Up to 9 homes at Kumasi, Drakes Broughton, Pershore

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for up to nine dwellings at Kumasi, 61 Stonebow Road.

“Planning Committee - 20 August 2026 UPDATE ITEM: Planning Ref: Site: Ward Councillor Recommendation W/26/00889/PIP Kumasi 61 Stonebow Road Drakes Broughton PERSHORE WR10 2AP Cllr Rob Adams Cllr Liz Turier Approval Proposal: Permission in Principle for up to 9 dwellings…”

Officer report

The site and its setting

Most of the site lies within the settlement boundary, while part of the red line lies outside it.

“Second, most of the PIP application site lies within the Drakes Broughton settlement boundary as defined by the SWDP Review.”

Officer report

Relevant planning context

A neighbouring development outside the boundary had been granted on appeal when the tilted balance applied.

“The Ward Member, Councillor R C Adams asked for clarification regarding future access to the existing house at 61 Stonebow Road. The Planning Officer confirmed that this would likely need to be on Stonebow Road.”

“Councillor M K Ward asked for clarification regarding the implications of the approval of the neighbouring development outside the development boundary when the tilted balance was invoked. The Development Manager advised that although the site was partly outside the development boundary and therefore had a technical policy objection, the Planning Officer’s decision should also consider wider material factors including the purpose of retaining the area outside the…”

Minutes

What officers advised

Officers considered the proposal acceptable in principle and advised that the relevant concerns could be addressed at the technical details stage.

“Officers advise that in considering how S4 1) and 2) affects the determination of the PIP, first it should be noted that approval of a PIP is not equivalent to the grant of planning permission. This only occurs when an approval is granted at the second technical details stage. Thus, strictly speaking, the above guidance is only applicable to either a planning application or a technical details application.”

“In summary, officers advise that the PIP is acceptable insofar as it can be assessed against the provisions of policy S4 of the Framework. The matters raised under S4 can all be considered at the second technical details stage. Furthermore, there is nothing in the new Framework – such as specific reference to PIPs - that suggests otherwise.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council chairman spoke against approval, and the ward member spoke against the application without joining the debate or vote.

Why the decision was deferred

The committee wanted officers and members to fully understand the new national guidance, especially policies S4 and S5, and to ask about reducing the number of homes.

“There was also discussion about whether the applicant should be approached to consider reducing the number of proposed dwellings, based on the debate. Heather Peachey, Head of Legal Services suggested that, while the deferral should be based on the need for further clarification of the NPPF position, Officers could also ask the applicant whether they wished to revisit the number of properties proposed.”

“To defer the application to allow Officers and Planning Committee Members to fully comprehend the new National Planning Policy Framework in particular, but not limited to NPPF Policies S4 & S5. During this time, Planning Officers would ask the applicant if they would be prepared to amend the description in relation to reduce the number of properties.”

Minutes