Agenda item

It was noted that further comments had been received from Dr Peter King with regard to an affordable housing development in Hopwood, 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 development of 34 affordable dwellings, associated landscaping, siteworks and construction of a new access from the existing highway roundabout.

Members were informed that the application was a resubmission of planning application 22/01419/FUL for the erection of 34 affordable dwellings. The application was refused by Planning Committee Members (contrary to the officer’s recommendation) in November 2023 due to Green Belt matters and concerns regarding the sustainability of the site.

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 120 to 138 of the main agenda pack.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Relevant Planning History, as detailed on pages 92 and 93 of the main agenda report.

Officers explained that as part of the resubmission, that the applicant had provided further justification in relation to the reasons for refusal, which including a report regarding the sustainability of the site.

Officers highlighted that at the time of drafting the Committee report, that a planning appeal against the refusal of the 22/01419/FUL application had been received by the Planning Inspectorate. However, whilst the appeal had been accepted by the Planning Inspectorate there was no current start date.

The application site related to a 0.8ha parcel of land located to the east side of the A441 Redditch Road adjacent to the roundabout junction with the B4120. The site was in the Green Belt as defined in the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP); and was within the Alvechurch Parish Neighbourhood Plan area and was located adjacent to but outside of the defined Village Envelope of Hopwood.

The application proposed that all of the dwellings would be social rented. This met the definition of Affordable housing as found in Annex 2 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Bromford Housing Association had been identified as the proposed operator.

The proposed housing mix was detailed on page 94 of the main agenda pack.

Officers referred to pages 101 to 103, which detailed Alvechurch Neighbourhood Plan.

The comments received and proposed enhancements from Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Highways, were detailed on pages 105 to 106 of the main agenda report.

Officers further referred to sustainability and in doing so referenced the Applicant’s transport consultants’ Technical Note and the key points made, as detailed on page 106 of the main agenda report.

The 2019 planning appeal on this site did not consider sustainability matter. In terms of local precedents, it was considered that the most relevant was a nearby site on Ash Lane which proposed 15 dwellings, Appeal reference APP/P1805/W/22/3294824) which did examine this matter.  The Inspector in this case considered the site on Ash Lane to be sustainable.

Officers reiterated that neither WCC Highways nor officers considered the site to be in an unsustainable location. On this basis, it was concluded that the site was accessible and complied with polices BDP1 and BDP16, as well as the NPPF.

With regards to the Green Belt, as detailed in the Conclusion section on page 110 of the main agenda report. A judgement as to the balance between harm and whether the harm was clearly outweighed by other considerations, including the benefits of the development, must be reached.

In this case, it was considered that the contribution towards housing land supply and that the proposals would provide 100% affordable housing were material considerations that weigh very strongly in favour of the proposals; and that the benefits of the proposals now clearly outweighed the harm to the Green Belt, and that consequently, Very Special Circumstances (VSC) did apply.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. C. Robinson, the Applicant’s representative and Councillor C. A. Hotham, Ward Councillor addressed the Committee.

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

Members queried if it was appropriate to consider the resubmission application before the Planning Inspectorate had made a decision and would their decision be made taking into account the NPF prior to the changes made in December 2023?

In response, officers explained that the Planning Inspectorate would refer to the recently updated NPPF. With regards to determining the resubmitted application with an appeal outstanding; an applicant could resubmit an application at any time for Members consideration. Therefore, Members would need to make a decision on the resubmitted application before them.

Members further commented that there had, in their opinion, been no real changes in the resubmitted application, the only changes were with the recently updated NPPF. BDP stated that up to 40% affordable housing should be provided, which was reasonable and enabled the Council to supply a balanced mixture of housing and developments that were commercially viable. Members were therefore struggling with this proposal being commercially viable and queried whether the applicant should submit a viability test.

Officers commented that no viability information had been submitted by the applicant. The applicant had accepted all of the required contributions being sought, and if the application was approved, this would be subject to Conditions and all socially rented units would be secured with a S106 legal agreement as to the use of those dwellings in perpetuity. Therefore, any future amendments to the proposal with regards to altering the mix of dwellings (not all dwellings being affordable), would result in a further planning application being submitted.

Officers further clarified that the application site would still remain within the Green Belt, so would still need to meet any requirements of the Green Belt, should the application be granted.

Some Members recalled similar concerns being raised when the initial application was considered, with concerns being raised with regards to having a site that was all affordable housing development, would potential residents feel isolated. There were no services, buses, GP’s and schools. Members reiterated that they still had the same concerns.

In response referred to their earlier comment with regard to a S106 legal agreement and in doing so stated that Bromford Housing Association had submitted a letter in support of the application and to operate the socially rented units if the application was granted. The proposed site would meet a wide range of community due to the size of the units being offered. The Council’s housing team were also in support of the proposal.

Members repeated that since the previous application not much had changed, would approving this application then possibly open up the Council to receiving a lot of Green Belt applications. Also, was this area sustainable?

Officers stated that they understood Members concerns with regard to sustainability. However, the assessment of the proposal was based on the Ash Lane appeal and the application being supported by WCC Highways. Furthermore, as detailed in the report, on page 106 of the main agenda report; the 2019 planning appeal on this site did not consider sustainability matter. Officers further stated that, should Members be minded to grant planning permission, in their opinion this would not set a precedence for other Green Belt applications, as each application was considered on its own merits. The Ash Green appeal was referenced, in the report, due to its relevance with being in a very similar location in Hopwood, both applications would have access to the same facilities in Hopwood. The Planning Inspectorate had assessed the Ash Lane appeal on sustainability and had considered it to be acceptable.

Some Members stated that sustainability was key and that they struggled with the required financial contribution for necessary School Transport Services in a sustainable area.  

With no Members proposing the Recommendation, an alternative Recommendation was proposed and seconded.

On being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the following reasons:-

a)    inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there were no Very Special Circumstances to outweigh the harm identified to the Green Belt; and

b)    the proposed development would be in an unsustainable location.