Agenda item - 22/01066/OUT - Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 78 dwellings and a flexible commercial/community use building with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping, and open space provision - Land At Little Intall Fields Farm, Stoke Pound Lane, Stoke Prior, Worcestershire - Mr. B. Little

Agenda item

22/01066/OUT - Outline planning application (with all matters reserved except access) for the erection of up to 78 dwellings and a flexible commercial/community use building with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping, and open space provision - Land At Little Intall Fields Farm, Stoke Pound Lane, Stoke Prior, Worcestershire - Mr. B. Little

Minutes:

Officers presented their report and in doing so drew Members’ attention to pages 77 to 89 of the Public Reports Pack.

 

The application was for land at Little Intall Fields Farm, Stoke  Pound Lane, Stoke Prior and sought outline approval for the erection of up to 78 dwellings with associated works.

 

Members were shown the location of the proposed development detailed on pages 78 to 80 of the Public Reports Pack. Officers outlined that the development was inside the Green Belt and outside of the defined residential area as detailed in the local plan.

 

Officers informed Members that the application sought outline planning permission and the presentation slides detailed on pages 83 to 85 and 88 to 89 of the Public Reports Pack, were for illustrative purposes only of how the development could look if approved.

 

The loss off agricultural land was highlighted, but Officers deemed this loss to be acceptable. However, the impact on the Green Belt was that the openness would be impacted and was in conflict with policy in relation to safeguarding the land in the Green Belt and protecting the countryside from erosion.

 

It was noted that 50% of the development was assigned to affordable housing whereas the Councils policy required a minimum of 40%, it was also noted that the development was intended to be constructed to the passive house standard.

 

Officers informed the Committee that although one of the main objections were highways matters, particularly regarding access and traffic, WCC Highways had identified no problems with the development which would constitute an objection.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to page 86 of the Public Reports pack, which detailed a number of heritage assets near to the proposed development site. Officers informed Members that a detailed heritage assessment had been undertaken, the assessment highlighted differing amounts of harm which were contrary to the development plan and national policies.

 

Officers concluded that pages 72 to 74 of the Public Reports Pack reviewed the special circumstances with arguments/justifications for the harm and that it was not clearly outweighed by the benefits and a special circumstance case for approval contrary to the Green Belt policy did not exist.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr John Roundell (representing a number of objectors) and Councillor Chris Jewson, Stoke Parish Council spoke in objection to the application. Mr Brynley Little (the applicant) spoke in support of the application.

 

Members then considered the application, which Officers had recommended that planning permission be refused.

 

Members commented about the lack of footpaths around the site and that it would be detrimental to public safety, as in their opinion there would be an increase in residents travelling by foot with the addition of 78 dwellings.

 

Members were in support of the increased allocation of affordable housing and the commitment to develop to a passive house standard. It was also highlighted that although the community/commercial use building was not shown to be in an ideal location it would still be of benefit to the area.

 

WCC Highways informed Members that the assessed proposal in their opinion was in a sustainable location. Based off on an all-day traffic monitoring survey, an estimate 32 additional vehicles would be added to the AM peak traffic which amounted to an additional 5%, this was not deemed as a substantial increase. WCC Highways also stated that the proposed development would have splays relevant to the recorded speeds on the adjoining roads. WCC Highways did note the comments on the lack of bus provision on site and had requested a section 106 contribution for a community transport facility should the development be approved.

 

Members agreed and recognised the need for more affordable housing and that Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) did not have a robust 5 year housing supply, however, they were not in agreement regarding whether the development was in a suitable location.

 

Officers clarified that for an Alternative Recommendation, Members needed to give clear indications on what grounds each of the four areas of refusal outlined on pages 74 and 75 of the Public Reports Pack would be satisfied/mitigated. In respect of this, Members gave reasons why they believed each of the 4 refusal points could be satisfied, which would allow an Alternative Recommendation to be moved.

 

  1. In regard to the land being outside of the defined village and in the Green Belt and therefore inappropriate development. Members disagreed in that the land parcel was adjacent to multiple areas of residential development and was, therefore, a natural development location.
  2. In regard to the proposed form of the development being incompatible with the countryside setting. Members proposed that the development had multiple areas of greenery, and landscaped space which presented a rural presentation to the site.
  3. In regard to the heritage impact, Members proposed that the development sought social/economic enhancements to the area which included an allocation of 50% affordable housing which was very important for the economically active.
  4. In regard to the loss off agricultural land, due to the high proportion of undeveloped land in the District being Green Belt it was argued that in order to meet the Councils 5 year housing supply there was a need to develop some of this land.

 

Further to the preamble above, Councillor S. P. Douglass proposed an Alternative Recommendation that the application be approved, the Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor J. E. King. On being put to the vote the Alternative Recommendation was not approved by the Committee.

 

RESOLVEDthat Planning Permission be Refused, subject to the reasons as detailed on pages 74 and 75 of the Public Reports Pack.

 

 

Supporting documents: