Agenda item - 21/00873/FUL - Development of 22 dwellings, associated landscaping and siteworks and construction of new access from existing highway roundabout, Land To Rear Of 1-6 Smedley Crooke Place, Redditch Road, Hopwood, Worcestershire - Mr. D. Rickett,

Agenda item

21/00873/FUL - Development of 22 dwellings, associated landscaping and siteworks and construction of new access from existing highway roundabout, Land To Rear Of 1-6 Smedley Crooke Place, Redditch Road, Hopwood, Worcestershire - Mr. D. Rickett,

Minutes:

Officers reported that additional information had been received by Members of the Committee on 6th March 2022; the Applicant’s Response to the Planning Officer’s Report.  The Committee Update provided the officer’s response on the issues raised, namely, Green Belt/Fall Back, Alvechurch Neighbourhood Plan, Prematurity and Other Matters and Conclusion; as detailed on pages 3 and 4 of the Committee Update, copies of which were provided to Members of the Committee and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

 

Officers presented the report and in doing so explained that the application was for the development of 22 dwellings, associated landscaping and siteworks and construction of new access from the existing highway roundabout.

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides as detailed on pages 156 to 173 of the main agenda report.

 

Officers highlighted that Alvechurch Parish Council (APC) had objected to the application for the reasons as detailed on pages 133 and 134 of the main agenda report.  Stating that the proposed development was outside of the Village Envelope, on Green Belt land and did not therefore conform to the APC’s Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). 

 

The full planning application was for the development of 22 dwellings, associated landscaping and siteworks and construction of new access (fourth arm) from the A441/B4120 roundabout.  The development would close off the existing site access from A441 Birmingham Road and would include removal of all materials pertaining to the current use of the site.

 

The application proposed a range of market and affordable homes, as detailed on pages 136 and 144 of the main agenda report.

 

Officers further drew Members’ attention to the Relevant Planning History and the applications that had previously been refused and dismissed at Appeal, as detailed on pages 135 and 136 of the main agenda report; and the Planning Inspectors assessment of the 2012 applications for 21 dwellings, as detailed on page 141 of the main agenda report.

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to the comments received from Highways, that they had no objection to the proposed application, subject to conditions and requirements, in accordance with paragraph 111 of the Framework, as detailed on pages 147 and 148 of the main agenda report.

 

Highways had stated that the previous scheme (Planning Application 17/01290/OUT be refused due to the re-use of the existing access, which was close to the roundabout with the A441 and B4120, ‘which were considered to be substandard and as a result failed to ensure a safe and suitable access for all users was provided’.

 

Officers referred to the Five Year Housing Land Supply, as detailed on pages 137 and 138 of the main agenda report:-

 

“The Council had identified that (inclusive of the 5% buffer required by the Framework) it could currently demonstrate a housing land supply of 4.6 years. Therefore, despite progress which had been made in identifying sites and granting planning permissions the Council still considered that it could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply.

 

Where a Local Planning Authority could not demonstrate a five year housing supply, Paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework was engaged.  Paragraph 11 required that decisions on planning applications applied a presumption in favour of sustainable development.  11 (d) went on to state that where there were no relevant development plan policies, or the policies which were most important for determining the application were out-of-date, permission should be granted unless:

 

i. the application of policies in this Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provides a clear reason for restricting the development proposed; or ii. any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in this Framework taken as a whole."

 

Officers concluded that the Framework and Policy BDP4, was clear that very special circumstances would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, was clearly outweighed by other considerations.  In considering such a proposal, the Framework was clear that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

 

The Proposal would be inappropriate development in the Green Belt causing substantial harm to the openness. 

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to the reasons for refusal, as detailed on pages 152 and 153 of the main agenda report.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. C. Robinson, on behalf of the applicant addressed the Committee. Councillor C. Hotham, Ward Councillor, also addressed the Committee.

 

Members then considered the application, which officers had recommended be refused.

 

Officers responded to questions from the Committee with regard to ‘Prematurity’, and in doing so stated that as part of the consultation response from Strategic Planning they had raised the ongoing District Plan Review.  Whilst prematurity should not be considered as a primary reason to refuse a planning application, it should be considered alongside other more pertinent matters which were contrary to the NPPF, especially when taken as a whole.

 

In response to questions in respect of Highways, Mr. G. Nock, Jacobs, who had acted on behalf of Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways Authority; commented that Members should consider the proposal before them and have regard to the design, visibility and capacity of the proposal.  A supporting GG104 Safety Risk Assessment had been produced by the Applicant which considered the appropriate design standards for roundabout and the approach roads.  A Road Safety Audit (RSA) Stage 1 had been carried out.  County Highways had assessed this element and had concluded that the roundabout satisfied the requirement of the NPPF to ensure safe and suitable access.  Enhancements in respect of safe access for pedestrians had been proposed, as detailed on page 148 of the main agenda report.

 

Further debate followed and officers responded to questions with regard to flooding, brown field site and the need for the Local Authority to build more homes. During the debate it was noted that, the BDP and Green Belt were under review, however, it was also noted that the proposal had to be determined at this point and under current policies.

 

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for the reasons as detailed on pages 152 and 153 of the main agenda report.

 

 

 

Supporting documents: