Skip to main content

Minutes 18 December 2020

1. Welcome and apologies


  • Adam Freeth (Chair), Shaker-UK/The Orangery
  • Ruth Bamford, Redditch Borough Council Head of Planning
  • Julie Breakwell, Heart of Worcester College
  • Leigh Walton (Vice Chair), Redditch resident/CF
  • Councillor Matthew Dormer, Leader of Redditch Borough Council
  • Kevin Dicks, Chief Executive Redditch Borough Council
  • Ostap Paparega, Head of North Worcestershire Economic Development and Regeneration
  • Gary Woodman, Worcestershire Local Enterprise Partnership
  • Duncan Berry, YMCA
  • Simon Geraghty, Leader of Worcestershire County Council
  • John Hobbs, Worcestershire County Council
  • Ollie Hindle, Cities and Local Growth Unit
  • Rebecca Collings, Redditch Town Deal Coordinator
  • Victoria Hurst, Mott Macdonald
  • Jon Barlow, Mott Macdonald
  • Penny Unwin, Worcestershire County Council OPE
  • Simon Hyde, Faun Zoeller
  • Ricardo Bobisse, AR Urbanism


  • Shanaaz Carroll, Greater Birmingham and Solihull Local Enterprise Partnership
  • Tim Martin, West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA)
  • David Mitchell, Mettis Aerospace

2. Minutes


3. Redditch Town Centre Masterplan

RiB outlines the area for the masterplan and describes key assets in the east of the town centre. RiB explores 3 scenarios and develops options based on these scenarios. Magistrates court is a key development site that sits in the centre of the study area.

Ostap Paparega notes that the AR urbanism spatial study is a summary of the key sites in the area, understanding the ownership of the sites

Project Shortlisting

VH outlines the shortlist and asks the board to select which intervention the board will move forward with as the shortlist is at £50 million which needs to be reduced.

Cllr Matt Dormer notes that the focus should be town centre. Concern the train station redevelopment is a lot of the Town Deal budget which might not have the biggest impact on the town. Suggestion to reduce the allocation on the train station to free up funding for other areas.

PU – the £8.5 million is necessary to create the option for a second platform and support any future investment in the train station

JH – Redditch railway investment would encourage additional investment in the future

RB – concerns of spending a significant proportion of the funding on a train station building and the possibility of second platform which is not confirmed. Thought should be given on the connectivity to the train station via modes of active transport as well as by cars. It is clunky and poor. RB notes concern of focussing significant expenditure on the building and not the wider infrastructure or accessibility to the town.

OH – notes that after submission the actual allocation may be lower after approval from MHCLG.

RC – new guidance issued from MHCLG there is facility to change or adjust expenditure allocation as long as the outcomes are the same

KD – focus on the geographic centre of the town

JuB – revenue required for Option 2 digital manufacturing and innovation centre

SG – focus on town centre linked to our vision. District centres need investment but SG is confident that other funding streams will come available in the future

GW – sustainable projects was not as ambitious as GW was expecting. Struggle to justify over £25 million spend so preference is option 3.

RB – comfortable if it is a train interchange with wider infrastructure and would prefer option 3 if this was the case. Outline what the specific sustainable options are as the active travel options for the east of the town through arrow valley park are missing and should be included.

Cllr MD – arrow valley connectivity to the town. Other than that Cllr MD is in agreement with option 3.

AF – arrow valley connects heavily into the transport links. The active travel links from the town centre to arrow valley is terrible. Other areas of the arrow valley are tired and in the lockdown Arrow Valley is the best asset of the town. Arrow Valley development should be included in option 3.

LW – upgrade links to arrow valley and town centre. Concern heritage of Redditch is not included. Speaking up for Redditch should be considered.

OP – arrow valley could be on a reserve list following the head of terms agreed in January 2021

RB – increasing the money for the sustainable projects could help resolve the connectivity issue to the town centre from the arrow valley country park and district centres. Reduce £500,000 of the train station budget to improve the cycling infrastructure through arrow valley park.

SG – include the actual cost of the sustainable pot and go slightly over the £25 million. Reducing the funding for one option may reduce its deliverables and likelihood of funding approval.

OP – asked RC and OH whether going over £25 million would significantly increase scrutiny

GW – suggests going slightly over and MHCLG will de-prioritise any options

AF – asks the board to vote on option 3

Board votes unanimously for option 3 with some additional expenditure on sustainable projects to include arrow valley developments. The TIP ask will be £26.8 million if this is the case

SG – notes that the board did not expect the whole £2million for Arrow Valley Country Park could endanger the whole ask. £500,000 increase the sustainable projects option would unlikely to encourage additional scrutiny

OP – The amount would be £700,000 but we need to look at what the funding should be based on the intervention outcomes

AF – notes Rachael McClean was very keen to be ambitious with the project

LW – notes there is a challenge of being optimistic and ambitious and balancing that with being realistic

VH – the focus, in VH’s opinion, should focus on the issues with Redditch town and the socio-economic baseline, and interventions will come from there.

KD – asks VH/RC to clarify whether a check and challenge activity will increase scrutiny of our proposed TIP proposals

RC – check and challenge activity does not increase scrutiny but the TIP will receive increased scrutiny, focussing on the regional and national impact, if the value is over £25 million.

AF – asks the board to approve the £26.8 million for the check and challenge. Option 3 with the inclusion of Arrow Valley County Park. Board agrees.

LB – notes the Check and Challenge activity will be the 6/01/2021 and LB will send the scrutiny timelines. Comments on the TIP from board members will be due by 6/01/2021.

AF – wishes the board a Happy Christmas and New year.

5. Any other business


6. Date of Next Meeting

Friday 15 January 2021

Cookie Notice

Find out more about how this website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience.

Back to top