Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Andy Fry with Councillor Juma Begum in attendance as Substitute.

Apologies received from Councillor Imran Altaf.

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.

Councillor Baker-Price Declared an interest in relation to agenda item 8 (Application - 22/00637/FUL) - Numbers 45 to 122 High Trees Close, Oakenshaw, Redditch, B98 7BP, in that this item was on his Ward and he had campaigned on its behalf. Councillor Baker-Price withdrew from the meeting room for the duration of this item and took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on the matter.

RESOLVED that

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 25^th May 2022 be approved as a true 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 Chair announced that a Committee Update had been circulated to all Planning Committee Members and asked if all Members had received and read the Committee Update.

All Members agreed that they had received and read the Committee Update and were happy for the Committee to proceed.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee for determination because the application was deferredfrom a previous Planning Committee (July 2021). In addition, it had attracted an objection from a Statutory Consultee and therefore fell outside of the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

Officers reported that following the submission of an additional representation received from Feckenham Parish Council (FPC) that an update had been circulated summarising the points raised by FPC, which also included the agent’s response. It was also noted that a revised presentation was circulated with the Planning Update Report pack.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 7-19 of the Planning Update Report.

The application was for planning permission for the erection of 2 x dwellings in lieu of 1 dwelling granted as part of the site's re-development under planning application 17/00451/FUL (Retrospective).

Officers reported that the extant permission 17/00451/FUL (Retrospective) related to the redevelopment of the site forresidential purposes. This involved the conversion/extension of some of the former farm buildings and the demolition of various structures on site, including a large Dutch barn that was located close to the road frontage. A new single dwelling would have been erected in its place as shown on page 10 of the Planning Update Report.

Work commenced in 2020 during lockdown but during redevelopment it became apparent that there would be problems due to the gradient of the slope. Due to this, the design was converted into two 2-bedroom properties as shown on page 12 of the Planning Update Report.

Officers highlighted that both the footprint and position of the new structure were identical to the building outlined in the extant permission. Officers also drew Members’ attention to the change in roof design, going from a very shallow mono pitched roof to adual pitched roof with anoverall height varying from 5.3-6.2m. Officers noted that the new design matched surrounding buildings.

Officers also informed Members that this application was deferred last year at Planning Committee as comments made by the public speakers were felt to require clarification. Advice from Counsel was therefore sought. The advice was that the extant planning permission represented a fallback position.

Officers explained that the extant planning permission had a habitable volume of 478 cubic meters, where-as the new dwellings had a total volume of 776 cubic meters. Officers then drew Members’ attention to page 15 of the Planning Update Report Officers explained that with the volume of foundations required to enact the extant planning permission the overall development would have been 740 cubic meters.

Officers explained to Members that, the proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt and would conflictwith Policy 8 of the Local Plan No.4.

Officers further explained that in this case, the volume of the building would be higher than the fallback position by approximately 36 cubic metres. However, in considering the spatial and visual consequences of this in the context of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 16.

This application was reported to Planning Committee for determination because theapplication was for a major development (more than 1000 sq metres of new commercial / industrial floorspace). As such, the application fell outside the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

Officers reported that following submission of a Bat Survey Report and Mitigation Strategy, that there was an additional and amended Condition attached to this application as detailed in the Planning Update Report.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 15-26 of the Site Plans and Presentation Pack.

This application was for the demolition of existing buildings at Alto House on Ravens Bank Drive. This included erection of a new commercial unit delivering up to 5,575 sq meters GIA of development falling within Use Classes B2, B8, E(g)(iii). The development included ancillary offices, access improvements, drainage, landscaping, vehicular parking, boundary treatments and associated works.

Officers drew Members’ attention to Existing Site Layout and Proposed Site Layout, as shown on paged 18 and 19 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack. Officers highlighted that vehicular and pedestrian access remained the same.

Officers highlighted the potential bat roost in a single storage garage on site which needed to be carefully considered during demolition, as outlined in the planning approval conditions. Officers highlighted the building’s location on the Existing Aerial View on page 23 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.

