Agenda item

23/00577/FUL - Demolition of the existing dwelling and the buildings associated with the caravan storage and kennels. Erection of 27 dwellings with associated road, landscaping, infrastructure and external works. 43A Barkers Lane, Wythall, Worcestershire, B47 6BY. Mr. D. Clarke

Meeting of Planning Committee, Monday 11th December 2023 6.00 p.m. (Item 43/23)

Minutes:

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, whereby the applicant’s agent had submitted a detailed rebuttal; and the applicant’s comments in relation to the benefits/planning balance of the scheme; as detailed on page 3 of the Committee Update. A copy of the Committee Update was 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 highlighted that the application was for the demolition of the existing dwelling and the buildings associated with the caravan storage and kennels; and the erection of 27 dwellings with associated road, landscaping, infrastructure and external works.

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 28 to 46 of the main agenda pack.

The application site related to a 1ha parcel of land in the Hamlet of Inkford, situated on the northern side of Barkers Lane, behind residential properties. It incorporated an existing caravan storage facility of over 100 caravans, a former boarding kennel business to the west of the site. Members were asked to note that the submitted application proposed 28 dwellings, which was subsequently reduced by one dwelling during the application process. Therefore, the full planning application was for the development of 27 dwellings.

All 8 (30%) of the 2 bed units proposed would be affordable dwellings. Members were asked to note that there was an error on the ‘Affordable Dwellings’ slide, detailed on page 40 of the report. The correct plots were 4,5, (not 6 and 7),18,19,21,22,23 and 24.

The site was in the Green Belt as defined in the BDP and was not located in a defined settlement as outlined in Policy BDP2. There were several trees within the site, which following the application were now subject to Tree Preservation Order protection under Bromsgrove District Council TPO (19) 2023, as detailed on pages 10 and 22 to 23 of the main agenda pack.

Officers referred to the recent Planning History as in doing so drew Members’ attention to the reasons why Planning Application 19/00951/FUL was refused at Planning Committee in November 2019; as detailed on pages 13 to 15 of the report and the presentation slide on page 33 of the main agenda pack.

Officers highlighted that Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways were unable to support the application due to the site’s unsustainable location; and the application being contrary to the NPPF paragraphs 11,11 and 112 and the Streetscape Design Guide. The layout as shown on the submitted plan was unacceptable due to the issues which would be created to the highway user, as detailed on page 7 of the main agenda pack. Should Members be minded to approve the application, WCC Highways would seek the contributions, as detailed on pages 7 and 8 of the main agenda pack.

Officers further drew Members’ attention to the reasons for refusal, as detailed on page 25 and 26 of the report; and the Planning Obligations, as detailed on pages 23 and 24 of the main agenda ack, should the application be approved.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. C. Hawley, the Applicant’s representative addressed the Committee.

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

In response to questions from Members, officers clarified that all of the bungalows would be dormer bungalows; and the planning balance and conclusion with regard to substantial weight being given to any harm to the Green Belt, as detailed on pages 24 and 25 of the main agenda pack.

In response to further questions from the Committee, officers highlighted that as detailed on page 24 of the main agenda pack that the Council could not demonstrate a 5-year housing land supply. Paragraph 11 (d) of the Framework indicated that permission should be granted, unless the application of policies in the Framework that protect areas or assets of particular importance provided a clear reason for refusing the development proposed. The site was Brown Field as such, but different consideration and assessment of the Green Belt policy was subsidiary in this case; and as such, the proposal would not be the sustainable development for which Paragraph 11 of the Framework indicated a presumption in favour.

The very special circumstances necessary to justify the development did not exist.

The majority of the site was used for caravan storage with limited permanent structures on the site., However, the proposed development would be for 27 dwellings with access roads, services and facilities required for a permanent residential site.

Members commented that moderately sized mobile homes were very different to 2/3 bedroom dwellings. Some Members knew the road and stated that it was not a road that you would want a child to walk along, and that WCC Highways did not consider the site to be sustainable, in that residents would need to travel by car. Also, how would residents get to the offsite outside space without a car. Members expressed their disappointment that all of the dwellings would be affordable with no social housing on site, the houses would not be truly affordable in the Wythall area.

Members raised further questions with regard WCC Highways being unable to support the application. Officers clarified that the application had been in for a reasonable amount of time, the number of dwellings had been reduced. However, officers reiterated the comments made by WCC Highways, in that the area was unsustainable and that they had also objected to the application because the internal layout of the scheme was not compliant with the Streetscene Design document. It was also noted that the road would not be put forward for adoption, as the road needed to be designed to adoptable standards in the interests of the highway and pedestrian safety.

Members further referred to the comments made by North Worcestershire Water Management and that further site-specific drainage information should be provided, as detailed on page 8 of the main agenda pack.

In summing up Members raised their concerns with the development site being unsustainable, drainage information not being provided, and the road not being adopted by WCC Highways.

On being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused, for the reasons as detailed on pages 25 and 26 of the main agenda pack.

Supporting documents: