Agenda item

As detailed in the preamble above, Councillor A. Bailes left the room for the duration of the agenda item and took no part in the debate or decision thereof.

It was being reported to the Planning Committee for consideration due to its classification as a major planning variation/ application.

It was noted that there was no Committee Update for this item.

Officers presented the report, and in doing so highlighted that the application was for a variation of Condition 27 of planning permission 24/00516/S73, to increase the threshold for the number of dwellings permitted to be occupied  from 99 to 250, before the junction improvements at Whitford Road, Bromsgrove must be completed.

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 45 to 53 of the main agenda pack and outlined that the site, although predominantly for residential dwellings also incorporated a retail unit and signalised junction, to be installed at the junction with Kidderminster Road and Perryfields Road.

An objection had been received from the Bromsgrove Society and a member of the public, in relation in traffic congestion at the Whitford Road junction with Kidderminster Road.

Worcestershire County Council as the highways authority and engineering consultants Mott MacDonald had not objected to the proposed variation of Condition 27 of planning permission 25/00798/S73.

The proposal would support continued housing delivery in the District.

Further information, including relevant planning history, the Bromsgrove District Plan, and housing availability considerations was relayed to the Committee.

It was noted that the application for variation of previously granted planning permission was recommended to be granted. In addition, it was recommended that delegated powers be granted the Assistant Director for Planning, Leisure and Culture Services, following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, to agree the final scope and detailed wording and numbering of Conditions as laid out in the report.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Chris O’Hanlon, representing Bellway Homes Limited and David Dixon, representing WSP, addressed the Committee in support of the application. Councillor D. Hopkins also addressed the Committee in his capacity as Ward Councillor, in opposition to the application. Having addressed the Committee, Councillor D. Hopkins then left the room.

Members then debated the application. From the comments and questions by members of the Committee, the following responses were made, and issues highlighted:

•         The highways authority had determined that this variation would not result in a severe enough cumulative impact upon the highways network as to breach the severity requirement under paragraph 116 of the NPPF. In addition, the variation did not present a risk to highways safety.

•         It was reported that Bellway Homes Ltd had conducted an assessment of an increased number of vehicles accessing the highways network from the development site which was further scrutinised by County Highways and Mott MacDonald. The assessment had concluded that the disruption to the highways network would not be severe.

•         It was highlighted that the District would benefit from an increased provision of affordable homes.

•         Additional conditions had previously been mandated in relation to this site, which remained in force, these included alterations to the junction at Fox Lane and Rock Hill, as well as an acoustic barrier.

Members discussed the impact of the proposed variation upon the highways network in the locality.

On being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that having had regard to all the information before them and all other material considerations

(a) that planning permission be granted;

(b) that delegated powers be granted to the Assistant Director for

Planning, Leisure and Culture Services, following consultation with the Planning Committee Chairman, to agree the final scope and

     detailed wording and numbering of conditions, as set out in the

     report.

Following consideration of the above matter referred to at Minute No. 81/26, Councillor A. Bailes returned to the room.