Issue - decisions

10/0953-DMB - Outline planning permission for up to 212 dwellings with associated open space infrastructure including a new vehicular access via Rutherford Road - Land at St. Godwalds Road, Bromsgrove, B60 3SA - Maplebrom LLP

28/04/2011 - 10/0953-DMB - Outline planning permission for up to 212 dwellings with associated open space infrastructure including a new vehicular access via Rutherford Road - Land at St. Godwalds Road, Bromsgrove, B60 3SA - Maplebrom LLP

The Head of Planning and Regeneration Services reported the receipt of a further five letters of objection, together with the receipt of an email on behalf of the Campaign to Protect Rural England [CPRE].  In addition, she informed the Committee of the additional views of the Strategic Planning Manager as well as his response to the CPRE email.  The current status of the Agreement under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in respect of the application was also reported.

 

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mrs. H. Dale and Mr. G. Reddie addressed the Committee and spoke in opposition to the proposals, and Mr. D. J. Prescott spoke against the application in his capacity as Chairman of Finstall Parish Council.  Furthermore, Mr. P. Frampton spoke on behalf of the applicant in support of the application.

 

Consideration was then given to the application which the Head of Planning and Regeneration Services, according to the recommendation contained within the report, would have been minded to approve subject to the satisfactory completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  However, on the matter being put to the vote, Members considered that the proposal would lead to unacceptable traffic implications and have a negative impact on the amenities of existing residents by virtue of the generation of over-capacity issues on the local highway network and the absence of an adequate infrastructure to accommodate and ensure the free flow of traffic.

 

RESOLVED that permission be refused for the following reason:

 

The proposal would lead to unacceptable traffic implications and negatively impact on the amenities of existing residents by virtue of the generation of over-capacity issues on the local highway network and the absence of adequate infrastructure to accommodate and ensure the free flow of traffic.