Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Gemma Monaco and Councillor Jennifer Wheeler.  Councillor Yvonne Smith attended as substitute for Councillor Jennifer Wheeler.

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.

In respect of application 2016/024/FUL Councillor Bill Hartnett disclosed an Other Disclosable interest in that he was a board member of  Redditch Co-operative Homes (a division of Accord Housing Association). Councillor Hartnett left the room during consideration of this application and took no part in the debate or vote.

RESOLVED that

The Minutes of the meetings of the Planning Committees held on 10^th June 2019 and 19^th June 2019 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Update Reports attached.

The published Update Reports for the applications were noted.

Site Plan

Change of Use (in part) from B8 (storage and distribution use) to B2 (general industrial use) and the extension of the existing building for B2 use together with the provision of additional car parking, service yard alterations, external store and gatehouse and associated works

Officers outlined the application and explained that the operators of the site, NSG Pilkington, were seeking to expand the existing premises to accommodate the transfer to the site of their manufacturing operation based in Kings Norton.  The expanded site would then be the sole operational location for Pilkingtons UK Automotive business.

Members were referred to the extant planning permission granted on 24^th June 1998 (ref: 1998/266/FUL) the first phase of which had been built out.  As planning permission had been granted for two phases, this gave a fall back position that the applicant could extend the site by 9290 square metres by implementing the second phase.  The principle of development for the current application was materially very similar to that of the second phase of the extant permission and it was noted that in terms of dimensions the proposed extension was smaller than that which could be built under the extant permission. 

The application had been assessed by officers to be acceptable in terms of the principle of development, layout and design, and highways, access and parking.  Members were referred to the comments of the Arboricultural Officer on page 1 of the Update Report and the proposed conditions for landscaping.

With regard to impact on residential amenity, officers provided details of the proximity of the proposed building to nearby residential properties on Hoveton Road and confirmed that the separation distances were deemed acceptable.

It was noted that the applicant had voluntarily included in the plans an acoustic fence to act as a noise barrier for vehicles using the proposed new access road, as set out in the Update Report.  The Applicant had agreed to the imposition of three new conditions covering the acoustic fence, a Construction Management Plan and an HGV routing system and Members were referred to the additional conditions in the Update Report.

At the invitation of the Chair the following speakers addressed the Committee under the Councils Public Speaking Rules:-

Mrs Lucy Alexander - local resident

Councillors Joe Baker, Wanda King and Jennifer Wheeler – ward councillors for Greenlands Ward

Mr David Green -  Planning Agent

Mr Robert Purcell – NSG Pilkington

By way of clarification, on behalf of the Applicant it was confirmed that:-

·       There would be 200 employees in total, the majority split between an early and a later day shift with a small number to cover the night shift. 

·       The car park had been designed to give enough capacity for change over periods when one shift arrived before the previous shift had left.

·       The only access to the site, for staff parking or HGV deliveries, was from Old Forge Drive.

During the debate Members commented on a number of matters raised during public speaking including the acoustic fence, publicity  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21.

Site Plan

Demolition of Redditch Trades and Labour Club and erection of 40 units, 26 No.1 bedroom flats and 14 No. 2 bedroom flats

Officers presented the report and explained that the plans had undergone a number of changes since the application was submitted, the main issue being to achieve a final design that was in keeping with the surrounding street scene and nearby buildings.

Officers referred to the relevant policies which supported the density of the scheme given the town centre location, and provided the rationale for a reduction in parking spaces on-site given the accessibility to public transport located close by.  It was noted that County Highways did not object to the proposed parking provision which consisted of 30 spaces including Electric Vehicle charging points.

The application was recommended for approval subject to a section 106 agreement to secure contributions from the developer as referred to on page 37 of the agenda.

Following a late request for a contribution from the NHS, the applicant had consulted a Viability Advisor.  Members were referred to the update report in this regard, and it was noted that a further contribution would not be sought as to do so might affect the viability of the scheme.

At the invitation of the Chair Mr Miles Leyland, the agent for the Applicant, addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules.

In response to questions from Members officers confirmed that:-

·       Affordable housing had been addressed and was summarised in the comments on page 36 of the main agenda.  Given the re-use of a brownfield site and issues around viability, a lower level of affordable housing (15%) had been deemed to be acceptable.  The 20% discount would be protected by various legal mechanisms and would be re-applied on any future changes of ownership.

·       With regard to the issue of density, this had been carefully considered, but had to be balanced against the developers representations about viability and the benefits of agreeing a scheme that could be delivered.

RESOLVED THAT

Having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, that delegated authority be granted to the Head of Planning and Regeneration to GRANT planning permission subject to:-

1.     the receipt of the Viability Advisor’s report; and

2.     the satisfactory completion of a S106 planning obligation ensuring that:

       i.          Contributions are paid to the Borough Council in respect of off-site open space, and equipped play and sport provision in accordance with the Councils adopted SPD.

     ii.          Contributions are paid to the Borough Council towards the provision of domestic and recycling bins for the new development in accordance with the County’s Waste Strategy.

   iii.          Contributions are paid towards Town Centre enhancement in accordance with the Town Centre Strategy.

   iv.          Affordable housing be provided as part of the scheme -  6 affordable units ( 4 No. 1 bed units and 2 No. 2 bed units to be sold with 20% discount).

and

3.     the conditions and informatives set out on pages 37 to 41 of the main agenda.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22.

