Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor J. D. Stanley with Councillor S. T. Nock in attendance as substitute.

To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests.

Councillor J. Robinson declared in relation to agenda item 5 (Minute No72/25) - 17/01468/FUL - Stourbridge Road Car Park, Stourbridge Road, Bromsgrove in that he would be addressing the Committee as Ward Member and would therefore leave the room as the conclusion of the public speaking and will take no part in the debate or decision thereof.

Councillor M. Marshall declared in relation to agenda item 9 (Minute No76/25) - 25/00803/FUL - 7 Churchfields Road, Bromsgrove, B61 8EB in that he will be addressing the Committee as Ward Member and would therefore leave the room at the conclusion of the public speaking and would take no part in the debate or decision thereof.

Councillor A. Bailes declared in relation to agenda items 6 (Minute No73/25) - 19/00140/OUT - Land Between 47 And 53 Redditch Road, Alvechurch, B48 7RS in that he knows the applicant. However, it was only in a general capacity. Therefore, he did not believe it was a prejudicial interest and would retain an open mind and would not be leaving the room for the agenda item.

Councillor A. Bailes declared in relation to agenda items 8 (Minute No75/25) - 25/00749/FUL - Dominion Racing Stables, Seafield Lane, Portway, B48 7HL in that he knows the applicant. However, it was only in a general capacity. Therefore, he did not believe it was a prejudicial interest and would retain an open mind and would not be leaving the room for the agenda item.

Councillor A. Bailes declared a non-pecuniary interest in relation to agenda items 7 (Minute No74/25) - 25/00612/S73 - Attwell Farm Park, Seafield Lane, Portway, B98 9DB as the applicant previously made a complaint against him which was investigated and found to be unsubstantiated. However, he did not consider it to be a pecuniary interest and would remain impartial with an open mind and therefore would not be leaving the room for the agenda item.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12^th February 2026 were submitted for Members’ consideration.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 12^th February 2026, be approved as a true and accurate record.

The Chairman announced that a Committee Update was circulated to Members prior to the meeting commencing, with a paper copy also made available to Members at the meeting.

Members indicated that they had sufficient time to read the contents of the Committee Update and were happy to proceed.

As detailed in the preamble above, Councillor J. Robinson left the room at the conclusion of the public speaking and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 41 to 48 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for the Stourbridge Road car park, Stourbridge Road, Bromsgrove and sought the Construction of a freestanding restaurant with associated works.

The site’s proximity to the Aldi supermarket, Bromsgrove District Council Offices and adjoining roads were highlighted and their locations identified on page 45 of the Public Reports pack. Landscaping around the site included a retaining red brick wall and railing and there was a proposed widening of the access point to accommodate two directions of traffic. The building would be predominantly constructed of red brick with brey brick infill panels and white canopy detailing, a CGI representation of which was shown on pages 67 and 68 of the Public Reports pack.

The main issues for consideration were detailed which included, the principle of development, public health, the design, Highways matters and Trees.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr Gerner, on behalf of the Bromsgrove Society, Dr D Raven and Carol Bennett address the Committee in objection to the application. Mr P Isherwood, on Behalf of the applicant, spoke in support. Councillor J. Robinson also address the Committee as Ward Member.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.

• The site will have parking; however, this would only be for customers. The control of this was an operational issue for the restaurant.
• It would be outside of the remit of the planning Committee to impose litter picking via the Section 106 (S106) planning obligation nor Conditions. This would be an operational issue for the restaurant.
• There was no requirement for West Mercia Police to be consulted on the application. Furthermore, how the security was managed on the site would be an operational issue for the restaurant.

It was noted that Paragraph 97 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) stated that Local Planning Authorities should refuse applications for hot food takeaways and fast-food outlets within walking distance of schools or other places where children and young people congregate, unless the location is within a designated town centre. However, Officers clarified that as the application was within the defined town centre the application complied with paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

It was noted that the application originally proposed a two-storey building with substantial internal seating. This would have generated a large number of vehicles and therefore, Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) objected to the application due to the cumulative impact of the volume of vehicles on the road network. However, the application before Members was a much smaller building and with the proposed mitigating measures, was deemed acceptable by County Highways.

Mr B. Simms, of County Highways further clarified the following.

• The £10,000 provided as part of the S106 agreement would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 72/25

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 71 to 79 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for the land between 47 and 53 Redditch Road, Alvechurch, B48 7RS and sought outline planning permission for the construction of 25 dwellings and associated works.

