View
4
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Examinations of the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP) and Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4 (BORLP4) Hearing Statement: Response to Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions Matter XB1: Cross-boundary Allocations 5YHLS
Joint Statement prepared by Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough Councils 4th March 2016
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
2
Matter XB1 - Cross-boundary Allocations XB1.2 Do the Foxlydiate and Brockhill Urban Extensions represent the most appropriate locations for meeting Redditch’s housing needs within Bromsgrove District, having regard to the provision of the necessary infrastructure, affordable housing and other facilities, and taking account of environmental constraints? Is the methodology for selecting these sites robust and transparent? Has appropriate consideration been given to alternative locations? Have exceptional circumstances been demonstrated to justify the removal of land from the Green Belt? 1. In addition to the previous comments made in the previous Hearing
Statements XB1/1a and XB1/1b dated 3rd December 2014 and 8th June 2015 Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) and Redditch Borough Council (RBC) would like to take the opportunity to re-emphasise and add the following comments.
2. The Councils’ consider that the Foxlydiate and Brockhill East urban
extensions represent the most appropriate locations for meeting Redditch’s housing needs within Bromsgrove District. The analysis that informs this view can be found in the Housing Growth Development Study (HGDS) [CDX1.1], and further explanation is found in the more recent Narrative on the Site Selection Process for the Growth Areas at Redditch January 2016 [“The Narrative”] which were completed jointly by BDC and RBC officers. Both set out the process of analysis undertaken to identify appropriate locations to meet Redditch’s unmet housing need. Revised wording to address the amended developable area boundary of Site 1(Foxlydiate / Area 4) will be provided in the Schedule of Modifications. This will be published before the Hearings in March 2016.
3. Both the HGDS and The Narrative emphasise that no area is perfect and that
the process boils down to a fine balancing act. The choice that has to be made therefore is on the basis of the area(s) which most suitably deliver the required amount of development and associated infrastructure with the least negative impacts.
4. Both Councils’ consider that the methodology for selecting appropriate sites
for development is robust and transparent, as demonstrated in the HGDS and explained in The Narrative and as set out in the previous Hearing Statements.
5. The HGDS, HGDS Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Addendum documents
comprehensively examine all alternative locations around Redditch’s urban area and The Narrative provides further explanation and detail on this process.
6. The previous Hearing Statements explain how exceptional circumstances
have been demonstrated. However, the Councils’ have further comments to make on this issue.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
3
Paragraph 84 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that;
When drawing up or reviewing Green Belt boundaries local planning authorities should take account of the need to promote sustainable patterns of development. They should consider the consequences for sustainable development of channelling development towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary, towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt or towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary.
The Councils’ have demonstrated that they have considered the consequences for sustainable development referred to in this paragraph in the following ways: A) Towards urban areas inside the Green Belt boundary:
This has been demonstrated by allocating two small Green Belt sites at Brockhill East and land opposite the Foxlydiate Arms, for development within the Borough. It is evidenced via the RBC Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) process that no further sites are suitable, available and achievable. B) Towards towns and villages inset within the Green Belt: There are no towns (apart from Redditch) and only one village inset within the Green Belt, namely Astwood Bank, and one smaller village, namely Feckenham, which is washed over by the Green Belt. Astwood Bank is separated from the southern part of Redditch’s main urban area by ribbon development. The village does have some good services and facilities, mainly concentrated around the main Evesham Road A441(“The Ridgeway”). Access to public transport in this area is considered to be poor and it is 6.8km from Redditch Town Centre. Development north of Astwood Bank would result in coalescence between Redditch and Astwood Bank. Feckenham is located further south in a largely rural area and has much fewer services and facilities (as evidenced in the Redditch Accessibility Study and Settlement Hierarchy document [CDR7.12]) and is less accessible in transport terms. Significant investment in highway infrastructure would be required to unlock this area for development, which at the present time, is considered very unsustainable. C) Towards locations beyond the outer Green Belt boundary: There is an area of ‘open countryside’ beyond the outer limits of the Green Belt boundary in the south of the Borough. This area has been examined in terms of providing a new settlement as no existing settlement exists here. The option of having a new settlement in the Green Belt is assessed as an option in the Redditch Sustainability Appraisal Refresh (February 2010 - March 2010) page 208 – 219. The same information (together with other options) is included again in the Sustainability Appraisal Revised Preferred Draft Core Strategy (January 2011 – March 2011) page 292 – 315. There are no existing services and facilities or adequate highway infrastructure serving this area.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
4
Whilst there is a section of Feckenham south of the B4090 in the open countyside, similar to B) above significant investment in highway infrastructure, services and facilities would be required to unlock this area for development, which at the present time is considered unsustainable. As set out in Part 2 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the achievement of sustainable development is an ongoing duty on Local Planning Authorities (LPA’s). The duty to contribute to sustainable development involves strategic considerations about how best to shape development in an area to ensure that proper provision is made for the future in terms of housing and economic growth and for mitigating the impacts of climate change. Inevitably additional travel and patterns of development are an important consideration in this respect. Therefore, as demonstrated above the lack of sustainable sites outside the Green Belt boundary to meet the identified need for housing in a way that is consistent with the Development Strategy of Borough of Redditch Local Plan No 4 (BORLP4) amounts to exceptional circumstances that justify release of Green Belt land. In accordance with the Redditch Development Strategy that development must be adjacent to the boundary of the Redditch urban area and there are no suitable sites available within the Borough, sites in the Green Belt of Bromsgrove District are therefore proposed Site 1 (Foxlydiate/ Area 4) and Site 2 (Brockhill East/Area 6). Such sites are being brought forward under the legal Duty to Co-operate with Bromsgrove District Council.
7. Consultation was carried out between 31st December 2015 and 16th February
2016 on the following documents:
• Narrative of the Site Selection Process for the Growth Areas at Redditch
• Hewell Grange Estate: Setting of Heritage Assets Assessment
• Lanehouse Farm: Setting of Heritage Assets Assessment
• Heritage Assets Harm Versus Public Benefits Statement
• Bromsgrove Updated Five Year Housing Land Supply
• Redditch Updated Five Year Housing Land Supply
• Gypsy and Traveller Accommodation Assessment Issues were raised by respondents concerning the appropriateness of the sites selected. The Councils’ would like to take the opportunity to comment on some of the key issues raised.
a) Flooding Issues
Some respondents have concerns that development at Foxlydiate will increase flood risk due to additional run- off, thereby increasing risks of flooding downstream.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
5
The Councils’ consider that it should be noted that a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been agreed between Severn Trent Water Limited (STWL), the Environment Agency (EA), RBC and BDC. Furthermore policies in the Bromsgrove District Plan state that: RCBD1.9 VI. (Proposed Modifications underlined) “Flood risk from the Spring Brook on Site 1 Foxlydiate and the Red Ditch on
Site 2 Brockhill East should be managed through measures that work with
natural processes to improve the local water environment. Any necessary
measures to mitigate flood risk are to be implemented and flood modelling will
be required, which must be outlined in a site specific Flood Risk Assessment.
Surface water runoff must be managed to prevent flooding on, around and
downstream of both sites through the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems
(SuDS)”.
BDP 23.1c) Water Management policy “Ensuring development addresses flood risk from all sources, follows the flood risk management hierarchy when planning and designing development, and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Where inappropriate developments in areas at risk of flooding are necessary after the sequential test is applied, appropriate designs, materials and escape routes that minimise the risk(s) and loss should be incorporated”. See also Hearing Statement XB1/2f Appendix 10 Flood Risk Assessment by WSP dated November 2014 which states that: “.. the drainage strategy must not only consider flood risk but must also aim to achieve the Greenfield run off rates to ensure that conversion from Greenfield to suburban land use does not reduce recharge rates to the aquifer. In addition we will be expecting the recharge to be of high quality and we will expect the highest level of treatment for SUDS schemes”. This issue was also discussed in the Hearing Sessions in June 2015 where it was stated that this issue is addressed in policy. It is a requirement of the NPPF that run off is not increased as a result of new development. b) Area 8 Some respondents were confused about the remarks in the conclusion of The Narrative (Page 100 para 16.19) in relation to Area 8 and the Abbey Stadium. The Councils’ would like to clarify that benefits are identified in The Narrative including the possibility of providing the Bordesley Bypass, the distance to leisure facilities and recreation and its ‘perceived proximity’ to the Town Centre. There are other factors which outweigh these benefits. These benefits/ strengths/opportunities as detailed in the SWOT analysis on page page 143. The reason ‘perceived’ proximity to the Town Centre is listed is because many objectors claim that Bordesley is closer to the Town Centre than other areas. Whilst it is closer than some it is approximately 4.1 km away (beyond what is considered to be a reasonable walking distance). Officers
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
6
have considered more than purely distance in relation to the Town Centre including accessibility along main roads, legibility and safety. e) Coalescence and Green Belt gap Some respondents did not consider that the Green Belt gap issue and coalescence had been consistently addressed and considered that the development of Area 4 will significantly reduce the Redditch / Bromsgrove gap. Some considered that this Green Belt purpose was of lesser importance than some of the other Green Belt purposes such as sprawl and encroachment into the countryside and suggested the coalescence of Redditch and Studley was acceptable. The Councils’ consider that the NPPF makes no distinction between the importance of the five Green Belt purposes and at para 80 states one of the purposes is to ‘to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another’. This clearly does not extend to hamlets, any loose arrangement of buildings or names of areas. The HGDS for completeness did however consider this issue at this finer detail. Page 38 of The Narrative also acknowledges the issue of the Green Belt gap/ Strategic Green Belt gap – “…wherever issues arose about the potential reduction of the Green Belt Gap based upon the distance between settlements, the HGDS described the nature of the issue and which settlements are potentially compromised”. The Councils’ consider that, in relation to development at Foxlydiate and Brockhill East, neighbouring towns would not merge into one another. f) Urban Sprawl There appeared to be some confusion in some of the responses over what is meant by the term ‘urban sprawl’. The Councils’ would like to clarify that urban sprawl is defined as ‘the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas.’ It is the Councils’ opinion that as the sites are selected and identified for allocation through the Local Plan process, that this is not urban sprawl but planned development. Land is only able to be removed from the Green Belt through a Green Belt and Local Plan review. By identifying and enhancing strong Green Belt boundaries via this process this will prevent urban sprawl from occurring. g) Access to employment Some respondents did not consider that access to employment was adequately covered in The Narrative. The Councils’ consider that access to employment areas in relation to each Area is covered in the HGDS. It should however be noted that due to the efficiency of the highways network around Redditch Town this makes all
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
7
employment areas readily accessible. The Narrative discusses this issue in the sense that the Town Centre is accessible from all parts of the Town and further, the Town Centre hosts the bus station and the Train station which supports frequent and easy public transport movements (page 49 paras 9.38-9.39) h) Area 8 Some respondents considered the suggestion that Area 8’s capacity equates to just 1,000 homes is a ‘rabbit out of the hat’, given that plan-making to date (including engagement) has reflected an assumed capacity of 2,451 (see HGDS, p 176). The Councils’ do not consider that this is a ‘rabbit out of the hat’ as this information is contained in the Gallaghers /Pegasus Hearing Statement XB1/14 December 2014: “As set out in representations submitted in relation to the Proposed Submission Local Plan stage in November 2013 the proposals have been developed based on a landscape led approach, leading to a revised allocation boundary and a resulting capacity of a minimum of 1000 dwellings with an element of employment generating uses on part of the site”. Officers are unaware of firm evidence from the developers that in excess of 1000 dwellings can be delivered on Area 8. i) Bordesley By-pass It has been suggested in representations that the potential for the development of a by-pass in Bordesley, means that Area 8 should be considered for development over Areas 4 and 6 or Webheath ADR. It is suggested that the bypass would not only remove traffic from Bordesley but would also improve connections between Redditch, the M42 and the North. Indeed the Councils’ acknowledge, in the conclusions of The Narrative (para16.19) that the development of Area 8 has the possible benefit of the provision of the bypass. The Councils’ raise questions about the potential costs and feasibility of the Bordesley Bypass in the SWOT analysis (page148) of The Narrative. Whilst representations on behalf of the developer have stated that Gallagher Estates control the land required to deliver the Bordesley Bypass and can assist with resolving this longstanding highway capacity issue (Jubb - Transport Assessment for a SUE, 2014), there is no evidence as to the potential costs of the project and how it would be funded and delivered. If a contribution is required from the public purse this has not been specified nor has evidence been produced that the likelihood of receiving funding has been assessed. Planning permission for the Bordesley Bypass that was previously in place in 2004 has since lapsed and the Councils are unaware of any evidence that has been prepared for a fresh application, nor is there any indication from Worcestershire County Council (WCC) that permission would now be granted.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
8
Indeed the Council is not aware of any pre-application discussions about a bypass application. It is for these reasons that the potential for a bypass at Bordesley has not been considered a significant factor in the site selection process. j) Concerns were expressed that the conclusions of White Young Green (WYG 1 and White Young Green2 (WYG2) were not pursued in their entirety and no explanation has been given for this departure. The WYG1 work was not conclusive as it did not define sites, which is why WYG2 was carried out. However these studies were completed within a different context and with different housing numbers. The Narrative attempts to provide a summary of the process followed in eventually deciding on the preferred sites and a summary of WYG 1 and 2 is included in the Early Stages of Plan making section for completeness. The Narrative explains at para 2.21: “…..many of its key conclusions such as the optimum location for growth and the return of ADRs to Green Belt were not expressly rejected by the Panel, as documented in the Panel Report dated September 2009 [CDR 6.6a] (see below). However, some of the research conducted in this Study does remain valid, for example, in relation to Redditch’s open space”. And at para 2.24 “In light of the findings of WYG2 [CDX1.4], that the ADRs at Brockhill, Webheath and the A435 corridor were not considered suitable for development, the Preferred Draft Core Strategy proposed they should be designated as Green Belt. However, the conclusions of WYG2 were not accepted by the Councils after the independent panel of experts who considered the WMRSS Phase 2 review concluded there was a need to make use of the Redditch ADRs”. The HGDS, published in January 2013, whilst using the boundaries demarked by WYG1, reviewed the site selection process afresh partly as the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) was imminently due to be revoked and new evidence, for example, regarding housing figures had been produced (Page 9 para 3.11). k) West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) It is considered by some respondents that Bordesley ( Area 8) is the correct area for growth on the basis that as RBC is part of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). Bordesley (Area 8) is considered the ideal geographical location to build thousands of new houses, because it is closest to new employment sites at Redditch Eastern Gateway. The Councils’ do not consider that the argument in relation to the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) is cogent. In any case BDC is not part of the WMCA and therefore it does not follow that land for development should be allocated in Bromsgrove District in relation to this issue. Even if BDC were part of the WMCA this relates to the whole of the West Midlands not just Birmingham, so to locate development here rather than other areas around Redditch or elsewhere does not follow.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
9
l) Heritage Issues 1. Norgorve Court Some respondents considered that the Councils should have given greater consideration to the impact of development on Norgrove Court, being only Grade I listed building in Redditch Borough. The Heritage Asset Setting Assessment carried out by Wardell Armstrong [XB1/2t Statement by Heyford Developments and Rockspring Barwood June 2015 Appendix 2] examined the impact of development at Foxlydiate in relation to this heritage asset. This Assessment has been endorsed by Bromsgrove District Council. It states that: 5.3 The proposed development lies approximately 650m to the north of Norgrove Court, on higher ground to the north of Pumphouse Lane. Pumphouse Lane represents the boundary from which land to the north of Norgrove Court can be experienced when viewed from the footpath immediately to the west of building. There is no view of land within the proposed development area from this location or from those further to the north with only views of intervening vegetation possible. 5.4 The proposed development will involve the development of land to the north for residential use. The proposals will involve the construction of residential units to the north of Pumphouse Lane behind open space. This will serve to preserve the skyline from visual intrusion by built development. The application of sensitive detailed masterplanning through the implementation of design codes will ensure that the sense of isolation and tranquillity which contributes to the significance of Norgrove Court and Old Cottage will be maintained. 2. Hewell Grange Estate It was considered by one respondent that one of the failings identified by the Inspector was that an inconsistent approach was taken to assessing the potential impacts on built heritage assets with respect to Areas 4 and 5. It was felt that the additional assessment had done little to address this imbalance. The Council considers that the report evidenced that development on Area 5 had the potential to impact on the Conservation Area (CA) and the Registered Park and Garden (RPG), while Area 4 had the potential to impact on the Water Tower and the Walled Garden specifically, although it is appreciated that they are located in the CA and RPG. Section 4.1 highlights the very short contiguous boundary between Area 4 and the CA and the RPG, which are in addition separated by the A448, a four lane dual carriageway. The topography combined with views from Hewell Lane across Area 5 towards the CA and
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
10
RPG, results in any proposed development on Area 5 having the potential to impact greatly on the CA and RPG. In light of the topography, short contiguous boundary and intervening four lane highway between Area 4 and the heritage assets at Hewell Grange, it was considered that the only impact would be on the Walled Garden and the Water Tower. The most recent Setting Assessment therefore considered this impact in detail. Therefore in relation to Hewell Grange it was not required to assess all of Area 4 in the same level of detail as Area 5 as explained above as large parts do not impact on the setting of a heritage asset The setting assessment concludes that to minimise harm to these Heritage Assets (Has), development of the top north west corner of Area 4 should be excluded. This is indicated on the Map in the Setting Assessment. 3. Lanehouse Farm There is a comment that BDC appear to intimate that the mitigation to Lanehouse Farm is not simply a means of minimising harm to a designated heritage asset but also a public benefit. It is suggested that BDC have failed to assess the harm and potential mitigation on this listed building. It is the Council’s opinion in light of the Setting Assessment, that a sufficient part of Area 4 has been excluded from the developable area to minimise the harm of development of Area 4 on Lanehouse Farm. In addition, it is also considered that the reinforcing of existing boundaries, planting of hedgerow and native species trees, with considered planning, will also help to screen some development, and minimise the impact on the rural setting of Lanehouse Farm. It is a public benefit that this harm is minimised. m) SA issues 1. Some respondents considered that an SA on the new scenarios detailed in The Narrative should have been carried out. The Narrative explains at page 75 para 9.180: It has not been judged necessary to conduct any further SA work in respect of the individual Areas, as all of the Areas (including the Areas within Redditch Borough, i.e. ADR component of Area 3 (3R), 3A, 7 and 18) were considered in the HGDS and the HGDS Addendum in both the text and the Assessment Matrices. But what the Inspector did request in his Post-Hearings Note of July 2015 was an update to the original scenarios for looking at Areas in combination (paragraph 10c). It is not considered appropriate to look at all possible combinations of the 7 Areas because these are numerous and clearly the Area selection decision is being made on the basis of most suitable Areas to emerge from the selection process. These are Areas 4, 6, 3R and 18. However, the Inspector wanted the scenarios set out in the original HGDS to be updated and this has been done below and four additional scenarios have been examined.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
11
In identifying new scenarios it should be noted that available capacity within Redditch in the intervening period between January 2013 and December 2015 has increased but that of the 4 new scenarios identified none of the ‘reasonable alternatives’ are able to exclude the Webheath ADR and still provide the required quantum of development. 2. SA of alternative levels of growth for Redditch not carried out. Higher growth levels were explored through the WMRSS and lower growth levels via the Core Strategy process (Redditch Revised Preferred Draft Core Strategy (January/March 2011) [CDR 1.16]) as well as a ‘no plan’ option all of which have been subject to Sustainability Appraisal. RBC consider that all reasonable alternatives were subject to the SA process. 3. Some respondents are critical of the Councils description of the SA process being a ‘simple and rudimentary process’. The Councils’ consider this issue is clearly justified in The Narrative at para 2.63 it states that: The purpose of the SA is therefore as a tool in the site selection process to inform decision making. Decisions made typically consider the results of the SA process but are not driven by it; other higher level policy objectives may take more prominence in decision making as is illustrated above. The SA therefore has some limitations in terms of the final decision making process due in part to it being of necessity based on a simple and rudimentary scoring system in which it is difficult to properly address some planning judgments such as the degree to which an Area is close to the town centre but physically and lacking good connectivity with the urban area (Area 8) and especially the clear need to use land not in the Green Belt which is suitable for development when most land around Redditch is in the Green Belt (Areas 3R and 18). Therefore whilst the SA process is useful it not sophisticated enough for decisions to be based purely on its outcome.
XB1.3 Is it clear how development of the Brockhill Urban Extension (BDP policy RCBD1.1) would relate to the development of the adjoining Brockhill East Strategic Site (BORLP4 policy 46)? Is it intended that cross-boundary co-ordination would take place - for example in respect of infrastructure provision? If so, is this clearly provided for in the two Local Plans? 8. The Councils’ have no further comments to add on this issue in addition to
those made in the previous Hearing Statements. XB1.4 Is the scale and location of the Ravensbank Expansion Site (policy BDP5B) adequately justified? 9. The Councils’ have nothing further to add on this issue to the previous
Hearing Statements.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
12
9. Other issues
Modifications to the Plans
Schedules of Modifications showing all the wording changes proposed by the Councils’ to BORPL4 and the BDP will be submitted to the Examination before the commencement of the Hearing Sessions on 23rd March 2016.
SA minor suggested changes
The Councils’ have given consideration as to whether the information that is now available (notably the new and revised Setting of Heritage Assets Assessments) requires either the most recent BDP or BORLP4 SAs to be amended. For completeness and accuracy it is considered that some minor changes could be made. The suggested changes to the scoring in the SAs are not sufficient to affect the overall planning judgement made in relation to site selection. For information therefore, the suggested changes to the BDC SA May 2015, the HGDS SA and the BORLP4 SA May 2015 are detailed in Appendix 1.
Five Year Housing Land Supply
The housing supply issue is dealt with in detail in Appendix 2.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
13
Appendix 1 SA minor suggested changes relating to heritage. OED/34
BDC Sustainability Appraisal May 2015 - suggested update March 2016
Suggested change Where update required
RCBD1
Add:
XIII) To ensure the protection of Heritage Assets,
future proposals should be in conformity with
Policy BDP20 and informed by an understanding
of the setting of Heritage Assets set out in the
most recent Setting Assessment(s) produced, or
formally endorsed, by the Council in accordance
with current Historic England guidance on
setting matters.
Page 126
Add
Setting Assessments have been carried out
whereby it has been concluded that there is ‘less
than substantial harm’ to the setting of Heritage
Assets in relation to Area 4/The Foxlydiate
site/Site 1
Page 127 Key Policy Weaknesses
The Setting Assessment referred to above
requires that development is avoided in certain
parts of Site 1 (Area 4/The Foxlydiate site) to
mitigate the adverse impact of development.
Page 127
Recommendations for Mitigation
OED/33a
Redditch SA (update March 2016)
Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required
Likely effects
There are a number of ways that
the Local Plan aims to improve
the quality of the built
environment, for example
through the redevelopment and
regeneration of the New Town
era District Centres, general
protection for elements of the
historic environment, and design
policies. The protection and
enhancement of the Borough’s
historic assets are ensured
through the Historic Assets policy
in the Local Plan which relates to
the Borough’s local
Likely effects
There are a number of ways that
the Local Plan aims to improve
the quality of the built
environment, for example
through the redevelopment and
regeneration of the New Town
era District Centres, general
protection for elements of the
historic environment, and design
policies. The protection and
enhancement of the Borough’s
heritage assets are ensured
through the Historic Environment
policies in the Local Plan which
relate to the Borough’s local
Page xvii (Likely
Sustainability Effects of the
BORLP4 and their
mitigation)Objective 16
Also on page 35
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
14
OED/33a
Redditch SA (update March 2016)
Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required
distinctiveness. There are some
clusters of Listed Buildings in a
number of cross boundary
locations although the preferred
locations for development help
to achieve this objective.
distinctiveness. There are some
clusters of Listed Buildings in a
number of cross boundary
locations although the preferred
locations for development help to
achieve this objective. Setting
Assessments have been carried
out whereby it has been
concluded that there is ‘less than
substantial harm’ to the setting of
heritage assets in relation to the
proposed cross boundary
development at Area 4
(Foxlydiate).
Proposed mitigation
None identified
Proposed mitigation
The Local Plan includes policies
on the built environment, design
and the historic environment
which aim to improve the quality
of the built environment while
protecting and enhancing any
heritage assets. The Setting
Assessments referred to in ‘likely
effects’ require that development
is avoided in certain parts of Area
4 (Foxlydiate) to mitigate the
adverse impact of development.
Page xvii (Likely
Sustainability Effects of the
BORLP4 and their
mitigation) Objective 16
Overall Sustainability
Implications
There is one Conservation Area
within the cross boundary
development locations at Beoley
which would be the only location
to have a negative effect on this
criteria. All other options would
have no effect.
Overall Sustainability
Implications
There is one Conservation Area
within the cross boundary
development locations at Hewell
Grange. A Setting Assessment has
been carried out on the Hewell
Grange Estate and it has been
concluded that development in
the preferred locations would
cause ‘less than substantial harm’
to the setting of heritage assets.
Page 83
Appendix B:Overall
Sustainability Implications
(including cumulative
effects) of the Local Plan.
Objective 16, Guide
Question: Will it enhance
the Borough’s Conservation
Areas?
Comments
Brockhill West/Site 5 and Site 11
significantly adversely affect the
Hewell Grange Conservation
Area. Sites 9 and 10 significantly
adversely affect the Beoley
Conservation Area. Site 4 is
partially adjacent to the Hewell
Comments
Brockhill West/Site 5 and Site 11
significantly adversely affect the
Hewell Grange Conservation
Area. Site 4 is partially adjacent to
the Hewell Grange Conservation
Area but its adverse effects with
mitigation are less than that of
Appendix D
Page 234 (Objective 16,
guide question (ii) Will it
enhance the Borough’s
Conservation Areas?
Page 254 (Objective 16,
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
15
OED/33a
Redditch SA (update March 2016)
Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required
Grange Conservation Area but its
adverse effects are less than that
of Site 5. Conservation areas will
not be affected by the other sites
as they are not within or
adjoining a Conservation Area.
Site 5 and 11. Sites 9 and 10
significantly adversely affect the
Beoley Conservation Area and
Site 13 would have a significant
adverse effect on Sambourne
Conservation Area. Conservation
areas will not be affected by the
other sites as they are not within
or adjoining a Conservation Area.
guide question (ii) Will it
enhance the Borough’s
Conservation Areas?
Scoring
Site 13
Site not in or adjoining
Conservation Area (+2)
Scoring
Site 13
Significant adverse effect on
Conservation Area (-2)
Appendix D
Page 254 (Objective 16,
guide question (ii) Will it
enhance the Borough’s
Conservation Areas?
Comments
Only four sites (3a, 18, Land to
the rear of the Alexandra
Hospital and Woodrow Strategic
Site) have no Listed Buildings on
the sites or adjacent and will
meet this criteria. Brockhill/Site 6
has opportunities to improve
Listed Buildings within the site as
part of the site development. Site
4 has no predicted effect on its
one listed building. Other sites
have numerous Listed Buildings
which may have an adverse
impact. Site 3 includes Redditch’s
only grade 1 Listed property
although mitigation can be
undertaken.
Comments
Only three sites (Brockhill
Strategic Site/Site 6, Land to the
rear of the Alexandra Hospital
and Woodrow Strategic Site)
have no Listed Buildings on the
sites or adjacent and will meet
this criteria. Setting Assessments
have been carried out whereby it
has been concluded that there is
‘less than substantial harm’ to the
setting of heritage assets in
relation to the proposed cross
boundary development at Area 4
(Foxlydiate). Other sites have
numerous Listed Buildings which
may have an adverse impact. Site
3 includes Redditch’s only grade 1
Listed property although
mitigation can be undertaken.
Appendix D
Page 234 (Objective 16,
guide question (iii) Will it
help to safeguard the
Borough’s Listed Buildings?
Page 254 (Objective 16,
guide question (iii) Will it
help to safeguard the
Borough’s Listed Buildings?
Scoring
Brockhill Strategic Site (Including
Site 6)
Improve or no effect (+2)
Scoring
Brockhill Strategic Site (Including
Site 6)
Site not Listed or adjacent to
Listed Buildings (+2)
Appendix D
Page 234 (Objective 16,
guide question (iii) Will it
help to safeguard the
Borough’s Listed Buildings?
Scoring
A435 (Including Site 18)
Site not Listed or adjacent to
Listed Building(s) (+2)
Scoring
A435 (Including Site 18)
Adverse effect with mitigation (-
1)
Appendix D
Page 234 (Objective 16,
guide question (iii) Will it
help to safeguard the
Borough’s Listed Buildings?
Scoring Scoring Appendix D
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
16
OED/33a
Redditch SA (update March 2016)
Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required
Site 3A
Site not Listed or adjacent to
Listed Building(s) (+2)
Site 3A
Adverse effect with mitigation (-
1)
Page 234 (Objective 16,
guide question (iii) Will it
help to safeguard the
Borough’s Listed Buildings?
Scoring
Site 4
Improve or no effect (+2)
Scoring
Site 4
Adverse effect with mitigation (-
1)
Appendix D
Page 234 (Objective 16,
guide question (iii) Will it
help to safeguard the
Borough’s Listed Buildings?
Total Score
A435 (Including Site 18)
48
Total Score
A435 (Including Site 18)
45
Appendix D
Page 239
Total Score
Site 3A
19
Total Score
Site 3A
16
Appendix D
Page 239
Total Score
Site 4
37
Total Score
Site 4
34
Appendix D
Page 239
Total Score
Site 13
13
Total Score
Site 13
9
Appendix D
Page 258
CDB 3.1
Housing Growth SA (update March 2016)
Suggested change Where update required
A Setting Assessment has been carried out
entitled “Hewell Grange Estate setting of
Heritage Assets Assessment December 2015” in
which it has been concluded that there is ‘less
than substantial harm’ to the setting of Heritage
Assets.
Page 30 para 4.67
Page 79 para 5.17
Page 82 para 5.31
Page 87 para 5.55 add change and delete
reference to Area 4 in first sentence)
Page 208- E4
Page 215-E4
“the Setting Assessment requires that
development is avoided in certain parts of Area 4
to mitigate the adverse impact of development
of Foxlydiate”.
Page 30 Para 4.70
Page 33 Para 4.86
Page 80 para 5.19
Page 84 para 5.37
Page 88 para 5.60
Area 4 reduced capacity
This paragraph under key strengths should be
deleted and a new paragraph added under ‘key
weaknesses’ at 4.82 to state the same wording
as above at 4.67
Page 32 Para 4.79
It is stated that as there are no listed buildings
within the area and that this is a key strength.
(Although it is noted that there is one Listed
Building close to the area on Cur Lane).
E4- change score to -0.5 Page 92 Table 5 (under column Areas 4 and 6)
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
17
Page 201
E4 change score to -1 Page 111
Page 116
Amend sub total score to -2 Page 92 Table 5
Amend grand total score 5.5 Page 92 Table 5
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
18
Appendix 2
Bromsgrove District Plan / Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4
5 Year Housing Land Supply Topic Paper
4 March 2016
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
19
1. Introduction
1.1 This Topic Paper has been produced in response to the representations on housing matters
which were received during the most recent consultation period. The key issues raised in the
representations have been categorised and will be dealt with in turn in this Paper. The issues
raised affect both the Bromsgrove and Redditch Plans and the responses deal with both
Districts separately. Where the issue relates to only one of the Districts, this has been
articulated within the text.
1.2 The issues raised and addressed in this Paper are:
• Persistent under-delivery and the application of an appropriate buffer
• Lapse Rates and Non-implementation Rates
• Commitments and additional plan flexibility
• Range of commitments and Appropriate lead-in times
• The Five Year Housing Land Supply
1.3 Another issue raised was that of C2 Uses. These are not discussed in detail in this Paper as C2
Uses do not now appear in the five year supply. The Councils could include Extra Care units
in the housing land supply as they are individual residential units, but since both Councils can
demonstrate a five year supply without their inclusion, they have been excluded from the
calculations in this Paper.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
20
2. Persistent under delivery and the application of an appropriate buffer
Introduction
2.1 The issue of persistent under delivery has been raised by respondents to the recent
consultation period. Representations consider that assessing performance against previous
Plan delivery is inappropriate/ irrelevant and that delivery should be tested against the
current housing requirement. Whilst this issue was discussed in detail at previous Hearing
Sessions, both Councils have taken the opportunity to restate their case for the application
of a 5% buffer to the five year housing land supply (5YHLS). This section has been produced
to update the position of both Councils in relation to the Inspector’s original Matter 2
(Housing), and more specifically B2.1(a) and R2.1(a) “Has the Council shown a record of
persistent under-delivery of housing, in the terms of paragraph 47 of the Framework?”, in
light of the publication of updated 5YHLS documents in December 2015 for the purposes of
public consultation. This document responds to comments received during the consultation
period.
2.2 For a number of years it has been necessary for local authorities to maintain a supply of
deliverable sites to ensure that there is a constant supply of new build properties available
to meet identified housing needs. Following the publication of the National Planning Policy
Framework (NPPF) it has become clear that local planning authorities should significantly
boost the supply of housing to address the low levels house building nationally in recent
years. It is considered that increased levels of house building will help to meet unmet need
and demand for both affordable and market housing whilst also stimulating economic
recovery.
2.3 The NPPF (para 47) states that local planning authorities should include an additional buffer
in the 5YHLS figure (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and
competition in the market for land. The buffer should be an additional 5%, unless the local
authority had persistently under delivered against its housing target, in which case a 20%
buffer should be added.
2.4 The NPPF provided no further guidance as to how local planning authorities should
determine whether to apply an additional 5% or 20% buffer. However the publication of the
National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) in 2014 offered planning practitioners a steer on
this matter. NPPG (ID: 3-035-20140306), states:
“How should local planning authorities deal with past under-supply?
The approach to identifying a record of persistent under delivery of housing involves
questions of judgment for the decision maker in order to determine whether or not a
particular degree of under delivery of housing triggers the requirement to bring forward an
additional supply of housing.
The factors behind persistent under delivery may vary from place to place and, therefore,
there can be no universally applicable test or definition of the term. It is legitimate to
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
21
consider a range of issues, such as the effect of imposed housing moratoriums and the
delivery rate before and after any such moratoriums.
The assessment of a local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term view is
taken, since this is likely to take account of the peaks and troughs of the housing market
cycle…”
2.5 The following sections take NPPG paragraph 35 and apply its steer to underpin the decision to
apply a 5% buffer to the 5YHLS figures for both Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
22
Appropriate time period for assessing a local delivery record
2.6 NPPG (Para 35) states: “The assessment of a local delivery record is likely to be more robust if
a longer term view is taken, since this is likely to take account of the peaks and troughs of the
housing market cycle.”
2.7 Following its autumn 2014 event on the 5YHLS, the Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
produced some FAQs on its website (http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/-
/journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE#16).
Of particular interest is Q14:
14. When does a 5% buffer become 20%? Is it based upon cumulative totals against
the requirement or on a purely annual basis? How far into the past do you go? Is it 5
years, or Plan period, or as far back as possible?
There is no universally applicable test and no consistency about what length of time
should be considered and no exact definition of persistent under-delivery. This is
epitomised by the situation in East Cheshire where 5 different Inspectors applied
different buffers. However, this has now been clarified by the Local Plan Strategy
Inspectors interim views (6 Nov 2014) Inspectors are considering ‘under-delivery'
differently and there are examples of many different approaches. In principle it is about
understanding your track record by comparing your completions against your
requirement over a reasonable time period as evidenced in your AMR. Something is
persistent when it has continued over time. The South Worcestershire Core Strategy
Inspector said that this is a matter of degree and the Judge Lewis in the Cotswold
judgement ([2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) 27 November 2013) said that ‘it should not be a
‘temporary or short lived fluctuation'.
The Rother Inspector said that despite low levels of completions there had not been
persistent under- delivery. However, in many other cases where delivery has fallen short
on a continuous basis, a 20% buffer is being applied. The Parsons Brinkerhoff housing
supply research for CPRE August 2014 notes that of all appeals for residential
development on greenfield land since the publication of the NPPF two thirds of the time
a 20% buffer has been applied.
While some Inspectors say five years is appropriate in a S78 appeal situation, local plan
inspectors are mindful that a longer period is more appropriate when considering a 15
year plan period. The Practice Guidance recognises that the local delivery record is likely
to be more robust if a longer term view is taken since this has regard to the economic
cycles and market conditions. While the recession should not be used as an excuse for
low delivery, it is suggested that it is useful and appropriate to take a longer term view,
which would probably be at least 10 years.
There are two methods which can be used, either using a straight comparison of annual
rates and measuring the frequency of under delivery over a number of years, or
alternatively considering the cumulative completions. The Inspector in the Broughton
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
23
Appeal in Kettering (APP/L2820/A/13/2204628) agreed with the Council that ‘since 2001
cumulative completions have exceeded the cumulative requirement in all but the last
few years since 2010', agreeing that this was due to the economic recession rather than
a failing by the Council. However the Inspector in the Tetbury appeal rightly recognised
that economic circumstances form no part of national policy under paragraph 47 of the
NPPF.
It is possible to have a 5% buffer and a shortfall and is the circumstance in which both
Kettering and Rother are in. They have been able to successfully argue that their under
delivery is not ‘persistent'. - See more at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/-
/journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE#16. Do persistent under delivery, and
the 20% trigger relate specifically to delivery against adopted housing targets (even
based on Regional Strategy) or is it appropriate to use the latest household projections,
in advance of submission of a new local plan?
Based on the above Guidance and PAS advice, both Councils have adopted the approach of
considering cumulative completions over a Plan period, which offers a longer term view for
consideration in respect of a local plan .
2.8 The adopted development plan comprises the Councils’ adopted Local Plan, and until their
revocation on 20 May 2013, the Worcestershire County Structure Plan (June 2001) and the
Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (January 2008). Therefore, it is considered
appropriate to test housing delivery performance against the targets embedded within these
Plans and the timeframes they represent. Assessment across a longer-term Plan period is
considered to offer the longer term view advocated in the NPPG, and is considered to be
representative of the fluctuations within a housing market cycle.
2.9 The Worcestershire County Structure Plan (June 2001) set out housing targets for each
Worcestershire District in the 15 year period between 1996 and 2011. This period runs
consecutively with the current Plan period and presents a strong dataset against which to
assess consistent delivery against the housing requirement. This equated to 3950 dwellings
and 4504 dwellings for Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough respectively.
2.10 The adopted (and subsequently revoked) Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (January 2008)
prepared for the construction and completion of a maximum of 26,200 dwellings in
Worcestershire between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2021. The proportion of the RSS housing
target attributed to each Worcestershire District was the same proportion as was applied to
each District in the Worcestershire County Structure Plan. This equated to 3668 dwellings
and 4242 dwellings for Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough respectively.
2.11 The above Plans cover different time periods, thus providing trend data over an 18 year
period, adding to the data’s robustness and represents the Councils’ interpretation of a
‘longer term view’.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
24
Local delivery performance in Bromsgrove District
Worcestershire County Structure Plan (1996-2011)
2.12 The Worcestershire County Structure Plan set out housing targets for each Worcestershire
District in the 15 year period between 1996 and 2011. The target for Bromsgrove District
over this period was for the construction and completion of a maximum of 3950 dwellings
(263 per annum). The table overleaf highlights the number of homes delivered each year
throughout this Plan period.
2.13 A moratorium was imposed in Bromsgrove in 2003 due to the excessive number of
permissions being granted. Even with this control in place the Structure Plan target was
achieved in 2005/06 which was five years before the end of the Plan period. Over the whole
Plan period the target of 3950 was exceeded by almost 850 dwellings.
2.14 As the completions trend dates back to 1996 and covers the whole of the Structure Plan
period, it is considered that this timeframe reflects both peaks and troughs in the property
development market, specifically in relation to the most recent global economic crisis, and
runs consecutively with the current District Plan period.
2.15 It presents a strong dataset to support consistent delivery against the housing requirement.
Therefore, it can be concluded that there has been no under delivery against the Structure
Plan housing target.
Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy
2.16 The adopted (and subsequently revoked) RSS prepared for the construction and completion
of a maximum of 26,200 dwellings in Worcestershire between 1 April 2001 and 31 March
2021. Bromsgrove District’s proportion of this target was the same proportion which was
applied to Bromsgrove in the Worcestershire County Structure Plan i.e. 14%. Therefore:
26,200 x 14% = 3668 dwellings up to 2021 (183 dwellings per annum).
2.17 The RSS was revoked on 20 May 2013, therefore the monitoring period for the purpose of
demonstrating local delivery rates has only been taken up to the 2012/2013 monitoring
year. Beyond this point in time, the RSS housing target becomes meaningless and the
requirement for local authorities to demonstrate and provide for their own objectively
assessed housing need gained momentum. The table overleaf highlights the number of
homes delivered each year throughout this Plan period, up to its revocation. 3522 dwellings
were completed, which equates to 293 dwellings per annum, some 110 dwellings above the
annual average requirement. Therefore, it can be concluded that there has been no under
delivery against the housing target.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
25
Bromsgrove District Local Plan delivery rates
Worcestershire County Structure Plan Completions 1996 - 2011
96/
97
97/
98
98/
99
99/
00
00/
01
01/
02
02/
03
03/
04
04/
05
05/
06
06/
07
07/
08
08/
09
09/
10
10/
11 Total
Annual completions 291 254 199 331 583 539 518 474 509 332 276 135 159 72 122 4794
Cumulative completions 291 545 744 1075 1658 2197 2715 3189 3698 4030 4306 4441 4600 4672 4794 4794
+/- average annual
requirement (263 dpa) +28 +19 -45 +23 +343 +619 +874 +1085 +1331 +1400 +1413 +1288 +1181 +990 +849
Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy delivery rates
RSS Completions 2001 - 2013
01/
02
02/
03
03/
04
04/
05
05/
06
06/
07
07/
08
08/
09
09/
10
10/
11
11/
12
12/
13 Total
Annual completions 539 518 474 509 332 276 135 159 72 122 256 130 3522
Cumulative completions 539 1057 1531 2040 2372 2648 2783 2942 3014 3136 3392 3522 3522
+/- average annual
requirement (183 dpa) +356 +691 +982 +1308 +1457 +1550 +1502 +1478 +1367 +1306 +1379 +1326
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
26
Local delivery performance in Redditch Borough
Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3
2.18 The Worcestershire County Structure Plan housing target attributed to Redditch Borough
formed the housing provision adopted in the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3, which
prepared for the construction and completion of a maximum of 4504 dwellings between 1
April 1996 and 31 March 2011. During this period, 4452 dwellings were completed, equating
to 98.8% of the maximum completion target. The table overleaf highlights the number of
homes delivered each year throughout this Plan period.
2.19 As the completions trend dates back to 1996 and covers the whole of the Plan period, it is
considered that this timeframe reflects both peaks and troughs in the property development
market, specifically in relation to the most recent global economic crisis, and runs
consecutively with the current Local Plan period.
2.20 It presents a strong dataset to support consistent delivery against the housing requirement.
Therefore, it can be concluded that there has been no under delivery against the housing
target.
Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy
2.21 The adopted (and subsequently revoked) RSS prepared for the construction and completion
of a maximum of 26,200 dwellings in Worcestershire between 1 April 2001 and 31 March
2021. Redditch Borough’s proportion of this target was the same proportion which was
applied to Redditch in the Worcestershire County Structure Plan i.e. 16.19%. Therefore:
26,200 x 16.19% = 4242 dwellings up to 2021 (212 dwellings per annum).
2.22 The RSS was revoked on 20 May 2013, therefore the monitoring period for the purpose of
demonstrating local delivery rates has only been taken up to the 2012/2013 monitoring
year. Beyond this point in time, the RSS housing target becomes meaningless and the
requirement for local authorities to demonstrate and provide for their own objectively
assessed housing need gained momentum. The table overleaf highlights the number of
homes delivered each year throughout this Plan period, up to its revocation. 2764 dwellings
were completed, which equates to 230 dwellings per annum. Therefore, it can be concluded
that there has been no under delivery against the housing target.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
27
Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3 delivery rates
BORLP3 Completions 1996 - 2011
96/
97
97/
98
98/
99
99/
00
00/
01
01/
02
02/
03
03/
04
04/
05
05/
06
06/
07
07/
08
08/
09
09/
10
10/
11 Total
Annual completions 262 380 284 472 483 233 284 419 288 262 454 236 100 171 124 4452
Cumulative completions 262 642 926 1398 1881 2114 2398 2817 3105 3367 3821 4057 4157 4328 4452 4452
+/- average annual
requirement (300 dpa) -38 +42 +26 +198 +381 +314 +298 +417 +405 +367 +521 +457 +257 +128 -48
Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy delivery rates
RSS Completions 2001 - 2013
01/
02
02/
03
03/
04
04/
05
05/
06
06/
07
07/
08
08/
09
09/
10
10/
11
11/
12
12/
13 Total
Annual completions 233 284 419 288 262 454 236 100 171 124 63 130 2764
Cumulative completions 233 517 936 1224 1486 1940 2176 2276 2447 2571 2634 2764 2764
+/- average annual
requirement (212 dpa) +21 +93 +300 +376 +426 +668 +692 +580 +539 +451 +302 +220
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
28
Delivery of the housing requirement during the current Plan periods
Bromsgrove District Plan
2.23 Completions in Bromsgrove District are now showing a year-on-year improvement (the
figure for 11/12 was higher than would be expected during this period due to a large
affordable housing scheme being completed) as the Country starts to move out of recession
and confidence returns to the housing market. The significant numbers of completions now
taking place are due to allocated sites in the emerging Plan which have been granted
permission being implemented; this trend is predicted to rise as more of these sites
including larger sites are delivered.
BDP Completions 2011 – 2015
11/
12
12/
13
13/
14
14/
15
15/
1 Nov 15 Total
Annual completions 256 130 176 228 334 1124
Cumulative completions 256 386 562 790 1124 1124
Cumulative requirement
(368 dpa) 368 736 1104 1472 1687
1
+/- average annual
requirement (368 dpa) -112 -360 -542 -682 -563
1 This part year has been assessed pro rata in relation to cumulative completions 368/12x7=215
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
29
Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4
2.24 Completions in Redditch Borough are now showing a year-on-year improvement as the
Country starts to move out of recession and confidence returns to the housing market. It is
noticeable that in the 14/15 monitoring year, completions have almost recovered to the
level of the annual average requirement, which is an encouraging sign.
2.25 The housing trajectory has previously depicted a slight delivery downturn for the 15/16
monitoring period, which is attributed to the lead-in times associated with several strategic
site planning consents. This position can already be seen to be an accurate interpretation of
the delivery trajectory based on the lower completion rate in the seven month period from 1
April 2015. However, the Council is reassured that its predicted dip in completions bodes
well in relation to its prediction of exceeding its annual requirement in subsequent years.
BORLP4 Completions 2011 – 2015
11/
12
12/
13
13/
14
14/
15
15/
1 Nov 15 Total
Annual completions 63 130 150* 312^ 84 739
Cumulative completions 63 193 343 655 739 739
Cumulative requirement
(337 dpa) 337 674 1011 1348 1544
2
+/- average annual
requirement (337 dpa) -274 -481 -668 -693 -805
*This figure excludes 18 self-contained C2 units with a higher level of associated care, which had
previously been counted within the completions figures
^ This figure excludes 23 self-contained C2 units with a higher level of associated care, which had
previously been counted within the completions figures
2 This part year has been assessed pro rata in relation to cumulative completions 337/12x7=196
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
30
Other influencing factors
Housing Moratorium
2.26 NPPG (Para 35) states: “The factors behind persistent under delivery may vary from place to
place and, therefore, there can be no universally applicable test or definition of the term. It is
legitimate to consider a range of issues, such as the effect of imposed housing moratoriums
and the delivery rate before and after any such moratoriums.”
2.27 Both the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and the RSS imposed maximum housing
targets on the Shire Districts as part of the regional initiative of urban renaissance, which
directed growth, development and investment to the major urban areas.
2.28 A moratorium was imposed by Bromsgrove District Council between 2003 and 2009 as the
Council was in such a significant position of over-supply that greater control was needed to
ensure conformity with relevant Structure Plan and RSS policies. No new permissions were
granted for market housing during this period, meaning that most completions had been
built out by 2007.
2.29 Redditch Borough Council imposed a moratorium between 2006 and 2008, as sufficient
planning consents had been granted to meet its Local Plan housing target.
2.30 Both Councils acknowledge that following the build-out of pre-moratorium commitments
and the subsequent lifting of those moratoriums, lead-in times and housing delivery has,
until very recently, struggled to regain momentum. It is considered that the global economic
crisis compounded this position, which is now being reflected as completions increase and
the market conditions respond to the economic upturn.
Global Economic Crisis
2.31 The PAS FAQ advice states: “The Practice Guidance recognises that the local delivery record is
likely to be more robust if a longer term view is taken since this has regard to the economic
cycles and market conditions. While the recession should not be used as an excuse for low
delivery, it is suggested that it is useful and appropriate to take a longer term view, which
would probably be at least 10 years.”
2.32 Whilst both Councils acknowledge that an economic downturn should not be used as an
excuse for low housing delivery levels, it should be noted that the embryonic stage of the
emerging Plans has been totally consumed by the recession which is only now, showing signs
of recovery. These economic circumstances have thrust housing completions to a national
historic low and the housing market ‘trough’ is apparent from the delivery tables earlier in
this document. Both Councils consider that to judge their housing delivery performance on
the emerging Plan period alone is misrepresentative of a robust economic cycle and
maintains that consideration of previous Plan period delivery provides a longer-term and
more realistic view of market fluctuations in accordance with advice from both DCLG and
PAS.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
31
Pertinent Appeal Decisions
705 Haslucks Green Road, Majors Green, Shirley3(4 Oct 2013)
2.33 The appellant sought to add a 20% buffer to the 5YHLS calculation as a result of alleged
persistent under delivery. The Inspector drew the following conclusion:
“15. In relation to the application of a 5% or 20% buffer, the Council explained that the
previous Structure Plan target up to the period 2010/2011 was reached early and so the
Council implemented a moratorium running from 2003 to 2009 during which time the
Council effectively granted no residential permissions for market housing. This was
combined with the recession which started to take effect around 2008. I acknowledge
that the Council itself, as recently as 2012, included a 20% buffer in its own calculations.
However, the Council now points out that they consider that a longer time period is
needed to indicate persistent under delivery (perhaps a whole plan period) and the
underlying economic climate should include a whole cycle rather than just a recessionary
period. I agree with the Council that the appellants’ view is somewhat constricted and a
wider perspective gives a truer picture in this case. Furthermore, the Council are now
bringing forward their Areas of Development Restraint (ADR) sites, which now form
allocations for development in the emerging BDP. Therefore, I consider that the Council
is taking sufficient action to stimulate housing delivery. In these circumstances a
buffer of 20% is not warranted.” [my emphasis]
Wirehill Drive, Lodge Park, Redditch4(4 Dec 2015)
2.34 The appellant argued that the Council had failed to achieve its housing target in all but one
of the last ten monitoring periods and that in accordance with the advice in the NPPF a 20%
buffer should be applied to its 5YHLS. The Inspector drew the following conclusion:
“27. However, I am mindful that whilst the adopted development plan comprises the
BORLP3, up until recently it also comprised the Worcestershire County Structure Plan
(SP), the BORLP3 target being derived from the SP target, and the Regional Spatial
Strategy for the West Midlands - January 2008 (RSS). Therefore, it seems to me
appropriate to test housing delivery performance against the targets embedded within
both the BORLP3 and the RSS and the timeframes that they relate to and which, in my
view, provide the necessary long term view so as to take account of the peaks and
troughs of the housing market cycle. In both cases the evidence supports the Council’s
contention that overall its delivery against the relevant housing requirement has been
consistent. Consequently, from the evidence provided I am satisfied that the Council
does not have a persistent record of under delivery and that therefore in accordance
with the advice set out at paragraph 47 of the Framework it is appropriate to apply
only a 5% buffer.” [my emphasis]
3 Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/A/13/2196784 - Development of up to 26 dwellings and estate road
4 Appeal Ref: APP/Q1825/W/15/3004866 - Development of 12 three bedroom detached houses with garages
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
32
Conclusions
2.35 This section systematically reviews the guidance and advice relating to the demonstration
delivery rates and applies it in a manner which is considered to offer a robust and
appropriate interpretation of that guidance and advice in order to substantiate the
application of a 5% buffer to the 5YHLS calculation of both Councils.
2.36 The Councils consider that a longer-term view of delivery rates offers a realistic and
appropriate mechanism, which is representative of fluctuations within a housing market
cycle; a view which is advocated in the NPPG.
2.37 Cumulative delivery rates over previous Plan periods show that both Councils met their
housing requirements, which is substantiated by the imposition of a moratorium in both
Districts. They were put in place in order to ensure policy compliance and so as not exceed
the ‘maximum’ housing targets imposed by higher tiers of planning strategy.
2.38 Both Councils acknowledge that delivery levels in their emerging Plans fall somewhat short
of annual average delivery rates for the period up to 2030. However, the emerging Plan
periods have been totally consumed by the global economic crisis, which is only now
showing some signs of recovery. The Councils consider that judging their persistent delivery
record against a period totally consumed by recession is neither representative of a
complete housing market cycle, nor is it in the spirit of the NPPG and other advice. This
approach is supported by Inspectors’ appeal decisions in both Districts, which is considered
to add to the robustness of the Councils’ approach.
2.39 Both Councils have demonstrated that during the emerging Plan periods, delivery rates are
steadily climbing year-on-year. Therefore, with respect to Question 2(a), and recent
criticisms of the 5YHLS documents during the consultation period, both Councils stand by
their original response to Question 2(a) and continue to demonstrate that there is no record
of persistent under-delivery of housing in either District.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
33
3. Lapse Rates and Non-implementation Rates
Introduction
3.1 The issue of applying an appropriate lapse rate to existing housing commitments was raised
by respondents to the recent consultation period. Representations made several suggestions
as to what an appropriate lapse rate might be, including:
• It is known that between 10-20% of consents are never implemented
• Apply a consistent rate across all areas of delivery
• At least 10% should be applied to all large and small sites
• Include a 10% non-implementation/ delivery rate to the entire supply
• Introduce a 10% reserve site allowance
• Apply a 10% discount to all sites not under construction.
The representations received present several options to addressing lapsed planning
applications, which contradict each other to a certain degree, and no representations
present any evidence to underpin their suggestion. There is no reference in the NPPF for the
need or desirability of including an allowance for lapsed planning permissions and PAS
advises that the application of a lapse rate should be based on local historic data. This
section presents the lapse rates for both Councils based on historic data dating back to 1st
April 2010. The historic data used for this section is a record of the number of planning
permissions that have expired since 1st April 2010. An expired planning permission is one
that was granted planning permission but was not implemented before the planning
permission expiry date. Planning permissions usually expire after 3 years of the decision
date, although there are a few examples within the early years of the historic data where
planning permissions expired after 5 years of the decision date.
3.2 Each monitoring year recorded in this Paper starts from 1st April to 31st March and covers a
five year period from 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2015. The historic data provides a
breakdown of the net number of dwellings on large and small sites, as well as providing an
overall total net dwelling figure for each monitoring year. The large sites are those of 10 or
more dwellings and the small sites are sites with 9 or less dwellings. The historic data also
shows the total net outstanding commitments for each monitoring year, i.e. with planning
permission but development not started. (Note: the net dwellings do not include C2 use.)
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
34
Analysis of Bromsgrove District Lapse Rates
Lapse Rates for Large and Small Sites in Bromsgrove District
3.3 Table 1 shows the number of dwellings for large and small sites and the outstanding
commitments for a five year period starting in 2010/11.
Table 1: Bromsgrove Planning Permission Lapse Rates for Large and Small Sites 2010-2015
Year of
Expiry
Total
Outstanding
Commitments
(Net)
Number of
Dwellings
Expired on
Large Sites
(10+
dwellings)
Number of
Dwellings
Expired on
Small Sites
(less than
10
dwellings)
Lapse Rate
for Large
Sites
Lapse Rate
for Small
Sites
2010/11 202 36 4 17.82% 1.98%
2011/12 598 0 2 0% 0.33%
2012/13 953 0 2 0% 0.21%
2013/14 1406 38 21 2.70% 1.49%
2014/15 1157 0 18 0% 1.56%
Total over 5
years
4316 74 47
Average
over 5
years
1.71% 1.09%
Average Lapse Rate for Bromsgrove District
3.4 Table 2 below shows the total number of dwellings and the total outstanding commitments
for a five year period starting in 2010/11. Summing all the lapsed planning permission
dwellings 2010/11 to 2014/15 and dividing that by the total number of dwellings with
outstanding planning permissions over the same five year period, gives an average lapse rate
of 2.80%.
Table 2: Bromsgrove Planning Permission Lapse Rates 2010-2015
Year of Expiry Number of Dwellings
Expired (Net)
Total Outstanding
Commitments (Net)
Lapse Rate %
2010/11 40 202 19.80%
2011/12 2 598 0.33%
2012/13 2 953 0.21%
2013/14 59 1406 4.20%
2014/15 18 1157 1.56%
Total over 5 years 121 4316
Average over 5
year period
2.80%
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
35
Therefore, the average lapse rate for Bromsgrove District is 2.80%, based on the last five
monitoring years covering the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2015.
3.5 The results show a higher lapse rate percentage of 19.80% for 2010/11 compared to the
other monitoring years. This higher percentage is because the total number of outstanding
commitments was considerably less than the other years, which would have been caused by
the effects of the recession when fewer houses were being built in the district. The total
number of expired net dwellings for this year was 40, which included two large sites
consisting of 24 dwellings (2003/1048) and 12 dwellings (2003/1008). The other 4 dwellings
lost during that monitoring year were located on four small sites.
3.6 The results also show a slightly higher percentage of 4.20% for 2013/14. This higher
percentage is mainly due to the loss of 38 dwellings for application 10/0378 which expired
on 21/02/2014. Although this application expired in 2013/14, there was a new application
submitted for this site on 22/10/2013 (13/0819) and was granted permission on 13/07/2015.
Application 13/0819 is a full application for 24 dwellings on the same site as 10/0378, and
the development was under construction on site when last monitored in October 2015.
Conclusion
3.7 There is no reference in the NPPF for the need or desirability of including an allowance for
lapsed planning permissions. However, footnote 11 of the NPPF states that "sites with
planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is
clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years...". In the Appeal Case
APP/P1805/A/13/2196784 the Inspector was not persuaded that there was any need for
Bromsgrove District Council to include "an automatic figure for lapsed unimplemented
planning permission, particularly where no specific evidence was put forward in relation to
individual sites." (para 18, page 4, Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/A/13/2196784).
3.8 The advice from PAS is that the decision about whether to apply a lapse rate depends on
how robust the delivery information is considered to be, and is only necessary where there is
uncertainty about whether some of the sites are going to come forward. If a good evidence
base is available and where developers are able to confirm that the sites will come forward
then there may not be a need for a lapse rate. PAS suggest that if a lapse rate is to be
applied then it should be based on historic data for the local authority area, not on a
standardised approach. (Ref: PAS website http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/-
/journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE - see Q20)
3.9 With this advice in mind, Bromsgrove District has reviewed its historic data to check if a
lapse rate should be applied to the 5YHLS. This report has presented the findings of this
review based on the Council's historic record of expired planning permissions.
3.10 The historic data presented in this report shows that Bromsgrove District does not
experience a high number of lapsed planning permissions per year, with a low average
percentage of 2.80% over a 5 year period since 2010/11. One of the main reasons for having
a low average lapse rate is because Bromsgrove District is an affluent rural area situated next
to the Birmingham conurbation. Approximately 91% of Bromsgrove District is Green Belt
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
36
land, which restricts development. Therefore, development on land outside the Green Belt is
in high demand because of the District’s location next to the conurbation and good transport
network. This makes the demand for housing high so development will get built quickly, as is
shown by the low number of lapsed planning permissions. The planning department also
works with applicants all the way through the planning application process, starting at pre-
application stage to ensure the application process runs smoothly and that the development
will be suitable and appropriate for the site. This proactive approach to the planning
application process reduces the likelihood of planning permissions lapsing as development
should be able to commence soon after planning permission has been granted.
3.11 It is therefore concluded that Bromsgrove District Council does not need to apply a lapse
rate to its 5YHLS as historic records show a low average lapse rate of 2.80%, some of which
was based on recession years when the housing market slowed down.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
37
Details of Lapsed Large Site Commitments in Bromsgrove District since 1st April 2010
Large Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011
Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings (Net)
2003/1048
444 Lickey Road, Cofton
Hackett, Worcs, B45
8UU 20/04/2005 20/04/2010 24 24
2003/1008
Swallowfields, Sanders
Road, Bromsgrove,
Worcs, B61 7DQ 21/12/2005 21/12/2010 12 12
Total: 36 36
Note:
• The effects of the recession is likely to have had a negative impact on development during
this period of time as the housing market slowed down and fewer houses were being built in
the district.
Large Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014
Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
10/0378 Land at Brook Crescent, Hagley 21/02/2011 21/02/2014 38 38
Total: 38 38
Note:
• Although application 10/0378 expired on 21st February 2014, it has been superseded by
application 13/0819 which was submitted on 22/10/2013 and approved on 13/07/2015.
Application 13/0819 is a full application for 24 dwellings on the same site as 10/0378, and
development was under construction on site when last monitored in October 2015.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
38
Details of Lapsed Small Site Commitments in Bromsgrove District since 1st April 2010
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011
Site Address
Decision
Date Expiry Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
2005/0297 182 Worcester Road, Hagley 12/05/2005 12/05/2010 1 1
2004/0579
Fenn Farm, Chapel Lane,
Belbroughton 25/05/2005 25/05/2010 1 0
2007/0449 Fernlea, Dark Lane, Hollywood 26/06/2007 26/06/2010 1 0
2007/0453
Rear of 53 Twatling Road, Barnt
Green 03/07/2007 03/07/2010 1 1
2007/0677
Berries View, Banks Green, Upper
Bentley, Redditch 15/08/2007 15/08/2010 1 0
2005/0270
Church Hill Farm, Church Hill,
Beoley 02/09/2005 02/09/2010 1 1
2007/0919 21 Pine Grove, Lickey 07/11/2007 07/11/2010 1 0
2007/1312
Pinewood, Aqueduct Lane,
Alvechurch 31/01/2008 31/01/2011 1 0
2008/1060 4 Church Lane, Bromsgrove 11/02/2009 11/02/2011 1 1
2008/0051
Orchard House, Astwood Lane,
Stoke Prior 12/03/2008 12/03/2011 1 0
Total: 10 4
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012
Site Address
Decision
Date Expiry Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
2006/0018 493 Birmingham Road, Bordesley 03/04/2006 02/04/2011 1.00 0.00
2004/1314
Tickeridge Farm Barns,
Timberhonger Lane, Upton Warren 06/06/2006 05/06/2011 1.00 1.00
2006/0418
Park Bungalow, Dusthouse Lane,
Finstall 20/06/2006 19/06/2011 1.00 0.00
2006/1200
Tylers Lock Public House,
Tardebigge 15/01/2007 14/01/2012 1.00 1.00
Total: 4 2
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
39
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2013
Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
09/0973
Hurst Farm, Hockley Brook
Lane, Belbroughton 12/02/2010 12/02/2013 1 1
09/0357
Orchard Cottage, Rowney Green
Lane, Rowney Green 27/07/2009 27/07/2012 1 0
09/0777
8 St. Catherines Road, Blackwell,
Bromsgrove 17/12/2009 17/12/2012 1 0
10/0020
The Chalet, Highfield, Dark
Lane, Hollywood 24/03/2010 24/03/2013 1 1
Total: 4 2
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014
Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
10/0149
Brackendale, Holt Lane,
Romsley 19/04/2010 19/04/2013 1 0
10/0281 37 Silver Street, Wythall 11/06/2010 11/06/2013 1 1
10/0752
White Walls, Dark Lane,
Hollywood 11/10/2010 11/10/2013 1 0
10/0190 6 Fox Lane, Bromsgrove 27/04/2010 27/04/2013 1 1
11/0052 1 Brook Crescent, Hagley 18/03/2011 18/03/2014 1 0
10/0747
Severn Trent Building Site,
Alcester Road, Burcot 27/10/2010 27/10/2013 4 4
10/0491
2 Eton Walk, Hagley,
Stourbridge 22/07/2010 22/07/2013 2 1
10/0459 84 Redditch Road, Bromsgrove 07/09/2010 07/09/2013 1 1
10/1067 1 Marlbrook Lane, Bromsgrove 07/01/2011 07/01/2014 1 1
10/0347
Inkford Cottage Hotel, Inkford
Cottage, Alcester Road, Wythall 02/07/2010 02/07/2013 9 9
11/0050 69 Millfield Road, Bromsgrove 18/03/2011 18/03/2014 1 1
10/1155
15 Golden Cross Lane, Catshill,
Bromsgrove 07/02/2011 07/02/2014 2 2
Total: 25 21
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
40
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015
Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
11/0061
The Cottage, Wassell Grove
Lane, Hagley 16/05/2011 16/05/2014 1 1
11/0316
145 Alcester Road, Hollywood,
Birmingham 12/07/2011 12/07/2014 1 0
11/0975
27 Lickey Square, Lickey,
Birmingham 25/01/2012 25/01/2015 1 1
11/0630
9 Plymouth Road, Barnt Green,
Birmingham 11/10/2011 11/10/2014 1 0
11/0508
26 - 28 Austin Road,
Bromsgrove 09/08/2011 09/08/2014 7 5
11/0439
77 Lyttleton Avenue,
Bromsgrove 16/09/2011 16/09/2014 1 1
11/0438
79 Lyttleton Avenue,
Bromsgrove 16/09/2011 16/09/2014 1 1
11/0655
6 St. Catherine's Road,
Blackwell, Bromsgrove 26/10/2011 26/10/2014 1 1
12/0046
Heather Lodge, 28 Station Road,
Blackwell, Bromsgrove 16/03/2012 16/03/2015 1 1
11/0871
103 Wildmoor Lane, Catshill,
Bromsgrove 01/12/2011 01/12/2014 3 3
11/0412
24 Woodrow Lane, Catshill,
Bromsgrove 01/07/2011 01/07/2014 1 1
11/0161
Waseley Hill Farm, Gunner Lane,
Rubery 21/04/2011 21/04/2014 1 0
12/0003
Finstall Park Bungalow,
Dusthouse Lane, Finstall,
Bromsgrove 22/02/2012 22/02/2015 1 0
11/0549
Spout House Farm, Fockbury
Road, Dodford, Bromsgrove 19/08/2011 19/08/2014 1 1
11/0138
34 Red Lion Street, Alvechurch,
Birmingham 21/04/2011 21/04/2014 1 1
11/0183 7 Station Road, Hagley 04/05/2011 04/05/2014 1 1
Total: 24 18
Note:
• Although application 12/0046 expired on 16/03/2015, a renewal application (15/0286) was
submitted on 06/03/2015 and granted permission for a detached dwelling on 28/05/2018.
When a site visit was made in October 2015 the developments progress was recorded as
‘not started’.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
41
• Although 11/0871 expired on 01/12/2014, application 14/0921 was submitted on
19/11/2014 for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) of
application 11/0871. Application 14/0921 was granted permission on 18/02/2015.
Analysis of Redditch Borough Lapse Rates
3.12 Redditch Borough Council has historically monitored lapse rates since 1996, and whilst this
monitoring information has provided the Council with a trend of historic data on which to
make a planning judgement regarding the application of a lapse rate to its commitments, the
methodology has never been tested or questioned prior to this Examination.
3.13 As lapse rate monitoring data within Bromsgrove District only covers a period dating back
some five years, Redditch Borough Council has aligned its data analysis with that of
Bromsgrove District Council, in order to present a comprehensive dataset for discussion at
the Examination. This approach is considered to be robust based on the conclusions reached
by the Inspector examining the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP, Inspector’s
Report, February 2016), which states:
“78. The Plan applies a non-delivery discount rate of 4% to all commitments – that is to
say, sites with planning permission for housing – excluding dwellings under construction.
That rate is supported by detailed evidence of lapsed planning permissions for each of
the three districts (EX.214-217b). However, the information for each district covers a
different period of time, ranging from 18 years at Worcester City to six at Wychavon.
Moreover, the “average” lapse rate for each district appears to have been arrived at by
calculating the mean of the percentage lapse rates for each year. This is mathematically
inexact if the objective is to assess the overall percentage lapse rate over the period in
question.
79. I also note that, in Malvern in particular and to a lesser extent in Worcester, there
are much higher annual lapse rates in the years after 2007 compared with the period
from 2000 to 2007. In order to achieve a robust discount figure that takes account of
recent market conditions, and is reasonably consistent across all three districts, I
therefore consider that it should be calculated by reference to figures from 2006/07
onwards – the earliest date for which figures for Wychavon were provided.
80. Summing all the available figures for lapsed permitted dwellings since 2006/07, and
dividing that sum by the total number of dwellings with outstanding planning
permissions over the same period, gives an average lapse rate of 4.8% across South
Worcestershire. On this basis I conclude that a robust and sound non-delivery discount
figure to be applied to commitments in SWDP Table 4e is 5%, rather than the 4% used
in the Plan as submitted.”
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
42
Lapse Rates for Large and Small Sites in Redditch Borough
3.14 Table 3 shows the number of dwellings for large and small sites and the outstanding
commitments for a five year period starting in 2010/11.
Table 3: Redditch Planning Permission Lapse Rates for Large and Small Sites 2010-2015
Year of
Expiry
Total
Outstanding
Commitments
(Net)
Number of
Dwellings
Expired on
Large Sites
(10+
dwellings)
Number of
Dwellings
Expired on
Small Sites
(less than
10
dwellings)
Lapse Rate
for Large
Sites
Lapse Rate
for Small
Sites
2010/11 135 0 13 0% 9.6%
2011/12 446 15 18 3.4% 4.0%
2012/13 631 0 6 0% 1.0%
2013/14 356 0 2 0% 0.6%
2014/15 446 0 7 0% 1.6%
Total over 5
years
2014 15 46
Average
over 5
years
0.74% 2.3%
Average Lapse Rate for Redditch Borough
3.15 Table 4 below shows the total number of dwellings and the total outstanding commitments
for a five year period starting in 2010/11. Summing all the lapsed planning permission
dwellings 2010/11 to 2014/15 and dividing that by the total number of dwellings with
outstanding planning permissions over the same five year period, gives an average lapse rate
of 3.0%.
