Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Bill Hartnett and Andy Fry with Councillors Juma Begum and Sharon Harvey in attendance as substitutes respectively.

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.

RESOLVEDthat

The Minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 15^th February 2023 be approved as a true record and signed by the Chair.

Update Pack 1 - Officer presentation for Agenda item 5 – 22/00333/FUL St Gregorys Church.

Update Pack 2 - Additional information.

Two update reports were received by Members who indicated that they had received sufficient time to read the update reports and were happy to proceed with the meeting.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the application wasfor a major development and required a Section 106 agreement, as such the application felloutside the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the updated presentation slides on pages 5 to 26 of the Update Report 1 pack.

The application was for St Gregory’s Roman Catholic Church and sought the redevelopment of the land to construct 25 affordable dwellings, with associated works.

Additional footpaths were being provided along Treville Close and Winyates as detailed on pages 23 to 25 of the Update Report 1 pack. Part of the footpath on Treville Close would require the removal of a section of hedgerow which included a number of trees and tree stumps. Officers noted that the Arboricutural Officer had no objections to the removal of the trees.  However, an additional consultation had been undertaken with those residents effected and was due to run until 10^th April 2023.

Ecological assessments had been undertaken in an earlier application in 2016, however, the surveys for the current application had not been undertaken in the required period of May-September to ascertain the full ecological impact of the development on the site; therefore, Officers were requesting delegated powers to determine the application pending the completion of the ecological surveys. Officers assured Members that should any issues arise from the ecological assessments then the application would be brought back to the Committee for consideration and determination.

Finally, Officers detailed that there were site specific constraints associated with the sewer that existed on site and associated legislation regarding building on and around such systems. As a direct consequence there were viability issues associated with the scheme and the section 106 agreement did not therefore include any financial contributions apart from a contribution to supply refuse bins as detailed in Update Report 2.

At the invitation of the Chair the applicant, Mr Tom Wragg, spoke in support of the application.

Officers clarified the following during questions from Members:

• That the sewer would run underneath the road which was inline with standard policy to not build under houses and private gardens.
• That the appropriate space requirements were generally achieved at the north of the site in regard to the rear existing properties, additionally, there were oriel windows proposed for units 1 and 2 to prevent overlooking.
• That all 25 properties were affordable housing units with 13 for social rent and 12 shared ownership. Officers also confirmed that 8 units were being protected as Affordable housing as part of the section 106.

Members then considered the application which Officers had recommended be approved via a Delegation.

Members noted the 100% affordable housing provision on the site and although there was only a small contribution via the section 106 agreement; Members were of the opinion that the enhancements to the footpaths, the affordable housing and the developer making use of a derelict site, which had  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73.

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the applicant wasRedditch Borough Council, as such the application fell outside the Scheme of Delegationto Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 25 to 31 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Caretakers lodge, Foxlydiate Crescent and sought the extension and conversion of the unit into a self-contained dwelling.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the site plan on page 28 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack and highlighted the extension area, the carparking provision and the 1.8m brick wall which would be constructed to define the boundary of the property.

The concerns of a local resident were addressed but it was clarified by Officers that there would be no additional windows overlooking the rear of the property, however, to address the concerns that the residents had expressed, condition 8 on page 40 of the Public Reports pack detailed that permitted development would be removed as part of the development and therefore any alterations or extensions to the property would need to seek planning permission to proceed.

Members agreed that the development was for a much needed one bedroom bungalow, therefore, 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 outlined on pages 39 and 40 of the Public Reports pack.