The site of the application was Alvechurch Football Club, located just outside the development envelope of Alvechurch which was to the southeast and the site was situated within the greenbelt.

An indicative layout of the 1.71 Hectare site was shown in page 73 of the Public Reports pack, additionally, Images of the site indicated the current location of the pitch, clubhouse and access point. The access point for the proposed application would remain the same, via Redditch Road to the west of the site. The adjoining road had a speed limit of 40 miles per hour.

Officers highlighted the main issues for consideration which were the housing land supply, the grey belt policy, the sustainability of the development, the highways impact and the financial contributions.

Officers further detailed that as part of the Section 106 (S106) legal agreement, Sports England would receive 1.332M due to the loss of the sports provision. The site also had a requirement to provide a 50% on-site affordable housing contribution. Due to the Council being unable to demonstrate an adequate 5-year housing land supply, these factors were given significant weight and the application was recommended for approval.

At the invitation of the Chairman Mr Mark Fogarty, sporting director of Alvechurch football club and Mr Steve Clements, Academy Manager of Alvechurch football club Via Microsoft Teams, addressed the committee in support of the application. Councillor R. Clark of Alvechurch Parish Council also addressed the committee regarding the application.

After questions from Members the following was clarified by Officers.

• That the S106 financial contribution had been updated since 2019 when the application was originally submitted so included up to date figures.
• The 50% affordable housing contribution was required under the NPPF as a minimum requirement to permit development within grey belt areas.
• The additional waste food collection bin was not included as part of the waste collection S106 contribution. This was noted as an error by Officers.
• Page 52 of the Public Reports pack detailed that Severn Trent would require 24hour access for the treatment works which must be located within public open space. However, as the application was an outline application, a detailed site plan had not been submitted. It would form a part of the requirements to be considered as part of the final reserved matters application and how to achieve this would be determined at that stage.

Officers clarified that the school transport contribution of the S106 agreement was to enable children to attend a suitable school setting and was expected to generate a requirement for 4 pupils across all year groups.

Members had concern that the S106 Healthcare contribution would be supplied to the Kingfisher and Nightingale Primary Care  ...  view the full minutes text for item 73/25

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 107 to 113 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for Attwell Farm Park, Seafield Lane, Portway, Worcestershire, B98 9DB and sought the variation of four conditions that were attached to the existing planning permission on site. The conditions relate to the layout of the overspill parking area (Condition 2), external lighting (Condition 5), biodiversity/ecology/overspill parking (Condition 6) and the opening hours to visiting members of the public (Condition 8).

Officers drew Members attention to the update reports and detailed that comments had been received from the Tree Officer and Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) with further comments from the Resident’s Association and Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways). However, Officers clarified that the submissions did not affect the Officers Recommendation.

The existing and proposed overspill parking areas as detailed on pages 109 of the Public Reports pack. The Application sought to amend the approved layout, including surfacing and marking there would also be an increase in the number of spaces, with some parking spaces under the tree canopies and positioned closer to both Seafield Land and Chery Pit Lane. Furthermore, the amendment to Conditions 2 and 6 sought to extend the acoustic fencing and it was noted that the overall number of trees provided remained the same.

There was no objection from the Tree Officer or WRS, conditions were recommended.

The main issues for Members to consider were shown on page 113 of the Public Reports pack.

At the invitation of the Chairman Roy Hoffmeister, on behalf of Health green Farm and Councillor James Urry, of Beoley Parish Council addressed the committee in opposition to the application. Mr A Murphy, Planning Agent spoke in support.

Officers commented that the proposed alteration to Condition 5 was to permit the applicant to submit details under a planning condition, as the current condition did not allow any lighting to be provided in connection with the development. Members noted the light up decorations observed during their site visit and questioned if details of these would be submitted under a retrospective application. Officers advised that a lighting scheme had been requested but the request had been declined by the agent stating it would be a future management decision for the applicant whether to submit the details. Therefore, Officers clarified that no lighting schemed had been submitted as part of the application, nor was there any indication from the applicant to do so.

Members were given some assurance that WRS would be involved in consulting on any submitted lighting schemes (under a varied Condition 5) or assessing the impact to local residential amenity due to noise (from the variation of Condition 8). Members accepted that with current data, WRS had no objection to the application. There was still some concern that the alteration to those conditions could have a detrimental impact on local residents.

