Agenda item

The application was reported to the Planning Committee because the number of objections received exceeded that which can be considered by Officers, as such the application 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 19 to 22 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. Officers also corrected the report at the bottom of page 33 and 38, to confirm the proposal was for six dwellings not one.

The application was for Walnut Tree Farm, Dark Lane, Astwood Bank, Redditch, Worcestershire and sought Planning Permission in Principle (PIP) for up to 6 dwellings, garages and the associated access drive.

Officers detailed that the application before Member was a PIP application and therefore there was only 3 matters for consideration:

1. Location
2. Land use and;
3. Amount of development

All other matters would be considered via a further Technical Details application. Both a PIP and technical Details application would be required before Planning permission was granted.

No objection was received from consultees at the PIP stage of the application, however, Worcestershire County Council Highways (County Highways) and North Worcestershire Water Management (NWWM) noted that there were concerns which would need to be addressed at the appropriate stage of the application.

The site was identified as being in the Green belt as it was outside the designated residential area of Astwood Bank. Development within the Green Belt was considered inappropriate unless very special circumstances existed, Paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) identified exemptions under which development within the green belt could be permitted. Officers identified two Parts which the site satisfied and therefore, an exemption would exist

• Part e (limited infilling in villages)
• Part g (redevelopment of previously developed land)

Officers further detailed that the site would also fall under the definition of grey belt land as detailed under Paragraph 155 of the NPPF. Therefore, the “location” and “Land use” considerations under a PIP application were satisfied.

Officers considered that up to 6 dwellings was acceptable when taking into consideration the existing number of dwellings and the indicative plans detailed on page 22 of the Site Plans and Presentations pack. Therefore, the “amount of development” was also deemed as acceptable.

Officers Confirmed that all other aspects of the application would be heard at the future technical details stage and that as the considerations of the location, Land use and amount of development were satisfied it was Officers recommendation to approve the PIP application.

At the invitation of the Chair the following addressed the committee under the public speaking section of the meeting

• Statement against the application read out on behalf of James Busby, Local resident, by Officers (3 minutes)
• Mark Banwell, Local Resident in opposition (3 minutes)
• Joanna Outhwaite, Local Resident in opposition (3 minutes)
• Andrew Brough, on behalf of the applicant in support (9 minutes)

The following was then clarified by Officers after questions from Members.

• That the potential location of the dwellings were indicative only and full plans would be submitted at the Technical Details stage.
• The site was 0.44 Hectares in size.
• Due to the forthcoming National Scheme of Delegation, the subsequent application for the technical details consent might not come before Committee, even with a similar number of objections. However, Officers were not able to clarify exactly as not all details for the new scheme had been announced at the time of the meeting.
• All other aspects including Drainage, Highways Concerns, access and ecology matters would be considered under the Technical Details application.

Members expressed some concern regarding accessing the development off Dark Lane, as the access was identified as a single track dirt road with restricted width for a lot of its length and was subject to the national speed limit. Members did not believe that the access to the site would be suitable which questioned the suitability of the location.

Members expressed further concern regarding if the location was suitable with the site being within the green belt and disagreed with Officers assessment with the site having exceptions under sections e and g of para 154 of the NPPF, due to the location of the site and that it would extend beyond the existing development area and into the Green Belt.

Officers clarified to Members that their assessment was that the site also fell under the definition of grey belt under Para 155 of the NPPF being previously developed land and sought clarification on Members’ stance. Members expressed the opinion that they did not agree with officers’ assessment in that the encroachment of the site was beyond that of the previous permission existing on the site and was within the green belt.

Therefore, it was Members opinion that very special circumstances did not exist to permit development within the Green Belt nor, via the Grey Belt policy.

Councillor Brandon Clayton Proposed an Alternative Recommendation that Permission in Principle application be refused as the site did not meet the definition of Grey Belt under para 155 of the NPPF. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor Simon Farmer.

On being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that

having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning Permission in Principle be REFUSED for reasons as detailed in the preamble above.