Agenda item

Application for outline planning permission with all matters reserved, apart from details of access, layout and scale for the partial demolition of the building and former walled garden on site and the conversion of the remaining pub buildings into 12 no. apartments alongside the erection of 38 no. dwellings, children’s play areas, landscaping and circulation space ( amended description)

Members were reminded of the location of the site within the administrative boundary of Bromsgrove District Council (“BDC”) whose planning committee would determine the application. The site also formed part of the larger Foxlydiate “housing allocation site” which had been established in the Bromsgrove Local Plan in order to provide for some of the cross boundary housing needs of Redditch.  This policy was included as an appendix in the Redditch Local Plan.

Officers outlined the proposal to members with reference to the plans and it was noted that changes had been made to the application since it had last been considered by Members at an earlier meeting in July 2019.  The original application had sought to completely demolish the public house as part of the re-development.  Members had been concerned at the potential loss of this building which was of local significance and regarded as a non-designated heritage asset.

It was noted that under the amended proposal the attractive front portion of the public house building which faces onto Birchfield Lane would be retained, whilst the rear section would be demolished.  The retained section of the building would be converted into 12 apartments.  The remainder of the site would be configured to provide the construction of 38 dwellings.

Members were also advised that another issue they had highlighted in the previous consultation regarding connectivity appeared to have been addressed, and the plans showed a footway linking the development to the wider Foxlydiate scheme.

In drafting the consultation response officers had noted the following key points:-

1.      Further information had been provided by the applicant regarding the loss of the public house as a community asset, and ultimately this would be for BDC as the planning authority to determine.

2.      Given that RBC considered the public house building to be a non-designated heritage asset, it was encouraging that the revised application allowed for the retention of the front section of the building.  It was questionable whether sufficient steps had been taken to preserve non-designated heritage assets at the site, particularly the walled garden which under the revised proposal would not be retained.

3.      The addition of the footway appeared to give an element of connectivity but linkage to the adjoining site was an element of the application that officers would wish to see further developed.

In conclusion officers were in support of the principle of housing on the site and Members were asked to endorse the Officer Appraisal as set out in Appendix 1 and summarised in points 1 to 3 on page 35 of the agenda.

In discussing the application, Members welcomed the changes that had been made to the previous proposal and in particular that the front section of the public house would be retained. 

There was further discussion regarding the inclusion of social/affordable housing as part of the scheme.  Officers clarified that under the cross boundary policy the residential make up would reflect the local requirements as detailed in the most up to date Strategic Housing Market Assessment and comprise up to 40% affordable housing.  The principle of affordable housing would be established at the outline permission stage.

With regard to social housing need, Members highlighted a number of points including that:-

·       The housing allocation sites identified under the cross boundary policy had been established to cater for Redditch related growth.

·       Whether at this stage (outline), or later on in the process, consideration would be given to how affordable housing at the site would be allocated.

·       Members would wish to see provision included in the affordable housing element of the scheme to ensure that allocation was directed towards social housing need in Redditch.

·       These points should be included as an additional point 4 in the officer response to BDC.

RESOLVED that

The Officer appraisal summarised in points 1 to 3 on page 35 of the agenda and set out in Appendix 1 on pages 41 to 43 be endorsed  and that authority be delegated to officers to add a point 4 to the recommendation to summarise the committee’s comments regarding allocation of affordable housing in light of the development meeting the housing needs of Redditch under the cross boundary policy.