Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S. J. Baxter with Councillor B. M. McEldowney in attendance as substitute.

Apologies were also received from Councillor R. E. Lambert.

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 an Other Disclosable Interest, in relation to Agenda Item Number 4 (Minute No 34/25) 23/01141/FUL - Land adjoining Heath End Road, Belbroughton, Worcestershire, DY9 9XG.

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

Councillor D. J. A Forsythe declared in relation to Agenda Item Number 5 (Minute No 35/25) 24/01225/FUL - Wythall Business Centre, May Lane, Hollywood, Worcestershire, B47 5PD. In that he was the District and Parish Councillor for the application and had had discussions with Officers at the start of the application process in 2024.

Councillor Forsythe stated that he was satisfied that he was not predetermined and would approach the application with an open mind and would therefore, stay for the consideration of the item.

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.

The Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor K. J. May, Ward Councillor.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, whereby an objection received by Belbroughton and Fairfield Parish Council was detailed. The update further detailed information from Worcestershire County Council Highways (County Highways) along with the Officer response. Furthermore, additional Conditions (17 and 18) were proposed.

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 19 to 27 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so, highlighted that the application was for the Change of use of the land for a dog walking field and associated works

The site location was 0.63hectares in size and situated in the Green belt, 130m West of the 5 ways road junction.

Officers detailed that the stable building on site was granted planning permission in 2004 and would be used for storage associated with the proposed use. The current access to the site would be retained with modification to increase the width to 6.5m and visibility viewing splays to 120m in both directions. There would also be a 1.5m fence erected encompassing the site.

41 objections had been received which included the Parish Council, the main concerns of which were Highways matters, ecology and noise. Officers noted that there were no objections subject to Conditions from statutory consultees in relation to the aforementioned concerns.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Dan Hughes, the Applicant’s Planning Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application. Ian Saddler, on behalf of Belbroughton & Fairfield Parish Council and Councillor S. Nock, Ward Member, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Members then debated the application, during which a number of points were clarified by Officers.

• That the maximum number of dogs on site would be 3 and that this would be managed via an online booking system.
• 4 parking spaces were deemed appropriate as the site was bookable for 50-minute time periods with a 10-minute turnaround time which should prevent overlap time with arrivals.

In addressing concerns regarding traffic accidents in the locality, Officers detailed that three accidents were reported in the preceding 5-year period, on 15^th September 2020, 31^st May 2022 and 11^th May 2023. Members commented that near misses or those incidents handled privately would not come up in the data and therefore, suggested that the Police should be consulted with regarding the application.

Officers clarified that the relevant authority for highways matters would be County Highways and therefore, it would not be appropriate to consult the Police on this matter. Officers further clarified that Members could only consider the evidence before them and that the relevant consultee had determined that the impact of the development could not be considered severe, therefore, no objection was raised subject to appropriate Conditions.

Members expressed the opinion that of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34/25

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, detailing an updated recommendation to include “c) Submission of updated biodiversity metric to include watercourse units to ensure 10% BNG is delivered”, otherwise the recommendation remained the same as detailed in the Officers report.

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 49 to 64 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so, highlighted that the application was for the demolition of the existing building and erection of a Care Home (use Class C2)

Officers drew Members’ attention to the site location which was approximately 0.34 hectares and comprised of a vacant business centre with an office and library as well as a car parking area. The site had been vacant since 2016 when the library was relocated.

The proposed building would consist of a three-storey care home with parking to the north providing 28 car parking spaces. The building included dining rooms, a cinema, lounges, and treatment and meeting rooms. The care home would provide a mix of care to physically challenged and/or frail residents and would require a change to a C2 planning use class.

The site was located within the defined residential area under policy BDP2. Additionally, the NPPF emphasised the need to deliver housing to different sizes, types and tenures and for different groups in the community, which included the older population and care homes, this was further supported by policy PDP10 in the district plan which encourages the provision of housing for the elderly and for people with special needs. Officers detailed that local need was currently unmet and was forecasted to remain unmet in the foreseeable future. The most recent housing and economic development needs assessment in February 2022 calculated that there would be a requirement for 756 additional care spaces between 2023 and 2040. Officers concluded that overall, when taking all matters into consideration, the principle of development and the loss of the existing commercial use was considered acceptable.

Officers detailed that the proposed care home was designed to have a contemporary look. All bedrooms would be provided with Juliet balconies, and the proposed building met the provisions of the care standards act, including all room and internal spacing. Additionally, almost 14,000 square meters of landscaped external amenity space was proposed, which was considered sufficient for residents.

It was detailed that local residents had expressed concern regarding the potential impact on their properties. However, Officers highlighted that the applicant designed the scheme to be in line with the high-quality design SPD and the minimum separation distances were met to ensure that the effects on residential amenity were minimized. Additionally, Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS), the relevant consultee in matters of noise disturbance, had not objected to the scheme on noise grounds subject to the imposition of a suitable condition.

No objection was raised by County Council Highways  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35/25

The Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor K. J. May, Ward Councillor.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 77 to 84 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so, highlighted that the application was for a change of use of a dwelling house (C3) to a residential children's home (C2) for up to three children with alternations to the site access.

The proposed children's home would provide long-term care for 8- to 17-year-olds, who would be educated offsite at school. There would be three staff on site 24/7 with a manager present during the day.

The dwelling was a detached four-bedroom property in a rural location not within walking distance of shops and amenities; therefore, the site was deemed to be in an unsustainable location. The parking plan proposed six car parking spaces and there was an increase in the existing access from 3.2 m to 5 m. No internal or external alterations to the building were proposed as part of the scheme.

36 letters of objection had been received concerning the scheme which included the Parish Council. The main issues for objection were the location, parking, principle of development, residential amenity and the impact on the surrounding highway network.

Officers noted that Condition 3 restricted the scheme to only three children and further restricted the C2 use to only a children's care home. Therefore, no other C2 use could be used without a further planning application being submitted.

At the invitation of the Chairman and in line with the Councils’ public speaking policy, the following individuals addressed the Committee.

In Objection

• Spencer Jenkins, Local Resident, Comments read out by Officers (1.5 Minutes)
• Donna Westwood, Local Resident, Comments read out by Officers (1.5 Minutes)
• Ian Saddler, on behalf of Belbroughton & Fairfield Parish Council (3 Minutes)
• Councillor S. Nock, Ward Member (3 Minutes)

In support

• Steve Travis, the Applicant’s Planning Agent (3 Minutes)

Members then debated the application, during which a number of points were clarified by Officers.

• That a previous certificate of Lawfulness application had been refused. This was on the grounds that a C2 class usage (Children’s home) was not the same as a C3 class usage (dwellinghouse) and that a planning application was required for that change.
• A care home provider needed to demonstrate that the proposed location was suitable and appropriately placed to safeguard children. This assessment would be undertaken by Ofsted and was not a planning consideration.

Members expressed an opinion that they did not consider how a care home was fundamentally different from a dwelling when considering that a dwelling could also have four cars in it with a similar number of residents and impact on the highway network. Members expressed the same opinion regarding the sustainability of the location; therefore, they did not consider those to be suitable reasons to refuse the application.

Members questioned that Officers had taken the view that the employment travel plan requested by County  ...  view the full minutes text for item 36/25