Agenda item

At this stage in the meeting having declared an Other Disclosable interest Councillors A. Bailes, J. Clarke and E. M. S. Gray  withdrew from the meeting room.

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to the Committee Update, which detailed an additional objection, additional information from the applicant and a brief analysis and conclusion, as detailed on page 4 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 variation of condition 25 of planning permission APP/P1805/W/20/3245111 allowed on appeal 09/02/2021 (LPA 16/1132), as follows:-

 

FROM: No part of the development shall be occupied until the junction of Fox Lane/ Rock Hill has been altered in accordance with the scheme for a roundabout shown on the plan Fox Lane/ Rock Hill schematic ref 7033-SK-005 revision F.

 

AMEND TO:  No more than 49 dwellings shall be occupied until the junction of Fox Lane/Rock Hill has been altered in accordance with the scheme for a roundabout shown on the plan Fox Lane/Rock Hill schematic scheme ref 7033-SK-005 revision G and ancillary drawings 7033-s278-701 rev C02, 2015804   AGE-ZZ-XX-DR-X-0002, 0003, 0004, 0005, 0006 REV C02.

 

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 46 to 57 of the main agenda pack.

 

The current proposal sought to allow the occupation of 49 dwellings and was supported by survey data from 2024 and further modelling information (including a non-technical summary).

 

Officers explained that there had been extensive discussions with Worcestershire County Council (WCC) Highways and as detailed in the report that, WCC acting in its role as the Highway Authority, had undertaken a full assessment of this planning application and had raised no objections.

 

The proposal to vary the condition to allow occupation of some dwellings prior to the alteration of the roundabout had been subject to amendments and the submission of additional supporting information. This had occurred in response to concerns expressed by both the Highway Authority and officers.

 

Officers referred to the retaining wall information, as detailed on page 41 of the main agenda pack.

 

Officers concluded that the occupation of 49 dwellings prior to the alteration of the Fox Lane / Rock Hill junction was considered acceptable with regards to planning policy and other material planning considerations.

 

At the invitation of the Vice-Chairman, Mr. J. Gerner, on behalf of The Bromsgrove Society addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

Ms. D. Farrington the applicants agent and Mr. G. Anderson, Chief Executive, Bromsgrove District Housing Trust (BDHT) addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor D. Hopkins, Ward Member also addressed the Committee.

 

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

 

Members referred to the concerns raised by The Bromsgrove Society and that WCC Highways had stated that there would be no severe impact on the highway.

 

In response Ms. R. Smith on behalf of WCC Highways informed the Committee that the temporary impacts would not be severe. The threshold was set by the Department of Transport and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), paragraph 116, as follows:

 

‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network, following mitigation, would be severe, taking into account all reasonable future scenarios.’

 

Members highlighted that on three previous occasions that WCC Highways had considered the traffic impact and had recommended refusal, however, WCC Highways were now accepting the application and the remodelling. Members questioned how robust Highways was on the variation was to condition 25.

 

In response Ms. R. Smith on behalf of WCC Highways explained that the revised application in June 2024 for 75 dwellings to be occupied and the revised application in October 2024 for 39 dwellings to be occupied, were both refused due to 2017 data being submitted by the developer.

 

The developer had now submitted 2024 data, with 49 dwellings to be occupied. WCC Highways had raised no objections to the variation to condition 25, as they were satisfied with the 2024 data provided and the different number of dwellings to be occupied, for the reasons as detailed on pages 28 to 34 of the main agenda pack.

 

Members referred to page 35 of the main agenda pack, as follows:

 

‘The Highway Development Management Team cannot confirm that the scheme of works will be completed by July 2025 as indicated in Technical Note 3 and cannot confirm when works will commence, the duration of the works programme nor the anticipated completion without a S278 road space permit’.

 

Members asked if there was a timescale for the completion of a S278 road space permit.

In response officers stated that this would be determined with the developer and WCC Highways,  the developer was not seeking beyond 49 dwellings being occupied and the data provided also reiterated that only 49 dwellings would be occupied. Members were not being asked to consider when the proposed roundabout would be started or completed.

 

Members commented that residents needed to be reassured that there would be traffic controls in place.  The developer had put Members in a very difficult position in considering this application. The application was part retrospective as the developer had breached condition 25, as there was evidence that some of the 49 dwellings were already occupied.

 

Members then queried as to how many of the 49 dwellings would be affordable housing.

 

Officers referred to page 42 of the main agenda pack which highlighted that

 

‘Members should be aware that the determination of the application would have no control over the tenure of the dwellings to be occupied. This would be at the discretion of the developer.’

 

With the agreement of the Vice-Chairman Ms. R. Smith on behalf of WCC Highway further reassured Members that a whole narrative of work had been completed. Ms. R. Smith referred to ‘Trip Generation’ information, the NPPF paragraph 116 threshold; and that based upon the information presented, the deterioration in network performance cannot  reasonably be considered severe in accordance with the NPPF. WCC Highways were satisfied that the 2024 data submitted was undertaken to industry standards and that there was no evidence for any safety concerns. Mitigation measures were also considered.

 

Members referred to the comments made by Councillor D. Hopkins, Ward Members during his address to the Committee, in respect of the developer in breach of condition 25.

 

The Vice-Chairman commented that this was a matter for planning enforcement.

 

Members reiterated that this was a difficult decision and that it was unfair of the developer to put Members in this position.

 

On being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED that permission be granted to amend condition 25 of planning permission APP/P1805/W/20/3245111 allowed on appeal 09/02/2021 (BDC 16/1132), and that

 

a.     delegated powers be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Cultural Services to determine the planning application following the expiry of the consultation period on 1 April 2025 and in the event that representations are received,

b.     delegated powers be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Cultural Services, in consultation with the Chairman of the Planning Committee, to assess whether new material considerations had been raised, and to issue a decision after the expiry of the statutory publicity period accordingly, and

 

c.     to agree the final scope and detailed wording and numbering of conditions and other conditions attached to the original planning permission,

 

and

d.     conditions attached to the outline planning permission to be applied to the s73 decision, in addition to a new condition relating to:

 

•        Facing materials for the retaining wall on Fox Lane/Rock Hill.

 

(This resolution was ultimately invalid because the meeting was not quorate when the vote was taken on this item.)