During the debate It was explored by Members if it was possible to require  ...  view the full minutes text for item 74/25

The application had been called to committee by councillor A. Bales as the ward member to be discussed at the planning committee rather than being delegated to officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 131 to 139 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for Dominion Racing Stables, Seafield Lane, Portway, Worcestershire, B48 7HL and sought the Construction of an access track joining to Billesley Lane.

The proposed access plans were shown which included the new access and proposed position of the track. The first 12 meters of the access point would be tarmac with the remainder being considered under a Condition if members were minded to approve the application. Additionally, there would be wire fencing along the side of the track which would also follow a planted native hedgerow.

Officers detailed that the development was within the greenbelt and thus was regarded as inappropriate development, therefore, to be approved very special circumstances (VSC) would need to be present as to outweigh the harm which would be caused.

The site featured a gentle incline towards the brow of the hill; therefore it was officers’ assessment that this would make the track highly visible and negatively impact on the rural character and openness of the greenbelt. A case for VSC was presented by the applicant and detailed on page 120 of the Public Reports pack. However, it was Officers assessment that VSC did not exist so as to outweigh the harm to the rural character and openness of the greenbelt and therefore, their recommended was for refusal.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr I. Williams, the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members were in support of assisting the local business which had grown significantly since starting. This was also supported by Bromsgrove District Plan4 and the NPPF, however, Members had to balance that against the harm to the greenbelt and decide if they believed VSC existed.

On balance Members agreed that the new track could remove excess traffic from Seafield Lane. However, Conditions would not be able to be imposed as to require vehicles to only use the new access, therefore, it would not be enforceable and the overall reduction in traffic on Seafield Lane could not be determined.

Upon visiting the site, Members agreed with the Officer’s assessment and stated that the incline was very pronounced. Therefore, any track would be visible and harmful to the openness of the greenbelt. It was also noted that the site already has a usable access point via Seafield Lane so not permitting the application would not significantly harm the business operation.

Councillor S. Peters proposed an Alternative Recommendation that Planning permission be approved as the VSC detailed on page 120 outweigh the harm to the green belt. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor S. Baxter. However, on being put to the vote it was not carried.

Members then considered the substantive Recommendation outlined on page  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75/25

As detailed in the preamble above, Councillor M. Marshall left the room at the conclusion of the public speaking and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 157 to 166 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for 7 Churchfields Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B61 8EB and sought the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 3 new two-bed dwellings.

The application was deferred during a previous Planning Committee meeting on 12^th February 2026 due to a number of highway concerns raised by Members. Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) had submitted further comments which were detailed on pages 140 to 141 of the Public Reports pack. The position of County Highways had not changed following the submission of the additional information and there remained no objection to the development on Highways grounds.

Officers further detailed that there were no objections from Historic England or the Conservation Officer regarding the loss of the bungalow and heritage impacts, nor from any other consultee. Therefore, the Officer Recommendation remained the same which was for approval.

At the invitation of the Chairman Mr S. Martin spoke in objection to the application. Councillor M. Marshall also addressed the Planning Committee as Ward Member.

It was confirmed that each dwelling had two parking spaces all of which were at least 2.4m x 4.8m in size with a total width of 14.4m for all 6 spaces. This met the requirements for the Worcestershire Streetscape Design Guide. It was noted that there was an error in the information supplied in the report, however, the County Highways Officer in attendance confirmed that there was enough space to accommodate the parking space with circulatory space around.

A telegraph pole shown on page 165 of the Public Reports pack was highlighted by Members. Officers detailed that it could be moved as part of the development and that should Members be minded to approve the application Condition 3 could be amended to include the relocation of the existing street furniture.

Members had concern with the last parking space in that it would be very difficult to access this spot, requiring repeated or complex manoeuvres with potentially limited visibility. County Highways clarified that their assessment showed sufficient tracking for the vehicles to access, although they appreciated that it might require several manoeuvres. It was further noted that tight manoeuvring and poor visibility was already present for a number of other properties on the road, which was a consideration from County highways during their assessment, as this might make it difficult to justify refusal on those grounds, however, it was a consideration for Members who might on balance take a different view.

Members expressed great concern regarding pedestrian safety especially when considering school children and the general public and that although they appreciated that some other properties had similar concerns they considered the cumulative impact on public safety to be important.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 76/25