Agenda item - 19/00220/FUL - Demolition of buildings and erection of 11 dwellings, with associated landscaping, bin storage - Burcot Garden Centre, 354 Alcester Road, Burcot, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 1PW - Mr. M. Richardson

Agenda item

19/00220/FUL - Demolition of buildings and erection of 11 dwellings, with associated landscaping, bin storage - Burcot Garden Centre, 354 Alcester Road, Burcot, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 1PW - Mr. M. Richardson

Minutes:

Officers reported on additional information had been received from NHS/Medical Infrastructure Contributions with regard to the proposed development and the likely impact on the services of 1 GP practice and further representations objecting to the proposal, from Burcot Village Hall Committee and neighbours; as detailed in the published Update Report, copies of which were provided to Members and the public gallery prior to the commencement of the meeting.

 

Officers also drew Members’ attention to the amended Recommendation, as detailed in the published Update Report, copies of which were provided to Members and the public gallery prior to the commencement of the meeting.

 

Officers reported that the application sought full planning permission to demolish all existing buildings and structures and to redevelop the site for a residential scheme of 11 dwellings.  The application proposed 8 market dwellings and 3 affordable dwellings.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. L. Howcroft, Mrs. S. Hibbert and Mr. N. Smith, addressed the Committee in objection to the Application.  Mr. S. Warner, the Applicant’s agent addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant.

 

The Committee then considered the Application, which had been recommended for approval by Officers.  Members commented that they were pleased to note that the original proposed secondary access off Pikes Pool Lane had been removed.

 

Members expressed their concerns with regard to the proposed siting of the 3 affordable homes, in one single area, rather than spread across the development and that only 2 bed dwellings had been proposed.  Members were also concerned about the low percentage of affordable housing being proposed and referred to the report, which highlighted that in April 2016, 10.5% of the dwellings in the District were affordable housing stock, and that this was lower than both the affordable housing provision in Worcestershire (15%) and England (17.3%). The Bromsgrove District Plan, BDP 8, stated “That the evidence highlights that the Councils aspiration of achieve 40% affordable provision on-site was achievable in most circumstances”.

 

Officers responded by outlining the exact wording of the Policy BPD8 and that the application complied with the policy.

 

Officers responded to further questions from Members with regard to the application site being situated on adjacent to the village boundary and that the new housing would be visually contained by existing landscape features.  In addition, the proposal would provide an opportunity to rationalise development over the whole of the site.  The proposal was not considered an inappropriate form of development in the Green Belt, due to compliance with BDP2 and BDP4 and Chapter 13 of the NPPF, specifically paragraph 145. 

 

Officers clarified that the garages would have a hard standing driveway to the front of each property along with a non-hard standing area.

 

In response to the Committee, the County Council’s Highways Officer stated that the proposed development would be bound by a S106 planning obligation and that generally a development would have three years from the date permission was granted to begin the development.  The ‘trigger’ for S106 monies to be paid would be upon occupation of any of the dwellings; however, there would be no obligation to spend that money.

 

Further discussion followed with regard to affordable housing.  Members were minded to refuse the application as they were concerned that there was insufficient provision for affordable housing in relation to the number of affordable units proposed and the proposed location of those units which would be visually distinguishable as they would not be fully integrated.

 

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused on the grounds that there was insufficient provision of affordable housing, a greater affordable housing mix should be provided and that the affordable housing had not been distributed throughout the application site and it was visually distinguishable from the market housing.

Supporting documents: