Up to six dwellings at Walnut Tree Farm, Astwood Bank, Redditch

What was proposed

The application sought permission in principle for up to six dwellings, garages and an associated access drive.

“Planning Permission in Principle for up to 6 dwellings, garages and associated access drive…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

The site formed part of a residential curtilage outside Astwood Bank’s residential area, with fields, housing and Dark Lane nearby.

“This application seeks permission in principle for one dwelling on land at Walnut Tree Farm, Dark Lane, Astwood Bank.”

“The site lies just outside of the designated residential area of Astwood Bank, which is a village and is in the Green Belt. The site currently forms the wider residential curtilage of Walnut Tree Farm. The site is bound by Dark Lane to the south, agricultural fields to the north and west of the site, and by a row of dwellings to the east of the site. The row of dwellings to the east of the site are in the residential area.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

An earlier application for one dwelling with an access drive, garage and gardens was granted in January 2026.

“Proposed new dwelling with associated access drive, garage and gardens Granted 06.01.2026”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers considered the site Grey Belt, suitable for housing and acceptable for up to six dwellings, and recommended permission in principle.

“Would the development in the grey belt be in a sustainable location? The application site is located outside but adjacent to the settlement of Astwood Bank, as identified on the Council's Proposals Map. Astwood Bank is considered a Sustainable Rural Settlement within Policy 2 with a variety of services and amenities.”

“In conclusion, it is considered that the site is Grey Belt and would meet the Paragraph 155 requirements and thus the proposal should not be regarded as inappropriate development in the Green Belt having regard to the Framework.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Highways and water management raised matters for later technical approval but recorded no objection at the permission-in-principle stage.

“WCCHA have no objection. In principle based on location, highways raise no objection to PIP stage 1, however notwithstanding the proposal for 6 dwellings will lead to a significant highway issue in terms of additional trip generation.”

“While in principle I have no issues with the proposed development from a flood risk perspective, no drainage details have been provided with this application. I would therefore suggest the applicant, at the technical matters stage of the application, include a drainage strategy to avoid the need for conditions. This should be in the form of a drainage plan and should include the means to manage surface water from the site appropriately.”

Officer report

What residents said

Fifteen public objections concerned rural character, traffic, wildlife, lighting, Green Belt harm, drainage and pressure on services.

“Following the end of publicity, 15 objections have been received from members of the public. Their comments are summarised below, and can be viewed in full on Public Access. - Loss of rural character and peaceful environment; - Concerns over additional traffic along a single track lane from additional dwellings, and safety concerns for pedestrians, cyclists, existing residents; - Impact on local wildlife and natural environment;”

“- Increase in light pollution; - Set a precedent for future development in the countryside; - Construction traffic concerns; - Services impacted at schools and doctors surgeries; - Concerns regarding the harm to the Green Belt; - Impact on drainage; - No BNG and ecology reports submitted as part of the application; Concerns relating to the Green Belt have been addressed within the Report. All other maters would be subject to a Technical Details Consent application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A statement against the application was read for a local resident, two local residents spoke against it, and the applicant’s representative spoke in support.

What members debated

Members questioned access and disagreed that the site qualified under Green Belt exceptions or the Grey Belt policy.

“Members expressed further concern regarding if the location was suitable with the site being within the green belt and disagreed with Officers assessment with the site having exceptions under sections e and g of para 154 of the NPPF, due to the location of the site and that it would extend beyond the existing development area and into the Green Belt.”

“Officers clarified to Members that their assessment was that the site also fell under the definition of grey belt under Para 155 of the NPPF being previously developed land and sought clarification on Members’ stance. Members expressed the opinion that they did not agree with officers’ assessment in that the encroachment of the site was beyond that of the previous permission existing on the site and was within the green belt.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

Members proposed and voted for refusal because they considered the site did not meet the Grey Belt definition.

“Councillor Brandon Clayton Proposed an Alternative Recommendation that Permission in Principle application be refused as the site did not meet the definition of Grey Belt under para 155 of the NPPF. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor Simon Farmer.”

Minutes