2 to 4 homes at Land At (Os 8785 6801) Kidderminster Road, Cutnall Green

What was proposed

Permission in principle was sought for between two and four open-market dwellings, with detailed proposals reserved for a later stage.

“The application seek permission in principle for the erection of between 2 and 4 dwellings. It is understood that they are proposed to be open market dwellings. The permission in principle consent route has 2 stages: the first stage (permission in principle) establishes whether a site is suitable in-principle, and the second stage (technical details consent) is when the detailed development proposals are assessed.”

“The scope of this first stage is limited to location, land use and amount of development. Issues relevant to these ‘in principle’ matters should be considered at this stage. Other matters should be considered at the technical details consent stage.”

Officer report

The site

The 0.25-hectare vacant site lies on Cutnall Green’s southern edge, outside the settlement boundary and within the Green Belt.

“The site is located on the southern edge of Cutnall Green, which is a Category 3 village. It measures approximately 0.25ha and comprises a vacant parcel of land that is generally square in its layout. There is existing residential development to the north and east with open fields to the south and west. The site is within a Green Belt and outside of any recognised settlement boundary.”

Officer report

Earlier permission

An earlier application for up to six affordable dwellings on the site was approved by the Planning Committee in June 2025.

“W/23/01123/OUT – Outline application (with all matters reserved except access) for the construction of up-to 6 no affordable dwellings (100% affordable) at Land At (Os 8785 6801), Kidderminster Road, Cutnall Green. Approved – June 2 2025 at…”

Officer report

Planning balance

Officers gave moderate weight to housing benefits, limited weight to economic benefits and harm, and moderate weight to transport harm.

“In terms of the social benefits of the proposed development, it is hugely disappointing that the proposal is no longer for much needed affordable housing. However, the proposal would still deliver housing in the context of a current housing land supply deficit. As the proposal is only for between 2 and 4 dwellings, only moderate weight is afforded to this benefit.”

“The proposed development would also give rise to economic benefits both at the build stage and at the occupation stage due to increased spending in the local area by new residents. These economic benefits have not been quantified by the applicant and therefore only limited to weight is afforded to this benefit.”

Officer report

Consultation and objections

The parish council, ward member, consultees and six objectors raised concerns about affordable housing, Green Belt policy, access, safety, drainage and isolation.

“Councillor Rick Deller: ‘I'm disappointed that this has come forward, I had laid out a number of objections to this site previously. However since planning permission was granted I could at least live with the fact that we were building affordable housing outside the development boundary and on Green Belt. Then to have this application come in removing affordable housing I think is a shocking betrayal of the planning process.”

“The proposed access is unacceptable. • Concerns regarding highway safety. • Problems with existing drainage. • The village has poor public transport. • There would be a reliance on the private vehicles to access services and facilities. • The site is potentially very isolating for elderly and disabled occupants and restrictive for the commute to work. • The proposal is no longer for affordable housing and therefore unacceptable in Green Belt terms.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The parish council chairman spoke against approval, while the ward member spoke outside the committee and did not support the application.

The decision

The committee delegated authority to refuse because members rejected the infill case, cited Green Belt policy and objected to losing six permitted affordable homes.

“That delegated authority be given to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure to refuse the application based on the following reasons:-”

“SWDP 2 in that members do not consider that it is infill SWDP 16 being the exceptions site policy Chapter 13 of the NPPF that the application conflicts with the greenbelt policy SWDP 13 in that there would be a loss of 6 affordable units that have permission…”

Minutes