Agenda item

Further information was included in the Committee Update, with regards to the comments received from the applicant to the officer’s report which criticised the planning balance section as detailed on pages 24 and 25 of the main agenda pack. The applicant wished to draw the Committee’s attention to appeal decision APP/P1805/W/23/3325834, as detailed on page 3 of the Committee Update, which also included the officer’s response, as detailed on pages 3 to 4.

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 outline application was for the erection of 50 new dwellings (including market, affordable and custom/self-build plots) and a flexible commercial / community use building with associated access, infrastructure, landscaping, drainage and open space provision; considering access into the site only with all other matters reserved.

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 28 to 37 of the main agenda pack; and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the following slides: -

·       Parameter Plan

·       District Plan extract

·       Site layout plan (Indicative)

·       Map at Para 8.15 of applicants planning statement showing Parcel NE6

Members were further informed that access had now been agreed with Highways, Worcestershire County Council and the agreed visibility splays required.

Officers further drew Members’ attention to the Housing Land Supply, which detailed that the Council could currently demonstrate a housing land supply of 3.3 years, and Green Belt information. The application site was located within the Green Belt. Proposals within the Green Belt were assessed against the guidance set out in Chapter 13 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) in addition to the Council’s own Green Belt policies. The proposal did not meet any of the policy criteria specified at Policy BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) or at Paragraph 154 or 155 of the NPPF and as such, the proposal would amount to inappropriate development, which by definition, was harmful to the Green Belt. In accordance with Paragraph 153, substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very Special Circumstances’ (VSC) would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal was clearly outweighed by other circumstances, as detailed on pages 14 and 15 of the main agenda pack.

Officers further referred to the Purposes of the Green Belt. The first part of the Green Belt Review, which as published in August 2019, was entitled Green Belt Purposes Assessment: Part 1. This report splits the District’s Green Belt land into 60 parcels and assesses each parcel's contribution to the function of the Green Belt. Part 2 of the Green Belt Purposes Assessment would consider a range of more detailed sites against the Green Belt purposes in a more localised and focused manner but has yet to be published. This particular site was submitted as part of the Council’s Call for Sites process and had been assigned reference number 195 although no formal assessment of the site had been published to date. In Part 1 of the Purposes Assessment, the application site falls within Parcel NE6 as shown on the plan submitted in the applicants planning statement at Paragraph 8.15 (land South of Hollywood, North of Wythall).

In assessing the area against the purposes of the Green Belt, the assessment concludes that the area was strong in relation to its strength of contribution, in respect of the following Green Belt purposes: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another. In terms of safeguarding the countryside from encroachment this was classified as moderate, as detailed on page 16 to 18 of the main agenda pack.

The proposed development would be of a size, scale, form, and intensity that would fundamentally erode the form, character and setting of this area.

Officers highlighted that the Applicant’s Case and Very Special Circumstances (VCS) and the Planning Balance, were detailed on pages 23 to 25 of the main agenda pack.

Officers stated that in conclusion the NPPF states that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

Paragraph 153 confirmed that when considering any planning application, local

planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight was given to any harm to the Green Belt. ‘Very special Circumstances’ would not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, was clearly outweighed by other considerations.

As referred to in the preamble above, the Planning balance section of the report, sets out the harms and benefits and officers concluded that all of the harms were not clearly outweighed by all of the benefits. ‘Very Special Circumstances’ did not therefore exist in this case.

It was considered that the application of policies in the NPPF provided a “clear reason for refusing” the development proposal under NPPF paragraph 11(d)(i). It was concluded that the proposals conflicted with the development plan policies in so far as they related to the Green Belt and the character and appearance of the area. There were no other material considerations that had a bearing on balance.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the reasons for refusal, as detailed on page 26 of the main agenda pack.

At the invitation of the Chairman, the applicant Mr. B. Little addressed the Committee.

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

In response to questions from Members with regards to the affordable housing balance and substantial weight for the provision of affordable housing; officers clarified that Policy BDP8 sought the provision of 40% affordable housing on qualifying sites. The application proposed the provision of 50 dwellings in total, with 26 of these being affordable, which equated to 52%. Officers referred to the comments received from the Council’s Housing Strategy team and the dwelling type to be provided, as detailed on pages 9 and 13 of the main agenda report. A section 106 Agreement (S106) would secure any housing requirement.

In response to further questions, officers briefly explained the Council’s Local Plan Review and the two-part Green Belt Review, and that the application site fell within Parcel NE6, as detailed on page 16 to 18 of the main agenda pack.

The proposed development was inappropriate development in the Green Belt. In assessing the area against the purposes of the Green Belt, the assessment concluded that the area was strong in relation to its strength of contribution, in respect of the following Green Belt purposes: to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

Some Members commented that, as stated in the report, that the development proposed would equate to urban sprawl and encroachment into the countryside; and that one of the Green Belt purposes was to prevent neighbouring towns from merging into one another.

On being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED that planning permission be refused for the reasons as stated on page 26 of the main agenda pack.