Agenda item

This application was being reported to the Planning Committee as a large number of representations in objection to the application had been received, the application was subject to a planning obligation and the recommendation was for approval.

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 the Land rear of Sambourne Lane,
Astwood Bank, B96 6EP and sought outline approval with the matter of appearance reserved for 9 self-build / custom build detached dwellings with access.

Officers confirmed to Members that the application was for 9 self-build dwellings and that matters of appearance were not being considered as they would be covered under separate planning applications for the individual plots. Officers further clarified that the plot boundaries detailed on page 9 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack would be the maximum footprint of the buildings and any dwellings would need to be situated entirely within those build zones.

The additional and current tree screening was identified by Officers on page 9 of the Site Plans and Presentation pack, it was further highlighted that a number of mature silver birch trees would need to be removed to accommodate the development.

Officers further informed Members that the Self-Build and Custom Housebuilding Act 2015 placed an obligation on Councils to supply plots for self-build units and that there was a 10 plot shortfall within Redditch Borough Council and that therefore significant weight should be afforded to this matter.

The applicant had requested a number of minor changes to the Conditions; therefore, Officers were seeking delegated powers to amend the Conditions and to finalise the Section 106 agreement.

At the invitation of the Chair, local residents Patrick Hanglin, Karen Baggott and Fraser Baggott addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr John Jowitt addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Officers clarified the following points after questions from Members.

• The topography of the site was not flat, the separation distances between properties had been increased to accommodate this.
• The two storey plots could be either a traditional two storey house or a Dormer Bungalow with a second level in the roof space. Both would be classified as two storey buildings.
• There would be a 2m footpath to the site which would have a 1m grass verge opposite, this was deemed suitable for the size of the proposed development.
• There were no reports of any special habitats, Officers further clarified that animals may come to the site to hunt/forage but may not necessarily live on the site.
• Condition 12 outlined on page 24 of the Public Reports pack, was included as the development site was within 250m of a historical ground fill site. Officers identified its approximate location on page 8 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, and further clarified that it was a precautionary measure as the development was only just within the 250m radius.
• That should the application be approved, there would be no way to influence timeframes on the individual self-build applications.

Members then debated the application.

Members were unhappy with the proximity of the development to the current properties when considering their privacy and the topography of the land. The concerns were most prominent with plots 1-4 and Members commented that they would be happier with the development if those areas were single storey plots.

Members queried the possibility of levelling out the land prior to development commencingbut accepted that it was outside the scope of the application and that the design of the development and any overlooking considerations would be considered under future detailed applications.

On being put to the vote, as per the recommendation on pages 21 to 26 of the Public Reports pack, the Recommendation was not carried.

Officers informed Members that they needed to determine the application and give material planning reasons for their decision. Officers further detailed to Members that they could not amend the application, however, any suggestions made would be noted by the developer who was in attendance. The developer could choose to submit an amended application or to appeal any decision to refuse the application.

Members further discussed the topography of the land and expressed the opinion that to determine the application, a site visit to the location would be beneficial. This would give them an idea of the layout of the site and enable them to see whether there would be any infringement on the privacy of the existing residents.

Some Members expressed the opinion that a site visit would not assist Members with their deliberation.

Councillor Monaco proposed an Alternative Recommendation that the application be deferred pending a site visit by Planning Committee Members. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor Fry.

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 DEFERRED to a future meeting of the Planning Committee subject to a suitable site visit being conducted by Planning Committee Members.

The meeting stood adjourned from 20:45 hours to 20:53 hours for a comfort break.