Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED that Councillor H. J. Jones be elected as Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing municipal year.

RESOLVED that Councillor M. Marshall be elected as Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the ensuing municipal year.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors C. A. Hotham, R. E. Lambert, and M. Marshall, with Councillors P. M. McDonald in attendance as the substitute Member for Councillor M. Marshall.

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.

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22^nd April 2025, were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 22^nd April 2025, be approved as a correct record.

The Chairman announced that a Committee Update had been 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 had sufficient time to read the contents of the Committee Update and were happy to proceed.

The Committee considered a report which detailed proposals to confirm, without modification, Tree Preservation Order (18) 2024, relating to a Tree on land at 2 The Coppice, Hagley, Worcestershire, DY8 2XZ.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer provided a detailed presentation referring to the presentation slides, as detailed on page 29 to 43 of the main agenda pack. Members’ attention was further drawn to the recommendation, as detailed on page 13 of the main agenda pack.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer further informed the Committee that the provisional order was raised on 19^th December 2024, as detailed in Appendix 1 to the report, in response to an indication received by the Council that the owner of the tree at 2 The Coppice, Hagley, had intended to fell the Cedar tree at that property.

A Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (T.E.M.P.O) survey was carried out on the tree within the order by a Tree Officer on 10^th December 2024, the findings were detailed in Appendix 2 (page 21 of the main agenda pack).

The Senior Arboricultural Officer further referred to the three objection letters received, and the officer’s response to the issues raised in objection to the TPO, namely:-

·       Public Amenity Value

·       Safety Issues

·       General Debris Fall Nuisance

·       Risk of Root Invasion

as detailed on pages 14 to 15 of the main agenda pack.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer drew Members’ attention to the conclusion and recommendations, as detailed on page 16 of the main agenda pack.

The Cedar tree within the order offered a valuable level of visual amenity value, being visible from the local public road network and pathways and added considerably to the character of the estate and landscaping of the area. It had a considerable future life span and although it may need periodic crown management due to the constraints of the growing position and existing bracing, it was sustainable in the longer term within the infrastructure of the estate.

During the recent planning application there was no mention of removing the tree to facilitate an extension and indeed, the extension was designed to work with the tree, with pile and beam foundations to protect the root system. The attached tree survey from this application categorised the Cedar as “B1” under BS 5837:2012 (Trees in relation to design, demolition and construction). This classification also indicated that the tree was worthy of retention.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. P. Collins, on whose land the tree was on, addressed the Committee in objection to TPO (18) 2024.

Members then considered the TPO.

Members commented that having carried out a Site Visit, the impression was that the tree was a healthy, strong tree which had been braced. However, the tree did look out of place in a small cul-de-sac. There was considerable foliage at the top of the tree and Members questioned if this was a cause for concern during strong windy weather conditions. Members had noted that all three objectors had referred to the considerable violent storm in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7/25

Further information was included in the Committee Update, with regard to a revised Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) Metric submitted by the applicant on 13^th May 2025, as detailed on page 3 of the Committee Update.

A copy of the Committee Update was provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

It was noted that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor P. J. Whittaker, Ward Councillor.

Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that the application was for the installation of 40 solar panels on 5 ground mounted frames (resubmission of application 24/00192/FUL).

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 83 to 91 of the main agenda pack.

Officers stated that, as detailed in the Recommendation to refuse Planning Permission, that by virtue of its position, the proposal would have a detrimental impact on the openness and purposes of the Green Belt.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms. J. Lodge, the Applicant addressed the Committee, and Councillor P. J. Whittaker, Ward Councillor also addressed the Committee. Having addressed the Committee, Councillor P. J. Whittaker left the meeting room.

Members then considered the application, which Officers had recommended that planning permission be refused.

Councillor E. M. S. Gray referred to page 79 of the main agenda pack, namely the closed list as referred to -

‘Principle – Green Belt

 In respect of Green Belt policy, it has been established through case law that the list of exceptions for 'appropriate development' set out in policy BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) amounts to a closed list. Thereby, proposals not included on the list are regarded as 'prima facia' inappropriate development.’

Officers explained that, as detailed in the report, Paragraph 153 of the Framework stated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 154 of the Framework stated that certain other forms of development were not inappropriate including engineering operations. The proposal would involve underground cabling to connect the panels to the dwellinghouse and these elements would not amount to inappropriate development and would have minimal impact on the openness of the site. However, Paragraph 160 of the Framework, in relation to renewable energy installations in Green Belts, stated that 'elements of renewable energy projects’ would comprise inappropriate development.

Some Members commented that the proposal was not a substantial solar farm, as only 40 solar panels would be installed.

Officers stated that they did try and accommodate such proposals where possible as renewable energy generation was important but that an alternative siting within the curtilage of the dwellinghouse was possible which would limit the impact on the Green Belt.

Councillor P. M. McDonald stated that Members had carried out a Site Visit and that having read the Officer’s report, there was no doubt that there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8/25

Further information on an additional representation, received on 22^nd May 2025, from Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways, raising two points of objections to the application, were detailed on page 3 of the Committee Update.

A copy of the Committee Update was provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

It was noted that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor R. E. Lambert, Ward Councillor.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 97 to 104 of the main agenda pack.

Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that the application was for a first floor rear extension and annex with ancillary use to the existing dwelling in the rear garden.

By its nature as a rear extension, the proposal would not be visible from the street scene and therefore would not impact upon the character of Lodge Crescent. Officers were content that the proposal was compliant with the 45 degree guidelines set out in the Council’s adopted High Quality Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. L. Billingham, speaking on behalf of local neighbours, addressed the Committee in objection to the Application. Mrs. C. Jones, the Applicant addressed the Committee (via Microsoft Teams). Having submitted their apologies, the Council’s Legal Advisor, read out a speech provided by Councillor R. E. Lambert, Ward Councillor.

Members then considered the application, which Officers had recommended that planning permission be granted.

Councillor A. Bailes then referred to the following:-

·       Page 95 – ‘The use of this structure is considered acceptable’. There was no information as to what the proposed structure would be used for.

·       Bromsgrove Development Plan - BDP 8.198 Development in residential gardens.

·       BDP19 n. - High Quality Design, Development of garden land.

·       BDP SPD section 3.17 – Overbearance, dominating extension contrary to BDP High Quality SPD.

·       Parking – Was there any evidence to show that 3 cars could park safely on the existing driveway without reversing onto the highway?

·       WCC, Streetscape Design Guide – with 6 or more bedrooms more car parking spaces were required.

Councillor A. Bailes further referred to the objections from WCC, Highways, as detailed on pages 93 and 95 of the main agenda pack, and an additional representation, as detailed on page 3 of the Committee Update.

In response Officers stated that the use of the proposed annexe would be ancillary, with no facilities for cooking, washing or washing clothes. As stated on page 95 of the main agenda report, a building of this type could be constructed under permitted development rights with a reduced height of 2.5m.  The concerns raised had been considered against the planning balance.

The Highways Officer was consulted with and had provided comments, and in doing so had quoted paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which stated that there would need to be an unacceptable impact on highway safety and that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 9/25

The Chairman took the opportunity to remind the Committee that the report was for noting only.

The Development Management Manager explained that the Planning Performance Information was for Quarter 4 – 1^st January 2025 to 31^st March 2025.  As requested by the Committee the report also contained a list of the recent cost award outcomes relating to planning appeals.

Members expressed their thanks.

RESOLVED that the Planning Performance Information report, Quarter 4 – 1^st January 2025 to 31^st March 2025, be noted.

There was no urgent business on this occasion.