Sire Plan

Provision of 14 no. self-contained supported one bedroom flats and resource hub (Use Class C2) and 13 no. 2 bedroom flats (Use Class C3) with associated external works, car parking and landscaping.

Officers presented the report and described the proposed layout, elevations, and parking arrangements.  The principle of residential use was acceptable, and as referred to on the previous application, Members were directed to the policies which supported density of dwellings in town centre sites, and provision of parking spaces.  County Highways had no objections to the scheme.

Contributions had been agreed by the Applicant as set out on pages 50 to 51 of the main agenda, and Members were referred to the revised condition regarding electric vehicle charging points on page 4 of the Update Reports.

In response to questions from Member’s, officers gave clarification that the spaces in the parking area would be communal (as opposed to allocated); there was other public parking in very close proximity to the site and the level of on-site parking had been deemed to be acceptable taking into account that residents of the supported living units may not have their own vehicles.

RESOLVED THAT

Having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to:-

1.     the conditions and informatives set out on pages 52 to 56 of the main agenda subject to the following change to the wording of condition 6

“6.  The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until the proposed development has been fitted with 2 electric charging points in accordance with Dwg. No. 201806/01F”.

And

2. The satisfactory completion of a S106 planning obligation ensuring that:

       i.          Contributions are paid to the Borough Council in respect of off-site open space, and equipped play and sport provision in accordance with the Councils adopted SPD.

     ii.          Contributions are paid to the Borough Council towards the provision of domestic and recycling bins for the new development in accordance with the County’s Waste Strategy.

   iii.          Contributions are paid to County Highways towards IDP contributions to mitigate for the additional demands on the wider transport network that the development will generate.  Plus improvements to the nearby kerbs and bus stop located on Evesham Street, and a contribution towards Community Transport  - the establishment of a new community car scheme which is underway in Redditch as well as upgrades to some of the streetlight within the vicinity of the site.

   iv.          Contributions are paid to NHS towards the cost of a local healthcare.

     v.          Affordable housing be provided as part of the scheme - 14 self-contained supported one bedroom flats and 13 No. shared ownership apartment.

Site Plan

Two storey rear extensions, side extension, first floor front bedroom dormer window extension, new extended porch together with internal and external remodelling and renovation works

Officers presented the report and in doing so commented that separation distances to the two neighbouring properties were acceptable and within policy; that there would be no material impact of overlooking; and that with regard to light and over shadowing to adjoining rear gardens (resulting from the two storey rear extension) the application complied with Council policies including the 45 degree rule.

Accordingly the application was recommended for approval.

The following public speakers addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules:-

Mr Nicholas Forward     }

Mr James Whitby          } Local Residents

Mr Paul Stokes             }

Mr Stuart O’Manoney – Applicant

During public speaking Mr Whitby referred the Members to photographs of the view of the application site from his property.

During the debate Member’s asked for further clarification of separation distances as raised in public speaking.

RESOLVED that

Having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions and informatives set out on page 60 of the main agenda.

Sire Plan

Officers presented the report and explained that the application site fell within the Bromsgrove District Council (”BDC”) boundary, and that ultimately this was a matter that would be decided by the Bromsgrove District Council Planning Committee. Redditch Borough Council had been consulted because of the close proximity of the site to the Bromsgrove/Redditch boundary.

Officers had carried out a detailed appraisal of the application and Members were being asked to consider and endorse the officer appraisal as set out on pages 67 to 69 of the main agenda.

From a policy point of view, the site was included in the Bromsgrove District Council Plan to meet some of the developments requirements of Redditch Borough Council.  Members were referred to the relevant policy documents, namely the Bromsgrove District Council Cross Boundary Policy in the Bromsgrove District Plan (Adopted 2017) and the Redditch Borough Council Cross Boundary Policy which was included as an appendix to the Redditch Local Plan No 4 ( BORLP4) (Adopted January 2017).

Officers supported the principle of development to provide housing but questioned whether the Public House and Hotel building should be capable of inclusion on the Bromsgrove Local Heritage List.  Secondly, it was noted that loss of the Public House which is a community facility should be considered further against Policy BDP12 “Sustainable Communities” of the Bromsgrove District Plan.

Officers had concluded that even if the community asset was to be lost, consideration should be given to preserving the buildings, and that this could be pursued through exploring the opportunities for the Foxlydiate Pub and Hotel to be converted into housing, as opposed to being demolished.

In commenting on the consultation, Members were supportive of the need to provide housing but at the same time acknowledged the status of the pub and hotel buildings and concurred with the officer appraisal that conversion would be preferable to demolition.

RESOLVED that 

1.     The principle of housing on the site be supported, however objections be raised to the demolition element of the planning application.

2.     Members endorse the comments under the heading Officer Appraisal as set out in Appendix 1 (pages 67 to 69 of the main agenda).