Officers commented that most of the tree cover on site would be retained as a screen. Officers also commented that they considered the materials for construction to be appropriate and in keeping with the surrounding buildings.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the statement from Worcestershire Highways on page 21 of the main agenda pack, stating that they had no objections, subject to the conditions regarding improvements to the nearby bus stops.

In conclusion, having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, Officers recommended that the application be approved.

Members then asked questions of the Officers.

Members drew Officers’ attention to page 25 of the main agenda pack, in particular the provision for 60 car parking spaces and 139 bicycle spaces. Members asked that if the application supplied only 20 bicycle spaces why was it deemed satisfactory. Officers referred highlighting to the record of dialogue detailed on page 26 of the main agenda pack; evidence was presented which Worcestershire County Council (WCC) had taken into consideration and which they were satisfied with.

Members asked for clarification that the 60 car parking spaces did not include HGV parking.  Officers replied that HGV parking was on a separate (north) part of the site.

Members asked if there were any planned changes to the egress. Officers informed Members that the egress would still be the same location however, there would be some small changes to the geometry and gradients of the curbs.

Members questioned the 80-100 full time employees expected but only 60 car parking spaces were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 17.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the site was ownedby Worcestershire County Council. As such the application fell outside the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

Officers informed the Committee that there were no update reports for the item.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 27-32 of the Site Plans and Presentation Pack.

The application proposed two single storey extensions to Kingfisher School to provide an Office, Mentor/Breakout Room, circulation and Outreach Room.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Existing and Proposed Site Plan on page 29 of the Site Plans and Presentation Pack, pointing out the location of the two proposed extensions.  Officers further highlighted the cycle storage which needed to be moved and indicated its new proposed position.

Officers also mentioned

• Both extensions were single storey.
• There would be no increase in pupil or staff numbers so there would be no impact on parking.
• Proposed changes were inside the school building boundaries.
• There would be no overspill onto green space surrounding the school.

In conclusion, having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, Officers recommended that the application be approved.

Members then considered the application, which Officers had recommended be approved.

All Members were in agreement with the Officer’s recommendation

RESOLVED that

Having regard to the development plan and to all other material
considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the Conditions and Informative outlined on Pages 35 and 36 of the main agenda pack.

This 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

Having declared an interest, Councillor Baker-Price left the meeting room and took no part in the debate or decision making process for this item.

Officers informed the Committee that there was no update report for the item.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 33-42 of the Site Plans and Presentation Pack.

The proposal comprised general repair and improvement works to 77 properties in totalsituated within High Trees Close. The works included the replacement of existing crackedconcrete planters serving existing balconies with powder coated metal privacy fencingand rails; improved water proofing solutions to balconies and increased insulation;replacing the original brick kerbs with concrete kerbs; street lighting and waste removalimprovements.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the example of the metal balustrade on page 38 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.  Officers highlighted that this image was to show materials and style only and that the actual railing would be 1m High.

Officers also mentioned:

• Upgrades would affect 77 flats.
• Changes to the waste system to match a system used in Batchley, which used the same bins but housed them in a timber/galvanised metal unit.
• Change in the lamps to convert to LED providing a brighter white light.
• Replacing current brick curbs with more robust concrete curbs.

In conclusion, having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, Officers recommended that the application be approved.

Members then asked questions of the Officers.

Members asked if a 1m balustrade presented a suitable safety measure. Officers explained that the current height of the planters was 750mm so there would be an increase in height compared to that of the existing. Officers also highlighted that the 1m height would be to the upper floors and that the ground floor would have a 1250mm balustrade.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr. Andrew Rainbow, Capital Programmes and Contracts Manager for RBC addressed the Committee.

Members then considered the application, which Officers had recommended be approved.

Members commented that the upgrades would enhance the properties and public safety, improving the life of residents.

Members thanked the speaker for addressing the Committee. Members also recognised the work and consideration that had been put into the project by the development team.

Members commented that the development would much improve the visual amenities of the area comparing the proposals with the appearance of the existing deteriorating concrete planters.

Members expressed concern over the 1m railings being of insufficient height to prevent falling from the balconies. Officers replied that balcony railing heights with respect to matters of safety would be covered under separate legislation, principally that of the building regulations.

All Members were in agreement with the Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED that

Having regard to the development plan and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19.