Agenda item

This application was reported to Planning Committee for determination because the application was for major development. Further, the application required a Section 106 Agreement. As such the application 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 14 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application sought outline planning permission for the demolition of Ipsley House, Ipsley Church Lane, Ipsley, Redditch, B98 0AJ and the construction of residential dwellings.

Officers clarified for Members that it was an outline application and that they were asked to determine the principle of development and means of access to the site only. All other matters were reserved and would be considered under a later detailed application at a future Committee meeting.

The site location was detailed on pages 6 to 9 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. The locations of Ipsley Court (to the east), Shottery close (to the North) and St.Peters Church (South east) were also identified.

Although the local plan detailed on page 10 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack identified the land as primary employment space, Officers were satisfied that the site had been suitably marketed with no success. Members were informed that permission had been granted for the conversion of the building to 79 apartments under application 24/00430/CUPRIO

Officers detailed that the existing access shown on page 12 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack would need to be amended, the proposed new access was shown on pages 13 and 14. The reason for the change was to permit room for a public footpath to be included (shown in blue), however, due to nearby tree root systems it was deemed better to move the access slightly to accommodate the addition.

Officers drew Members attention to pages 5 to 7 of the Update Reports pack and highlighted the amendments to conditions 1, 5 and 6. Officers further proposed an additional Condition 13 requiring the submission of details of the mix of type and size of dwellings to be provided prior to the submission of any reserved matters application.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Steve Williams, an interested party, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr David Fovargue, the applicant’s agent, also addressed the Committee in support.

The following was clarified after questions from Members.

• That the application was an outline application and that the only points to be determined were the access to the site and principle of development.
• In line with current guidance of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), there was little that could be done to enforce a passive house standard.
• A detailed planning application would need to demonstrate that dwelling to dwelling separation distances would be in accordance with the Councils Supplementary Planning Document, High Quality Design.
• The development was eligible under the vacant building credit scheme, therefore, there may be no requirement for affordable housing under the full application. However, the specific requirement would depend on the total floor space of the dwellings.
• Condition 7 covered the construction management plan which would have consideration to the operation and activities conducted at St.Peters Church.
• A 10% biodiversity net gain would be required under the full application; however, this figure would not have regard to the demolition of the existing building.

Members then debated the application.

Some Members expressed an opinion that it would have been better to utilise the existing building, however, they accepted that the Borough was also in need of 2-4 bedroom dwellings which would be provided by the development.

The highway access and impact on traffic was discussed by Members, however, Officers noted that Worcestershire County Council, Highways raised no objection to the principle of the development.

Some concern was raised regarding the proposed re- wording of Conditions 1, 5 and 6 as set out in the update report and Councillor Jen Snape proposed an Alternative Recommendation which omitted the wording “with the exception of any demolition works”. However, without a seconder the amendment was not carried.

Members expressed the opinion that they could not see any material planning reasons to warrant refusal of the application since the proposal complied with all relevant policies. Therefore, on being put to a vote it was:

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, authority be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning and Leisure Services to GRANT outline planning permission subject to:-

a)    The satisfactory completion of a S106 planning obligation.

b)    Conditions 2, 3, 4 ,7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 as detailed on pages 31 to 35 of the Public Reports pack.

c)    Amended Conditions 1, 5 and 6 as detailed on pages 5 to 7 of the Update Reports pack

d)    The additional Condition 13 as detailed in the pre-amble above.

e)    informatives as detailed on pages 35 to 37 of the Public Reports pack.