Three homes at Mayview, Newnham Bridge, Tenbury Wells

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for up to three dwellings, with their type and layout to be considered later.

“Permission in principle is sought for 3 no. dwellings, the type and layout of dwellings is not relevant at this stage.”

Officer report

The site

The site is residential garden land beside the A456, accessed through the existing access from Wyrebrook Orchard, and covers about 0.14 hectares.

“The application site is an area of residential curtilage serving Mayview, a substantial modern detached dwelling which occupies the corner of the plot adjacent to the A456 and Wyrebrook Orchard. The site would be accessed from Wyrebrook Orchard via the existing access which serves Mayview.”

“A substantial hedge runs along the roadside boundary with the A456 and the rear gardens of dwellings on Wyre brook Orchard back onto the site’s northern boundary. The site is laid to lawn and slopes up from the main road (south to north).”

Officer report

Earlier site history

Earlier applications included proposals for single dwellings, a railway bridge alteration and a sewerage treatment plant.

“83/00028/TEN. Demolition of railway bridge and reshaping of adjoining embankment being bridge No 27 Newnham Bridge, Tenbury Wells. Ashbourne , Newnham Bridge, Tenbury Wells, Worcestershire, WR15 8JE. T17. Apr 20 1983”

“19/01279/PA. Construction of a new biodisk sewerage treatment plant . Sewerage Treatment Plant at (OS 6366 6909), Newnham Bridge. ADV. Nov 13 2019”

Officer report

Why officers recommended refusal

Officers considered the site outside a development boundary and poorly connected to services, making future residents heavily reliant on private vehicles.

“As outlined above, the application site is situated outside of a development boundary, and as such, as a matter of principle, development of the site for residential purposes is contrary to Strategic Policy SWDP 2 of the South Worcestershire Development Plan (2016) and the National Planning Policy Framework. As further outlined, it is considered that whilst future occupiers would be provided with an alternative mode of sustainable travel, i.e.”

“RECOMMENDATION That Permission in Principle be Refused for the Following Reason: Future occupiers of the proposed development would be poorly connected to key services by sustainable travel modes due to an inadequate number of key services being located within walking distance of the application site and an infrequent local bus services. As such, future occupiers would be heavily reliant on a private vehicle.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The parish council had no objection and supported the proposal, highways advice applied, and contamination and nature conservation comments were made.

“Natural England is not able to provide specific advice on this application and therefore has no comment to make on its details. Although we have not been able to assess the potential impacts of this proposal on statutory nature conservation sites or protected landscapes, we offer the further advice and references to Standing Advice.”

Officer report

Who spoke

A parish council representative, the applicant and the ward member addressed the committee, while no objector spoke.

Committee debate

Councillors discussed the application, and a motion to approve it contrary to the officer recommendation was proposed but not seconded.

“Councillors A Willmott, K Wells, B Jones-Williams, T Wells, D Walton, D Clarke and J Michael spoke to the item.”

“A motion to approve planning permission, contrary to officer recommendation, was proposed by Councillor D Godwin.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

The committee voted nine for and one against, with two abstentions, and refused permission in principle in line with the officer recommendation.

“A motion to APPROVE the officer recommendation was proposed by Councillor D Clarke, and seconded by Councillor B Jones-Williams and…”

“Planning Permission should be REFUSED in accordance with officer recommendation.”

Minutes