Agenda item

Officers reported that 5 further letters in objection to the application had been received and that the comments received were covered by the representations as summarised on pages 62 and 63 of the main agenda report.  An amendment to Worcestershire County Council, (WCC) Highways comments, as detailed on page 58 of the main agenda report, that no footpath or streetlighting existed for a distance of 70 metres.  The amended (and correct) statement was that no footpath existed for a distance of between 45 and 50 metres. It was conceded that one streetlight did exist at a distance of approximately 60m to the east of the sites proposed entrance beyond the railway bridge. Further, a single streetlight existed near to the proposed access point.  The above did not however alter the view of WCC Highways that the site was in an unsustainable location for the reasons stated within the report.  The applicant's agent had provided letters to the planning department written in support of the application.  Letters 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the officers’ responses to those letters; were detailed in the published Committee Update, copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration as it was a Major development (10 dwellings).

Officers presented the report and in doing so informed the Committee that the

Outline application was for up to 10 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access.

The site was a field which was a semi-rural and unstainable location off an unclassified lane.  The site benefitted from an access point with substandard visibility and with overgrown vegetation which impeded visibility.  Withybed Lane in the vicinity of the proposed development site did not benefit from footpaths or street lighting and no parking restrictions were in force in the vicinity.  However, 70m to the east of Withybed Lane, starting from the bridge, was the beginning of a single footpath.  The site was not located within walking distance of amenities, bus route and stops via a route with suitable infrastructure for the residents. Alvechurch Railway Station was located approximately 800m from the proposed development.

Pages 58 and 59 of the main agenda report listed the amenities located and the vehicular access issues.

The sites planning history was limited.  Planning permission was granted in 1995 for the retention of buildings in relation to equine uses.

The site fell outside the Alvechurch village settlement as defined in the Bromsgrove District Plan.

Page 66 of the main agenda report detailed highway safety, which highlighted  that Withybed Lane was a narrow country lane with no pavements and streetlighting. 

Officers had not identified any very special circumstances necessary, and none had been put forward to justify the demonstrated harm to the Green Belt.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the reasons for refusal, as detailed on page 69 of the main agenda report.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. C. Brain, the Applicant addressed the Committee.  .   

The Committee then considered the Application, which officers had recommended be refused.

Officers explained that, as detailed on page 66 of the main agenda report; that the Council accepted that it did not have an up to date 5 year housing supply.  However, the National Planning Policy Framework indicated that the presumption in favour of sustainable development did not apply where the application of policies that protect areas or assets of particular importance provided a clear reason for refusing the development proposed.  Green Belt was an example of such areas/assets, and the proposal would be inappropriate development in accordance with the policy.

Members commented that the reasons for refusal were comprehensive.  However, some Members took umbrage with ‘Reason for Refusal number 2. The proposed development was right next door to a built up area with access to the train station / bus stops; and was within walking distance to Alvechurch schools.  Members commented that it was not unsustainable.

In response, WCC Highways officer stated that the proposed development was unsustainable.  Withybed Lane was a narrow country lane, no footpath existed for a distance of between 45 and 50 metres and only one streetlight existed at a distance of approximately 60m to the east of the sites proposed entrance.  The bus stop was located approximately 470m away and was not a frequent service.  The train station was approximately 850m away. 

Some Members further commented that they were not in agreement that the proposed development was in an unsustainable location.

Members further commented that, as highlighted by WCC, Highways, as detailed on page 58 of the main agenda report; that they agreed that there was insufficient evidence from the applicant with regard to speed surveys and visibility splays. 

An Alternative Recommendation was proposed with regards to the ‘Reasons for Refusal’, in that Reason 2 be deleted.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for Reasons 1, 3 and 4,  as detailed on page 69 of the main agenda report, and that Reason 2 be deleted.