Table 4: Redditch Planning Permission Lapse Rates 2010-2015
Year of Expiry Number of Dwellings
Expired (Net)
Total Outstanding
Commitments (Net)
Lapse Rate %
2010/11 13 135 9.6%
2011/12 33 446 7.4%
2012/13 6 631 1.0%
2013/14 2 356 0.6%
2014/15 7 446 1.6%
Total over 5 years 61 2014
Average over 5
year period
3.0%
Therefore, the average lapse rate for Redditch Borough is 3.0%, based on the last five
monitoring years covering the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2015.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
43
3.16 In Table 4, the results show a higher lapse rate percentage of 9.6% for 2010/11 and 7.4% for
2011/12 compared to the other monitoring years. These higher percentages can be
attributed to lower levels of outstanding commitments and lead-in times following the lifting
of the moratorium and the economic downturn as these lapsed sites were granted planning
permission before the extent of the deepening recession was realised.
Conclusion
3.17 There is no reference in the NPPF for the need or desirability of including an allowance for
lapsed planning permissions. However, footnote 11 of the NPPF states that "sites with
planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is
clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years...".
3.18 The advice from PAS is that the decision about whether to apply a lapse rate depends on
how robust the delivery information is considered to be, and is only necessary where there is
uncertainty about whether some of the sites are going to come forward. If a good evidence
base is available and where developers are able to confirm that the sites will come forward
then there may not be a need for a lapse rate. PAS suggest that if a lapse rate is to be
applied then it should be based on historic data for the local authority area, not on a
standardised approach. (Ref: PAS website http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/-
/journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE - see Q20)
3.19 With this advice in mind, and taking note of the SWDP Inspector’s conclusions and aligning
the timeframe of its historic data with that of Bromsgrove District Council, Redditch Borough
Council has reviewed its historic data to check if a lapse rate should be applied to the 5YHLS.
3.20 The historic data presented in this Paper at Table 4 shows that Redditch Borough does not
experience a high number of lapsed planning permissions per year, with a low average
percentage of 3.0% over a 5 year period since 2010/11 (based on the approach advocated by
the SWDP Inspector). This is further substantiated by the earlier evidence presented in this
Paper in relation to persistent under-delivery. A high level of lapsed planning permissions
would have hampered the strong delivery rates evidenced in this Paper.
3.21 Applying a lapse rate to commitments is not a requirement of the NPPF or the NPPG, and
remains a matter of planning judgement. Therefore, it is concluded that Redditch Borough
Council does not need to apply a lapse rate to its 5YHLS as historic records show a low
average lapse rate of 3.0%, some of which was based on recession years when the housing
market slowed down.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
44
Details of Lapsed Large Site Commitments in Redditch Borough since 1st April 2010
Large Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012
Site Address
Decision
Date
Expiry
Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
08/305 Land at Wirehill Drive 05/11/08 05/11/11 15 15
Total: 15 15
Note: Land at Wirehill Drive lapsed but has recently been through application and appeal
processes. The site was allowed on appeal in December 2015.
Details of Lapsed Small Site Commitments in Redditch Borough since 1st April 2010
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011
App.
No. Address
Decision
Date
Expiry
Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
05/102 1 Willow Way 27/5/05 27/5/10 2 1
05/329 5 The Steps, Market Place 26/8/05 26/8/10 2 2
06/205 Conwil, Dagnell End Lane 3/5/07 3/5/10 4 3
07/168 20 Unicorn Hill 10/8/07 10/8/10 5 5
07/328 Adj. 12 Greenfields, The
Mayfields 22/10/07 22/10/10 2 2
Total: 15 13
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012
App.
No. Address
Decision
Date
Expiry
Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
08/086 15 Grendon Close 16/4/08 15/4/11 2 1
08/150 23 Foxlydiate Crescent 23/6/08 22/6/11 2 1
08/255 Adj. The Vicarage, Church
Road 10/9/08 9/9/11 5 5
08/303 Land at Peterbrook Close 5/11/08 4/11/11 5 5
08/355 2-4 Chapel Street 22/12/08 21/12/11 4 4
08/360 Fladbury Close 7/1/09 6/1/12 2 2
Total: 20 18
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
45
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2013
App.
No. Address
Decision
Date
Expiry
Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
09/040 Adj. Sandycroft, West
Avenue 7/4/09 7/4/12 1 1
09/102 19 Lodge Road 10/7/09 10/7/12 2 1
09/220 RO 320 Evesham Rd (Corn
Stores) 2/12/09 2/12/12 3 3
09/261 RO 1 Ivor Road 15/2/10 15/2/13 1 1
Total: 7 6
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014
App.
No. Address
Decision
Date
Expiry
Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
10/178 RO 1142 Evesham Road, AB 13/9/10 13/9/13 1 1
10/254 First House, Lady Harriets Lane
7/12/10 7/12/13 1 1
Total: 2 2
Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015
App.
No. Address
Decision
Date
Expiry
Date
No. of
Dwellings
(Gross)
No. of
Dwellings
(Net)
11/064 Adj 760 Evesham Road 7/4/11 7/4/14 2 2
11/086 Adj. The Rectory, Icknield Street
8/5/11 8/5/14 1 1
11/105ol 239 Evesham Road, Headless Cross
10/6/11 10/6/14 2 1
11/134 144 Paddock Lane 13/7/11 13/7/14 2 1
11/274 74A Lodge Road 3/11/11 3/11/14 1 1
12/019 Rock Hill Farm 8/3/12 8/3/15 1 1
Total: 9 7
Note: Land adj. 760 Evesham Road gained a new planning consent shortly after this lapse and has
now been completed.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
46
4. Commitments and additional plan flexibility
4.1 Representations received queried the BORLP4 commitment level and raised the following
issues:
• If it is demonstrated that RBC has no 5YHLS, and there is no capacity within the Borough
to address this, it cannot be rectified without a lengthy Plan review
• If the Council’s delivery assumptions are not correct and realistic, there is currently no
contingency and no flexibility
4.2 Since the preparation of BORLP4 and understanding the Borough’s identified capacity, there
have been a number of large site windfalls that have boosted the Council’s commitments
figure year on year. At 1 April 2015, identified commitments within the Borough amounted
to around 3460 dwellings, some 460 dwellings above the emerging Plan’s allocation within
the Borough. These have generally come forward on brownfield sites that could not
necessarily have been picked up during SHLAA updates. The Council considers that this
increase in available commitments within the Borough affords the Plan the flexibility needed
to address and maintain an adequate 5YHLS.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
47
5. Range of commitments and Appropriate lead-in times
5.1 Representations received raised the following issues:
• To maximise housing supply, the widest possible range of sites, by size and market
location are required to ensure house builders of all types and sizes have access to
suitable land in order to offer the widest range of products
• Multiple smaller sites achieve faster sales and build out rates than a limited number
of large sites
• Methodology relies upon an exceptionally high confidence level for the delivery of
sites within the current supply
• The contribution that Foxlydiate will make to the 5YHLS is questionable due to:
- scale
- planning application has yet to be submitted
- significant infrastructure requirements is likely to mean slow short-term delivery
- expected timetable is unrealistic
5.2 RBC considers that its supply of sites in the 5YHLS does reflect the widest possible range of
sites by size and market location. There is a good selection of small, medium and large sites
with planning permission on both brownfield and greenfield sites, the majority of which
have been identified through the SHLAA process and include a steady stream of
implementations. Site diversity is further supplemented by large greenfield allocations, both
at the edge of the urban area and closer to existing infrastructure connectivity.
5.3 The promoters of all large scale developments, including Foxlydiate, provide the Councils
with their delivery schedules in order that the Councils can populate their 5YHLS
appropriately. The Councils consider that the site promoters are in a better position to
formulate and defend their delivery schedules.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
48
6. The Five Year Housing Land Supply
6.1 All the above considerations in this Paper have led to a reappraisal of the 5 year land supply
calculations which are now shown below:
Bromsgrove 5YHLS - 1 November 2015 – 31 October 2020
Dwellings Average per
Annum
a BDC Housing Requirement 2011-2030 7,000 368.4
b Net Completions 1st
April 2011- 31st
Oct 2015
(256+130+176+228+334)
1124
c Undersupply to 31st
Oct 2015 against BDP target
((368.4 x 4) + 214.9) - b
564.5
(1688.5 – 1124)
d Requirement for 5 years 1st
Nov 2015 – 31st
Oct 2020
(368.4 x 5) + c + 5% buffer
2526.8 505.37
e Net Commitments at 1st
Nov 2015
(1090 Net Outstanding + 180 Net Under Construction)
1270
f Net Units with Resolution to Grant Planning
Permission subject to S106 Agreement
52
g SHLAA Deliverable Sites (Nov 2015 – Oct 2020) 1188
h Windfall Allowance
(40 x 3 years + (40 x 58%) for final 7 months)
143.2
i Total Supply less 5 Year Requirement
(e+f+g+h - d)
+126.4
(2653.2 – 2526.8)
j Number of years supply (e+f+g+h / 505.37) 5.25 years supply
Equivalent to 5 years, 3
months
Summary of Completions and Commitments at 1st
November 2015
Total Net Completions 1st
April 2015 - 31st
October 2015 334
Units on Completed Sites (Appendix B) 150
Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 184
Total Net Under Construction 180
Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 180
Total Net Outstanding 1,090
Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 430
Units on Outstanding Sites (exc. Replacement dwellings) (Appendix D) 660
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
49
Total future commitments (Under Construction and Outstanding) 1,270
The following C2 Uses were removed from the 1st
November 2015 Commitments:
• 14/0821 Land at Recreation Road – Application Subject to S106 – Bed spaces and Extra Care
units removed from figures. Remaining C3 housing supply = 26 units.
• 15/0803 Home Farm, Woodman Lane –bed spaces.
• 14/0421 Breach House Residential Care Home, Holy Cross Lane –bed spaces.
• 13/0298 Merecroft, Seafield Lane –bed spaces
• 13/0404 Plymouth House, Alcester Road –bed spaces
• 14/0852 The Lawns Residential Home, School Lane –bed spaces
• 12/0885 Burcot Grange Residential Home, 23 Greenhill –bed spaces
• 11/0796 The Uplands, 33 Greenhill –Reserved matters app 15/0703 approved on
23/11/2015 for 50 bed spaces.
• 13/0213 Former Polymer Latex Site –bed space element of application removed (90 units).
The Council has also looked at the latest position up to 1 March 2016, with the latest data.
Bromsgrove 5YHLS - 1 March 2016 – 28 February 2021
Dwellings Average per
Annum
a BDC Housing Requirement 2011-2030 7,000 368.4
b Net Completions 1st
April 2011- 29th
Feb 2016
(256+130+176+228+334)
1124
c Undersupply to 29th
Feb 2016 against BDP target
((368.4 x 4) + 337.7) - b
687
(1811 – 1124)
d Requirement for 5 years 1st
Mar 2016 – 28th
Feb 2021
(368.4 x 5) + c + 5% buffer
2655.45 531
e Net Commitments at 1st
Mar 2016
(912 Net Outstanding + 180 Net Under Construction)
1092
f Net Units with Resolution to Grant Planning
Permission subject to S106 Agreement
368
g SHLAA Deliverable Sites (Mar 2016 – Feb 2021) 1317
h Windfall Allowance
(40 x 3 years + (40 x 91.7%) for final 11 months)
156.7
i Total Supply less 5 Year Requirement
(e+f+g+h - d)
+278.25
(2933.7 – 2655.45)
j Number of years supply (e+f+g+h / 531) 5.52 years supply
Equivalent to 5 years, 6.24
months
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
50
Summary of Completions and Commitments at 1st
March 2016
Total Net Completions 1st
April 2015 – 29th
February 2016 334
Units on Completed Sites (Appendix B) 150
Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 184
Total Net Under Construction 180
Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 180
Total Net Outstanding 912
Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 430
Units on Outstanding Sites (exc. Replacement dwellings) (Appendix D) 482
Total future commitments (Under Construction and Outstanding) 1,092
The following C2 Uses were removed from the 1st
March 2016 Commitments:
• 14/0821 Land at Recreation Road – Application Subject to S106 – Bed spaces and Extra Care
units removed from figures. Remaining C3 housing supply = 26 units.
• 15/0803 Home Farm, Woodman Lane –bed spaces.
• 14/0421 Breach House Residential Care Home, Holy Cross Lane –bed spaces.
• 13/0298 Merecroft, Seafield Lane –bed spaces
• 13/0404 Plymouth House, Alcester Road –bed spaces
• 14/0852 The Lawns Residential Home, School Lane –bed spaces
• 12/0885 Burcot Grange Residential Home, 23 Greenhill –bed spaces
• 11/0796 The Uplands, 33 Greenhill –Reserved matters app 15/0703 approved on
23/11/2015 for 50 bed spaces.
• 13/0213 Former Polymer Latex Site –bed space element of application removed (90 units).
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
51
Redditch 5YHLS - 1 November 2015 – October 2020
Calculation with 5% buffer (Sedgefield method) Dwellings Average per
Annum
a Redditch Housing Requirement 2011 to 2030 (net)
(6400 dwellings ÷ 19 years) 6400 337
b *Completions 1.4.2011 to 31.10.2015 (net) 739
c
Completions shortfall
(337 x 4 + 196.5 – 739)
(337÷12 x 7 = 196.5)
806 (net)
d Commitments at 1.11.2015 (identified in Section 5) 2595
e Requirement for 5 years 1.11.2015 to 31.10.2020
5 x 337 + 806 + 5% (1685 + 806 + 5%)
2616
523 (net)
f Number of years supply (d ÷ 523) 4.96 years supply
g Shortfall below 5 year requirement (d - e) -21
* Exclusion of 10/137 Dorothy Terry House (Self-contained extra care dementia housing) (41 dwgs) in
completions and removal of 13/302 Haversham House, 327 Bromsgrove Road (Nursing home
extension comprising and additional 6 bed spaces) from commitments
The Council has also looked at the latest position up to 1 March 2016, with the latest data.
Redditch 5YHLS - 1 March 2016 – 28 February 2021
Calculation with 5% buffer (Sedgefield method) Dwellings Average per
Annum
a Redditch Housing Requirement 2011 to 2030 (net)
(6400 dwellings ÷ 19 years) 6400 337
b *Completions 1.4.2011 to 31.10.2015 (net) 739
c
Completions shortfall
(337 x 4 + 196.5 – 739)
(337÷12 x 7 = 196.5)
806 (net)
d Commitments at 1.3.2016 (identified in Section 5) 2813
e Requirement for 5 years 1.3.2016 to 28.2.2021
5 x 337 + 806 + 5% (1685 + 806 + 5%)
2616
523 (net)
f Number of years supply (d ÷ 523) 5.38 years supply
g Surplus above 5 year requirement (d - e) +197
* Exclusion of 10/137 Dorothy Terry House (Self-contained extra care dementia housing) (41 dwgs) in
completions and removal of 13/302 Haversham House, 327 Bromsgrove Road (Nursing home
extension comprising and additional 6 bed spaces) from commitments
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
52
Conclusion
6.2 Since the publication of the 5YHLS update documents (November 2015), both Councils
have taken account of the representations received during the consultation process and
updated their 5YHLS position to reflect their consideration of the representations and to
roll the supply period forward to 1 March 2016. The land supply position for Bromsgrove
has increased from 5.35* years supply (OED/46d) to 5.52 at 1 March 2016. With respect to
Redditch, the land supply position has increased from 4.96 years supply (OED/46e) to 5.38
years supply at 1 March 2016. There is a very marginal shortfall of 0.04 years in Redditch if
the data up to 1 November 2015 is used, but this is so marginal as to be inconsequential.
Moreover, the most recent data shows it at 5.38 years supply. Both Councils are showing
an increase in housing commitments month on month and this trend is expected to
continue, especially taking account of the certainty that an adopted local plan brings with
it. If these trends continue and more weight can be given to the emerging Plans as they
progress closer to adoption, then both Councils consider that it will be possible to
adequately demonstrate a five year land supply on adoption.
* Amendment made to Bromsgrove 5YHLS following a correction made to Appendix F: Deliverable
SHLAA Sites BDC20 and BDC80 (1st
November 2015 update, OED/46d). This correction was made to
the last 7 months in the table, changing figures from 120 to 70 units. This change makes the total
deliverable SHLAA sites as 875.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
53
Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Sites Outstanding at 1 March 2016
Status App Type App No Address Settlement Description Decision Date Expiry Date Gross Units Net Units
New
Commitment
since 1st Nov
2015?
Outstanding FUL 13/0028
Coach Yard Adj
643 Haslucks
Green Road,
Majors Green,
B90 1DF Majors Green
Construction of three
detached dwellings. 23/07/2013 23/07/2016 3.00 3.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0046
Ivy Cottage, 30
Gibb Lane,
Catshill, B61 0JR Catshill
Proposed demolition
of existing public
house and
construction of
fourteen one bedroom
flats 01/04/2014 01/04/2017 14.00 13.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0063
Woodhouse
Farm, Packhorse
Lane,
Hollywood, B38
0DN Wythall
Replacement
bungalow 12/04/2013 12/04/2016 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0071
6, 8 and 10 The
Strand,
Bromsgrove,
B61 8AB Bromsgrove
Proposed Conversion
of Former Store
Rooms to Two
Number One-
Bedroom Flats 12/04/2013 12/04/2016 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0131
57 Rock Hill,
Bromsgrove,
B61 7LN Bromsgrove
Proposed New
Residential Dwelling
Off Enfield Close,
Bromsgrove 14/06/2013 14/06/2016 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
54
Outstanding OUT 13/0213
Former Polymer
Latex Site,
Weston Hall
Road, Stoke
Prior Stoke Prior
Redevelopment of the
former latex factory
site to provide mixed-
use development
including up to 157
dwellings […..] and a
nursing/care home
(Use Class C2)…(See
15/0687 - Residential
development for 202
dwellings - pending
decision) 30/01/2015 30/01/2018 202.00 202.00
No, but
dwelling
number
amended to
remove C2
use and to
take into
account full
application
15/0687 for
202
dwellings,
following
comments
received by
written reps.
