Agenda item

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which detailed that the Council’s Tree Officer had served a provisional Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (15) 2024 on two oak trees along the boundary of the site with Blackwell Road; and that due to this Refusal reason No. 6 had been updated, as detailed on pages 4 and 5 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 further drew Members’ attention to the Recommendation and reasons for refusal.

The application sought permission for the use of the site to facilitate a gypsy lifestyle. The application was part-retrospective for the change of use of land to create 2 Gypsy/Traveller pitches, each comprising of the siting of 1 mobile home,1 touring caravan and 1 dayroom per pitch, alongside the formation of an access road and associated landscaping.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 112 to 119 of the main agenda pack.

Officers stated that some Members may already be aware that certain works had been undertaken at the site without the benefit of planning permission. This application sought to regularise that work hence the application being described as part-retrospective. The exact layout onsite currently may differ from the proposal, however, for the avoidance of doubt permission was being sought for the development as shown on the proposed drawings, as detailed on the presentation slides.

The definition of gypsies and travellers was set out in Annex 1 (Glossary) to the Planning policy for traveller sites 2015 (PPTS) and as detailed on pages 67 and 68 of the main agenda pack.

The site lay in the Green Belt. Policy E of the PPTS stated that traveller sites, whether temporary or permanent, in the Green Belt were inappropriate development. Paragraph 152 of the NPPF stated that inappropriate development was, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances.

The prominent location and public visibility of the site and the proposed development would have a significant negative impact on the openness of the Green Belt.

Overall, the development would harm the Green Belt through inappropriateness, there would be spatial and visual harm to the openness of the Green Belt and harm to the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Paragraph 153 of the NPPF goes on to state that substantial weight should be given to any harm to the Green Belt.

Members were further informed that as of 1st April 2024, the Council could demonstrate a 2.59 year’s supply of Traveller pitches. The Bromsgrove Local Plan was being developed and sites would be proposed for allocation to meet the identified shortfall in traveller pitches in due course as the plan progressed.

The Council held a Call for Sites exercise in 2019-2023, seeking suggestions of sites for all forms of development, including traveller sites. The application site was part of a much larger 5ha site proposed for residential development, with no reference made to the potential for traveller accommodation.

Policy H of the PPTS stated that if a local authority could not demonstrate an up to date 5- year supply of deliverable sites, this should be a significant material consideration when considering the grant of temporary planning permission. However, one of the exceptions to this was where the site was located on land designated as Green Belt.

The proposed development site was a large, open field at the edge of Burcot, a primarily residential village. Across the road (Alcester Road), traditional red-brick houses with gardens and driveways defined the existing built environment. Currently undeveloped, this field acted as a clear boundary between the village and the open countryside beyond.

Policy BDP11 of the BDP at 11.2, sought to ensure that sites should be in sustainable locations that provided good access to essential local facilities e.g. health and education. In addition, sites should accord with the sustainable development principles set out in BDP1.

While the proposed development was within a reasonable walking distance (approximately 200 meters) of bus stops, the lack of safe pedestrian crossings across the busy B-classified Alcester Road posed a significant pedestrian safety concern. No dropped kerbs or designated crossings existed, compromising pedestrian access to public transport and essential services.

Worcestershire County Highways had raised objections to the visibility splays provided and pedestrian safety.

The applicant had further advanced, in the event that the material considerations put forward within the application as a whole were not considered to outweigh any identified harm or conflict with the Development Plan, then it was requested that a temporary permission of at least 5 years be granted, such that the best interests of any children were taken into account and that the applicant and his family do not need to resort to a roadside existence whilst they sought an alternative site that was suitable for their needs and accords with the Local Development Plan.

Officers explained that by refusing this application the family lives and the best interests of the children involved would be affected, as the refusal of this application could lead to the applicants resorting to roadside camping and travelling. However, this interference and harm must be weighed against the wider planning considerations and public interest, as these factors were not determinative on their own.

In this case, having regard to all the information available to officers, it was considered that the harm that the proposal would cause to the Green Belt, and any other harm including harm to openness, purposes of Green Belt, character and appearance of area, pedestrian safety, highways matters and potential harm to the Oak Trees; would not be clearly outweighed by the unmet need, lack of supply of sites or the circumstances put forward in this case in terms of the best interests of the children and the personal circumstances of the family.

On balance, it was considered that the harm by reason of inappropriateness in the Green Belt, and the harm caused to the openness of the Green Belt, was not clearly outweighed by other considerations so as to amount to the very special circumstances needed to justify the development. Officers therefore recommended that planning permission be refused.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. S. Holloway, Planning Consultant on behalf of Burcot Village Residents, addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Councillor B. Kumar, Ward Councillor, also addressed the Committee.

