Agenda item

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because part of the application site fell within the ownership of Redditch Borough Council. As such, the application fell outside of the scheme of Delegation to Officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 17 to 38 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for Unit 1, Glover Street, Smallwood, Redditch

B98 7BG and sought the demolition of the existing building and the creation of 4 bungalows for supported living (Class C2 use)

Officers drew Members attention to the location of the application site as detailed on page 18 of the site plans and Presentations pack. Officers further highlighting that part of the application site was owned by Redditch Borough Council which was a carpark used by the site as part of the lease.

The building was a non-designated heritage asset (NDHA) which was under a general industrial use (class B2), historically it was a wartime manufacturing facility producing compressors in WW2. Officers noted that NDHAs were afforded little protection and although it would be regrettable to lose the heritage asset, on balance, the principle of development was deemed acceptable.

Although the development was for four new dwellings, no off-street parking was proposed, which was deemed acceptable by Officers. The reason for this conclusion was that the current industrial facility was afforded a significant number of spaces compared to the proposed development, therefore, the application would see a reduction in the overall parking impact of the site.

Comments from Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) stated that based on the current Streetscape Design Guide the development would generate a demand for 10 spaces. Furthermore, as the current building use was for employment (B2 industrial use Class), there was a generated a parking demand of 28 spaces, 11 of which were accommodated by the car park attached to the current lease, and 17 spaces on-street. When comparing the 17 on-street parking spaces with the proposed demand of 10 cars, the development would cause a net gain of on-street parking in the area. Therefore, it was deemed acceptable by County Highways not to require the provision of off-street parking as part of the application.

The current and proposed site plans were detailed to Members. The design of the development maintained similar elevations to the existing building and sought to replicate some of the current features such as the high ridges, in an attempt to replicate the character of the original building.

However, Officers had concerns regarding the materials and construction of the proposed development, which was not in line with the surrounding dwellings, having a disproportionately high ratio of brick to render. Additionally, the proposed development had a gap between the buildings for a courtyard, this changed the Streetview and in the Officers opinion was not in preserving the character of the wider area.

Paragraph 135 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) commented that development should be sympathetic to local character and history including the surrounding built environment. Officers understood the need for the social housing provided by the development, however, on balance It was considered that the development did not sit comfortably within the site and failed to respect local character and distinctiveness. Therefore, the Officer recommendation was for refusal.

At the invitation of the Chair, a statement was read out by Officers on behalf of Gaz Hussain, a local resident, against the application. Adeel Nasir and Nasir Ahmed, local residents, and Khurram Shah, the applicant, addressed the committee is support.

The following was clarified by Officers following questions from Members.

• That the carpark, which was used by the current development, was attached as part of the lease and did not form part of the development area. Should the application be approved, this would not be usable as part of the new development.
• The provision of EV charging points was covered under building regulations, however, as there was no proposed off-street parking as part of the development, no EV charging points would be included.
• That should Members be minded to approve the application, the C2 supported living use would be Conditioned. Should the owner wish to utilise any other Class use (or subclass under the C2 use) a planning application would need to be submitted.

Members then debated the application which Officers had recommended be refused.

Members were divided with their opinion regarding the street scene impact of the application. Although some Members agreed that the use of render and the contemporary design of the development were at odds with the local area, Members also expressed the opinion that there was a mix of both new and old buildings within the vicinity so the impact would not be significant.

Members were in support of the change of use to Class C2 and that it would be used for supported residential living which was a much-needed resource within Redditch.

Serious concern was raised regarding the lack of parking provision and that any vehicles would need to be accommodated on road, when there was already a parking problem with the location. Members were also concerned about the lack of EV charging points considering it was a new development, which was at odds the climate change agenda the council had adopted. However, Members accepted that they must consider the application before them and that as County Highways deemed it acceptable for the application to not include off-street parking provision, then building regulations would not require EV charging points.

After thorough debate, Members expressed the opinion that the development was not harmful to the local area and did not outweigh the benefits of the application, in particular the supported living provision.

Therefore, Councillor Boyd Proposed an Alternative Recommendation which was seconded by Councillor Juma Begum to approve the application for the reasons as detailed in the preamble above and to delegate the decision to the Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Culture Services.

Members noted a list of standard conditions for a Planning application but also included the addition of the restricted Class use, Archaeological site investigation and Contaminated Land Condition. However, Members were content for the final number and wording of the Conditions to be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Culture Services.

On being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be delegated to the Assistant Director for Planning, Regeneration and Culture Services to approve the application subject to Conditions as detailed in the preamble above.

A vote was then taken to continue the meeting after 22:00 hours, as was required under the Constitution. This was proposed by Councillor Andy Fry and Seconded by Councillor William Boyd, on being put to a vote it was Carried.