Agenda and minutes

There were no apologies for absence.

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 M. Marshall declared with regard to Agenda Item No.6 – Planning Application 7 Churchfields Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B61 8EB, in that he would be addressing the Committee for this item as Ward Councillor, under the Council’s Public Speaking Rules. After addressing the Committee as Ward Councillor, Councillor M. Marshall left the meeting room and took no part in the Committee’s consideration nor voting on this matter.

Councillor J. Robinson declared in relation to Agenda Item No.5 – Planning Application 24/00533/REM – Land to west Foxlydiate Land and Pumphouse Lane, Bromsgrove, in that he was employed by National Highways who were one of the consultees on this planning application. However, Councillor J. Robinson explained that he had been granted a Dispensation and therefore would remain on the Committee for the consideration of this item.

The minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 6^th November 2025 and 4^th December 2025, were received for Members’ consideration.

With regards to the minutes of the meeting held on 4^th December 2025, Councillor M. Marshall asked for the following amendments: -

Page 25, Minute No. 57/25, after paragraph 5, insert:-

‘Members responded that location was a material consideration in a decision to award PIP and referred to the landscape assessment that had already been undertaken which pointed to the unsuitability for residential development of this location.’

Page 26, Minute No. 57/25, after paragraph 7, insert:-

‘Members responded that there was no Grey Belt classification under the current NPPF and the land remained Green Belt. The land could be considered Grey Belt if it did not make a strong contribution to Green Belt purposes and this was for Members to determine. After some deliberation officers agreed that this was a matter for determination by Members.’ 

RESOLVED that, subject to the amendments, as detailed in the preamble above that the minutes of the Planning Committee meetings held on 6^th November 2025 and 4^th December 2025, be approved as correct 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.

Further information was included in the Committee Update, with regard to amended plans being received in respect of the boundary with Longbarn and the proposed play area, 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.

The Reserved matters application was for the erection of 217 dwellings to include details of appearance and landscaping, layout, internal roads and scale of development pursuant to the approved hybrid planning permission (Ref: 16/0263) at land at Foxlydiate Lane and Pumphouse Lane, Webheath, Redditch ("Foxlydiate").

The application related to the first phase of the development of the wider Foxlydiate site and comprised of approximately 10.03 hectares.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 46 to 60 of the main agenda pack.

Officers referred to the Design Code, as detailed on page 43 of the main agenda pack and briefly explained that the site was identified as a part of the larger Monarch Green sub-area within the Foxlydiate site and largely reflected the Design and Access Statement submitted with the hybrid application.

Members’ attention was drawn to ‘Landscaping’ , as detailed on page 40 of the main agenda pack, which provided detailed information and explanations in respect of The Design Code and proposed boundary treatments within the different character areas.

It was noted that amendments had been submitted, in such, that brick walls were now included along the Avenue frontage. This was considered acceptable. Elsewhere external facing boundaries included walls with inset fence panels and internal boundaries timber fencing with hedgehog gaps.

The residents of Longbarn had expressed concern regarding the proposed boundary treatment along the boundary with their property and had requested that a wall be erected. Longbarn was a Non Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). The landscaping proposals did not include a wall at this location. There was no planning requirement for a wall in this location. This was confirmed by the Council’s Conservation Officer. The existing boundary treatment was hedgerow and fence. In this instance the developer was proposing additional hedge planting along the boundary. The species had been discussed with the Council’s Tree Officer and had been amended to introduce trees which were compatible with the hard surfacing of the driveways/parking and had lighter canopy. The proposed landscaping was considered acceptable with regard to the boundary with Longbarn.

Officers further referred to the Urban Design (Place Services) comments, as detailed on page 32 of the main agenda pack and identified the two location where 2.5 storey dwellings would provide a termination to those vistas.

Some retaining structures were proposed in order to address changes in the levels across the site.

Officers highlighted that the residents of Longbarn on Birchfield Road had expressed concern at the proximity of proposed dwellings to the rear of that property. Longbarn and its neighbour The Byre were considered to be Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHA). The proposed dwellings would  ...  view the full minutes text for item 63/25

This Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor M. Marshall, Ward Councillor. At this stage in the meeting Councillor M. Marshall sat in the public gallery.

It was noted that there was no Committee Update for this item.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 76 to 83 of the main agenda pack.

Members’ attention was drawn to the objections received and the principal issues raised, as detailed on pages 62 and 63 of the main agenda pack.

