Agenda and minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor S. J. Baxter and Councillor R. E. Lambert with Councillor B. McEldowney and Councillor S. T. Nock as named substitute respectively. Councillor J. D. Stanley also submitted his apologies for this meeting.

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 5 (Minute Number 41/25) 24/00960/FUL - Proposed Battery Energy Storage System (BESS) and associated infrastructure, Land off Illey Lane Hunnington - in his capacity as an Authority Member on the Hereford and Worcester Fire and Rescue Service (HWFR) Board.

Councillor A. Bailes stated that he would determine the application with an open mind and remained in the meeting room for the duration of the debate and took part in the vote thereon.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 7^th July and 29^th July 2025 were submitted for Members’ consideration.

During consideration of this item, Councillor S. Nock commented - that he felt it was important to include details of the public speakers comments within the minutes. He stated that the inclusion of these comments might be useful to provide context in instances when a Planning application was subject to an appeal or Judicial Review in the future.

The Legal Advisor to the Council’s Planning Committee read out the following statement in response to this query. The statement read as follows:

“The minutes of Planning Committee meetings are produced in accordance with professional minute writing standards. Traditionally, detailed information has not been included in minutes of Planning Committee meetings relating to contributions made during public speaking as no new information should be introduced at this stage and all contributions should already be in the public domain to view on the planning portal on the Council’s website. However, it is proposed that during the forthcoming PAS (Planning Advisory Service) review of the Planning Committee, this matter should be raised so that arrangements at the Council can reflect the most up to date advice on best practice.”

RESOLVED that the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 7^th July and 29^th July 2025, be approved as a true and accurate records.

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.

Prior to the consideration of this item. Councillor S. Nock stated that he was registered to speak on this application and requested clarification as to whether he needed to leave the meeting room during the presentation and public speaking on this application as this was the advice he had received from the Council’s Principal Solicitor – Governance earlier that day.

[At this point in the meeting there was a brief adjournment from 18:09 to 18:12].

Having reconvened, the Legal Advisor to the Planning Committee at the meeting stated that he felt it appropriate that Councillor S. Nock remained in the public gallery during consideration of the application and whilst the public speakers addressed the Committee Members. Once he had spoken on this matter, Councillor S. Nock would be required to leave the meeting room and take no part in the debate nor the vote thereon.

Officers reminded Members that this application had been deferred at the meeting of the Planning Committee held on 29^th July 2025. The deferment had been requested by Members in order to address the comments raised by Hereford and Worcestershire Fire and Rescue Service (HWFS).

Since then, discussions had taken place between the local Planning Authority (Bromsgrove District Council), HWFS and the applicant. This had resulted in the updated application as presented to the Planning Committee at this meeting.

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

The application site was located in approximately 3.88 hectares of land which comprised of agricultural land, which could be considered rural. Of the 3.88 hectares of the application site, 1 hectare was allocated to the developable site area.

Officers drew Members’ attention to page 92 of the main agendapack which detailed the proposed layout, supported infrastructure, security fencing and landscaping works. The layout had been amended following discussions with HWFS and now proposed three separate access points to the battery compound and two into the substation. It was noted that a sufficient number of passing points had now been incorporated into the layout of the site.

Access to the site was from an existing access point on Illey Lane, which would be upgraded as required to provide suitable access. The compound site would be fenced and an appropriate landscape scheme implemented. The remaining area around the perimeter would be utilised for further planting to include woodland hedgerows, trees, grassland and wildflower planting.

The proposed development had a time limit of thirty-five years. After which time all the infrastructure would be removed from the site.

The Point of Connection for the site would be at the Kitwell Substation, located approximately 2 kilometres east from the application site on Kitwell Lane.

Officers noted it was important and necessary to deliver improvements to energy infrastructure and management for the future. It was also important to ensure that the necessary infrastructure was in place to support the management of the National Electricity Grid.

It was reported  ...  view the full minutes text for item 41/25

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

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 at pages 109 – 129 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so, highlighted that outline planning permission was sought for the construction of two dwellings and detached garages on a parcel of land off Parish Hill, Bourneheath.

The Planning Inspectorate had considered a Permission in Principle (PIP) which had been allowed on appeal for two dwellings with this decision being issued in September 2024. The appeal had been awarded on the basis that the proposal in the Green Belt location would be an acceptable infill development.

The second stage of the PIP process was to apply for a technical details consent where the detailed proposal was reassessed.

The proposal detailed two dwellings and as part of this outline application, matters such as access, appearance, layout and scale with landscaping determined at the reserved matters stage.

The location was within the Green Belt and BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan would apply. Development within the Green Belt was considered inappropriate unless it fell under a limited number of exceptions. Limited infill development was included within these exceptions.

The PIP appeal awarded on 26th September 2024 for two dwellings on this site was for extant permission that could still be implemented, and as such provided a strong fallback position for the applicant, making it an important material consideration for this application.

The proposed dwelling were located on a hillside location, which might result in a modest adverse effect of the openness of the Geen Belt in terms of spatial and visual aspect due to the elevated location of the site. There had been some amendments to the scheme in order to reduce the impact with a change of roof design and roof pitch.

Access to the site would be via Parish Hill, with individual access points cutting into the existing hedgerow to serve each plot. There would be adequate parking for each dwelling on each plot. The appearance was also noted as being a mix of render and brick gable on the front elevation.

Members were informed that the dwellings would be set back from the road and positioned at least 16.8 metres away from the road and set into the contours of the site. Adequate spacing would be maintained between the properties in accordance with the Council’s SPD on High Quality Design.

There had been some concerns raised by residents in respect of the dwellings being overly large and not in keeping with the other properties in the village. However, in reviewing the PIP, the Planning Inspectorate had considered the dwellings acceptable in terms of their appearance and the layout, and scale in accordance with the BDP and SPD.

In respect of Highways matters, it  ...  view the full minutes text for item 42/25

The Development Management Manager presented the Planning Performance Report: Quarter One for Members’ consideration. In doing so it was highlighted that the speed of decision making for major and non-major planning applications was well within the acceptable tolerance. Officers explained that the speed of decision-making for major applications over the rolling one-year period was 92.8% and 87.7% for non-major applications over the rolling one-year period. The Government required a minimum of 60% of major applications and 70% of non-major applications to be determined in time, or within an agreed extension of time.

In terms of the quality of the decision making, no Local Planning Authority should exceed 10% of decisions being overturned at appeal. The Council’s quality of decision making was 5.7% for major planning applications and 2.5% for non-major applications. As such the quality of decision making at Bromsgrove District Council was deemed sound.

There had been a number of appeal decisions in Quarter one. Members were informed that in respect of recent cost award outcomes, there were two decisions to note; Rock Hill and Stonehouse Lane decisions, where it was noted that the costs were refused in terms of the ask from the applicant.

RESOLVED that the Planning Performance Report: Quarter One be noted.

There was no Urgent Business on this occasion.