Agenda item

As detailed in the preamble above, Councillor M. Marshall left the room at the conclusion of the public speaking and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 157 to 166 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for 7 Churchfields Road, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B61 8EB and sought the demolition of the existing buildings and the erection of 3 new two-bed dwellings.

The application was deferred during a previous Planning Committee meeting on 12^th February 2026 due to a number of highway concerns raised by Members. Worcestershire County Council, Highways (County Highways) had submitted further comments which were detailed on pages 140 to 141 of the Public Reports pack. The position of County Highways had not changed following the submission of the additional information and there remained no objection to the development on Highways grounds.

Officers further detailed that there were no objections from Historic England or the Conservation Officer regarding the loss of the bungalow and heritage impacts, nor from any other consultee. Therefore, the Officer Recommendation remained the same which was for approval.

At the invitation of the Chairman Mr S. Martin spoke in objection to the application. Councillor M. Marshall also addressed the Planning Committee as Ward Member.

It was confirmed that each dwelling had two parking spaces all of which were at least 2.4m x 4.8m in size with a total width of 14.4m for all 6 spaces. This met the requirements for the Worcestershire Streetscape Design Guide. It was noted that there was an error in the information supplied in the report, however, the County Highways Officer in attendance confirmed that there was enough space to accommodate the parking space with circulatory space around.

A telegraph pole shown on page 165 of the Public Reports pack was highlighted by Members. Officers detailed that it could be moved as part of the development and that should Members be minded to approve the application Condition 3 could be amended to include the relocation of the existing street furniture.

Members had concern with the last parking space in that it would be very difficult to access this spot, requiring repeated or complex manoeuvres with potentially limited visibility. County Highways clarified that their assessment showed sufficient tracking for the vehicles to access, although they appreciated that it might require several manoeuvres. It was further noted that tight manoeuvring and poor visibility was already present for a number of other properties on the road, which was a consideration from County highways during their assessment, as this might make it difficult to justify refusal on those grounds, however, it was a consideration for Members who might on balance take a different view.

Members expressed great concern regarding pedestrian safety especially when considering school children and the general public and that although they appreciated that some other properties had similar concerns they considered the cumulative impact on public safety to be important. It was noted by Officers that in terms of highways safety the development was compliant but that it was for Members to consider if the development undermined the overall safety to meet the severity test under Para 116 or 117 of the NPPF.

Councillor E Gray proposed an Alternative Recommendation that planning permission be refused due to the impact on pedestrian safety, contrary to Paragraphs 115b, 116 and 117 of the NPPF. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor A. Bailes.

On being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused, for reasons as stated in the pre-amble above.