42 affordable homes at Land At (Os 0569 4604), Three Cocks Lane, Offenham

What was proposed

The application proposed 42 dwellings, access, landscaping, public open space and associated works, with all homes intended to be affordable.

“The application proposes the construction of 42 dwellings including formation of access, landscaping, public open space and associated works. All of the dwellings are proposed to be affordable.”

Officer report

The site

The site was an undeveloped agricultural greenfield covering 2.91 hectares, adjoining housing and public rights of way.

“The application site is an undeveloped green field site which comprises agricultural land. The site lies on the eastern end of the village with access proposed through an approved housing development site off Three Cocks Lane (W/22/02253/FUL). Residential development adjoins the site at its western and south western end.”

Officer report

Planning history

There was no relevant planning history for the site, while an approved 34-home development lay directly north and included the proposed access point.

“There is no relevant planning history for the site. Directly north of the site is an approved full application for 34 dwellings (Ref: W/22/02253/FUL). The proposed access point for this scheme was secured as part of the application to the north.”

Officer report

Officer advice

Officers recommended approval subject to biodiversity mitigation, biodiversity net gain details, a legal agreement and planning conditions.

“Given the comments and concerns raised regarding proposed mitigation and enhancements for protected species as well as details relating to the achievement of Biodiversity Net Gain (BNG) on the development site, it is recommended that should Members be minded to approve the application then delegated authority is given to ensure that appropriate mitigation and enhancements are proposed for protected species and on-site BNG is achieved prior to the grant of planning permission.”

Officer report

Main planning balance

The site was outside the village boundary, but officers gave substantial weight to affordable housing and considered the harms would not significantly outweigh the benefits.

“The application site is situated outside of the defined development boundary of Offenham and as such the site is deemed to be in the open countryside. Whilst the proposal is for 100% affordable housing it is not being advanced on the basis of a rural exception scheme. The proposal therefore conflicts with Policy SWDP2.”

“Accordingly, in terms of the social benefits of the proposed development the proposal would deliver much needed affordable housing for which substantial weight is attached.”

Officer report

Consultee views

Highways raised no objection subject to conditions and obligations, while drainage, ecology, design and rights-of-way matters required further details or controls.

“County Highways Authority: No objection subject to conditions and financial obligations.”

“LLFA: In accordance with the drainage hierarchy, discharging via infiltration is a priority above discharging to a sewer. To verify the viability of a site wide infiltration drainage network, a detailed design will be required, accompanied by detailed drainage calculations in accordance with the National SuDS standards (2025), able to attenuate up to the 1:100-year return period + 40% climate change.”

Officer report

Public views

There were 56 objections and one supporting communication, with objections covering traffic, flooding, agricultural land, village character, design, amenity and cumulative effects.

“Road congestion • Highway safety concerns • Strain on village infrastructure • Loss of valuable agricultural land • Flooding/drainage concerns • Harmful to village character • Light and noise pollution • Loss of green open space • Loss of village amenity/Village Life • Contrary to policy • Environmental damage • Loss of amenity to neighbouring properties (Overlooking/Overbearing impact) • Poor design • Harmful to village setting and identity • Unsustainable location •…”

“Evesham Civic Society – Loss of high value agricultural land.”

Officer report

Who spoke

One speaker spoke against approval and another spoke in favour of approval.

What members debated

Members remained concerned about agricultural land, screening, planting, drainage, road impacts and design, while seeking a parish council opportunity to take on the open space.

“The Local Member advised that although he appreciated the work done by the applicant to address the previous concerns however many still remained. He felt there was a violation of some of the SWDP policies as the new development would impact the local road network which was already congested.”

“Members debated the application. They were concerned with the loss of the best and most versatile land, the issue with the screening and planting was not clear enough, and that the design could have been better and more in keeping with the Urban Designer’s comments.”

Minutes

Committee decision

The committee resolved to delegate approval subject to a legal agreement, conditions and an initial offer of the public open space to the parish council.

“To delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure to grant planning permission subject to the completion of a S106 legal agreement to secure the obligations set out in the report including a provision for the public open space to be offered firstly to the parish council with a commuted sum and the planning conditions listed below, allowing for any subsequent amendments to the obligations and planning conditions as required by the Director of Planning and…”

Minutes