Agenda item

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because the number of objections received exceeded the relevant threshold and therefore the proposal 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 5 to 8 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for the Land Adjacent to Feckenham Gardens, Astwood Lane, Feckenham, Redditch, Worcestershire, B96 6JQ and sought the erection of up to 9 dwellings.

Officers clarified to Members that before them was a Planning in Principle (PIP) application and not a Planning application. Officers further clarified that a PIP application was a route that developers could pursue to secure housing led developments. This type of application was in two parts, the first part being the PIP and a subsequent technical details application.

The PIP was to identify if the principle of the development was acceptable and only the Location, Land use and Amount of development could be considered. All other factors would be considered at the Technical Details application.

The site covered an area of 0.9hectares and the location and proposed access were identified by Officers on pages 6 to 8 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

Officers outlined the concept of Grey Belt, introduced through the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) 2024 with the addition of Paragraph 155 and the glossary definition. Further guidance was issued in February 2025.

Although consultee responses had been gathered as part of the application Members were reminded that Drainage/Highways matters would be considered at a future Technical Details Application.

At the invitation of the Chair Mr Alan Smith, local resident, addressed the Committee in support of the application.

The following was clarified following questions from Members.

• That the concept of Grey Belt was introduced in December 2024 and was a further consideration for Officers when determining an application.
• That for a PIP application, only the Location, Land use and Amount of development could be considered, all other areas would be covered under a technical details’ application.
• The application site only covered the land defined by the red line shown on page 6 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.
• That the application was for ‘up to’ 9 dwellings, this could be less if determined when a layout was decided during the technical details’ application.
• That if the number of objections received was again above relevant thresholds as to take the application outside of the scheme of delegation, then the technical details application would be required to come before Members of the Planning Committee.

Members then considered the application which officers recommended for approval.

Officers clarified for Members that as Grey Belt designations were a new concept, Officers were looking closely at cases and appeal outcomes to determine how other authorities interpreted the change to the NPPF. Officers assured Members that they were comfortable with their recommendation. Officers reminded members that if applications were refused then applicants had the right to appeal.

Members were broadly in support of the PIP application but raised a number of points including drainage, highways and Section 106 Monies. However, Members accepted that they were not considerations at this stage, and on being put to a vote it was:

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, Permission in Principle was GRANTED subject to Conditions as outlined on page 29 of the Public Reports pack.