Up to nine dwellings at Land Off Withybed Lane, Alvechurch

What was proposed

Permission in Principle was sought for up to nine dwellings, with detailed design and access reserved for a later stage.

“Permission in Principle (PiP) Stage: The local planning authority assesses the site's suitability based only on three core factors: • Location • Land use • Amount of development (e.g., number of dwellings)”

“If a PIP is granted, a subsequent application for Technical Details Consent must be submitted and approved before any development can begin. This stage involves the detailed design aspects, such as appearance, layout, landscaping, and access, and requires full architectural plans and supporting technical documents. The TDC stage is similar to a Reserved Matters application or a full planning application.”

Officer report

The site

The site was a field of just under half a hectare in the Green Belt, between a railway, canal and Withybed Lane.

“A railway line is situated beyond the site's eastern boundary and the Worcester and Birmingham Canal forms the sites western boundary. The unclassified road Withybed Lane forms the northern boundary from which vehicular access is proposed. Withybed Lane provides vehicular access to The Crown Inn Public House and dwellings located within Withybed Green to the west.”

“The site contains a number of fairly modest buildings and relatively low fencing. The site is currently in equine use. The buildings are located in close proximity to the site boundaries adjacent to both the railway line and canal, leaving the majority of the site open and laid to grass. Having regard to the modest scale and location of the existing development, the site has a predominately open and rural character.”

Officer report

Earlier applications

Earlier proposals for homes were refused, and an appeal against the application for nine dwellings was dismissed because of Green Belt harm.

“22/00869/OUT Outline application for up to 9 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access: Refused 08 August 2022 Appeal dismissed (APP/P1805/W/23/3315385) 30 October 2023 • 21/00711/OUT Outline application for up to 10 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access – Refused 20 July 2021 • B/1995/0234 Retention of existing stables and sheds for the storage of tack and fodder and continuance of equine uses including riding, grazing & shodding etc – Approved…”

“An outline application for up to 9 dwellings with all matters reserved except for access was previously refused under 22/00869/OUT on 08 August 2022 and a subsequent appeal (APP/P1805/W/23/3315385) dismissed on 30 October 2023. Appeal APP/P1805/W/23/3315385 was dismissed exclusively on harmful impact to the Green Belt. The Inspector considered the site to be located in a sustainable location.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because they considered the site Grey Belt, sustainable and suitable for the proposed amount of development.

“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.”

“The amount of development (a maximum of 9 dwellings) is considered acceptable given the area of land shown within the red line boundary on the location plan. In addition, the previous appeal (APP/P1805/W/23/3315385) did not raise any objections to 9 dwellings which is the same maximum number proposed in this current application.”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector, the parish council’s representative through the legal adviser, and the ward councillor spoke against the application.

What members debated

Members questioned the landscape evidence, countryside encroachment, access, Green Belt changes and whether the Permission in Principle process provided enough detail.

“Hence Members having expressed their concerns that no detailed landscape assessment was being undertaken, since the location had a high landscape sensitivity, this site was not a suitable location for such a development. WCC Highways in their letter of 2022 had objected on two accounts, with the access layout being unacceptable and also on sustainability grounds.”

“Members who had attended the Site Visit commented that having looked at the site, and having understand the Grey Belt definition, that the site did not fulfil purposes A, B, and D and that there was still a requirement to consider whether the development of the site would compromise the other purposes of the Green Belt, in particular, assisting in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee refused Permission in Principle because of severe harm to heritage, landscape distinctiveness and the countryside, without special circumstances to outweigh it.

“RESOLVED that Permission in Principle be refused for the following reasons:-”

“Severe harm to the cultural heritage, natural heritage and distinctiveness of the landscape and consequent encroachment on the countryside representing unacceptable development in the green belt, and no special circumstances existed to outweigh this harm.”

Minutes