Agenda item

24/00533/REM - Reserved matters application for the erection of 217 dwellings to include details of appearance and landscaping, layout, internal roads and scale of development pursuant to the approved hybrid planning permission (Ref: 16/0263) at land at Foxlydiate Lane and Pumphouse Lane, Webheath, Redditch ("Foxlydiate") Land to west Foxlydiate Lane and Pumphouse Lane, Bromsgrove. St. Philips Homes Ltd

Meeting of Planning Committee, Thursday 12th February 2026 6.00 p.m. (Item 63/25)

Minutes:

Further information was included in the Committee Update, with regard to amended plans being received in respect of the boundary with Longbarn and the proposed play area, 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.

The Reserved matters application was for the erection of 217 dwellings to include details of appearance and landscaping, layout, internal roads and scale of development pursuant to the approved hybrid planning permission (Ref: 16/0263) at land at Foxlydiate Lane and Pumphouse Lane, Webheath, Redditch ("Foxlydiate").

The application related to the first phase of the development of the wider Foxlydiate site and comprised of approximately 10.03 hectares.

Officers presented the report and presentation slides, as detailed on pages 46 to 60 of the main agenda pack.

Officers referred to the Design Code, as detailed on page 43 of the main agenda pack and briefly explained that the site was identified as a part of the larger Monarch Green sub-area within the Foxlydiate site and largely reflected the Design and Access Statement submitted with the hybrid application.

Members’ attention was drawn to ‘Landscaping’ , as detailed on page 40 of the main agenda pack, which provided detailed information and explanations in respect of The Design Code and proposed boundary treatments within the different character areas.

It was noted that amendments had been submitted, in such, that brick walls were now included along the Avenue frontage. This was considered acceptable. Elsewhere external facing boundaries included walls with inset fence panels and internal boundaries timber fencing with hedgehog gaps.

The residents of Longbarn had expressed concern regarding the proposed boundary treatment along the boundary with their property and had requested that a wall be erected. Longbarn was a Non Designated Heritage Asset (NDHA). The landscaping proposals did not include a wall at this location. There was no planning requirement for a wall in this location. This was confirmed by the Council’s Conservation Officer. The existing boundary treatment was hedgerow and fence. In this instance the developer was proposing additional hedge planting along the boundary. The species had been discussed with the Council’s Tree Officer and had been amended to introduce trees which were compatible with the hard surfacing of the driveways/parking and had lighter canopy. The proposed landscaping was considered acceptable with regard to the boundary with Longbarn.

Officers further referred to the Urban Design (Place Services) comments, as detailed on page 32 of the main agenda pack and identified the two location where 2.5 storey dwellings would provide a termination to those vistas.

Some retaining structures were proposed in order to address changes in the levels across the site.

Officers highlighted that the residents of Longbarn on Birchfield Road had expressed concern at the proximity of proposed dwellings to the rear of that property. Longbarn and its neighbour The Byre were considered to be Non-Designated Heritage Assets (NDHA). The proposed dwellings would be set approximately 21.2m from the rear of Longbarn and a similar distance from The Byre, this was significantly more than the separation requirements of the High-Quality Design SPD (12.5m). The nearest proposed dwellings were also approximately 5m away from the shared boundary.

Members’ attention was drawn to the ‘Scale’ information, as detailed on page 39 of the main agenda pack, which provided information on the scale of buildings.

With regard to the Internal Road Access, the proposed plans had been amended to reflect the details of the access approved under the hybrid planning permission. The layout acknowledged and provided a link to the cycle route to be provided through the protected trees onto Foxlydiate Lane. This route formed part of the detailed grant of planning permission and details would be addressed by Condition 17 of the hybrid.

The layout also included footpath links joining up to those on the approved layout for the former Foxlydiate Hotel site (19/00615/OUT) in order to ensure permeability between the sites. A footway was shown through an area of open space close to the site entrance onto Foxlydiate Lane and plots 52-55. This part of the site was subject to a noticeable change in levels. The Council’s Urban Design Consultant had suggested a planning condition, requiring details be included and this was considered appropriate. Adequate off-street parking and cycle parking was proposed within the individual plots. The Highway Authority had been consulted with on the application and had raised no objections.

