Agenda item

The application had been called to committee by councillor A. Bales as the ward member to be discussed at the planning committee rather than being delegated to officers.

Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 131 to 139 of the Public Reports pack.

The application was for Dominion Racing Stables, Seafield Lane, Portway, Worcestershire, B48 7HL and sought the Construction of an access track joining to Billesley Lane.

The proposed access plans were shown which included the new access and proposed position of the track. The first 12 meters of the access point would be tarmac with the remainder being considered under a Condition if members were minded to approve the application. Additionally, there would be wire fencing along the side of the track which would also follow a planted native hedgerow.

Officers detailed that the development was within the greenbelt and thus was regarded as inappropriate development, therefore, to be approved very special circumstances (VSC) would need to be present as to outweigh the harm which would be caused.

The site featured a gentle incline towards the brow of the hill; therefore it was officers’ assessment that this would make the track highly visible and negatively impact on the rural character and openness of the greenbelt. A case for VSC was presented by the applicant and detailed on page 120 of the Public Reports pack. However, it was Officers assessment that VSC did not exist so as to outweigh the harm to the rural character and openness of the greenbelt and therefore, their recommended was for refusal.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr I. Williams, the applicant addressed the Committee in support of the application.

Members were in support of assisting the local business which had grown significantly since starting. This was also supported by Bromsgrove District Plan4 and the NPPF, however, Members had to balance that against the harm to the greenbelt and decide if they believed VSC existed.

On balance Members agreed that the new track could remove excess traffic from Seafield Lane. However, Conditions would not be able to be imposed as to require vehicles to only use the new access, therefore, it would not be enforceable and the overall reduction in traffic on Seafield Lane could not be determined.

Upon visiting the site, Members agreed with the Officer’s assessment and stated that the incline was very pronounced. Therefore, any track would be visible and harmful to the openness of the greenbelt. It was also noted that the site already has a usable access point via Seafield Lane so not permitting the application would not significantly harm the business operation.

Councillor S. Peters proposed an Alternative Recommendation that Planning permission be approved as the VSC detailed on page 120 outweigh the harm to the green belt. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor S. Baxter. However, on being put to the vote it was not carried.

Members then considered the substantive Recommendation outlined on page 115 of the Public Reports pack and on being put to the vote it was:

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be refused, for reasons as stated on pages 128 and 129 of the Public Reports pack.