Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Clayton

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 Bill Hartnett declared in relation to Agenda item 9 (Minute No31) in that he was the Portfolio Holder for housing, However, he declared that he was not predetermined and that he retained an open mind in relation to the application and would stay for the debate and decision thereof.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14^th August 2025 were presented to Members.

RESOLVED that

the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 14^th August 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 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.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 5 to 12 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for The Anchorage, West Avenue, Smallwood, Redditch, Worcestershire, B98 7DH and sought the Change of use of a disused Hostel and its conversion into 3 flats.

The proposed layouts were shown and Officers detailed that the 2 dwellings on the ground floor would have a single bedroom and the dwelling on the first floor would have two bedrooms. The access points were highlighted, and it was clarified that each dwelling would have its own separate entrance.

There were no external works proposed to the building with the exception of the bricking up of an external doorway on northeastern elevation of the ground floor. The changes to the site were detailed on page 9 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack which accommodated the necessary car parking spaces required for new dwellings.

Officers detailed that the site was in a sustainable urban location, and no objections were raised from statutory consultees subject to appropriate conditions.

The following was clarified after questions from Members

• That there would be no impact to the Sandycross Site as the sites had different access points.
• That the size of the dwellings was slightly below the nationally described space standards as set out in the Department for Communities and Local Government's Technical Housing Standards
• There was no provision for replacement trees to be planted for those removed from the site.
• There was limited outside amenity provision for flats.
• The supply of EV charging points was covered under building regulations, therefore, was not a consideration for Members.

Officers clarified that the decision was taken to have three rather than two flats because although the space was slightly below the nationally described space standards, the benefits of supplying three dwellings in a very sustainable location was deemed to outweigh the concerns.

Members moved the recommendation with the additional condition to provide biodiversity enhancements to the scheme.

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 as detailed on pages 17 to 19 of the Public Reports pack with an additional condition as detailed in the preamble above, the specific wording to be decided by Officers.

The 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.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 13 to 17 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack with the additional slide as detailed on page 7 of the Update Reports pack.

The application was for Morton Stanley Park, Windmill Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire and sought the Installation of a 24m by 15m multi-use games area (MUGA) with 2m high fencing

Officers drew Members attention to the proposed location detailed on page 14 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. Officers further detailed that the children’s play area was 110m to the north, Carpark 80m to the east and the nearest dwelling was 250m to the south.

The MUGA would be disability compliant and was in a sustainable location which was deemed to have good natural surveillance which would reduce the risk of anti-social behaviour.

Comments from West Mercia Police were detailed on page 5 of the Update Reports pack and Officers detailed that due to this the recommendation was amended and the new wording was detailed on page 5 of the Update Reports pack.

The following was clarified by Officers following questions from Members.

• That no lighting was proposed to be installed on site.
• No trees would be removed or impacted by the instillation

Members expressed concerns over the anti-social behaviour (ASB) impact which MUGAs tend to have when they are installed. Members further commented that it was not possible to see through the mesh so natural surveillance effects would be reduced.

Councillor Davies enquired regarding the impact to the habitat of the Brown Hairstreak butterfly which lived in the park. It was clarified that an impact survey was not submitted by the applicant, therefore, as the Brown Hairstreak was a protected species, Officers’ recommended deferral pending the submission of an appropriate protected species survey.

Members also requested that some more information be brought back on the potential impact of ASB when installed and information on any increase of ASB following the installation of similar MUGAs.

On being put to a vote it was

RESOLVED that

That having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, the application be DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Committee following the submission of information detailed in the preamble above.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the applicant was related to an employee of 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 pages19 to 26 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for 2 Marlpit Lane, Headless Cross, Redditch, B97 5AN and sought a single storey side extension, 2 storey rear extension and part first floor front extension.

The existing and proposed plans were detailed on pages 22 and 23 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack and officers highlighted the extent of the proposed works. Officers detailed that when assessing the impact of the development, the impact of the side extension was minimal considering the pre existing garage on the side, the rear extension was shielded from view by the property and the front extension was stepped down as to not impact the street scene, therefore, no impact the visual amenity in the area was identified.

No objections had been received from statutory consultees nor local residents. However, Officers highlighted that the deadline for the public consultation was 12^th September 2025. Therefore, Officers were asking for delegated authority to approve pending the outcome of the consultation.

Officers detailed an altered recommendation which was read out in full to Members, the new Recommendation took into account comments made in the update report whilst amending some typographical errors. Members approved of the changes and on being put to a vote it was:

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and all other material considerations, authority be DELEGATED to the Assistant Director of Planning, Leisure, and Culture Services, to GRANT planning permission after the 12th September 2025, subject to no objections being received which raise material considerations not already considered as part of the officer’s report. Subject to the conditions as outlined on pages 33 and 34 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the application site was owned by 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 27 to 29 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was a Section 73 application for 57 Poplar Road, Batchley, Redditch, Worcestershire, B97 6NY and sought the Variation of planning Condition 5 (opening hours) of the planning permission 19/01452/FUL.

Officers drew Members attention to existing and proposed operating schedule detailed on page 29 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

No objections had been received from Worcestershire Regulatory Services, nor any other consultee. It was also clarified in the Update Reports pack that Condition 6 attached to the previous application 19/01452/FUL was no longer deemed necessary by WRS and therefore, the decision was taken not to transfer it over to the new application.

Members were in agreement with the change in operating schedule, which would allow any potential occupant to serve a lunchtime menu and would have very little impact on the local area.

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 and Informative detailed on pages 38 and 39 of the Public Reports 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.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 31 to 33 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Former Hawthorne Rd Community Centre, Hawthorne Rd, Batchley, B97 6NG and sought Proposed demolition of the former single storey Community Centre.

Officers detailed that it was not a planning permission before members but the permission to use the permitted development rights.

The site location was identified on page 33 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. The building had been vacant for a number of years, and the decision was taken to demolish the building and a planning application for housing could be submitted at a future date.

Comments had been received from WRS regarding noise/ contamination, and an additional Informative was proposed on page 6 of the Update Reports pack. Officers clarified that the site would be cleared and levelled and boarded up ready for if a planning application was received. On being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that

prior approval for demolition was NOT REQUIRED. Subject to:

• informative 1 and 2 as detailed on page 44 of the Public Reports pack; and
• Informative 3 as detailed on page 6 of the Update Reports pack