Agenda item

This application was being reported to Planning Committee because a statutory Consultee (Feckenham Parish Council) had raised an objection to the proposal. 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 11 to 14 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

The application was for the Alders Court, Green Lane, Redditch, Worcestershire, B97 5GY and sought Planning in Principle for the conversion of an existing building to up to two residential dwellings.

Officers clarified to Members that before them was a Permission in Principle (PIP) application and not a Planning application. A PIP application was a route that developers could pursue to secure predominately housing led developments. This type of application was completed in two parts, the first part being the PIP and a subsequent Technical Details application and that development was not permitted until both parts were approved.

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.

Officers detailed the location of the development detailed on page 12 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. The development site was situated within the green belt, however, under paragraph 154 of the NPPF the conversion of existing dwellings was not seen as inappropriate development within the greenbelt. Therefore, in terms of location, the application was deemed appropriate development in the green belt.

Officers further detailed that the site location was close to transport links and thus was also considered sustainable development.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Dan Hemming, the applicant, addressed the committee in support of the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by officers

• That the application was not assessed under its adherence with the grey belt policy as it was considered appropriate development under paragraph 154 of the NPPF and therefore the test of if paragraph 155 applied did not need to be considered.
• That there was no set distance within which a development should or should not be situated to be classified as automatically “affecting” the setting of a listed building, each application must be considered on its own merits.
• The land no longer held an agricultural use; therefore, the site owner would not be able to apply for the erection of another barn under the basis of an “agricultural need”.
• No public footbaths dissected the site which would be impacted by the development

Members then considered the application.

Members expressed the opinion that it was a good use for the building and that they could see no reason to object to the application and therefore, 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 be GRANTED subject to the informative detailed on page 28 of the Public Reports pack.