Agenda item - 20/01568/FUL - Redevelopment and change of use to a large portion of an existing mixed use commercial site known as Cur Lane Farm, involving the demolition of existing storage buildings, and the erection of 7 new homes, set out around two new courtyards, accessed from a new roadway ingress off Cur Lane. Two of the existing storage barns will remain to the northern end of the site. Cur Lane Farm, Cur Lane, Upper Bentley, Worcestershire - Mr. M. Ferris

Agenda item

20/01568/FUL - Redevelopment and change of use to a large portion of an existing mixed use commercial site known as Cur Lane Farm, involving the demolition of existing storage buildings, and the erection of 7 new homes, set out around two new courtyards, accessed from a new roadway ingress off Cur Lane. Two of the existing storage barns will remain to the northern end of the site. Cur Lane Farm, Cur Lane, Upper Bentley, Worcestershire - Mr. M. Ferris

Minutes:

Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration because it was a major planning application in relation to the creation of new floor space.

 

Officers reported that since publishing the agenda papers, Leisure Services had responded that no contributions were being sought for this development. The applicant had provided a response to the refusal reasons, which were summarised 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 presented the report and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 54 to 62 of the main agenda report.

 

Planning permission was being sought to redevelop the site of various commercial buildings for residential use. All the existing buildings on site were lawful following the grant of planning permission on appeal for the site as a mixed use following an appeal decision (Refence APP/P1805/C/16/3160015 dated 28th April 2017. Two single storey buildings, to the north of the site (units 3 and 4) which were approved for agricultural storage use were excluded from the development and would be retained as part of the development and would share vehicular access as the residential development.

 

The site lay within the Green Belt where there was a presumption against new development save for a number of exceptions outlined at Paragraph 149 and 150 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

One of these exceptions, at paragraph 149 (g) was “the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development.” This was aligned with policy BDP 4(g) of the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP).

 

Officers clarified that although the site was previously developed land, it was within the Green Belt and was outside any existing settlement. The site was not identified as one of the large expansion sites around Bromsgrove Town, and it was not in or adjacent to the large settlements identified in BDP 5B. However, it was adjacent to the Foxlydiate mixed use urban extension site identified under Policy RCBD1, the Redditch Cross Boundary Development area. As Members would be aware that permission had recently been issued for hybrid application 16/0263, as detailed on page 45 of the main agenda report.

 

Officers highlighted that, whilst the principle of the Foxlydiate development had been approved, the scheme and associated infrastructure/facilities/services proposed for the mixed use development were yet to be implemented on site. Whilst it was noted that the application site was adjacent to this cross boundary site, one of the main issues was whether the proposed development would provide a suitable site for housing, having regard to proximity to services and job opportunities and reliance on motor vehicles.

 

Members were further informed that the Highways Engineer had recommended refusal of the application on the grounds that it was a rural unsustainable location and for the reasons, as detailed on pages 45 and 47 of the main agenda report.

 

Officers stated that in conclusion the proposed development would not be inappropriate in Green Belt terms, as there would be a minor benefit in terms of the openness of the Green Belt due to the reduction of built development on this application site. The Council could not demonstrate a five year housing land supply and given that the proposal complied with policy for development within the Green Belt, the presumption in favour of sustainable development applied.

 

The provision of housing would make a small contribution to the housing supply position in the district as well as providing jobs through the construction process in the short term. However, future occupants of the proposed development would not have suitable access to local services and facilities and as such would be heavily reliant on a private motor vehicle.

 

It was considered that the adverse impacts of granting planning permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the policies in the Framework taken as a whole. Whilst new dwellings in this location would bring some benefits, these would be largely limited and were outweighed by the significant harm caused by virtue of the unsustainable location of the application site.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. M. Layland addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant.

 

The Council’s Principal Solicitor, read out a speech on behalf of Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council, in objection to the Application.

 

The Committee then considered the application, which Officers had recommended be refused.

 

Officers responded to questions from the Committee with regard to replacing existing buildings, prematurity and Vacant Building Credit (VBC) and in doing so, explained that VBC did not apply, as the existing buildings were being used and were therefore not empty buildings. With regard to prematurity and potential future infrastructure, Members should be mindful to assess and determine the proposed application on its own merits and the current infrastructure available, not on any future infrastructure.

 

Members raised questions in respect of the applicant offering to purchase properties (off site) within Bromsgrove to be offered to Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) to be made available as social rented accommodation.

 

Officers reiterated that as detailed in the report, Policy BDP 8 of the BDP required 30% affordable housing on brownfield sites accommodating less than 200 houses.  The proposal would generate the need for 2 affordable dwellings to be provided on site.

 

On being put to the vote it was

 

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused for the reasons as detailed on page 51 of the main agenda report.

Supporting documents: