Agenda item

It was noted that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor R. Bailes, Ward Councillor.

 

Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that the application was for Permission in Principle (PiP) for up to 9 dwellings at land off Withybed Lane, Alvechurch.

 

Officers referred to page 4 of the Committee Update which detailed two representatives received raising objections to the scheme. The objections were detailed in 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.

 

The site comprised of a field measuring just under 0.5 hectares and was located within the Green Belt. A railway line was situated beyond the site's eastern boundary, and the Worcester and Birmingham Canal formed the sites western boundary. The unclassified road Withybed Lane forms the northern boundary from which vehicular access was proposed.

 

The site contained a number of fairly modest buildings and relatively low fencing. The site was currently in equine use. The buildings were located in close proximity to the site boundaries adjacent to both the railway line and canal, leaving the majority of the site open and laid to grass. Having regard to the modest scale and location of the existing development, the site had a predominately open and rural character.

 

Officers explained that the PiP process was an alternative to the traditional outline planning application route and involved two stages:-

 

Stage 1. Permission in Principle (PiP) Stage - The local planning authority

               assesses the site's suitability based only on three core factors:

· Location

· Land use

· Amount of development (e.g., number of dwellings)

 

Stage 2: Technical Details Consent (TDC) Stage - The second stage where

     the detailed development proposals are assessed. The new process

     was introduced in June 2018 and was intended to speed up and

     simplify the planning process for small housing developments.

 

Stage 2 would include all the technical details of the application; appearance, the layout, the landscaping, the detailed access, full architectural plans as well as any additional surveys.

 

The application itself had received no objections from Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways, Worcestershire Regulatory Services and (WRS), Environmental Health concerning contamination and noise. There were no objections from Network Rail or the Canal Trust; and no objections from WCC Archaeology.

Officers referred to the objections received from nearby neighbours and Alvechurch Parish Council, with concerns raised on impact on the Green Belt and the impact on the highway network.

 

Officers drew Members’ attention to pages 75 and 76, which detailed questions on Green Belt land and Grey Belt.

 

Members were asked to note the Appeal Decision dated 30^th October 2023 (APP/P1805/W/23/3315385), as detailed on pages 82 to 85 of the main agenda pack, which stated that the site was in a sustainable location.

 

The application form sets out that the Agent considered the most appropriate exception to consider was 'Grey Belt' under paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), details of which were shown on page 74 of the main agenda pack.

 

Grey Belt was defined in Annex 2 of the NPPF, also detailed on page 74 of the main agenda pack.

 

Officers briefly referred to  the Council’s 5 Year Land Supply Position.

 

It was considered that the site was Grey Belt and would meet the requirements of Paragraph 155 of the NPPF and that 9 dwellings was acceptable.

 

Therefore, the application was recommended for approval.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Ms. A. Brown addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

Due to unforeseen circumstances, the representative from Alvechurh Parish Council was unable to attend the meeting. Therefore, the Council’s Legal Advisor read out their statement in objection to the application.

 

Councillor R. Bailes, Ward Councillor also addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

 

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

 

Members highlighted that the Recommendation on pages 69 and 79 should read:-

 

‘RECOMMENDATION: that Permission in Principle be GRANTED.’

 

Some Members commented that due to policy changes, that Green Belt would become Grey Belt all over the District.

 

Members queried as to why a landscape assessment was not required, because a district-wide landscape assessment was undertaken on behalf of the Council by consultants in February 2022. Some Members had referred to their report prior to the meeting commencing. The report had included an assessment of the whole of that strip along the canal towpath and had concluded that a housing development there would have a high to medium impact. Why was this not referenced in the Officers report? Some Members also referred to encroachment and asked Officers to explain encroachment.

 

In response Officers explained that the reason why a landscape assessment was not required at this stage, was because the application was a PiP. A landscape assessment would be considered under Stage 2, technical stage, of the PiP process.

 

The Development Management Manager referred Members to page 75 of the main agenda pack, which covered encroachment.

 

Members commented that the application was very confusing, having being refused twice, both in 2021 and 2022, and further dismissed at appeal due to inappropriate development in Green Belt.

 

Members were aware of the recent changes to planning policies, which had changed quite considerably, but to build nine houses on what was still considered a green field for grazing was unacceptable and in Members opinion would have an impact.

 

In response Officers highlighted that the revised version of the NPPF was introduced in December 2024. There had been a shift in planning policy which Members needed to be mindful of and pay regard to when determining the application before the Committee. The Grey Belt was a concept that had been introduced by the NPPF change and that as highlighted in the report, was material and Members did need to take this into consideration as part of their decision making.

 

Some Members further commented that they were personally having great difficulty with PiPs, as they did not require detailed information, therefore the Committee were being asked to make very subjective views and that gave Members great cause for concern.

 

However, a decision had to be made and one of the core factors to be considered was location. This site was one of the call for sites which came forward in 2018; and was subsequently dismissed on high sensitivity landscaping ideas and it was not taken forward.

 

Hence Members having expressed their concerns that no detailed landscape assessment was being undertaken, since the location had a high landscape sensitivity, this site was not a suitable location for such a development. WCC Highways in their letter of 2022 had objected on two accounts, with the access layout being unacceptable and also on sustainability grounds. Unfortunately, highway access was not taken forward into a reason for refusal when the application went to appeal. If this had been taken into account, then the applicant would have had to submit an outline application, which Members could have looked at in detail.

Members reiterated that the site was in an area of high landscape sensitivity.

Members were concerned with the PiP process, in that they were being asked to make a decision on the PiP application with no conditions, and having to leave it to the technical document stage was dangerous. Particularly with conditions, as Members were mindful that other applications had been presented which varied conditions and Members were concerned that there was no guarantee that amended conditions would not be applied for.

 

In response the Council’s Legal Advisor stated that Members needed to consider and determine the application before them.

 

A detailed discussion took place on the PiP application and the two stages of a PiP application.

 

Some Members continued to express concerns with regard to the core factors to be considered, one of which was the suitability of the site. The site was not

suitable because it was in high landscape sensitivity area, the access was not suitable in this location; and 9 dwellings was not suitable in this location.

 

Councillor A. Bailes proposed an alternative recommendation to refuse Permission in Principle.

 

Members were reminded that, as detailed in the report, that there was a previous application for nine houses which was which was refused, but the sole reason for refusal was inappropriate development in the green belt. That was back in October 2023 and since then there had been a policy change which was obviously the Grey Belt. The land in question was now classed as Grey Belt and not Green Belt. The Planning Inspectorate did not raise any concerns with regard to landscaping or nine dwellings.

 

Some Members sought clarification that WCC, Highways would be consulted with at Stage 2: Technical Details Consent (TDC), which would be more detailed; and as such if they had a problem with the access that this would be raised as an objection? The road under the railway bridge was very narrow, and that gave some Members cause for concern.

 

With regard to Officers referring to the Council’s 5 Year Land Supply Position, 9 houses was not going to make a huge difference.

 

Whilst Members understood the need to approve this application under Grey Belt, with the recent policy changes in the NPPF, some Members were still concerned for the reasons detailed in the preamble above.

 

Officers stated that a decision on this piece of land, was previously based on the Green Belt and Officers were trying to articulate this fact in the report, and  that Members had to consider this.

 

Officers responded to questions on car parking spaces.

 

Further discussion took place on the reasons for refusal of the previous application, was it just for being in an unsustainable location and inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there were no highways reasons given?

 

Officers commented that that was correct for the outline application. A PiP application was similar to outline looking at the principal development for 9 dwellings, but access would be determined at Stage 2. The appeal decision did not have any highways issues raised by the Planning Inspectorate.

 

Members again encroachment and safeguarding the countryside, was it accepted that the spatial occupation of the site would clearly encroach into the countryside, as the site currently contained only a small number of modest buildings.

 

Members who had attended the Site Visit commented that having looked at the site, and having understand the Grey Belt definition, that the site did not fulfil purposes A, B, and D and that there was still a requirement to consider whether the development of the site would compromise the other purposes

of the Green Belt, in particular, assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment. Some Members had also looked through some of the documents and had discovered the landscape sensitivity analysis carried out in February 2022, as referred to during the course of the meeting.

 

The analysis described the natural heritage of the area in terms of the hedgerow  and grassland clearly supporting a lot of wild wildlife alongside the canal. The cultural heritage of the area sandwiched between the canal and the tow path and the railway with the crown pub on the corner. It also referred to the distinctiveness of the landscape because of the undulating fields and the banks that go up and down from the canal to the railway. So some Members were struggling to understand how,  given the kind of obvious harm to the natural heritage, cultural heritage and the distinctiveness of the landscape, as identified in the assessment, would now allow dwellings to appear on this site, that hasn’t or doesn't already have a built form, could be considered to be safeguarding the countryside from encroachment and contributing to the wider Green Belt purpose.

 

Officers reiterated that the reasons for the refusal of the previous application and that with regard to access and highways matters, this was not actually taken into account in the Planning Inspectorate’s decision because they were simply regarding it as inappropriate development in the Green Belt. And as highlighted during the course of the meeting, that this was now very different due to changes in the NPPF.

 

Stage 2 of the PiP process would provide more detailed information, in order for Committee Members to actually determine whether the development could proceed.

 

In response to a question from the Committee with regard to the application being ‘Called In,’ Officers confirmed that had the application not been ‘Called In’ then Officers would have determined the application under delegated powers.

 

Officers further clarified that Members were being asked to consider and determine Planning Permission in Principle, which was deciding purely on the location, the land use and the amount of development for nine dwellings.

 

With the agreement of the Chairman, a brief adjournment was agreed in order for Members to consider the alternative recommendation to refuse the application, as proposed during the course of the meeting.

 

Accordingly, the meeting stood adjourned from 20:20 hours to 20:24 hours.

 

Having reconvened, Councillor M. Marshall proposed an alternative recommendation to refuse Permission in Principle, on being put to the vote, it was

 

RESOLVED that Permission in Principle be refused for the following reasons:-

 

·       Severe to the cultural heritage, natural heritage and distinctiveness of the landscape and consequent encroachment on the countryside representing unacceptable development in the green belt, and no special circumstances existed to outweigh this harm.