Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Juma Begum with Councillor Paul Wren 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.

Councillor Ian Woodall declared an other disclosable interest in relation to agenda item 6 (minute No24) in that he had been very vocal regarding traffic and the impact of local development in the surrounding area. Therefore, he believed that his views were too strong to guarantee impartiality when considering the application, and he would leave the room during the consideration of the item and take no part in the discussion or decision thereof.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17^th July 2025 were presented to Members.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 17^th July 2025 were approved as a true and accurate record and were 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)

Members indicated that they had enough time to read and consider the Update reports, therefore, the update reports were noted.

The application was reported to the Planning Committee for determination because the application was for major development. 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 26 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Ipsley House, Ipsley Church Lane, Ipsley, Redditch, B98 0AJ and sought Reserved Matters approval for the erection of 62 dwellings (use class C3), open space and associated works.

Officers detailed that the Outline Planning application 24/00717/OUT went before Members and was approved in November 2024. At the time an indicative plan was shown to Members which was not intended to be an accurate representation of the final plan, however, the plan shown at the time drew an objection from a member of the public.

The location of the development and surrounding area were detailed to Members, particularly those to the north at Shottery Close and to the East at Ipsley Court. The heights of the proposed dwellings and surrounding area were shown to Members on page 13 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The dwellings were mostly 3-bedroom units in brick and tile construction matching the surrounding developments, the makeup of housing was considered to reflect the requirements of the most recent Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA) which identified that there was a greater need for 3-4 bed units within the Borough. Furthermore, Officers clarified that due to vacant building credits there was no requirement for the developer to provide any affordable units as part of the development.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the public right of way shown on page 16 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. Links were identified which connect the new footpath on the development site with existing route just outside the site boundary to maintain a connection for public access.

Site access was initially determined during the outline application so would not usually also form part of the proceeding reserved matters application. However, due to a very minor change to the access point, Members were asked to consider the matter again. To highlight the change Members’ attention was drawn to page 25 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, which shows a straightening of the access road which had a slight curve in the outline application.

There was no objection from statutory consultees which included Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) regarding the change to access. Furthermore, there were no objections from any other statutory consultee subject to appropriate Conditions. The only objection to the application being from a resident, which was summarised in the Officers report.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Steve Williams, local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Michaela Corbett, on behalf of the applicant, spoke in support.

The following was clarified by Officers following questions from Members:

• Informative 4 was a standard informative and did not reflect that the road network might  ...  view the full minutes text for item 23.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the Ward Member requested it be determined by Planning Committee as opposed to being determined under Delegated Powers.

Having declared an interest, Councillor Woodall retired from the meeting room and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

The Chair announced that the primary objector speaking on the application, Mrs Eileen McMahon, was known to Members of the Labour party but that it would not play a part in their decision and that Members would remain impartial.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 9 to 23 of the Update Reports pack. Officers clarified that since the publication of the agenda, some more recent photographs were obtained which Officers felt necessitated an updated presentation for Members. Furthermore the amended and additional Conditions detailed on page 8 of the Update Reports pack were highlighted to Members.

The application was for Stonebridge Nursing Home, 178 – 180 Birchfield Road, Headless Cross, Redditch and sought a two-storey rear and front extension to improve facilities.

Officers drew Members attention to the site plans detailed on pages 12 and 14 of the Update Reports pack, highlighting the proposed extension locations shown on page 14. Officers also drew Members attention to 203 Birchfield Road opposite which was also owned by the nursing home, and which accommodated some employee parking.

The extensions which would be 5x7.5x2.8m and 5.75x7.85x10.5m for the front and rear extensions respectively, would create an additional 3 bedrooms within the home. The alterations to the building were shown on pages 32 and 33 of the update reports pack, labelled as rooms 1-10.

There were 9 separate objections from 5 Members of the public, which were summarised in the report. The main reason for objection was the impact on highways and parking. There were no objections from statutory consultees which included Worcester County Council, Highways (County Highways).

Officers detailed that when assessing parking spaces required for a care home, in accordance with WCC Parking standards, 1 space was required per 4 residents. As the plan detailed 29 spaces which was an increase of 9 spaces, this was compliant with parking standards.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mrs Eileen McMahon, Local Resident and Councillor Barker Smith, Ward Member, addressed the Committee in opposition to the development. A statement was also read out by Officers on behalf of Philip Edmunds, the Applicant, in support of the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.

• As the road was designated as unclassified there was no requirement for the developer to submit a planning application for the parking spaces outside number 178/180.
• The size of the development has increased since the care home was established and was evidenced by the planning history. It was usual for the impact of the development to be assessed rather than just the size increase. Officers did not feel that the impact was severe.
• The location of the waste  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.