Agenda and minutes

Venue: Virtual Meeting - Skype - Virtual. View directions

Contact: Sarah Sellers  Democratic Services Officer

Items
No. Item

107.

Chair's Welcome

Minutes:

The Chair welcomed the Committee members and officers to the virtual Planning Committee meeting being held via Microsoft Teams.  The Chair explained that the meeting was being live streamed on the Council’s YouTube channel to enable members of the public to observe the committee.

 

 

108.

Apologies

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Salman Akbar.  Councillor Michael Rouse attended as substitute for Councillor Akbar.

109.

Declarations of Interest

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.

 

Minutes:

In relation to agenda item 6 (Application reference 20/00178/FUL), Members were advised that one of the registered speakers was fellow Councillor Joanne Beecham, participating in a private capacity as a local resident.

 

Accordingly, all Members sitting on the Committee declared an Other Disclosable Interest in that Cllr Beecham was known to them in her capacity as a fellow Borough Councillor.  All Members remained in the meeting during the deliberation of agenda item 6 and participated in the debate and the vote.

 

In relation to agenda item 8, regarding Morton Stanley Park, Councillor Rouse declared that for reasons of transparency he would not be participating as he was the portfolio holder responsible for Leisure and the application was being made by the Council in relation to one of the Borough’s parks.  Councillor Rouse left the meeting prior to the commencement of Agenda item 8 and played no part in the debate or the vote.

 

 

110.

Confirmation of Minutes of Planning Committee held on 10th March 2021 pdf icon PDF 292 KB

Minutes:

RESOLVED that

 

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 10th March 2021  be confirmed as a true record and signed by the Chair.

 

111.

Update Reports pdf icon PDF 311 KB

Please see Update Report attached.

 

Minutes:

The Update Report was noted.

112.

Non determination Appeal : Saltways Cheshire Home Church Road Webheath Redditch Planning Inspectorate Reference APP/Q1825/W/21/3269496 Redditch Borough Council Planning Application Reference 20/00178/FUL pdf icon PDF 412 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Construction of 3 single-storey extensions, security fence and alterations for a proposed Tier 4, Low Security, Non-Forensic, CAMHS (Children and Mental Health Services) Unit

 

Officers presented the report and in doing so explained that the application was not for determination by the Committee.  The background was that the applicant had submitted a valid appeal for non-determination of the application to the Planning Inspectorate. As such, the power to determine the application now rested with the Planning Inspectorate.  Members were being asked to indicate how they “would” have decided the application had it come before them, and this indication would then inform the Council’s position in responding to the appeal.

 

Officers clarified that the specific elements for consideration by the Members related to operational development at the site and that this consisted of the construction of three single -storey extensions, the installation of security fences and other minor alteration works.  An earlier version of the application had also included a Change of Use element.  However, based upon legal opinions obtained by both the applicant and the Council, it was now common ground that a Change of Use application was not needed.  The reason for this was that it was accepted that the proposed use as a low secure hospital for patients classed as “non-forensic” would fall within the same use class as the previous use as a nursing home, namely the category “C2 Residential Use”.

 

Officers took Members through the slides, plans and photographs contained in the Site Plans and Presentations Pack, and in doing so described the lay out of the site, the levels of the land and the relationship of the site with the residential dwellings to the north west, north and south eastern boundaries.  The position of the three metre and two metre proposed security fencing was noted and Members were reminded that planning permission was not required for fences up to two metres in height.  The location of the proposed fencing set back from the site boundary and close to the perimeter of the buildings was noted.

 

The location and scale of the proposed extensions were also highlighted for Members and officers advised that there would be a condition to retain and add to the existing planting on site.

 

Members were referred to the additional information contained in the Update Report.

 

Officers summarised the main issues for Members to consider as being fear of crime, whether the security fence was unduly dominant and its effect on the character of the area.  Officers felt the impact of the fence from public vantage points was limited as it would be located mostly at the side and rear.  Other issues to take into account were noise and disturbance and privacy.  There was likely to be little impact as to parking and highways issues.

