Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Bill Hartnett with Councillor Juma Begum in attendance as substitute.

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 confirm the accuracy of the minutes from the Planning Committees on 1^st March 2023 and 29^th March 2023.

RESOLVED that

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 1^st March 2023 and 29^th March 2023 were approved as a true and accurate records 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)

At the request of Members, the meeting stood adjourned from 19:01 hours to 19:05 hours to enable Members sufficient time to read the Update Reports.

Having reconvened, Members indicated they were happy to proceed with the meeting.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee as the applicationrequired a Section 106 Agreement. As such the application fell outside the scheme ofdelegation to Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’attention to the presentation slides on pages 5 to 12 of the Update Report 1 pack.

The application was for The Alexandra Hospital, Woodrow Drive, Redditch, B98 7UB and sought outline planning permission for the removal of the existing carpark and apartment buildings to make way for a new residential development of up to 92 homes, with all matters reserved except for access.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the three Update Reports:

1. An updated Officer presentation.
2. Additional information with regard to consultations and representations.
3. Details of a further objection received.

Officers clarified to Members that the application before them was to decide on the principle of the development and that all plans, with the exception of those showing the proposed access, were indicative.

Officers clarified the location of the proposed development as detailed on pages 6 and 7 of Update Report 1 Pack. Officers compared the location to the Local Plan and highlighted that part of the development fell under the allocation for health facilities, however, the NHS trust had assessed the land as surplus to requirements and had made the decision to release the land for development and to reinvest the money into the hospital.

The apartment buildings to be removed due to the development were former nurses’ accommodation, however, these buildings had not been in use since 2015. Due to the demolition of the abandoned buildings, the site would be eligible for vacant building credit which would allow some of the affordable housing requirement to be offset.

Officers further detailed the improvements to the access off Quinney’s lane as part of the development which involved the widening of the road to 5.5m and the footpaths to 2m on either side.

At the invitation of the Chair Councillor Joe Baker spoke in objection to the application, Mr Andeep Gill, Agent for the applicant, spoke in support of the development.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members:

• That any Legal Covenant with regard to the land would not be a Planning consideration but a civil matter.
• The affordable housing allocation of 20% had been permitted due to the vacant building credit. Officers further clarified that this was a very specific circumstance relevant to this application and was not a general departure from the Local Plan.
• There would be no impact on the number of parking spaces across the site due to the development, all spaces were allocated for staff and would be relocated prior to the development commencing.
• Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Highways did not deem the impact of the increased traffic to the network to be severe. Modelling and surveys undertaken estimated the peak time increase to the traffic network to be approximately +1%.
• The access to the hospital from Nine Days Lane would be retained  ...  view the full minutes text for item 79.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the land subject tothe application was currently owned by Worcestershire County Council. As such theapplication 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 13 to 18 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for 1 Tysoe Close, Redditch, B98 0TB and sought the change of use of highways land to a private residential garden.

Officers drew Members’ attention to pages 14 and 15 of the Public Reports pack and highlighted the land in question. Officers further detailed that the land had been designated incidental open space and that the application was retrospective in nature.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members:

• The building on site would be immune to enforcement matters due to the passage of time being over 4 years since construction.
• WCC Highways had no objections to the application, the visibility splays were deemed acceptable for the speed of the road and junction.

Members then debated the application.

Members were displeased that the application was retrospective in nature and that the work had been carried out over a number of years prior. However, Members saw no material reason to refuse the application, on being put to a 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 outlined on page 39 of the Public Reports Pack.