Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors J. Clarke and D. J. A.  Forsythe, with Councillors D. J. Nicholl and B. Kumar in attendance respectively, as the substitute Members.

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 A. Bailes declared the following:-

An Other Disclosable Interest in relation to Agenda Item No.6 – 23/00993/REM, Land at Whitford Road, Bromsgrove, in that he had previously represented Whitford Vale Voice during the larger site applications that were granted outline planning permission at appeal. However, he had had no further interest since the appeal but would for transparency be withdrawing from the meeting room during the consideration of this item.

Councillor A. Bailes left the meeting room for the duration of this agenda item and took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on this matter.

With regard to Agenda Item No. 7 – 23/01390/FUL, Oak Tree Farm, Storrage Lane, Alvechurch, Worcestershire, B48 7EP. Councillor A. Bailes explained that he had ‘called in’ this application as the Ward Member; under the Council’s Calling-In Procedure for Ward Members for Planning Committee. However, he was not predetermined and would consider the application, as a Planning Committee Member, with an open mind.

With regard to Agenda Item No.8 – 24/00753/S73, Development Site at Weights Lane, Redditch, Worcestershire; in that he would be addressing the Committee for this item as a concerned resident, and on behalf of Bordesley Matters and Alvechurch Parish Council, under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules.

Following the conclusion of the public speaking, Councillor A. Bailes left the meeting room.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 3^rd September 2024, were received.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 3^rd September 2024, be approved as a correct record.

The Chairman announced that there was a Committee Update which 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 consider the confirmation without modification Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (12) 2024, relating to trees on land at 98 New Road, Bromsgrove, B60 2LB.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer provided a detailed presentation and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the recommendation, as detailed on page11 of the main agenda pack.

Members were asked to note that the tree referenced in the objection, as detailed at Appendix 3 to the report, referred to a Sycamore tree.  T1 of  the provisional order was a Lime tree and not a Sycamore tree.

Members were informed that the provisional order was raised on 17^th May 2024, as shown at Appendix 1 to the report; in response to the site being offered for sale.  The site was formally a family support centre owned by Worcestershire County Council (WCC).  The concern being that once the site was sold, the site might be redeveloped, which could represent a potential risk to the trees on the site being damaged or removed.

A Tree Evaluation Method for Preservation Orders (TEMPO) was carried out on the trees, as detailed at Appendix 2 to the report. The TEMPO showed that the assessment of the trees had achieved a suitable score to justify consideration for TPO protection.

One objection had been received in respect of the provisional TPO having been raised, as detailed at Appendix 3 to the report.

The officers’ comments in relation to the points raised in the objection were detailed on page 12 of the main agenda pack and referred to: -

• Safety Risk Represented by Tree
• Blockage of Light
• Seed and Leaf Fall

Three letters in support of the TPO, one accompanied by a signed petition (with 35 signatures) has also been received, as detailed at Appendix 4 to the report and on page 13 of the main agenda pack.

The Senior Arboricultural Officer concluded that the trees included within the order were visible from a public perspective as shown by the photos within the report.  The trees contributed to the character of the area and that in his opinion he felt that any nuisance they may cause was greatly outweighed by the amenity and landscape benefits the trees brought to the area and site.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. Bernthal, who had submitted an objection to the provisional TPO addressed the Committee. Mrs. Bernthal confirmed that the tree was a Lime tree and not a Sycamore tree, as stated in their letter of objection to the provisional TPO. 

Members then considered the TPO.

Members commented that Mrs. Bernthal had stated that they did not want the tree cut down, just suitable maintained and trimmed therefore less risk to their property should the tree come down during adverse weather conditions. Members asked if the tree was in a good condition with no concerns from officers.

In response the Senior Arboricultural Officer explained that the tree was in a good condition, however it could not be 100%  ...  view the full minutes text for item 45/24

It was noted that Councillor A. Bailes left the meeting room prior to the consideration of this item.

Officers drew Members’ attention to page 3 of the Committee Update 3, which detailed comments from the Tree Officer, Waste Management, North Worcestershire Water Management and ‘Other Matters’ with regards to the Garden Sizes Plan.

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

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 54 to 78 of the main agenda pack, for the Reserved Matters application (Layout; scale; appearance and landscaping) to outline planning permission 16/1132 (granted on appeal APP/P1805/W/20/3245111) for the erection of 120 dwellings with associated car parking, landscaping and other infrastructure within the northern section of Site A, Land at Whitford Road, Bromsgrove.

Officers explained that, as detailed in the report, that the application site formed part of a larger site that was the subject of a planning appeal (APP/P1805/W/20/3245111). The appeal was allowed in 2021 granting outline planning permission for: Site A—(land off Whitford Road), provision of up to 490 dwellings, class A1 retail local shop (up to 400sqm), two new priority accesses onto Whitford Road, public open space, landscaping and sustainable urban drainage; on site B (Albert Road), demolition of the Greyhound public house, provision of up to 15 dwellings, an new priority access onto Albert Road, landscaping, and sustainable drainage.

The site formed part of the Bromsgrove Town Expansion Site BROM3 allocated for development in the District Plan. It comprised approximately the northern third of part of a larger site (Site A) which was granted outline planning permission by The Planning Inspectorate on 9th February 2021.

Following the granting of outline planning permission and the approval of the Reserved matter of Access by the Planning Inspector, this application sought consent for the remaining 4 Reserved Matters for the erection of 120 dwellings together with associated car parking and other infrastructure on the northern third of site A.

The development was arranged in 3 character areas:

· Landscape Edge – faces onto natural green space along the western side of

   the site and forms part of the acoustic barrier to the M5.

· Neighbourhood – central elements and typically incudes the tertiary street

   network.

· Main Street Green Edge – incorporates north edges and the central primary

   street.

Page 44 of the main agenda pack sets out the housing mix and tenure.

Officers referred to the hedgerow between the application site and the Bellway Homes site to the south which would be retained as indicated on the submitted plans and section drawings. The section drawings also suggested that retaining walls may be required either side of the hedge adjacent to plot 75. However, at the time of writing the report full details were not available and clarification was required on the implications for the hedgerow. It is noted that the masterplan did include the removal of part of the hedgerow. Officers drew Members’ attention  ...  view the full minutes text for item 46/24

It was noted that Councillor A. Bailes returned to the meeting room prior to the consideration of this item.

The Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor A. Bailes, Ward Councillor.

Officers highlighted that page 4 of the Committee Update detailed the reasons for amending Conditions 4, 5 and 6; and ultimately the Revised Conditions 4, 5 and 6.

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

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 90 to 97 of the main agenda pack. The application sought planning permission for the retention of an existing barn, alterations to the site's access, and the temporary provision of a rural worker's dwelling using the existing on-site mobile home.

The site was located within the Green Belt, a protected area. The proposal also included reducing the fencing to 1 metre in height, along the southern boundary with Storrage Lane, in order to align with permitted development allowances.

Already existing onsite was a hardstanding, an agricultural barn, a caravan, Portaloo and fencing along the southern boundary with Storrage Lane. These structures did not currently benefit from planning permission.

Members were further informed that planning permission was granted on site (reference 19/00009/FUL) for an agricultural building. The building had an open bay and was proposed to store farm machinery, agricultural sundries and temporary livestock accommodation and the open section would be used primarily for the storage of hay. The existing barn onsite subject to this planning application was not built in accordance with the approved 2019 permission and as such had no permission or fallback.

The Applicants now intended to use the land and building to establish a herd of 25 Breeding Female Alpacas and a small flock of 200 laying hens and would also produce some hay to sell on. The intentions on site were for the breading and rearing of alpacas for sale, the sale of alpaca yarn and products and poop.

The Applicants had submitted photographs showing that the building was being used for agricultural purposes. They also sought to explain why the building was insulated stating that "insulation has also been installed in the roof of the agricultural building to regulate the temperature so that the condition in the roof of the chicken feed, eggs and egg boxes can be regulated." Although the Council were of the view that internally the building had been over engineered, it was clear that it could be used for the purposes put forward under this application and internal work could be carried out without planning permission. Taking all of this onto consideration, in this case, on balance the design of the building alone was not reason for refusing the application.

As highlighted in the report, it was the for the applicants to share the workload and retain the ability to live on the holding to properly manage and monitor the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 47/24

At this stage in the meeting the Chairman announced a comfort break.

Accordingly, the meeting stood adjourned from 19:12 hours to 19:18 hours.

Having reconvened, it was noted that Councillor A. Bailes withdrew to the Public Gallery. 

Officers drew Members’ attention to pages 4 and 5 of the Committee Update, which detailed one further objection received following the publication of the Planning Committee agenda.

The objection reiterated highway concerns regarding the proposed variation. Worcestershire Highways had provided further information regarding the need for this variation of condition to assist in the determination of the application.

Officers then presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 110 to112 of the main agenda pack.