 

Members were referred to the detailed conditions set out on pages 30 to 34 of the agenda.

 

Members were advised that the recommendation would have been minded to approve the granting of planning permission.

 

As referred to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 112.

113.

Application 21/00139/FUL - Land at Torrs Close Redditch - Dr S Ananthram pdf icon PDF 146 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Development of six two bedroomed apartments and three 1 bedroom apartment, with associated external works and parking arrangements

 

Officers outlined the application with reference to the plans and photographs in the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.

 

The proposed scheme was similar to one for 10 units under reference 18/00784/FUL which Members had approved previously in March 2019.  Officers clarified that the decision on that application had not been issued as the Section 106 agreement had not been completed.

 

As with the previous application, an objection had been made by Worcestershire Wildlife Trust regarding loss of biodiversity.  Officers had considered the issue of ecology carefully. On balance, and taking into account the conditions to be imposed around wildlife and biodiversity, officers were satisfied that the issues identified by Worcestershire Wildlife Trust had been sufficiently mitigated.

 

Members were referred to the additional public comments received as set out on page 7 of the Update Report and were advised that these matters had been addressed in the main body of the report, and that appropriate consultation had taken place.

 

At the invitation of the Chair, Dr Joseph Uhiara, local resident, addressed the committee in objection to the application.

 

In debating the application, whilst acknowledging the loss of woodland, Members referred to the fact that the scheme was similar to the one previously approved under reference 18/00784/FUL.

 

RESOLVED that

 

Having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out on pages 45 to 52 of the main agenda.

 

 

 

 

 

114.

Application 21/00228/FUL - Morton Stanley Park Windmill Drive Redditch - Redditch Borough Council pdf icon PDF 108 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

Proposed Café, toilets, additional car parking and ancillary works

 

Officers presented the application which related to the construction of a café building with toilet facilities and outdoor seating area at the park, and the extension of the existing parking area off Windmill Drive to create 50 new parking spaces.

 

Officers took Members through the slides in the presentation pack and advised Members of the additional condition being sought as to construction materials, as set out on page 8 of the Update Report.

 

The following public speakers addressed the committee under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules:-

 

·       Mr Guy Stabler – local resident - in objection

·       Mr Alan Newton-Coombs - local resident - in support

 

In addition to the above, officers read out the statement of local resident Mrs Margaret Hughes, who was in support of the scheme but raised concerns over parking and access at the rear of the park from Green Lane.

 

In debating the application, Members commented positively on the addition of the new facilities at the park, in particular the café and toilets.  As noted in public speaking, these new facilities would be very much welcomed by visitors to the park and represent a significant improvement, especially for families with children and those with disabilities.

 

Following on form the comments of the first speaker, Members discussed road safety issues regarding the extension of the existing semi-circular parking area to form a circle, and the resultant enclosure of the circular paved area in the middle of the semi-circle.  Officers clarified that Members were not able to alter the plans that had been presented as they formed part of the application. 

 

It was clarified however that officers had made the applicant aware of safety issues around risk and conflict between car drivers and the pedestrians and children on cycles who currently used the paved area.  Further work by the applicant to address the safety of the proposed parking configuration would be carried out prior to construction, including a road safety audit which would address risk and conflict and ways in which any risks identified could be mitigated.

 

Officers confirmed that the public speaking comments in relation to Green Lane were not relevant to the specific application before the Committee.

 

RESOLVED that

 

Having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be GRANTED subject to the conditions set out on pages 59 to 60 of the main agenda, and additional condition 7 set out on page 8 of the Update Report.

 

[In relation to this agenda item 8 Councillor Rouse declared that for reasons of transparency he would not be participating as he was the portfolio holder responsible for Leisure and the application was being made by the Council in relation to one of the Borough’s parks.  Councillor Rouse left the meeting prior to the commencement of Agenda item 8 and played no part in the debate or the vote]