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

Members stated that the officers report was very comprehensive and that they fully supported the officers reasons for refusal. It was interesting to read the Appendix to the report, as detailed on pages 79 to 110 of the main agenda pack; which referenced recent Case Law v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities and Basildon District Council, Approved Judgement 25 March 2024.

Officers responded to a particular question on the existing access and the proposed access and the removal of further hedgerow, and in doing so drew Members’ attention to the Proposed Site Plan presentation slide, as detailed on page 115 of the main agenda pack.

Members sought clarification as to how many mobile homes, touring caravans and dayrooms were proposed on the site. Officers clarified that as detailed on page 67 on the main agenda pack; the application sought the siting of 1 mobile home, 1 touring caravan and I dayroom per pitch, there would be two separate pitches.

Councillor E. M. S. Gray asked for it to be noted that children’s rights were very important to all of us and that some of those rights involved thinking about what was best for children and the environment they were in. Pedestrian safety concerns had been raised.  Therefore, she had concerns with regards to the potentially unsafe access and would question the suitability of the site for children to live, with a lack of pavements and no easy accessibility to a local school. 

On being put to the vote, it was

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

1.               The proposed development would be inappropriate development

in the Green Belt which would be harmful by definition. In addition, harm would arise through the impact on the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with purposes of including land within the Green Belt. Other harm had been identified to the character of the area, highways safety and trees. Circumstances had been advanced including the best interests of children, unmet need for gypsy traveller sites and offer of a 5-year temporary permission, however these were not considered to amount to the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The proposal was therefore contrary to Policy BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan, Planning Policy for Traveller Sites 2015 and the National Planning Policy Framework;

2.               The currently undeveloped field served as a clear distinction

between the village and the open countryside. However, the proposed development, which included two dayrooms, two touring caravans, two mobile homes, and hardstanding areas, would sprawl development into the countryside. The site was prominent in public views and although screening planting was proposed the vehicular access would result in a significant breach of the existing hedgerow. This detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the area contravened Policy BDP19 of the Bromsgrove District Plan and BD2 and NE1 of the Lickey and Blackwell and Cofton Hackett Neighbourhood Plan;

3.       The proposed development would not provide adequate and safe pedestrian to access the site from Burcot. Bus stops were located approx. 200m from the proposed development and were located within acceptable walking distance. However, the route to reach these bus stops would require crossing Alcester Road a ‘B’ classification road, no dropped crossings were located to aid pedestrians across this road therefore pedestrian safety would be compromised. The application failed to accord with the adopted policy and the consequences of this would result in an unacceptable impact on the highway network, which was contrary to paragraph 114, 115 and 116 of the 2023 NPPF;

4.       The applicant had failed to provide a dimensioned site plan for highways to review. The site plan omitted: vehicular access radius dimensions, set back distance of proposed gates, width of the internal road, parking space dimensions, turning head dimensions and also location of any proposed lighting, drainage details, proposed finish of the track and boundary treatment / fencing. The Swept Path Analysis on plan 2301066-TK03 for a private car towing a caravan did not demonstrate the ability of such a vehicle to enter and exit the site in forward gear using the provided turning head. It was therefore considered that insufficient information had been provided to take a view on whether the proposal would result in an unacceptable impact on the highway network, which was contrary to paragraph 114, 115 and 116 of the 2023 NPPF; 

5.       Insufficient visibility splays had been provided onsite having regards to the speed surveys submitted. Furthermore, the Swept Path Analysis for a Private Car Towing a Caravan shown on plan 2301066-TK03 showed the vehicles encroaching into the opposite lane when entering the site, this was deemed to be unacceptable since there would be an increase in the potential for road user conflicts. The application therefore failed to accord with the adopted policy and the consequences of this would result in an unacceptable impact on the highway network, which was contrary to paragraph 114, 115 and 116 of the 2023 NPPF; and

Revised Recommendation

6.       The proposal highlighted an intention to install 2 x Day Rooms both of which fell within the BS5837:2012 Root Protection Area (RPA) of two Oak trees provisionally protected under TPO (15) 2024 within the hedge on the boundary of Blackwell Road. These facilities would need to be provided with utility services. Both the construction of the Day Rooms and installation of the utility services may require groundwork which would have a high likelihood to cause root damage to the trees in the hedgerow. Insufficient information had been submitted to determine the impact of any utility services on these trees contrary to Policy BDP19 and BDP21 of the Bromsgrove District Plan.