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.

RESOLVED that

The Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee on 8^th August 2018 be confirmed as a correct record and signed by the Chair.

Update Report attached.

The published Update Report for the various Applications to be considered were noted.

Site Plan

Full application for 42 dwellings, following the design parameters set within application: 17/00542/OUT. Residential development on previously approved employment area.

It was noted that the Update Report included a change of wording to the recommendation and that the words “S106 planning obligation” were replaced by the words “suitable legal mechanism”.  The wording of clause a) 4 had also been amended to provide for the possibility of a play area being sited within the application site.

In presenting the application officers outlined the planning history of the site including the previous applications (2016/118/OUT and 2017/00542/OUT) under which Members had given approval for B1 employment use on the application site.  Officers referred Members to the Marketing Report submitted by the Applicant which had concluded that in the context of the Borough as a whole the loss of the 55 hectares of B1 use would not cause a significant shortage of land for employment use.  The report also detailed the efforts made by the Applicant to market the site for employment purposes which had been carried out for a period of over 2 years and had not produced an appropriate end user.  Economic Development officers and Planning Policy officers had reviewed the report in detail and concurred with the conclusion that the loss of employment land would not be significant for the Borough at this time, and that the land was not suitable for employment purposes in light of the marketing exercise.  This being the case, officers were satisfied that the tests in Policy 24 (Development within Primarily Employment Areas) had been met and this represented a material consideration that weighed in favour of the development when considering planning balance and the contents of Policy 47 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No 4 (BORLP4).  It was on this basis that officers were recommending the scheme for approval.

The scheme would deliver a mixed housing development of 29 market units and 13 affordable units, ranging from detached 4 bedroom properties to flats.

Councillor Neil Edden from Studley Parish Council and Ms Sian Griffiths, agent for the Applicant addressed the Committee under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules.

In response to questions from Members officers confirmed that:-

·         As the site had already been cleared there were no protected species in situ, but that a scheme to enhance biodiversity would be secured through a condition and this was normal practice in line with the relevant planning policies.

·         With regard to trip generation and any potential increase of traffic movements through the junction with Nine Days Lane,  the current scheme had been assessed as likely to produce less trips through residential use than would have been produced under employment use and this therefore was regarded as a betterment compared to the fall-back position.

·         The detail of the Traffic Regulation Orders and associated enhancements to the road network would be part of a package of measuresworked up by Worcestershire County Council as the Highways Authority and supported by appropriate section 278/38 agreements between the Highway Authority  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31.

Site Plan

Perimeter bunding and balancing ponds to store water and reduce flood risk along multiple site of the Church Hill Brook.

Mr Kevin Tibbetts (local resident) and Mr Joseph Baker from North Worcestershire Water Management (the applicant) addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules.

Officers outlined the technical aspects of the scheme and the details regarding the re-positioning of the watercourse and creation of bunding to alleviate flood risk from Church Hill Brook by creating a floodable area.  Members noted the comments made by the first public speaker that the site had been left in an unsightly condition following previous works.  In responding to questions from Members the applicant confirmed that measures would be put in place to minimise any disturbance to the site during the works and that the contractors would be expected to leave the site in a tidy condition.  It was confirmed that the site would remain accessible to the public and the footpath would be kept open.  With regard to bio-diversity, it was confirmed that the changes being made through the scheme and associated re-planting were aimed to encourage more wildlife at the site.

RESOLVED that

having regard to the development plan and to all other material

considerations, planning permission be grantedsubject to

(i)            the conditions and informatives set out on pages 35 to 38 of the main agenda; and

(ii)          the additional informative (number 6) set out below

6.  In undertaking the works in relation to the site the Applicant is expected to implement a planting scheme, maintain public access to the site both during (subject to safety) and after completion, and to ensure that upon completion the site is left in a tidy condition.

Site Plan

Two storey rear extension with part single storey including internal alternations

Officers addressed the Committee to outline the application for a two storey extension at the rear of 28 Campden Close and to explain the position of the property in relation adjoining dwellings and the difference in levels due to the sloping nature of the of the land.  It was noted that the distance between the proposed extension and number 39 Campden Close when measured across the rear gardens was just below 20 metres.  This was slightly less than the recommended distance but mitigated for by the original design of the houses which provided for a degree of offsetting to reduce direct overlooking at the rear.

Mr Newbold (on behalf of Mrs Laraine Ellis of 27 Campden Close) and Mrs Joanne Langfield of 39 Campden Close addressed the Committee under the Council’s public speaking rules.

During the debate Members expressed their concerns regarding some of the points highlighted by the public speakers, in particular the degree of overlooking that could potentially occur to number 39 Campden Close due to the difference in levels between the two houses.  Members also noted the comments of Mrs Langfield that whereas screening had previously been provided by a row of mature conifers growing in a void between the two properties, these had been significantly cut back by the applicant so as to leave the rear of number 40 visible from the application site.

Following further debate a motion was put forward and seconded that the application be deferred to enable the Members to conduct a site visit.

Upon being put to the vote it was RESOLVED that:

Consideration of application 18/00648/FUL be deferred as follows:-

(i)            To enable the Members to conduct a site visit;

(ii)          For officers to provide a topographical plan showing the differences in levels; and

(iii)         For officers to explore options for screening between the rear of number 28 and number 40 Campden Close including discussions with the Applicant.

Site Plan

Raise garage roof to provide new first floor studio / workshop with 2no Velux roof lights to the front elevation.

Officers outlined the application for a second storey to be added to the garage by raising the roof height, and explained the sloping nature of the site and the different levels. It was noted that the raising of the garage level and addition of the screening panel for new door to access the studio/workshop could potentially impact on the rear aspect and garden of number 50 Rockford Gardens and other adjoining properties.

Mr Paul Evans of 50 Rockford Close addressed the Committee under the public speaking rules.

During the debate members discussed the sloping nature of the application site and noted the concerns regarding potential overlooking raised by the public speaker.

Following further debate a motion was put forward and seconded that the application be deferred to enable the Members to conduct a site visit.

Upon being put to the vote it was RESOLVED that:

Consideration of application 18/00823/FUL be deferred in order for Members to conduct a site visit.