Outstanding FUL 13/0252
10 Dale Hill,
Blackwell,
Bromsgrove,
B60 1QJ Blackwell
Proposed Change of
Use of Garage, Stable
and Workshop Block
to Single Dwelling 14/06/2013 14/06/2016 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding COU 13/0448
Green Hills
Farm, Wapping
Lane, Beoley,
Redditch Beoley
Conversion of listed
barn to form two
private dwelling
houses. Conversion of
two implement sheds
to form garage and
storage. 15/08/2014 15/08/2017 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0501
1 Fiery Hill Road,
Barnt Green,
B45 8LB Barnt Green
Conversion of existing
ground floor flat to 2x
1 bedroom flats and
construction of 2
storey extension
incorporating 2 flats. 12/11/2013 12/11/2016 3.00 0.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
55
Outstanding FUL 13/0551
Tyrells Lane
Farm, Tyrells
Lane, Lower
Bentley, B60
4HX Bentley
Conversion of
redundant barns and
farm buildings into 3
dwellings. 17/01/2014 17/01/2017 3.00 3.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 13/0569
Bordesley Hall
Farm Barns,
Storrage Lane,
Rowney Green,
Birmingham,
Worcestershire,
B48 7ES
Rowney
Green
Proposed conversion
of redundant office
buildings into
residential use 12/09/2013 12/09/2018 6.00 6.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 13/0603
Rigby Hall, Rigby
Lane,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B60 2EW Bromsgrove
Change of Use
application from
Office accommodation
to apartments with
external works and
refurbishment to
Rigby Hall. 15/11/2013 15/11/2018 6.00 6.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0624
Laurel Farm
Dagnell End
Road Redditch
Worcestershire
B98 9BD
Erection of an
agricultural dwelling at
Laurel Farm, Dagnell
End Road Redditch
Worcestershire B98
9BD (Amended
Location). 21/01/2015 21/01/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0647
21 Hopgardens
Avenue,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B60 2NX Bromsgrove
Extension of time of
planning permission
referenced 10/0819
for the construction of
a detached dwelling. 18/09/2013 18/09/2016 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0671
17 Alexander
Close, Catshill,
B61 0PF Catshill
Plot severance and
erection of a detached
bungalow. 07/10/2013 07/10/2016 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
56
Outstanding FUL 13/0674
The Greyhound,
30 Rock Hill,
Bromsgrove,
B61 7LR Bromsgrove
Building of 7 no
terraced houses on
rear western car park
and opening up of
existing driveway on
Albert Road to existing
car park. 24/09/2015 24/09/2018 7.00 7.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0682
Highfield Farm,
Middle Lane,
Kings Norton,
Birmingham Wythall
Change of use to
convert existing barn
to residential dwelling.
Existing barn has
current permission to
be converted to
offices. 18/11/2014 18/11/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0762
210 Old
Birmingham
Road,
Marlbrook, B60
1HH Catshill
Demolition of existing
bungalow and
construction of new
dwelling. 03/12/2013 03/12/2016 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0787
22 Old
Birmingham
Road, Lickey
End,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B60 1DE Lickey End
New dwelling to rear
of 22 Old Birmingham
Road as granted under
reference
B/2006/0325 but with
access and layout as
granted under
13/0238 10/04/2014 10/04/2017 2.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0840
J & J
Convenience
Store, 6-8
Birmingham
Road, Hagley,
DY9 9LZ Hagley
Change of Use from
retail (Class A1) to
Residential (Class C3) 02/01/2014 02/01/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 13/0886
Galtons, Hartle
Lane, Belbroughton
Proposed
Replacement Dwelling 29/04/2014 29/04/2017 1.00 0.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
57
Belbroughton,
DY9 9TR
Outstanding FUL 13/0979
Land Adjacent 2
Victoria Road,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 0DW Bromsgrove
Erection of Building
comprising 2 no. 1-
bedroom apartments. 01/05/2014 01/05/2017 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding OUT 14/0002
Algoa House,
Western Road,
Hagley,
Stourbridge Hagley
Proposed detached
house on land
adjacent to Algoa
House, Western Road,
Hagley 23/04/2014 23/04/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding OUT 14/0004
44 Church
Street, Hagley,
Stourbridge,
DY9 0NA Hagley
Proposed 3 Bedroom
Detached House on
Land Adjacent to 44
Church Street, Hagley 11/06/2014 11/06/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0038
Rose Cottage
Farm, Seafield
Lane, Portway,
Birmingham Portway
Change of use of two
former agricultural
buildings (dairy and
barn) to provide four
dwellings and all
associated works 13/06/2014 13/06/2017 4.00 4.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 14/0064
The Old Chapel,
Forge Lane,
Belbroughton,
Worcestershire,
DY9 9TD Belbroughton
Prior approval for
change of use from
B1(a) office to 2
residential units 06/03/2014 06/03/2019 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0076
37 Orchard
Croft, Barnt
Green,
Birmingham,
B45 8NJ Barnt Green
Demolition of semi-
detached dwelling and
erection of 1No. new
dwelling. 06/05/2014 06/05/2017 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0088
496-498
Groveley Lane,
Cofton Hackett,
Cofton
Hackett
Proposed New
Dwelling 11/09/2014 11/09/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
58
Birmingham
Outstanding CPE 14/0150
Badgers Bank
Farm, New
Road, Fairfield,
B61 9LP Fairfield
Residential dwelling
without conditions
imposed by B13140. 28/07/2015 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0258
12 Alcester
Road, Lickey
End,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire Lickey End
Erection of detached
dwelling-Renewal of
11/0233 06/05/2014 06/05/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0260
57 - 59 Twatling
Road, Barnt
Green,
Birmingham,
Worcestershire Barnt Green
4 No detached houses
replacing previous
permission for 3
detached houses. 16/07/2014 16/07/2017 4.00 3.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0288
Land Rear 7A -
11, Plymouth
Road, Barnt
Green, B45 8JE Barnt Green
Erection of four
detached houses. 20/04/2015 20/04/2018 4.00 4.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0394
First Second And
Third Floors, 22 -
24 High Street,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire Bromsgrove
Conversion of first,
second and third
floors of front range of
22-24 High Street to
provide 4 no. 1
bedroom flats and 1
no. 3 bedroom flat;
refuse and recycling
storage; and cycle
store. 28/11/2014 28/11/2017 5.00 5.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 14/0405
The Oaks,
Redditch Road,
Alvechurch,
Birmingham,
Worcestershire Alvechurch
Change of use of Prior
Approval from
agricultural building to
2 No residential units. 24/06/2014 24/06/2019 2.00 2.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
59
Outstanding FUL 14/0411
106 New Road,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B60 2LB Bromsgrove
Proposed New
Detached Residential
Dwelling On Land
Adjacent To 106 New
Road, Bromsgrove,
B60 2LB 01/07/2014 01/07/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0423
Pizza Hut (Uk)
Ltd 14-16 High
Street
Bromsgrove
Worcestershire
B61 8HQ Bromsgrove
Proposed change of
use the upper floors to
dwellings (C3) from
ancillary A1 use (Shop)
and installation of roof
lights. 17/03/2015 17/03/2018 3.00 3.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 14/0487
Upper Inkford
Farm, Alcester
Road, Wythall,
Birmingham Wythall
Change of use of
agricultural buildings
to 3 dwellings 31/07/2014 31/07/2019 3.00 3.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0491
130 Old
Birmingham
Road, Lickey
End,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire Bromsgrove
Proposed new
dwelling and
associated works. 16/09/2014 16/09/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0501
Land South
A456 Hagley
Causeway,
Hagley Hall, Hall
Lane, Hagley,
Worcestershire Hagley
New single storey
visitor centre (825
sq.m.) 3 bed single
storey ranger's
accommodation, car
park (178 vehicles
including disabled
spaces and coach
parking), new access
and access drive on to
the A456 Hagley
Causeway and
associated 12/10/2015 12/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
60
landscaping.
Outstanding FUL 14/0586
16 Rock Hill
Bromsgrove
Worcestershire
B61 7LJ Bromsgrove
Residential
Development of 6 flats
on land between 16
Rock Hill and 14 Rock
Hill (as amended by
plans received on
26.01.2015) 13/02/2015 13/02/2018 6.00 5.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0588
Langabeer Farm
Alcester Road
Wythall
Birmingham B47
6AP Wythall
Erection of a
replacement
dwellinghouse,
detached garage and
associated works 22/01/2015 22/01/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0598
47 Beacon Hill
Rubery
Birmingham
Worcestershire
B45 9QW Rubery
Proposed new
dwelling 19/02/2015 19/02/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
61
Outstanding FUL 14/0629
Land At
Kidderminster
Road, Hagley,
Worcestershire, Hagley
Erection of 78
dwellings and
associated
infrastructure (an
amendment to the
approved planning
permissions 12/0593
and 13/0398 to
increase the number
of dwellings by 17
with associated
changes to house
types and positioning
of dwellings). 06/11/2015 06/11/2018 17.00 17.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 14/0696
55 Lyttleton
Avenue,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B60 3LH Bromsgrove
Proposed New
Dwelling and
Associated Parking 22/10/2014 22/10/2017 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 14/0720
Barn At Sweet
Meadow Farm,
Ickneild Street,
Weatheroak Hill,
B48 7DS Alvechurch
Change of Use of part
of agricultural building
to residential (C3). 15/06/2015 15/06/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 14/0730
Fox Farm, St
Kenelms Road,
Romsley,
Halesowen Romsley
Prior Notification of a
change of use from
agricultural barns to 2
residential dwellings
(Use Class C3) 27/10/2014 27/10/2019 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding OUT 14/0755
118
Kidderminster
Road,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 7LD Bromsgrove
Demolition of Existing
Bungalow and the
Construction of 18
dwellings (OUTLINE) 02/12/2014 02/12/2017 18.00 17.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
62
Outstanding FUL 14/0776
74 - 76
Birmingham
Road,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 0DD Bromsgrove
Proposed 2 no.
residential flats and
alterations to shop. 04/12/2014 04/12/2017 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0786
206 Stourbridge
Road
Bromsgrove
Worcestershire
B61 0AR Bromsgrove
Proposed New
Detached Residential
Dwelling To Land
Adjacent 206
Stourbridge Road,
Bromsgrove 05/02/2015 05/02/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0803
7D Twatling
Road, Barnt
Green,
Birmingham,
Worcestershire,
B45 8HX Barnt Green
Demolition of existing
dwelling and erection
of replacement
dwelling. 11/12/2014 11/12/2017 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0832
Pine Cottage
Rumbow Lane
Romsley
Halesowen B62
0LX Romsley
Demolition of existing
detached cottage and
construction of new 4
bedroomed detached
cottage. 26/01/2015 26/01/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0850
38 High Street
Bromsgrove
Worcestershire
B61 8HQ Bromsgrove
Change of use of
ground floor from A1
(retail) to A2 (financial
& professional
services) and change
of use of upper two
floors to residential
use (C3) 03/02/2015 03/02/2018 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0931
6 Cherry Hill
Road Barnt
Green
Birmingham Barnt Green
Demolition of existing
house. Erection of
detached, two storey
five bedroom dwelling 12/03/2015 12/03/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
63
Worcestershire
B45 8LH
Outstanding FUL 14/0944
130 Old
Birmingham
Road Lickey End
Bromsgrove
Worcestershire
B60 1DH Lickey End
Proposed sub-division
of existing dwelling
into 2 no. dwellings. 24/02/2015 24/02/2018 2.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 14/0982
Job Centre
Churchfields
Bromsgrove
Worcestershire
B61 8DX Bromsgrove
Erection of 7 dwellings
following the
demolition of the
existing buildings 10/03/2015 10/03/2018 7.00 7.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0014
Linger Longer,
Chapmans Hill,
Romsley, B62
0HD Romsley
Demolition of existing
dwelling and
construction of
replacement dwelling. 24/08/2015 24/08/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0018
East Barn,
Birmingham
Road, Hopwood,
B48 7AJ Hopwood
Change of use from C2
use to create two
dwellings (C3) with
minor alterations. 12/05/2015 12/05/2018 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0054
Strathearn,
Western Road,
Hagley, DY9 0HZ Hagley
Demolition of existing
house and provision of
7 family dwellings
including parking,
landscaping, materials
and associated
infrastructure. 11/08/2015 11/08/2018 7.00 6.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
64
Outstanding OUT 15/0063
Finstall Mount
Hotel, 45
Alcester Road,
Finstall,
Bromsgrove,
B60 1EN Finstall
Demolition of existing
former hotel and
associated dwelling
and erection of
dwellings with garages
and parking (Outline
Planning Permission)
(as amended by plans
received on
06.02.2015) 02/04/2015 02/04/2018 4.00 3.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0118
29 Meadow
Road Catshill
Worcestershire
B61 0JJ Catshill
Change of use of
existing retail unit to 1
No. Two Bed
Apartment and
Construction of rear
extension to provide 2
No. One Bed
Apartments. 31/03/2015 31/03/2018 4.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0121
37 Greenhill,
Blackwell, B60
1BL
Renovation of the
former Wadderton
Conference Centre
including demolition
of existing extensions
and detached
outbuildings to form a
single dwelling and
the erection of 3 No.
new dwelling houses
to the rear. 02/07/2015 02/07/2018 4.00 4.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0128
Longfield
Manor, Rowney
Green Lane,
Rowney Green,
B48 7RA
Rowney
Green
Change of Use of
Barns to One C3
Residential Unit 29/04/2015 29/04/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
65
Outstanding FUL 15/0142
17 Summerfield
Road, Holy
Cross,
Stourbridge,
DY9 9RG Holy Cross
Erection of one no. 3
bedroom detached
dwelling as per
previous approval ref
09/0156. 25/03/2015 25/03/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0160
First Floor, 189
Storbridge Road,
Bromsgrove,
B61 0AR Bromsgrove
Subdivision of Existing
Flat into 3 Units. 10/06/2015 10/06/2018 3.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0183
Land Between
37 and 39, Walls
Road, Stoke
Prior, B60 4LZ Stoke Prior
Proposed detached
two bedroom
dwelling. 06/05/2015 06/05/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0187
Land To The
Rear Of 103
Wildmoor Lane,
Catshill,
Bromsgrove,
B61 0PQ Catshill
Erection of a single,
two storey dwelling
with associated car
parking. 17/04/2015 17/04/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0201
17 Linthurst
Newtown,
Blackwell,
Bromsgrove,
B60 1BP Blackwell
Replacement Dwelling
- Resubmission of
13/0877 06/07/2015 06/07/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0217
7A Plymouth
Road, Barnt
Green, B45 8JE Barnt Green
Demolition of existing
dwelling and the
erection of 2 No. new
detached dwellings. 18/05/2015 18/05/2018 2.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0235
58 Fox Lane,
Bromsgrove,
B61 7NL Bromsgrove
Demolish existing
dwellinghouse. 4 new
flats and associated
parking. 28/10/2015 28/10/2018 4.00 3.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
66
Outstanding PRIOR 15/0266
Land Rear Of 36,
Middle Lane,
Headley Heath,
Headley
Heath
Prior approval for
change of use of
horticulture building
to dwellinghouse
(Class Q (a) only). 18/05/2015 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0286
Heather Lodge,
28 Station Road,
Blackwell,
Bromsgrove,
B60 1PZ Blackwell
Outline permission for
detached dwelling -
Renewal of 12/0046 28/05/2015 28/05/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0360
Land Adjacent
19, Foley
Gardens, Stoke
Prior,
Worcestershire Stoke Prior
Proposed dwelling on
land adjacent to No.
19 Foley Gardens. 03/11/2015 03/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0368
1 Warwick
Avenue,
Bromsgrove,
B60 2AH Bromsgrove
1 No. Detached
Bungalow on Land
Adjacent No 1
Warwick Avenue. 05/08/2015 05/05/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0380
Balan Farm,
Packhorse Lane,
Hollywood,
Birmingham,
B38 0DN Hollywood
Change of use from a
garage to a 3 bedroom
dwelling. 17/07/2015 17/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0389
Land At 10
Marlborough
Avenue,
Bromsgrove, Bromsgrove
Development of
vacant site to create
2x semidetached
family houses. 26/10/2015 26/10/2018 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0390
Holly Tree Farm,
Dark Lane,
Hollywood, B47
5BU Hollywood
Conversion of brick
barn to a residential
dwelling. 28/07/2015 28/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
67
Outstanding FUL 15/0393
4 Hartle Lane,
Belbroughton,
DY9 9TG Belbroughton
Change of use from B1
office to single C3
dwelling.
