Agenda item

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the applicant was Redditch Borough Council. 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 15 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Morton Stanley Park, Windmill Drive, Redditch, Worcestershire and sought the Installation of a 24m by 15m multi-use games area (MUGA) with 2m high fencing.

The application was deferred by Members at the Planning Committee meeting on 11^th September 2025, to assess the impact of the development on the protected Brown Hairstreak butterfly. Members also requested additional information on the Anti-Social Behaviour (ASB) risk in the area.

Regarding the protected species, additional information was supplied on pages 11 and 12 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, which detailed that the Brown Hairstreak butterfly was found exclusively on Blackthorn scrub, the locations of which were detailed on page 12. Therefore, as the development was not near the Butterfly habitat it was deemed inappropriate to request a full survey to be undertaken by the applicant.

Officers detailed that although there was a concern regarding ASB linked to MUGA, installations there had been very few incidents reported to the police in the preceding years. Additionally, the seating had been removed from the MUGA, which had reduced ASB impact at other sites. Therefore, Officers did not consider the risk of ASB to be a major concern and on balance, had come to the conclusion that it did not outweigh the advantages that the application provided.

At the invitation of the Chair, a statement was read out by Officers on behalf of Ishrat Karimi Fini, Parks and Events service Manager, in support of the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.

• That no trees would be removed as part of the development, therefore, any actions such as imposing Conditions to manage trees on site would be unreasonable and would not meet the tests necessary.
• There was no CCTV at the site and that Officers had not considered the option due to the low risk of an ASB increase. Additionally, there was no existing infrastructure to accommodate its inclusion.
• No plan was in place to lock the MUGA overnight, which would not be possible considering the proposed open design.

Members then debated the application which Officers had recommended for approval.

Members questioned if there was adequate natural surveillance from the Café area as there were trees blocking line of sight. Another factor noted was the railing bar spacing, which Members stated appeared quite narrow which may limit natural surveillance unless looking straight at the facility.

The lack of facilities for young people was highlighted and that the park was a destination point rather than having passing or incidental visitors. Members noted several areas at the site which could be used by individuals intending to take part in illegal activities, these included the skating area and carpark. Therefore, Members noted that as there were currently few reports of ASB in the area, an increase solely due to the installation was unlikely. On the other hand, Members also expressed the opinion that MUGA facilities often led to an ASB increase, therefore, some believed that there was a high risk of an increase associated with the development.

Members expressed the opinion that the design was not in keeping with the types of facilities of the wider park in terms of design and materials and therefore, would stand out in the parkland environment.

Members debated the Officers recommendation, as detailed on page 24 of the Public Reports pack. The Officer Recommendation was proposed and seconded, however, on being put to a vote it was defeated.

Councillor Matt Dormer proposed an alternative recommendation to refuse the application due to the potential increase in ASB which was contrary to Policy 40 of the Local Plan. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor Claire Davies.

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 refused for the reasons as detailed in the preamble above.

There was then a short recess between 20:28 hours and 20:40 hours.