Agenda and minutes

Wednesday, 9th January, 2019 7.00 pm

Venue: Council Chamber Town Hall. View directions

Contact: Sarah Sellers  Democratic Services Officer

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gareth Prosser.  Councillor Anthony Lovell attended as substitute for Councillor Prosser.


Declarations of Interest

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.


Confirmation of Minutes pdf icon PDF 132 KB




The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee on 12th December 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.


Update Reports

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 was no update report.  Members confirmed that they had received and read the additional information and photos sent in by the occupants of number 1122 Evesham Road which had been tabled (in relation to Application 18/01336/FUL).


Application 2018/01336/FUL - Astwood Bank Service Station Evesham Road Astwood Bank Redditch B96 6EA - MPK Garages Limited pdf icon PDF 156 KB

Site Plan

Additional documents:


Proposed infill extension to forecourt shop; demolish existing storage area to front, removal of car wash and the stationing of a detached storage container to the rear


Members were reminded that the application had been deferred at the last meeting of the Planning Committee on 12th December for officers to obtain further information regarding the operation of the site, including vehicular access, and the installation of the storage container.


It was noted that following the adjournment the application would be re-considered in full by the Committee.  Officers confirmed that the report had been updated to reflect comments from the additional consultees listed on page 15, namely Local Authority Building Control, the Police Crime Risk Manager and the Fire Service.  One additional objection had been received which brought the total to seven.  The issues raised by all the objections were listed in the bullet points on pages 15/16 under the heading “Public Consultation Response”.


Additional information and photographs had been received earlier in the day from the occupants on number 1122 Evesham Road and these had been seen by the officers and the Members.


Officers outlined the application which sought permission for various works including removal of the existing storage area at the front of the site, removal of the car wash, extension of the shop by 20 square meters (into the space previously occupied by the car wash), and the erection of a storage structure at the rear of the site.


The removal of the existing storage area at the front would allow for the formation of three new parking spaces (including one disabled space), and four additional parking spaces would be added at the rear. Since the last meeting it had been established that the spaces at the rear would be for staff and the spaces at the front for use by customers.


The storage structure at the rear would be a detached standalone unit positioned next to the fence with dimensions of just over 6 metres in length and just over 2.4 metres in width.  As shown on the plans and elevations, the storage unit would be shielded from view by the adjacent fence with only a small section of the top of the unit visible above the fence line.


From a policy point of view, officers were of the view that the application site was a sustainable location and that the application was not in conflict with LP4 Policy 2 (Settlement Hierarchy).  The hours of operation of the service station would remain the same as at present.


County Highways had concluded that there were no highway implications which might result in the development giving rise to harm from highway safety, and this assessment took into account the removal of the car wash and the provision of marked out parking spaces.


The new consultees had not made any objections to the application. 


The number of employees was currently four full time and six part time.  Were the application to be granted, this would increase to four full  ...  view the full minutes text for item 62.


Application 18/01428/OUT Land at the rear of 213-229 Ibstock Close and at the rear of 23-31 Foxcote Close Winyates East Redditch B98 0PZ - Redditch Borough Council pdf icon PDF 137 KB

Site Plan


Additional documents:


Outline application for the erection of 8 No. 2-bed dormer bungalows with associated infrastructure


The application was for outline planning permission for the construction of 8 two bedroomed dormer bungalows on Council owned land at the rear of Ibstock Close and Foxcote Close.  It was noted that all matters were reserved for future consideration, namely access, layout, scale appearance and landscaping.


Whilst the detail would be subject to a further application, Officers were able to provide an indicative plan showing one potential configuration of the proposed dwellings.  Although not for decision at this stage, the plan showed the proposed access route which would pass through an existing area communal of garages and parking spaces to link the site to Ibstock Close.


Members were referred to the Ecological Appraisal that had been undertaken, and to the nine criteria for assessing application for development on open space land under Policy 13 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4.


It was noted that the Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply of housing land and that for this application the presumption in favour of sustainable development would apply unless any adverse impacts would outweigh the benefits.  Officers had concluded that any adverse impacts arising from granting permission for the residential development of the site would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the scheme as a whole which would provide affordable housing to meet the Council’s identified housing needs. Accordingly, the scheme was recommended for approval.


Mr Keith Andrews, a local resident, addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules.


In response to questions from Members officers confirmed that:-


·         The triangle of land at the north of the site was not included in the application and would be retained as public open space.

·         The lay out plan seen by Members was indicative only and there could be alternative configurations to enable the availability of open space within the site to be maximised.


During the debate Members expressed their sympathy with the comments of the public speaker regarding the loss of open space for children in the surrounding streets to play in.  At the same time Members acknowledged the shortage of affordable housing in the Borough and the need this created for new dwellings.


Whilst recognising that the application was for outline permission only, Members did ask that their observations on the indicative layout plan be noted in the Minutes as follows:-


·         That green space should be retained as far as possible, and this could be achieved by looking at the use of the triangle of open land north of the site, and the configuration of the proposed dwellings within the site.

·         Any green space should be readily accessible.

·         With regard to the access from Ibstock Close, that consideration be given to the comments of the public speaker that larger parked vehicles, such as vans, might protrude onto the access road.


Members were also mindful of ensuring that notwithstanding the development, there should be provision for suitable facilities for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63.