Agenda and minutes

Planning - Wednesday, 1st March, 2023 7.00 pm

Venue: Microsoft Teams - Virtual. View directions

Contact: Gavin Day 

No. Item




Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Andy Fry with Councillor Sid Khan in attendance as substitute.


Apologies were also received from Councillor Alex Fogg.



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.



There were no declarations of interest.


Councillor Tom Baker-Price noted to the Committee that in regard to item 4 (Minute No 68) both himself and the applicant, Mr Jordan Cooke, were Governors at Tudor Grange Academy. However, Councillor Baker-Price stated that he had no contact outside of this official capacity and there had been no discussions regarding the application between them.



Update Reports

To note Update Reports (if any) for the Planning Applications to be considered at the meeting (circulated prior to the commencement of the meeting)



There were no update reports.



22/01401/FUL - Bryant Place, Bengrove Close, Redditch, Worcestershire, B98 7SX. pdf icon PDF 149 KB

Additional documents:


This application was being reported to the Planning Committee as the application siterelated to a building and land which belonged to Redditch Borough Council. As such, theapplication 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 17 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.


The application was for Bryant Place “What’s Your Point” Youth Centre, Bengrove Close, Redditch and sought the partial demolition of the existing building with two ground floor extensions and the construction of a new upper floor, with external ground works.


Officers detailed that the land was classified as incidental open area and the principle for development was acceptable. Officers also detailed that adequate visibility splays could be achieved, access to the site and the on-site parking provision was also deemed acceptable.


The development sought to increase the floor area of the building from 97 to 299 Sq Meters. Officers detailed the proposed changes to the building to achieve this and drew Members’ attention to pages 11 and 12 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.


Officers drew Members’ attention to the increase in ridge height of the development detailed on pages 13 and 14 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack.


Due to the aforementioned increase in size and height of the building, Officers recommended refusal for the application, as it was deemed a dominant form of development which would have a detrimental impact to the green and open appearance of the site. Officers further detailed that the materials and proposed groundworks would fail to integrate to the character of the residential area.


At the invitation of the Chair, the following speakers addressed the Committee in support of the application under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules.


Councillor Andy Fry (Member of Worcestershire County Council)

Councillor Juma Begum (Ward Member)

Councillor Emma Marshall (Ward Member)

Mr Jordan Cooke (Applicant, representing Your Ideas)

Mr Mick Fitzgerald (Applicant, Managing Director of Your Ideas)


Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.


  • That if approved a scheme for surface water drainage would be conditioned, as advised by the drainage Officer, and this would include the the pervious nature of the tarmac area.
  • That the site had no strategic importance in relation to Policy 14 relating to incidental open space.


Members then considered the application which Officers recommended be refused.


Members expressed the opinion that the bulk, size and height of the development would not dominate the local area and some of this impact could be mitigated by an additional landscaping. Members also considered the loss of open space at the site was offset by the presence of other open space in the locality.


The lack of objections from consultees or local residents towards the application was highlighted by Members.


Members gave considerable weight to the facilities and provisions the development would provide and expressed the opinion that the upgraded facility would be of great benefit to the local  ...  view the full minutes text for item 68.