of the development close to the side boundary would be overbearing having a detrimental impact on the amenities of the neighbouring occupiers.   As such, the proposal is considered to be contrary to policies B(BE).13 and B(BE).14 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3, the Borough of Redditch Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on Encouraging Good Design, and good design principles set out in the National Planning Policy Framework.   

(In considering the Officer’s report and additional information provided in relation to a letter of objection received subsequent to a re-consultation on amended plans and Officers responses, as detailed in the Update report provided to the Committee and the public gallery prior to the meeting, Members expressed a number of concerns in relation to the size and overall design of the proposal which they considered would be overlarge within the context of the residential property and previous extensions to the property and have a detrimental impact on neighbouring occupiers and general surroundings.  In view of these concerns, the Committee voted to refuse the application, on which Officers had recommended approval, for the reason detailed in the resolution above.)    

To consider an Outline Planning Application for the demolition of an existing building and erection of new 1700 sq.m B2 Unit.

Applicant:  Samuel Taylor Ltd

(Report attached – Site Plan under separate cover)

Outline Permission for the demolition of an existing

building and erection of new 1700 sq. m. B2 Unit.

Applicant – Samuel Taylor Ltd

RESOLVED that

having regard to the Development Plan and to all other material considerations, Outline Planning Permission be GRANTED, subject to the Conditions and Informatives set out in the main report.