The application sought variation of Condition 35 of planning permission 19/00976/HYB dated 01/11/2021:

FROM: No more than 128 dwellings hereby approved shall be brought into use until the highway improvements to the Dagnell End Road / A441 Birmingham Road junction as shown in the PJA Drawing Ref: 2809 P 12 Rev P4, or similar scheme acceptable to the Highway Authority, had been approved in writing and completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the Local Highway Authority) and was open to traffic. The junction was to include Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) signal control.

AMEND TO: No more than 200 dwellings hereby approved shall be brought into use until the highway improvements to the Dagnell End Road / A441 Birmingham Road junction as shown in the PJA Drawing Ref: 2809 P 12 Rev P4, or similar scheme acceptable to the Highway Authority, had been approved in writing and completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority (in consultation with the Local Highway Authority) and was open to traffic. The junction would include Microprocessor Optimised Vehicle Actuation (MOVA) signal control. (Cross boundary application with Redditch BC 24/00740/S73).

Members were reminded that the application site formed part of a larger site that was the subject of a cross boundary hybrid planning applications for the following proposal. Hybrid applications 19/00976/HYB and 19/00977/HYB for up to 960 dwellings consisting of a full application for 128 dwellings accessed off Weights Lane, new public open space, drainage system, engineering operations associated works and an outline application (with all matters reserved with the exception of access) for the construction of the remaining dwellings with access points off Cookridge Close, Hawling Street and Weights Lane and including a new District Centre, new play facilities, new highway network, public open space, new drainage system and surface water attenuation, engineering operations and all associated works including landscaping.

The application site formed part of the Brockhill allocation.  The allocation site’s boundaries extend adjacent to Brockhill Lane to the west, Weights Lane to the north, the Redditch/Birmingham railway line to the east, Phase I (Pointer’s Way) and Phase II (Meadow View) to its south, and Phase 3 and Phase 4 which were a continuation of Phase 2. These phases had been or were being built by Persimmon Homes South Midlands  ...  view the full minutes text for item 48/24

It was noted that Councillor A. Bailes returned to the meeting room for this application.

As detailed in the report on pages 99 and 117 of the main agenda pack. the application sought the variation of approved plans (Condition 4) for the full element of the hybrid permission, which related to the set of approved plans. The applicant was seeking to substitute consented HQI 73 House Type (2 bedroom semi-detached) with HQI 50 House Type (4 one bedroom maisonettes) on Plots 80-83 and to reorientate Plots 84-85, in order to address gradient constraints on the site.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 120 to 124 of the main agenda pack.

Members were informed that the number of approved dwellings would remain at 128 for the full element of the hybrid. The 44 affordable dwellings (split between shared ownership and affordable homes for rent) would not change as a result of this application being approved.

The changes in the house types were considered acceptable. The elevational and layout changes to facilitate the dwellings were satisfactory. The height, scale and massing of the development did not alter substantially from the approval.

The comments received from the consultee, including the change in the size of the affordable housing had been noted. Overall, the changes in terms of affordable housing and design were acceptable. The proposed development was in accordance with the BDP7, BDP8, BDP19, the Bromsgrove High Quality Design SPD and the NPPF.

The Highway Authority noted that HQI 73 House Type was a 2-bedroom dwelling, whilst the HQI 50 House Type was a 1-bedroom dwelling. The submitted scheme proposals layout drawing showed the previous two car parking spaces per dwelling, at Plots 80-83, being amended to provide one car parking space per new dwellings. This parking provision was still in line with the requirements set out in the WCC Streetscape Design Guide. The proposed changes, including the reorientation of Plots 84/85, would have no significant impact on the local highway network.

Members were further informed that a section 106 agreement (s106) had been completed for the hybrid application. However, the legal agreement did not include wording that if a s73 consent was granted then the obligations in the s106 legal agreement (such as affordable housing, education, off site open space, etc) should relate to the new s73 consent.

Therefore, if approved a supplemental deed to the legal agreement would be required in this case to ensure that the obligations still applied. 

Technical matters regarding flood risk and drainage were acceptable. Other matters relating to ecology and biodiversity, air quality, noise, and contaminated land were assessed in detail on the previous applications and were considered acceptable (subject to relevant conditions). Officers consider that the proposed condition change under this application would not result in any material change to these matters, subject to relevant conditions under 19/00976/HYB being imposed.

Officers conclude that, the proposed changes were considered to comply with Bromsgrove District Plan policies, the Bromsgrove High Quality Design  ...  view the full minutes text for item 49/24