Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Juma Begum with Councillor Sharon Harvey in attendance as a substitute.

Apologies for absence were also received from Councillors Andy Fry, Sid Khan and Anthony Lovell.

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.

The minutes of the Planning Committee held on 17^th January 2024 were presented to Members.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the Planning Committee held on 17^th January 2024 were approved as a true and accurate 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 drew Members attention to the update report 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.

The application was reported to Planning Committee for determination because the application was for 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 presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’attention to the presentation slides on pages 5 to 14 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for land at South Moons Moat, Padgets Lane, Redditch which sought the replacement of 6 existing industrial units.

Officers drew members attention to the proposed layout detailed on page 8 of the Public Reports pack. Officers clarified that the application sought to replace units which were previously on the site but were removed following fire damage in 2022. It was further clarified that the application did not seek a like for like replacement of the units as the footprint was slightly different.

The parking arrangement servicing the units at the rear of the buildings, was not formalised or marked previously. Therefore, under the application parking formalisation would be provided.

There was an update report relating to the application, detailed on page 5 of the Update Reports pack. Officers commented that the changes, in particular to relating to Condition 2, did not alter the application or recommendation by Officers.

Officers further informed Members that there was an additional public representation submitted from the occupiers of the units opposite, however, it did not raise any further issues which had not already been addressed within the report.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• That 62 parking spaces were proposed, and the provision of Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging Points was greater than recommendations within the Worcestershire County Council Streetscapes Design Guide..
• That the building was not a Like for like replacement as there was a slight movement of the building, however the footprint was similar to the original.

Members then proceeded to debate the application.

Members expressed their support and noted that it was not a like for like replacement, however, it was further noted that this also allowed for additional EVCP to be installed as part of the formalisation of the parking provision. 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 21 and 26 of the Public Reports pack.

b)    The amendment to Condition 2 as detailed on page 5 of the Update Reports pack.

The application was reported to Planning Committee for determination because 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 15 to 24 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Highfield House, Headless Cross Drive, Redditch, B97 5EQand sought the addition of patios, balconies and fencing to existing apartments.

Officers informed Members that the building was formerly an office block that was being converted into residential apartments, permission was granted under prior approval. Therefore, the scope of the application before Members was for the aforementioned changes only.

The topography of the site required landscape changes under the development. It was further detailed that there would be both points of cutting out and filling in to balance the levels for individual apartment units outlined on page 18 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. Retaining walls for filling work would be constructed in brick and would have safety railings in place.

Officers commented that vents and Solar panels were also detailed as part of the development, however, as planning permission was not required for the changes, this was for information only.

A 2.5m acoustic fencing was proposed to border the highway, the position of this and other fencing alterations/additions was detailed on page 22 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

It was clarified after questions from Members. That WCC, highways were satisfied with the development and that there was adequate parking provision on site to accommodate the 69 apartment units, however, this did not form part of the application before Members.

Members were in support of the application 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 was granted subject to Conditions as outlined on page 32 of the Public Reports pack.