Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 receive the minutes of the Planning Committees on 12^th July 2023 and 26^th July 2023.

The minutes of the Planning Committees held on 12^th July 2023 and 26^th July 2023 were presented to Members.

RESOLVED that

The minutes of the Planning Committees held on 12^th July 2023 and 26^th July 2023 were approved as 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)

The Chair drew Members attention to the update report which was circulated to Members prior to the meeting.

Members indicated that they had sufficient time to read the report and were happy to proceed with the meeting.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee as eleven or more representations in objection to the application had been received, the application was subject to a planning obligation and the recommendation was for approval.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’attention to the presentation slides on pages 5 to 15 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for the Land rear of Sambourne Lane,
Astwood Bank, B96 6EP and sought outline approval with the matter of appearance reserved for 9 self-build / custom build detached dwellings with access.

The application was considered at Planning Committeeon 26^th July 2023, where the application was deferred to allow Members to visit the site.The site visit, accompanied by the Case Officer took place on Friday 8^th September2023.

Officers confirmed to Members that the application was for 9 self-build dwellings and that matters of appearance had not been considered as they would be covered under separate planning applications for the individual plots. Officers further clarified that the plot boundaries detailed on page 9 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack would be the maximum footprint of the buildings and any dwellings needed to be situated entirely within those build zones.

Officers informed Members that the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 placed an obligation on Councils to supply plots for self-build units and that there was a 10-plot shortfall within Redditch Borough Council, therefore, significant weight should be afforded to this matter.

The additional and current tree screening was identified by Officers on page 9 of the Site Plans and Presentation pack, indicated in a Light and dark green colour respectively. Officers further detailed to Members that the development was considered well screened and would not be very visible from the main highways.

At the invitation of the Chair, the following speakers addressed the Committee under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules

• Karen Baggott (3 Minutes) - Local Resident (in objection)
• Fraser Baggott (3 Minutes) - Local Resident (in objection)
• Simon Walker (3 Minutes) - Local Resident (in objection)
• Brandon Clayton (3 Minutes) - Ward Councillor (in objection)
• John Jowitt (9 minutes) – Agent for the applicant (in support)

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• That there were no Tree Protection Orders (TPOs) on  any of the trees on the site, therefore, any of the Landowners could remove the trees on their property at any time.
• That in response to representations claiming the presence of great crested newts. Officers informed Members that there was no evidence found by an eDNA report to support the claim. Should any activity be identified, work would be halted whilst the applicant applied for a Natural England licence and whilst appropriate measures were put in place.
• There was no special designation on the site in the Local Plan. The site was formed from the rear gardens of properties and is not a wildlife site.
• The site would have an independent septic tank and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee as a Section 106 Agreement was required. As such the application 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 17 to 42 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Lowans Hill Farm, Brockhill Lane, Redditch, B97 6QXand sought the demolition of existing buildings and construction of 17 dwellings, with new access, public open space, landscaping and planting, associated infrastructure and enabling works.

Officers clarified that the application was a Full application and that it was unrelated to any developments in the local area.

The topography of the site was identified as being substantially higher than the surrounding area, this presented a technical difficulty for the development, specifically with regard to access.

The buildings had stood derelict for a number of years, applications were sought and approved in 2011 and 2015 to convert the buildings into residential units, however, the applications were not implemented and had since expired.

Officers identified the current condition of the buildings to Members using the images on pages 24-27 of the Main Reports pack. A structural survey had been carried out and found the buildings to be in a dangerous and unsafe condition, it was also identified that to convert the buildings to residential units it would likely take a significant investment and would not be economically viable.

The proposed layout of the site was presented to Members, detailed on page 31 of the Public Reports pack. 17 dwellings would be constructed around a central courtyard with a mix of 2-, 3- and 4-bedroom dwellings in detached and semi-detached design. There would also be a “dog leg” turn to address the difference in levels experienced on the site.

The current buildings were identified as non-designated heritage assets, and their removal required a balanced judgement by Officers. Due to the state of disrepair of the derelict site and other matters listed int eh report, Officers deemed that their loss was outweighed by the development of this strategic site and the wider economic benefits to the area.

Officers detailed to Members that a viability assessment had been submitted by the applicant, this assessment had been examined by experts at the Council and it was accepted that, due to development difficulties, a number of concessions had been accepted, these concessions included no affordable housing on site and reduced Section 106 contributions.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Stuart Wells, Agent for the applicant, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• That the developers profit margin was 17.5% which was less than the maximum allowed margin of 20%.
• That of the 64K residual profit (which it was identified was after developers’ profit). 53.5K would go towards offsite affordable housing provision, to mitigate the loss of 30% affordable housing on site.
• Due to the viability assessment, there  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee for determination as the application was for major development and as such the application 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 43 to 55 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for The Alexandra Hospital, Woodrow Drive, Redditchand sought a new two-storey extension (including plant space and vertical circulation) at rear of the existing two-storey hospital to provide 2 new surgical theatres and support accommodation.

Officers detailed that the development was to take place on the existing rear carpark, Officers further detailed that due this application and a number of other developments taking place on the Alexandra site, Condition 5 was proposed to safeguard the parking provision at the Hospital.

Officers detailed the boundary treatment that would be required to mitigate the visual impact of the development, this was to be enforced by Condition 6 detailed on page 73 of the Public Reports pack.

At the invitation of the Chair, Dr Julian Berlet, of the NHS Trust Addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• The development was part retrospective and had already begun.
• That Condition 6 had not stated the maturity/size of the proposed screening.
• No new access points were proposed. WCC highways were satisfied and had no objection to the application.
• That the development only needed to address its own shortfalls, therefore, the 11 additional Parking spaces provided by the development were deemed adequate.

Members then debated the application.

Members expressed concern regarding the lack of details regarding the maturity of the screening, therefore, Members requested that some more detail be provided within the condition. Officers agreed to amend the Condition in that the screening would be of at least Standard level (which was a Arboricutural term denoting a medium standard of tree girth).

Members were pleased to see development/enhancements within the Alexandra Hospital and on being put to a vote, it was.

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other materialconsiderations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to:

a)    Conditions as detailed on pages 72 to 73 of the Public Reports pack.

b)    Delegated powers be given to the head of Planning, Regeneration and Leisure to amend Condition 6 as detailed in the Pre-amble above.

c)    Imposition of 3 additional conditions as listed in the published updates.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee as the applicant was Redditch Borough Council, as such the application 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 57 to 63 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for 157 Easemore Road, Redditch, B98 8HUand sought Internal layout alterations with the erection of a two-storey side extension.

Officers drew Members attention to the existing and proposed floor plans detailed on pages 60 and 61 of the Public Reports pack, the plans showed the proposed works to be undertaken on the property. Officers further detailed that there was a specific family who had been identified with an urgent need for a 5-bedroom property.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Andrew Rainbow, RBC Project Manager, Addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members then debated the application.

Members were aware of the property which had been vacant for a number of years and were pleased to see the property coming back into the Council’s housing stock.

On being put to a vote, it was.

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other materialconsiderations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to theconditions outlined on page 77 of the Public Reports pack.