Agenda item

It was being reported to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor R. Bailes, Ward Councillor, in accordance with the Council’s constitution.

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 planning in principle (PIP) for up to nine dwellings, and that the site was currently part of an uncultivated agricultural field.

It was outlined that the application was for PIP, which was a specific planning consent route designed for small- scale housing based developments. As such, the Council could only assess the site’s suitability on three factors, namely location, land use and amount of development.

Officers presented the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 71- 74 of the main agenda pack, which included a site location plan and an illustrative plan of the proposed development.

It was noted that officers advised the Committee that the site was in a suitable location.

Eleven objections from members of the public had been received, in relation to the sustainability of the site, the proximity to the canal bridge, the impact upon the landscape and other concerns. Alvechurch Parish Council had also objected to the proposals.

A number of consultees had made advisory comments, including Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) in relation to noise and contaminated land, Worcestershire Archive and Archaeological Service in relation to historic environment and the Conservation Officer in relation to the preservation of the canal.

Worcestershire County Council as the highways authority, North Worcestershire Water Management, the Canals and River Trust and National Rail had not objected to the application at PIP stage.

The proposal would support continued housing delivery in the District.

Further information, including relevant planning history, the Bromsgrove District Plan, the Alvechurch Neighbourhood Plan, housing availability considerations and the need to demonstrate a five- year housing land supply was relayed to the Committee.

It was noted that the application for PIP was recommended to be granted. It was further noted that the application could not be subject to conditions and that if granted, a further application for Technical Details Consent (TDC) must be submitted and approved, before any development could commence.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Sharon Rippington, a local resident addressed the Committee in opposition to the application. In addition, Sian Griffiths, representing RCA Regeneration (the Applicant’s Planning Agent), addressed the Committee in support of the application. Furthermore, Councillor T. Williams, Member of Alvechurch Parish Council addressed the Committee in opposition to the proposals.

Councillor R. Bailes also addressed the Committee in her capacity as Ward Councillor, in opposition to the application. Having addressed the Committee, Councillor R. Bailes 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 site was in close proximity to both the canal, the railway and the M42 motorway.
• The Bromsgrove District Landscape and Visual Sensitivity Study outlined that the area which encompassed the site was sensitive to housing due to the strong tree cover, pastures and grasslands, its recreational use and biodiversity value.
• The site was on the edge of the village and accessed via narrow rural roads only.
• Members in attendance broadly consensed that they had concerns in relation to the sustainability of the site.
• Members expressed concern in relation to the submissions from WRS which stated that the site was in close proximity to a landfill site with a known history of gassing and that nearby ponds may contain unknown landfill.
• Local residents were opposed to development on the site.

Members attention was drawn to the outcome of an Appeal Decision by the Planning Inspectorate on page 69 of the main agenda pack.

The Legal Advisor addressed the Committee and outlined that as this was an application for PIP Members could only assess the site’s suitability on three factors, namely location, land use and amount of development. Members were also advised that if adequate reasons were not given there was a risk their decision would be overturned at appeal and potentially be subject to a costs award.

The meeting was adjourned between 7.28- 7.50 p.m. to enable Committee Members to consider the information before them.

An alternate recommendation for refusal was tabled due to the following considerations:

• Development was deemed unacceptable due to the site’s proximity to both the canal and M42 motorway.
• The site was isolated in nature and outside the village boundary.
• The site lacked sustainable and safe access to amenities and facilities.

The recommendation was subsequently proposed and seconded by Members of the Committee.

On being put to the vote it was

RESOLVED that having had regard to all the information before them and all other material considerations that planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the preamble above.