Access track at Dominion Racing Stables, Portway

What was proposed

A 400-metre access track would connect Billesley Lane to the racing stables, with passing bays, fencing, hedges and mixed surfacing.

“Assessment of Proposal The Site The site is located in open countryside and is currently in use as paddocks associated with Dominion Racing Stables. The track would be in close proximity to an existing fenced field boundary and ordinary watercourse. The Council’s Proposals Map identifies the site within the Green Belt. There is a public right of way (BE-591) to the south-west of the site.”

“Proposals The application proposes the creation of a new access from Billesley Lane with a bell mouth width of 8m wide narrowing to 4m wide along the proposed new access track. There would be two passing bays at 4.5m wide. In total the track is 400m long. It is proposed to plant a native hedge on either side of the track with native trees dispersed to reinforce the boundary and a post and wire fence.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Two earlier access-track applications were refused for Green Belt and character harm, and neither refusal was appealed.

“Relevant Planning History 22/00704/FUL (application 1) Planning permission was refused 28.11.2022 for the construction of a new access track from Billesley Lane to Dominion Racing Stables. In this application an existing field gate was being utilised for the access track with alterations to create a bell mouth width of 6m, narrowing to 4m, with a single passing bay and hedge on the western edge of the track.”

“23/01294/FUL (application 2) Planning permission was refused 12.02.2024 for the construction of an access (in a different location to 22/00704/FUL application 1) in the same location as this planning application under consideration. The bell mouth width was proposed at 6m, narrowing to 4.5m with a single passing bay and a new fence, hedgerow and tree planting.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the development was inappropriate in the Green Belt, harmed openness and rural character, and lacked sufficient very special circumstances.

“Green Belt Balance and Conclusions For the reasons as stated above, the scheme constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Under the terms of paragraph 153 of the Framework, planning permission should not be approved except in very special circumstances. These only exist where the harm by reason of inappropriateness and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.”

“The spatial impact from the proposals and the transient movement of vehicles would fail to preserve openness. The degree of activity and the proposals harms to visual openness are considered to be sufficiently adverse and fail to preserve the openness of the Green Belt. The introduction of a new access and track across the site, an urbanising and incongruous feature, is considered to represent encroachment, conflicting with one of the Green Belt purposes.”

Officer report

Consultation and public views

Highways, trees, ecology and water management consultees raised no objections subject to conditions, while eight residents objected and six supported the proposal.

“Ecology Consultee Response • No objection subject to conditions relating to: • Construction Environmental Management Plan • Lighting Plan • Habitat Management and Maintenance Plan • Biodiversity Enhancement Plan…”

“North Worcestershire Water Management • No objection subject to condition relating to: • Surface water drainage scheme • The site falls within flood zone 1 (low risk of fluvial flooding) and is not shown to be susceptible to surface water flooding. • The proposal is to create a new driveway using an impermeable tarmac surface which may increase the rate and volume of runoff from the site.”

Officer report

Main concerns raised

Objections focused on Green Belt and landscape harm, flooding, wildlife, hedgerow loss, traffic, noise, security and whether the track was necessary.

“Objection: comments in summary • Single track roads are common in rural areas and roadside verge use is common and permissible, stone blocks have been installed to prevent verges being used • Would not reduce congestion at the southern end of Seafield Lane • Speeding on local roads, no footpaths • 5* experience for visitors is not sufficient justification for loss of pasture • Inappropriate development in the Green Belt, no very special circumstances, would not preserve…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant addressed the committee in support of the application.

What members debated

Members considered support for the growing business and possible traffic reduction, but found those benefits uncertain and noted an existing usable access.

“On balance Members agreed that the new track could remove excess traffic from Seafield Lane. However, Conditions would not be able to be imposed as to require vehicles to only use the new access, therefore, it would not be enforceable and the overall reduction in traffic on Seafield Lane could not be determined.”

“Upon visiting the site, Members agreed with the Officer’s assessment and stated that the incline was very pronounced. Therefore, any track would be visible and harmful to the openness of the greenbelt. It was also noted that the site already has a usable access point via Seafield Lane so not permitting the application would not significantly harm the business operation.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members rejected an alternative proposal to approve the application and then voted for the substantive recommendation to refuse it.

“Councillor S. Peters proposed an Alternative Recommendation that Planning permission be approved as the VSC detailed on page 120 outweigh the harm to the green belt. The Alternative Recommendation was seconded by Councillor S. Baxter. However, on being put to the vote it was not carried.”

“Members then considered the substantive Recommendation outlined on page 115 of the Public Reports pack and on being put to the vote it was:”

Minutes

The decision and reasons

Planning permission was refused because the track harmed Green Belt openness and rural character and did not secure biodiversity net gain.

“The proposed development fails to meet with an exception to Green Belt policy as outlined in paragraph 154 of the National Planning Policy Framework and BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan. The proposed development would cause harm to the spatial and visual openness of the Green Belt by reason of its siting, length, dimensions and the topography of the site, together with the degree of activity and transient movement of vehicles.”

“The proposed development introduces a formal, engineered access and track of a size and scale that negatively impacts on the sites character and visual amenity, introducing urban features and traffic movement into a sensitive landscape setting, which fails to conserve the pastoral land use of the landscape character.”

Officer report