Renewal of permission
12/0442 09/07/2015 09/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0397
448 Birmingham
Road, Catshill,
Worcestershire,
B61 0HR Catshill New Dwelling 04/12/2015 04/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0429
27 Long
Compton Drive,
Hagley, DY9 0PD Hagley
Proposed dwelling on
land adjacent to 27
Long Compton Drive. 24/07/2015 24/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0464
Bewell Head
Working Mens
Club, 44 Bewell
Head,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 8HY Bromsgrove
Demolition of existing
Working Mens Club
and erection of 9 no.
new dwellings 29/01/2016 29/01/2019 9.00 9.00 Yes
Outstanding PRIOR 15/0469
The Rockings,
Alcester Road,
Burcot, B60 1PN Burcot
Prior approval of
proposed change of
use of agricultural
building to a
dwellinghouse (Use
Class C3), and for
associated operational
development. 15/07/2015 15/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0482
37 Greenhill,
Blackwell, B60
1BL Blakewell
Change use of
agricultural building to
the north of the
former conference
centre to a residential
dwelling. 02/10/2015 02/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
68
Outstanding FUL 15/0492
Balan Farm,
Packhorse Lane,
Hollywood, B38
0DN Hollywood
Demolition of part of
existing building and
conversion of
remainder to a single
dwelling. 06/10/2015 06/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 15/0505
Linton, The
Piggery, Upper
Gambolds Lane,
Stoke Pound,
Bromsgrove,
B60 3HD Stoke Pound
Prior Approval for a
Change of Use of
Agricultural Building to
a Dwellinghouse (Class
C3), and for
Associated Operation
Development. 20/07/2015 20/07/2018 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0512
19 Plymouth
Road, Barnt
Green, B45 8JF Barnt Green
Demolition of one
dwelling and
construction of two
dwellings 27/07/2015 27/07/2018 2.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0514
Brackendale,
Holt Lane,
Romsley, B62
0ND Romsley
Demolition of existing
buildings and
construction of
replacement dwelling
and barn / stables. 22/10/2015 22/10/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0518
387 Alcester
Road, Wythall,
Birmingham,
B47 6JL Wythall
CONVERSION OF
FORMER WYHALL
POLICE STATION INTO
2 NO DWELLINGS,
WITH REAR
EXTENSION TO FIRST
FLOOR. TOGETHER
WITH A DETACHED
GARAGE TO THE REAR 15/09/2015 15/09/2018 2.00 2.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
69
Outstanding PRIOR 15/0530
Little Harbours
Farm, Moorgate
Road, Harbours
Hill,
Bromsgrove,
B60 4AP Bromsgrove
Proposed conversion
of existing agricultural
building to two
dwelling houses (use
Class C3) and
associated operational
development. 25/08/2015 25/08/2018 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 15/0540
Field Barn,
Whitford Bridge
Road, Stoke
Prior, Stoke Prior
Notification of Prior
Approval for a Change
of Use of Agricultural
Building to a
Dwellinghouse
(ClassC3), and for
associated operational
development. 10/08/2015 10/08/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0547
Wayside, Third
Road,
Wildmoor,
Bromsgrove,
B61 0BT Bromsgrove Replacement Dwelling 17/11/2015 17/11/2018 1.00 0.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0552
19 Warren Lane,
Lickey, B45 8ER Lickey
Conversion of ancillary
outbuilding to
separate residential
dwelling. 27/08/2015 27/08/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0556
Otters Holt, Holt
Hill, Beoley,
Redditch, B98
9AT
Development of
detached house in
garden of Otters Holt. 15/10/2015 15/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0590
Pinewood Farm,
Winwood Heath
Road, Romsley,
B62 0JY Romsley
Conversion of existing
storage buildings and
garages into 2no.
three bed dwellings. 17/09/2015 17/09/2018 2.00 2.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0598
452 Birmingham
Road, Catshill,
Worcestershire, Catshill
Removal of workshop
and erection of
bungalow. 05/11/2015 05/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
70
B61 0HR
Outstanding FUL 15/0608
Land to the Rear
Of 6 St
Catherines
Road, Blackwell,
Bromsgrove,
B60 1BN Blackwell
Four-bedroom two-
storey new dwelling
with detached garage
on land to the rear of
6 St Catherines Road. 13/10/2015 13/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0636
Chadwich
Grange Farm,
Malthouse Lane,
Chadwich,
Bromsgrove,
B61 0QH
Conversion of 3no
agricultural buildings
(A-C) into residential
use (C3 Use Class)
including demolition
of 1 no agricultural
barn. 02/10/2015 02/10/2018 3.00 3.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0668
Willow Tree
Cottage, 55/57
Golden Cross
Lane, Catshill,
B61 0LG Catshill
Change of use into
two separate
dwellings (conversion
of existing dwelling
into two dwellings). 24/09/2015 24/09/2018 2.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0706
149 Shawhurst
Lane,
Hollywood,
Worcestershire,
B47 5JR Hollywood
Existing garage and
part ground floor
kitchen and porch
removed. Proposed
new two storey
dwelling. Proposed
separate entrances to
each dwelling and to
include a proposed
drop kerb. 06/11/2015 06/11/2018 2.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0726
Former Club
House,
Halesowen
Road, Lydiate
Conversion of former
clubhouse to
residential dwelling
with proportionate 23/09/2015 23/09/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
71
Ash, B61 0QL extension.
Outstanding FUL 15/0727
The Cottage,
Dordale Road,
Bournheath,
DY9 0AX Bournheath
Demolition of existing
residential dwelling,
detached garage and
games room.
Erection of new
replacement dwelling,
detached garage and
basement. 07/10/2015 07/10/2018 1.00 0.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0744
Wendron
House, Chapel
Street,
Bromsgrove,
B60 2BQ Bromsgrove
Change of Use of
redundant offices to a
single private
dwelling. 26/10/2015 26/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0748
Brookhouse
Farm, Sandy
Lane, Wildmoor,
Worcestershire,
B61 0QW Wildmoor
Conversion of former
redundant stable
building into
residential
accommodation. 03/11/2015 03/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0749
Brookhouse
Farm, Sandy
Lane, Wildmoor,
Worcestershire,
B61 0QW Wildmoor
Conversion of
redundant barn into
residential dwelling. 03/11/2015 03/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0786
144 New Road,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B60 2LE Bromsgrove
First floor rear
extension provide 2
additional residential
units 20/11/2015 20/11/2018 5.00 3.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0800
5 St Kenelms
Road, Romsley,
B62 0NU Romsley
Change of use of first
floor from C3 to office,
staff room, freezer
and chiller associated
with A1 use on ground 30/10/2015 30/10/2018 -1.00 -1.00 No
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
72
floor.
Outstanding FUL 15/0809
69 Fordhouse
Road,
Bromsgrove,
B60 2LU Bromsgrove
New build detached,
two storey, three
bedroom dwelling on
land adjacent to 69
Fordhouse Road, to
include new access to
69 Fordhouse Road. 15/10/2015 15/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No
Outstanding FUL 15/0816
19 Lickey Rock,
Marlbrook,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B60 1HF Bromsgrove
Detached
dwellinghouse. 27/11/2015 27/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0819
Land Off East
Works Drive,
Cofton Hackett,
Worcestershire
Cofton
Hackett
Erection of 41
dwellings landscaping
and associated
development
infrastructure. 09/02/2016 09/02/2019 41.00 41.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0823
The Woodlands,
Fiery Hill Road,
Barnt Green,
Birmingham,
Worcestershire,
B45 8LB Barnt Green
Resubmission - One
single storey
apartment and
ancillary parking /
landscaping. 15/12/2015 15/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0826
2 - 4 High Street,
Bromsgrove,
B61 8HQ Bromsgrove
Conversion of vacant
A1/A2 unit into
smaller unit, with
change of use of rear
of premises at ground
floor to 2 No
apartments, window 02/11/2015 02/11/2018 2.00 2.00 Yes
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
73
infilling and minor
associated works.
Outstanding FUL 15/0827
30 Stourbridge
Road,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 0AE Bromsgrove
Demolition of self-
contained single
storey studio
apartment &
construction of new
detached chalet
bungalow with
integral carport on
land adjacent to No.
30 Stourbridge Road,
Bromsgrove, B61 0AE. 24/11/2015 24/11/2018 1.00 0.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0833
3 - 4 The Square,
Alvechurch, B48
7LA Alvechurch
Change of use of part
of ground floor from
residential (C3) to
financial services (A2). 27/10/2015 27/10/2018 -1.00 -1.00 No
Outstanding PRIOR 15/0871
Headley Heath
Farm, Headley
Heath Lane,
Headley Heath,
Worcestershire,
B47 6JX
Headley
Heath
Prior Approval of Use
of Proposed Change of
Use of Agricultural
Building to a
Dwellinghouse (C3)
and Associated
Operational
Development. 16/11/2015 16/11/2018 2.00 2.00 Yes
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
74
Outstanding PRIOR 15/0874
Brook Farm,
Ickneild Street,
Beoley,
Redditch,
Worcestershire,
B98 9AL Beoley
Notification of Prior
Approval for a
proposed change of
use of Agricultural
Building to a
Dwellinghouse and for
associated operational
development. 09/11/2015 09/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0881
97 King George
Close,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 8SQ Bromsgrove
Proposed New
Dwelling 03/12/2015 03/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding CPE 15/0884
The Granary,
Dagnell End
Road, Redditch,
Worcestershire,
B98 9BE Redditch
Use of the building
known as 'The
Granary' (as outlined
in red) as a separate
and independent
dwelling C3. 25/11/2015 25/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0923
White Haze
Farm, Chapel
Lane,
Alvechurch,
Worcestershire,
B48 7QJ Alvechurch
Change of Use of
agricultural building to
a single dwelling. 17/12/2015 17/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding OUT 15/0934
407 Stourbridge
Road, Catshill,
Worcestershire Catshill
Full application for
conversion of existing
property into 2
apartments and
outline application for
new dwelling 12/02/2016 12/02/2019 3.00 2.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0937
The Priests
House, Grafton
Lane,
Bromsgrove, Bromsgrove
Change of Use of
stables and
garage/workshop to
provide dwelling 01/02/2016 01/02/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
75
B61 7HA
Outstanding FUL 15/0963
249 Worcester
Road, Stoke
Heath,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 7JA Stoke Heath
Renewal of Planning
Permission 12/1032
Proposed New
Bungalow to the Rear
of 249 Worcester
Road, Bromsgrove
approved under Ref:
10/0171 05/01/2016 05/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/0990
Redcross Farm,
Perryfields
Road,
Bromsgrove,
Worcestershire,
B61 8QW Bromsgrove
Demolition of Existing
Outbuilding and
Erection of New
Dwelling. 12/01/2016 12/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/1006
99 Wildmoor
Lane, Catshill,
Bromsgrove,
B61 0PQ Catshill
Erection of 3 no. two
storey dwellings with
parking and turning
area. 12/02/2016 12/02/2019 3.00 3.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/1048
133 Worcester
Road, Hagley,
Worcestershire,
DY9 ONW Hagley
Proposed two-storey
extension to the rear
of the property to
create larger ground
floor retail area and
additional flat above. 26/02/2016 26/02/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding PRIOR 15/1062
Unit 2 Long Acre
Field,
Brickhouse
Lane, Stoke
Prior,
Worcestershire Stoke Prior
Proposed Change of
Use from storage or
distribution buildings
(Class B8) and any
land within its
curtilage to a dwelling
house (C3). 28/01/2016 28/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
76
Outstanding PRIOR 15/1063
Unit 1 Long Acre
Field,
Brickhouse
Lane, Stoke
Prior,
Worcestershire Stoke Prior
Proposed Change of
Use from storage or
distribution buildings
(Class B8) and any
land within its
curtilage to
dwellinghouse (C3). 28/01/2016 28/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes
Outstanding FUL 15/1085
528 Groveley
Lane, Cofton
Hackett,
Worcestershire,
B45 8UB
Cofton
Hackett
New Dwelling at the
rear of 528 Groveley
Lane (re-submission of
app no. 14/0480) 03/02/2016 03/02/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes
Totals: 519.00 482.00
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
77
Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Sites with Resolution to Grant Planning Permission, subject to Section 106 Legal Agreement at 1st
March 2016
Status App Type App No Address Settlement Description Gross units Net units C2 Use? Comment
Application
Subject to
S.106 REM 15/0996
Land At Norton
Farm, Birmingham
Road, Bromsgrove, Bromsgrove
Reserved Matters Application
including appearance, landscaping,
layout and scale, following outline
planning approval ref. no. 12/0709.
Residential development comprising
316 dwellings 316 316 No
New for 1st
March 2016
5YHLS
calculation. This
is a reserved
matters
application
submitted on
20/11/2015 that
supersedes the
outline app
12/0709.
Application
Subject to
S.106 OUT 14/0408
Land Rear Algoa
House, Western
Road, Hagley,
Worcestershire Hagley
Residential development comprising
the erection of 26 dwellings. 26 26 No
Included in 1st
Nov 2015 and
1st March 2016
5YHLS
calculations.
Application
Subject to
S.106 FUL 14/0821
Land at Recreation
Road, Bromsgrove,
B61 8DT Catshill
Demolition of existing structures and
the erection of 81 bed care home and
66 bed extra-care apartments for
older persons and 26 affordable
apartments for older persons, with
supporting facilities, parking and
access 173 26
Yes
(Extra
Care =
37 units
but not
included
in
5YHLS)
Included in 1st
Nov 2015 and
1st March 2016
5YHLS
calculations.
Totals: 515 368
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
78
Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Deliverable SHLAA Sites (10+ units) included within 5 Year Land Supply at 1st
November 2015
SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1st
Nov 2015 Nov 15 –
Mar 16 (5
months)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-
20
Apr 20 – Oct
20
(7 months)
Total
with 5
years
Total
site
capacity
BDC20 Perryfields Road, Bromsgrove
(Market and Affordable)
• BDP Allocation site BROM2
• Detailed pre-application discussions held
• Outline Application due to be submitted
January 2016
• Indicative Master plan submitted as part
of BDP Examination, details phasing
(1300 housing units SoCG5)
• Taylor Wimpey BDP Examination
Submission/Letter validates build out
rates6
0 0 40 210 325 162 737 1300
BDC80 Whitford Road, Bromsgrove • BDP Allocation site BROM3
• 13/0479 OUT for 490 units refused by
Planning Committee on highways
grounds on 14.08.2014
• Appeal lodged to PINS on 08.10.2014
(APP/P1805/A/14/2225584).
• Reserved Matters discussions had
previously commenced
• Site pushed back by 5YHLS to reflect
recent refusal and appeal . No. of units
within 5YHLS reduced accordingly.
0 0 50 120 120 70 360 490
BDC95 Rear of 50, 52 & 54 Red Lion • Site being progressed to planning 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 10
5 BDC Core Document CDB14.7 Statement of Common Ground between BDC and Taylor Wimpey (November 2014)
6 BDP Examination Statement by Savills on behalf of Taylor Wimpey – Taylor Wimpey UK Delivery Rates letter (4 March 2016) – see letter shown at the end
of this hearing statement.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
79
SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1st
Nov 2015 Nov 15 –
Mar 16 (5
months)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-
20
Apr 20 – Oct
20
(7 months)
Total
with 5
years
Total
site
capacity
Street, Alvechurch application following SHLAA submission.
BDC102 5, 7 & 9 Worcester Road,
Hagley
• Site being progressed to planning
application following SHLAA submission. 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 12
BDC163 Finstall Training Centre, Stoke
Road, Bromsgrove
• Users currently being relocated from
the site.
• Site to be completely vacant in 2015.
0 0 0 12 0 0 12 12
BDC168 The Council House, Burcot
Lane, Bromsgrove
• BDC Cabinet report on 03/07/13
agreeing to the disposal of site for
residential development.
• BDC secured planning permission for
new offices at Parkside, Bromsgrove, in
November 2013 and construction has
commenced.
• Relocation of staff from Council House
occurring and to be completed by
winter 2015.
0 0 0 25 26 0 51 51
BDC192 All Saints Vicarage, Burcot
Lane, Bromsgrove
• Site being progressed to planning
application following SHLAA submission. 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 12
Totals 0 0 90 367 481 250 1188 1887
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
80
Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Deliverable SHLAA Sites (10+ units) included within 5 Year Land Supply at 1st
March 2016
SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1st
March 2016 Mar 16 –
Apr 16 (1
month)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-
20
Apr 20 –
Mar 21
(11 months)
Total
with 5
years
Total
site
capacity
BDC20 Perryfields Road, Bromsgrove
(Market and Affordable)
• BDP Allocation site BROM2
• Detailed pre-application discussions held
• Outline Application due to be submitted
January 2016
• Indicative Master plan submitted as part
of BDP Examination, details phasing
(1300 housing units (see SoCG7)
• Taylor Wimpey BDP Examination
Submission/Letter validates build out
rates8
0 0 40 210 325 247 822 1300
BDC80 Whitford Road, Bromsgrove • BDP Allocation site BROM3
• 13/0479 OUT for 490 units refused by
Planning Committee on highways
grounds on 14.08.2014
• Appeal lodged to PINS on 08.10.2014
(APP/P1805/A/14/2225584).
• Reserved Matters discussions had
previously commenced
• Site pushed back by 5YHLS to reflect
recent refusal and appeal . No. of units
within 5YHLS reduced accordingly.
0 0 50 120 120 110 400 490
BDC95 Rear of 50, 52 & 54 Red Lion • Site being progressed to planning 0 0 0 0 10 0 10 10
7 BDC Core Document CDB14.7 Statement of Common Ground between BDC and Taylor Wimpey (November 2014)
8 BDP Examination Statement by Savills on behalf of Taylor Wimpey – Taylor Wimpey UK Delivery Rates letter (4 March 2016) – see letter shown at the end
of this hearing statement.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
81
SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1st
March 2016 Mar 16 –
Apr 16 (1
month)
2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-
20
Apr 20 –
Mar 21
(11 months)
Total
with 5
years
Total
site
capacity
Street, Alvechurch application following SHLAA submission.
BDC102 5, 7 & 9 Worcester Road,
Hagley
• Site being progressed to planning
application following SHLAA submission. 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 12
BDC163 Finstall Training Centre, Stoke
Road, Bromsgrove
• Users currently being relocated from
the site.
