Agenda item

The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because 11 (or more) objections had been received. 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 37 to 48 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack.

Officers further drew Members attention to the update report which detailed a response from Worcester County Council, Highways (County Highways) as well as clarification regarding Policy 14, protection of incidental open space and additional comments/objections raised.

The application was for Land Adjacent to 3 Popes Lane, Astwood Bank, Worcestershire and sought Permission in Principle for the erection of up to 6 dwellings.

Officers clarified that the application was a Planning in Principle (PIP) application. A PIP application was an application avenue for housing led developments and were in two parts. The PIP was the first part and only considered matters relating to Location, Land Use and the Amount of development, all other matters would be heard under a Technical Details application. Officers clarified that the Planning permission would only be approved when both a PIP and Technical details application were approved.

The site location was shown on page 38 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, Officers clarified that it was only the area in red which was to be considered. The blue area was owned by the application but did not form part of the application.

The site fell within the greenbelt in the Local Plan, detailed on page 39 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. However, it was Officers assessment that under Paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) the site fell under the definition of Grey Belt and therefore, the location was deemed acceptable.

Officers drew Members attention to the Photographs detailed on pages 44 to 48 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack, clarifying that the images were taken at the site, however due to the ambient light level at the time taken they had been lighted to make it more visible.

At the invitation of the Chair, Mr Keith Potts, Local resident, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified.

• The Road was an unadopted highway not maintainable at public expense, however, it was also a public right of way, therefore, County Highways were required to maintain it as a footpath.
• That although Members raised concerns of potential flooding due to the topography of the site, North Worcestershire Water Management (NWWM) did not raise any concerns, however, a full assessment and drainage strategy would be submitted as part of the technical details stage.

Officers addressed the 5 points detailed on page 5 of the Update report pack, in relation to policy 14 of the Local Plan no4.

1. The council could not demonstrate a 5 year housing supply.
2. The site only impacted the local area and the technical details would look at the impact to the green infrastructure network.
3. The site did not have a strategic function
4. There was alternative local space within the area and the site did not play an important role due to its size.
5. The incidental open space did not play an important role in the character of the area.

Therefore, Officers were satisfied that at this stage Policy 14 did apply to the site.

Members then debated the application.

Members expressed a desire for the technical details application to come back before Members as they had some concerns with certain aspects that may come up. However, Officers clarified the scheme of delegation to Officers and detailed that the application before them was only there because of the number of objections that had been received, any subsequent application would also be subject to the relevant scheme of delegation.

Although Members had unresolved questions around several points, they accepted that those would be investigated properly during the technical details application. Furthermore, Members commented that at this stage there was no material planning reason to reject the PIP which only considered the location, land use and number of houses proposed. 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.