Agenda item

The application was reported to the Planning Committee because the application was for major development. As such the application fell outside the scheme of delegation to Officers.

Having declared an interest in the item, Councillor Gemma Monaco retired from the committee and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’attention to the presentation slides on pages 37 to 53 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for land in Brockhill East, Hewell Road, Redditch, Worcestershire and was Phase 5 of the hybrid planning permissions 19/00976/HYB and 19/00977/HYB (Cross boundary application with Bromsgrove DC 24/00077/REM). The application sought reserved matters approval (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) for the construction of 241 dwellings and associated works and infrastructure.

Members were informed that there was an update report which would be covered under the Officers presentation.

Officers detailed the various phases of the Brockhill development and their stages of completion in that:

• Phases 1 and 2 were complete.
• Phase 3 was a Hybrid planning application and permission was being sought
• Phases 4 and 6 had been approved.
• Phase 5 was a Hybrid application with Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) and permission had been granted by the BDC Planning Committee on 09.07.2024
• Phases 7 and 8 had not yet come before Planning Committee.

Members attention was drawn to the site layout detailed on pages 42 to 46 of the Public Reports pack. Officers identified the 47 dwellings which would be situated in the administrative area of Redditch Borough Council  and that 21 of those (44.7%) were affordable housing units. This was an overprovision of affordable housing units to ensure phases 3, 4 and 5 together comply with the Councils 30% requirement.

The green open space and SUDS basins were shown on page 44 of the Public Reports pack, Officers highlighted that over the whole Brockhill development, 57% was planned to be green infrastructure.

Officers drew Members attention to various housing designs detailed on pages 47 to 53 of the Public Reports pack, this was a selection and was not the whole assortment and that there were other designs which would be used on site. Officers further clarified that some of the designs would be used in both market and affordable units, so the development was considered tenure blind.

The following was clarified after questions from Members:

• That there was some proposed public parking/visitor bays around the site.
• That the public footpaths would be a tarmac material and not grass verges.
• That there is no provision for any play areas within Phase 5, however, there was specifications and details of the open space provision under the hybrid application which looks at the wider development.

Members expressed some concern that the development was less diverse in the housing types than other phases, however, Officers reassured Members that large developments often sought to give phases a different feel to distinguish between phases and give the area a character.

On being put to a vote it was

RESOLVED that

having regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations that the Reserved Matters of Layout, Scale, Appearance and Landscaping be approved subject to conditions outlined on pages 57 to 59 of the Public Reports pack.