As detailed in the Committee Update, the position of the play area had been adjusted within the Village Green in order to provide two separate access points linked to the proposed footpath network. The proposed equipment now included the provision of a springer with a backrest and interactive boards which were useable from ground level. It was considered that these improved the range of play options to improve inclusivity. The amended plan would be captured in the list of approved plans suggested condition, as set out on page 44 of the main agenda pack. Prior to the Planning Committee meeting commencing, the Council’s Leisure Services had agreed that they were happy with the amendments.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. P. Frost, local resident addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr. J. Kirby, the Applicant’s Planning Agent addressed the Committee in support of the application, and Councillor N. Rands, on behalf of Bentley Pauncefoot Parish Council, addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Members then considered the application whereby officers had recommended that the Reserved Matters application be approved.

In response to questions from Committee Members with regard to the 1 metre retaining wall, officers explained that the responsibility of maintaining the retaining wall in potential residents gardens, was a conveyancing matter and not a planning matter.

Some Members referred to the following issues:-

· The exposed high voltage cable seen during their site visit. Would these still be in situ or placed underneath the ground?

Officers explained that the high voltage cables would be removed and / or buried with other cables once connected to the new sub-station to be provided on the site.

· Who would be responsible for the maintenance of the new play area? Would potential residents be expected to pay towards the cost of a maintenance company? Members were seeking reassurance that the new play area would not be neglected.

Officers explained that the Section 106 (s106) legal agreement offered the new play area to the Council or to a Management Company to maintain.

· Were officers confident that the applicant had done everything they could to prevent existing residents from being overlooked?

Officers stated the applicant had amended the boundary with Longbarn three times, in order to address the concerns raised. There would be additional hedge planting along the boundary, as detailed in the officers report. Officers were satisfied that the boundary had been discussed at great length and that the boundary was acceptable.

A brief discussion followed on the position and orientation of the proposed dwellings. Officers briefly explained that the orientation of the dwellings would provide an acceptable opportunity for solar benefit and that should the proposed dwellings all be completely south facing that this would be a very rigid pattern of development. It was important also to consider the overall quality and sense of place.

Officers further responded to questions on the affordable housing percentage being adhered to. Members were informed that the Section 106 (s106) legal agreement sets out that each phase must provide a minimum of 30% affordable housing and a maximum of 45%, with 40% affordable housing provision overall across the whole Foxlydiate site. The s106 legal agreement did not require that each phase provided the mix in the tenure table but across the development site as a whole. Therefore, the current proposal was considered to be in accordance with the s106 legal agreement. The required affordable housing mix was detailed on page 42 of the main agenda pack.

Officers further responded to questions raised with regard to the footpaths being on an incline, the materials to be used and if handrails would be fitted.

Members were reassured that planning conditions would address these concerns, in order to ensure that there was a series of conditions and levels to navigate footpaths on any inclines.

The Worcestershire County Council’s, Highways Officer further stated that footpaths adjacent to the highway (public roads) could be offered for adoption (highways maintainable) and that any footpaths along the highway would be subject to specific widths, construction and gradients being picked up under the Highways Act 1980.

During the debate and questions to officers, some Members questioned the Recommendations as detailed on pages 31 and 44 of the main agenda pack.

Some Members requested that the following be included in Recommendation C:-

‘(c) That DELEGATED POWERS be granted to the Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Cultural Services, following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman and Vice-Chairman, to agree the final scope and detailed wording and numbering of conditions as set out on page 44 of the main agenda pack.

The Council’s Legal Advisor had stated, at the time that delegated powers was a matter for the Committee, and that it was within the Committee’s gift to make such a request. However, it would normally be worded ‘following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman. The Planning Committee Vice-Chairman would only be consulted with should the Planning Committee Chairman not be available.

At this stage in the meeting officers highlighted that page 44 of the main agenda pack also needed to be amended to include lighting, as follows:-