Members were asked to note that Worcestershire County Council (WCC),  Highways and the Council’s Conservation Officer had raised no objections to the application. A Construction Environment Management Plan (CEMP) had been submitted and accepted. A bat survey had also been submitted, and biodiversity net gain had been addressed.

The site was located at 7 Churchfields Road and measured approximately 0.053 hectares. The surrounding properties were residential. The site was bound by No.5 and No.9 Churchfields Road. The site was currently a pitched roof bungalow. There was a hardstanding driveway in the form of bricked paving, as well as a front garden and rear garden. The site was located within the residential area of Sidemoor, immediately adjacent to the west of Bromsgrove Town Centre.

The proposal for this planning application was for the demolition of the existing bungalow and the erection of 3 dwellings (3 x 2 bedroom), with associated external works and car parking. The three dwellings would form a terraced block. The size and measurements of the proposed 3 dwellings were detailed on page 65 of the main agenda pack.

With regard to the proposed garden area for the future occupiers of the development, the Council's High Quality Design SPD recommended a minimum garden area of 70 square metres for all dwellings and a minimum garden length of 10.5 metres for two storey dwellings.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. S. Martin, on behalf of local residents addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Councillor M. Marshall, Ward Councillor, also addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Having addressed the Committee, Councillor M. Marshall left the meeting room.

Members then considered the application which officers had recommended be granted.

Members raised a number of questions and concerns in respect of the following issues:-

·       Car parking spacing - were the spaces 4.5 metres or less than 4.5 metres? Was there sufficient space for 4.5 metre car parking spaces once the dwellings have been built? The area was a very tight area.

·       Visibility Splays – some Members had serious concerns about this and were of the opinion that the visibility splays had not been assessed with due diligence. There was a telegraph pole in situ which vehicles would have to reverse around.

·       Look at housing needs, were bungalows in demand?

A deferment of the application was briefly referred to, in order to enable a robust assessment, with due diligence, to be carried out.

Some Members expressed their disappointment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 64/25

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

Further information was included in the Committee Update, with regard to the issue of Ancient Light Law and Highways issues, and the officers response to these, as detailed on pages 3 and 4 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.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 94 to 100 of the main agenda pack.

The proposed development would provide a 3-bedroom dwelling. The dwelling would be attached to the existing dwelling, with two parking spaces to the rear of the property. The proposal included a garden shed for cycle storage.

The proposed site had a maximum of width of 9.2m and maximum length of 29.2m. Topographically the site sloped upwards from west to east. The majority of the site was laid to turf containing hedges and shrubs forming domestic landscaping to No 18. Currently, a 1.8m high fence formed the garden boundary to No 18 fronting Eton Walk.

The closest end gable of No. 9 Eton Walk was a flank wall with a bathroom window facing the application site. The window was not a habitable room and was approximately 10m from the proposed dwelling’s rear elevation.

Members were asked to note that no objections had been received from Worcestershire County Council, Highways, North Worcestershire Water Management and Worcestershire Regulatory Services (Contaminated Land).

Objections had been received from Hagley Parish Council and 5 individuals, as detailed on page 85 and 86 of the main agenda pack.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. J. Valdez and Mrs. S. Parsons, who had submitted objections, addressed the Committee.

Members then considered the application which officers had recommended be granted.

In response to Members, officers clarified that there were constraints of the site, however, 2 car parking spaces could be achieved with these constraints. Officers further confirmed that the proposed dwelling would be a 3 bedroom dwelling.

On being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED that planning permission be granted, subject to the Conditions as detailed on pages 90 to 92 of the main agenda pack.

The Development Management Manager presented the Planning Performance Report: Quarter Three (1^st October 2025 – 31^st December 2025) for Members’ consideration.

In doing so it was highlighted that planning performance was based on a one-year rolling assessment period and measured the speed of decision making. The speed of decision making was highlighted on page 102 of the main agenda pack.

Officers explained that the speed of decision-making for major applications over the rolling one-year period was 93.8% and 89% 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. Members were asked to note that the data detailed within the report was intentionally nine months behind the date of publication to allow a time lag for appeals in the pipeline to be determined.

The Council’s speed of quality of decision making (January 2023 – December 2024) was highlighted on page 103 of the main agenda pack. This was 6.2% for major planning applications and 2.4% for non-major applications. As such the quality of decision making at Bromsgrove District Council was deemed sound.

In response to questions from Members with regard to the potential for an increase in major applications coming through and officer capacity, the   Development Management Manager stated that the team were currently ok but  were seeing an increase in major applications and that if needed additional resources could be arranged. There was currently no concern.

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

There was no Urgent Business on this occasion.