Agenda item

The application was reported to the Planning Committee because the application was for major development and 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 13 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. Officers further drew Members’ attention to the additional Photographs of the site detailed on pages 5 to 9 of the Supplementary Agenda pack.

The application was for Easemore House, 103 Easemore Road, Town Centre, Redditch, Worcestershire, B98 8EY and sought the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a residential development of up to 13 No. new dwellings.

The Chair noted that the location was previously referred to as Community House.

Officers detailed that the site location was identified as being highly sustainable due to its proximity to the town centre and prominent bus routes. Less parking was proposed than would normally be supplied due to the sustainable location. According to the Streetscape design guidance, a 4-bedroom dwelling would normally require 3 parking spaces, however, only two spaces were proposed per plot. After reviewing the applicant’s submissions, Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) deemed the parking to be acceptable due to the sustainable location.

30% affordable housing would be secured via the Section 106 planning obligation. This was identified to be plots 7,8,9 and 10 which would be under shared ownership.

There were no objections from consultees subject to appropriate Conditions.

The existing building was identified as a non-designated heritage asset; however, limited weight was afforded to the building in terms of its impact on the streetscene which was balanced against the supply of housing.

After questions from Members, Officers clarified the following:

• it was decided to move the bus stop following discussion with County Highways after traffic safety concerns were raised.
• The built-out area at the entrance of the site would feature drop curbs to enable cyclist to go onto the curb and not have to go into the road.

Members then debated the application which Officers recommended for approval.

Members expressed some concern about the boundary screening which separated the back of the development from a major highway which could be dangerous for young children. Officers replied that the boundary treatment was covered under a Condition so they would address that issue via that condition and ensure that it provided adequate screening and safety.

Members were displeased with the movement of the bus stop to a position which was, in their opinion, a greater traffic and safety concern when compared to the current location. There was also some concern with the lack of parking provision for the residents and for any visitors to the site, noting that regardless of the sustainable location it was human nature to own a vehicle. Any vehicles above the two per household would need to be accommodated on the already packed road, further increasing congestion and obstructions. However, with no objections from County Highways on either of those issues, it would be difficult to support refusing the application on highways grounds, therefore, Members saw no reason to reject the application. Upon being put to the 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, Leisure and Culture Services to GRANT planning permission subject to:-

a)    The satisfactory completion of a S106 planning obligation.

b)    The conditions and Informatives as detailed on pages 33 to 43 of the Public Reports pack.