• Site to be completely vacant in 2015.
0 0 0 12 0 0 12 12
BDC168 The Council House, Burcot
Lane, Bromsgrove
• BDC Cabinet report on 03/07/13
agreeing to the disposal of site for
residential development.
• BDC secured planning permission for
new offices at Parkside, Bromsgrove, in
November 2013 and construction has
commenced.
• Relocation of staff from Council House
occurring and to be completed by
winter 2015.
0 0 0 25 26 0 51 51
BDC192 All Saints Vicarage, Burcot
Lane, Bromsgrove
• Site being progressed to planning
application following SHLAA submission. 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 12
Totals 0 0 90 367 481 379 1317 1887
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
82
Bromsgrove 5YHLS – List of Amendments to Commitments at 1st
March 2016
App Ref Address Proposal Status
Decision
Date
Expiry
Date Amendments
Gross
Units
Amend
Dwelling
Number
(Net)
Reason for
Amendment
13/0213
Former
Polymer Latex
Site, Weston
Hall Road,
Stoke Prior,
B60 4AL
Redevelopme
nt of the
former latex
factory site to
provide
mixed-use
development. Outstanding 30/01/2015 30/01/2018
Amended housing figure of 247 to
remove C2 use of 90 units and change
dwelling number to 202 based on the
submitted full planning application
15/0687, which is currently pending
decision. 202 202
Comment in Harris Lamb's
written Representation
(page 4).
15/0551
35 Brook
Road,
Bromsgrove,
B61 7DD
Creating
additional
dwelling by
splitting no
35.
Under
Construction 26/08/2015 26/08/2018
Amendment to Net Under Construction
figure - change from 2 to 1. 2 1
Comment in Harris Lamb
written Representation
regarding gross and net
figures (Para 2, Page 1 of
rep). Figures checked and
amendment made to net
figure for this application.
12/0709
Land at
Norton Farm,
Birmingham
Road,
Bromsgrove
Outline
application
for the
construction
of up to 316
dwellings. Outstanding 20/12/2013 20/12/2016
Application superseded by 15/0996
(Granted Subject to S106 agreement) 316 316
Update to database
following submission of
reserved matters
application 15/0996 on
20/11/2015.
13/0877
17 Linthurst
Newtown,
Blackwell,
Bromsgrove,
B60 1BP
Proposed
Replacement
Dwelling -
Resubmission
of Application
13/0041 Outstanding 08/04/2014 08/04/2017
Application has been superseded by
15/0201. 1 0 Correction to database.
14/0480
528 Groveley
Lane, Cofton
Hackett,
Birmingham,
B45 8UB
Provision of
New Dwelling
to the Land at
the rear of
528 Groveley Outstanding 13/01/2015 13/01/2018
Application has been superseded by
15/1085. 1 1
Update to database
following submission of
15/1085 on 29/12/2015.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions
83
Lane
14/0762
19 Plymouth
Road, Barnt
Green
Replacement
Dwelling Outstanding 12/12/2014 12/12/2017
Application has been superseded by
15/0512. 1 0 Correction to database.
14/0977
Redcross
Farm,
Perryfields
Road,
Bromsgrove,
B61 8QW
Change of Use
and
extensions to
form one 2-
bed dwelling Outstanding 18/02/2015 18/02/2018
Application has been superseded by
15/0990. 1 1
Update to database
following submission of
15/0990 on 19/11/2015.
15/0192
Land off Fiery
Hill Road,
Barnt Green,
B45 8LF
Erection of
single
dwelling.
(Replacement
of Plot 60 on
approved
application
13/0522) Outstanding 27/05/2015 27/05/2018
This application relates to 13/0522 that
is Under Construction and already
accounted for. 1 1 Correction to database.
15/0538
White Haze
Farm, Chapel
Lane,
Alvechurch,
B48 7QJ
Notification
for Prior
Approval for a
Proposed
Change of Use
of Agricultural
Building to a
Dwellinghous
e (Class C3),
and for
Associated
Operational
Development. Outstanding 12/08/2015 12/08/2018
Application has been superseded by
15/0923. 1 1
Update to database
following submission of
15/0923 on 23/10/2015.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
1
Redditch 5YHLS – Commitments at 1 March 16
Components which contribute to the Five Year Supply of Deliverable Housing Land
The components which have been included towards the five year land supply (totals in bold)
are detailed as follows:
Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3 - Large Sites which can be drawn upon to meet any
shortfall identified through the monitoring process
No. Site Name Capacity for
Completions (2016-21)
Brownfield/ Greenfield
Not Started
Under Construction
143 Castleditch Lane/ Pheasant Lane 16 G 16 0
153*† Prospect Hill 71 B 57 14
156 Land at Millfields and the Fire Station 30 B/G 30 0
158* South of Scout Hut, Oakenshaw Road 21 G 4 17
TOTAL 138 107 31
Sites identified in Redditch SHLAA
No. Site Name Capacity for
Completions (2016-21)
Brownfield/ Greenfield
Not Started
Under Construction
200* Land at Wirehill Drive 12 G 12 0
203*† Former Dingleside Middle School and Auxerre Avenue
86 B/G 58 28
209 Loxley Close 10 B 10 0
210Ω Land to the rear of the Alexandra Hospital
145 G 145 0
211 A435 ADR 126 G 126 0
212*† Brockhill (former ADR & GB) 469 G 469 0
213*†Ω Webheath (former ADR) 310 G 310 0
215* Birchfield Road 29 G 24 5
216* Former Hewell Road swimming baths
30 B 0 30
15/036* Adj. Sandycroft, West Avenue 6 G 6 0
218* RO Windsor Road Gas Works 44 B 44 0
219* Studley Road/Green Lane 10 G 10 0
CS03 Matchborough District Centre 70 B/G 70 0
Ω Winyates District Centre 35 B/G 35 0
2010/05 Clifton Close 6 G 6 0
2014/02Ω Conwil, Dagnell End Road 6 G 6 0
2014/096* Jolly Farmer PH, Woodrow Drive 14 B 14 0
2014/272* Former ambulance stn, Cedar Park Rd
14 B 14 0
2014/07Ω Former Youth House, Ipsley Street 10 B 10 0
Ω Former Holyoaks Field First School 20 B/G 20 0
TOTAL 1452 1389 63
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
2
* Sites with valid planning consent † Consent on part of site only
∆ Application pending outcome
Ω Pre-app
Windfall sites (5 dwellings or more) identified since the adoption of the Borough of Redditch Local
Plan No.3
No. Site Name Capacity for
Completions (2016-21)
Brownfield/ Greenfield
Not Started
Under Construction
205* Mayfields Works, The Mayfields 23 B 18 5
220* Park House, Evesham Street 14 B 14 0
12/161* The Elms, Bromsgrove Road 7 G 0 7
13/327* Oak House, Herbert Street 9 B 0 9
14/009∆ Land at Moons Moat Drive 14 G 14 0
14/105* The Paddocks, Feckenham 6 B 6 0
14/169* Suntrap, Edgioak Lane, Astwood
Bank
2 G 0 2
14/237* 3 Plymouth Road 6 G 6 0
14/311* Headless Cross Methodist Church 9 B 9 0
14/321∆ Unit 2, Millsborough House, Ipsley
Street
14 B 14 0
15/043* Former night club, Church Road 27 B 27 0
15/044* White Lion PH, Astwood Bank 7 B 7 0
15/084* 132 Oakly Road, Southcrest 9 B 9 0
15/100* Threadneedle House, Alcester Street 9 B 9 0
15/143∆ Ashleigh Works, Bromsgrove Road 10 B 10 0
15/151* Ipsley Court, Berrington Close, Ipsley 5 G 5 0
16/028∆ Redditch Trades & Labour Club 28 B 28 0
Ω Clive Road/ Prospect Hill 40 B 40 0
Ω Former Church Hill Medical Centre 16 B 16 0
Ω Millsborough House Ph2 40 B 40 0
Ω Paper Mill Drive, Church Hill South 36 G 36 0
TOTAL 331 308 23
* Sites with valid planning consent ∆ Application pending outcome
Ω Pre-app
Sites to be delivered through the Prior Notification Initiative
No. Site Name Capacity for Completions (2016-21)
Brownfield/ Greenfield
Not Started
Under Construction
13/331 2 Ludlow Road, Southcrest 6 B 6 0
14/127 St Stephen’s House,
Prospect Hill
54 B 54 0
14/263 Merry Oak, Moors Lane,
Feckenham
1 G 1 0
15/087 Springfield Farm, Astwood
Lane
1 G 1 0
15/099 Threadneedle House,
Alcester Street
37 B 37 0
15/197 Adj. Lower Tookeys Farm,
Astwood Bank
1 G 1 0
15/197 Adj. Lower Tookeys Farm 1 G 1 0
15/226 5 Alcester Street, Town
Centre
4 B 4 0
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
3
15/237 1240 Evesham Road,
Astwood Bank
10 B 10 0
15/340 20 Bromsgrove Road 3 B 3 0
TOTAL 117 117 0
Grey highlight = new commitments since 1 November 2015
Small Site Commitments (4 dwellings or less) with valid planning consent
No. Site Name Capacity for
Completions at 1.3.2016
Not Started Under Construction
Brownfield/ Greenfield
09/086 97 Prospect Road North, Lakeside 1 0 1 B
11/113 7 Morsefield Lane, Matchborough West 1 0 1 B
11/327 166 Mount Pleasant 1 0 1 B
12/099 Adj. 205 Evesham Road, Headless Cross 2 0 2 B
12/257 RO 247 Evesham Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 G
12/306 RO 36 Marsden Road, Smallwood 2 0 2 B
12/313 The Thatchers, Church Road, Webheath 2 2 0 G
13/003 Adj. 5 The Mayfields, Southcrest 1 1 0 G
13/064 Adj. 34 Birchfield Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 G
13/082 Phoenix Works, Summer Street, Smallwood 2 0 2 B
13/171 7 Beaufort Street, Southcrest 4 4 0 B
13/189 Barn at Mutton Hall 1 1 0 G
13/254 Uphill, Sambourne Ln, Astwood Bank 1 0 1 B
13/260 325 Evesham Road, Crabbs Cross 3 3 0 B
13/264 325 Evesham Road, Crabbs Cross 1 1 0 B
13/292 Old Yarr stables, Hunt End 2 2 0 G
13/320 Adj. First House, Lady Harriet’s Lane 1 1 0 G
14/046 324 Evesham Road, Crabbs Cross 1 1 0 B
14/160ol RO 112 Feckenham Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 G
14/203 40A Mason Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 B
14/247 Adj. Greenfields, Field Farm Lane 1 0 1 G
14/297 1 The Grove, Holloway Drive 1 0 1 G
14/298 40 Chestnut Road, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G
14/325 Adj. Doebank House, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G
14/336 Adj. St Georges Court, Winyates Way 2 2 0 B
14/367 Adj. 55 Weatheroak Close, Webheath 1 1 0 G
14/371 171 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B
14/1515 5 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B
15/012 70 Maisemore Close, Church Hill North 1 1 0 B
15/049 78 Ash Tree Road, Batchley 1 1 0 B
15/056 Grand View, Sambourne Lane, AB 1 0 1 G
15/065 British Mills, Prospect Hill 1 1 0 B
15/086 Adj. Carantac, The Mayfields, Southcrest 1 1 0 G
15/097 RO 173 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B
15/108 42 Dagtail Lane, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G
15/119 RO 52 Bromsgrove Road 2 2 0 G
15/123 10 Market Place 1 1 0 B
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
4
15/131 Field House, Feckenham Road, Hunt End 1 0 1 G
15/133 Adj. Grand View, Sambourne Lane, AB 1 0 1 G
SUB TOTAL 51 36 15
No. Site Name Capacity for Completions at
1.3.2016
Not Started Under Construction
Brownfield/ Greenfield
15/137 RO 123-127 The Meadway, Headless Cross 4 4 0 G
15/167 27 Cranham Close 1 1 0 G
15/178 Adj. 17 Crumpfields Lane, Webheath 1 1 0 G
15/196 Black Horse PH, 7-9 Mt Pleasant 2 2 0 B
15/261 Victoria House, Feckenham Road, AB 4 4 0 B
15/274 Adj. 35 Hazel Road, Batchley 1 1 0 G
15/280 Papermill Barn, Brooklands Lane 1 1 0 G
15/288 Green Acres, Crofts Lane 1 0 1 G
15/294 Adj. 10 Foxlydiate Crescent, Batchley 1 1 0 B
15/302 Above Simply Local, Dilwyn Close 1 1 0 B
15/324 Adj. Doebank House, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G
15/361 51 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B
16/009 Vauns Oaks, 13 Icknield Street 2 2 0 G
TOTAL 72 56 16
∆ Application pending Grey highlight = new commitments since 1 November 2015
Small site commitments = 72 dwellings
Small Site Windfall Allowance
Small site windfall allowance on sites less than 5 dwellings = 32 dwellings
Cross Boundary contributions
No. Site Name Capacity for
Completions (2016-21)
Brownfield/ Greenfield
Not Started
Under Construction
Site 1 Foxlydiate 671 G 671 0
TOTAL 671 671 0
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
5
Delivery Schedule
Site Nov 15/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 1 Mar 21
Mayfields Works 5 18
Castleditch Lane/ Pheasant Lane 0 0 5 11
Land at Millfields, adjacent the Fire Station 0 0 0 30
South of Scout Hut 21
Former Dingleside Middle School 15 51 0 20
Loxley Close 0 0 0 10
Clifton Close 0 0 0 6
Prospect Hill 14 0 14 43
RO Alexandra Hospital 0 0 45 50 50
A435 ADR 0 0 0 30 50 46
Brockhill East (ADR) 0 16 65 65 65 60
Brockhill East (Weights Lane) 0 38 45 45 45 25
Webheath ADR 0 20 75 75 75 65
Land adjacent to Sandycroft 0 0 6
Birchfield Road (GB) 6 12 11
Former Hewell Road swimming baths 0 30
RO Windsor Road Gas Works 0 10 34
Studley Road/ Green Lane 0 4 6
Park House 0 6 8
The Elms 7
Conwil, Dagnell End Lane 0 0 6
Former ambulance station, Cedar Park Road 0 14
Former Jolly Farmer PH, Woodrow 0 4 10
Former Youth Centre, Ipsley Street 0 0 10
St Stephens House, Town Centre 0 54
Oak House, Herbert Street 0 9
Adj. Lower Tookey’s Farm, Astwood Bank 0 0 1
Threadneedle House 0 46
Land at Moons Moat Drive 0 4 10
The Paddocks 0 0 6
Suntrap, Edgioak Lane 2
Headless Cross Methodist Church 0 2 7
Former night club, Church Road 0 27
White Lion PH, Astwood Bank 0 7
132 Oakly Road 4 5
Ludlow Road 0 6
Springfield Farm 0 1
Millsborough House 0 14
Ashleigh Works, Bromsgrove Rd 0 5 5
Redditch Trades & Labour Club 0 14 14
Paper Mill Drive, Church Hill South 0 0 20 16
Wirehill Drive 0 4 8
3 Plymouth Road 0 0 6
Ipsley Court, Berrington Close 0 5
20 Bromsgrove Road 0 3
5 Alcester Street 4
1240 Evesham Road, Astwood Bank 0 10
Church Hill Medical Centre 0 0 16
Clive Road/ Prospect Hill 0 0 10 30
Millsborough House Ph2 0 0 15 15 10
Matchborough District Centre 0 0 0 35 35
Winyates District Centre 0 0 0 5 30
Former Holyoaks Field First School 0 0 0 0 20
Merry Oak Farm, Moors Lane 0 0 1
XBDY - Site 1 Foxlydiate 0 0 83 169 209 210
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
6
Sub Total 78 439 542 655 589 406
Small site completions (windfalls) 18 25 23 17 11 10
Total 96 464 565 672 600 416
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
7
Dear Sir / Madam RE: Bromsgrove and Redditch Local Plans - Examination in Public Further to my letter of 16 February, I am pleased to provide an update on the proposed phasing and delivery rates for the Perryfields site. As noted in our previous correspondence, the site is in the control of Taylor Wimpey, a major national house builder with an established track record in the delivery of large scale, high quality residential developments across the country. Extensive pre-application discussions on Taylor Wimpey’s outline application proposals for Perryfields have taken place to date and we continue to be in regular discussions with the District Council. All of the relevant technical and environmental issues have considered in detail with the planning authority and engagement has been underway with the relevant consultees. The phasing and delivery rates set out below reflect Taylor Wimpey’s latest forecasts based on feasibility studies and financial modelling that have been undertaken prior to the submission of the planning application. The phasing and delivery rates will be included in the planning application for Perryfields, which has been prepared and is awaiting final sign-off prior to submission to Bromsgrove District Council. We anticipate the application will be submitted later this month. The phasing strategy for the development proposes 6 phases for bringing development forward over an 8 to 10 year period. The development strategy is coordinated with the provision of open space, infrastructure and local facilities, alongside land ownership considerations. The table below illustrates the potential timing of each phase. It is envisaged that there will be some overlap between the completion of each phase and the start of the next phase. Perryfields Phasing
Phase Construction Period
Residential Dwelling Construction (Circa.)
Phase 1 2016 – 2020 425
Phase 2 2018 – 2020 225
Phase 3 2019 – 2019 40
4 March 2016 Lt BDC Perryfields delivery rates 04.03.16
Bromsgrove and Redditch Planning Policy Teams Town Hall Walter Stranz Square Redditch B98 8AH By email only
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
8
Phase 4 2019 – 2022 300
Phase 5 2021 – 2022 160
Phase 6 2022 – 2024 150
TOTAL 2016 – 2024 1300
A plan showing the proposed phasing for the site is attached to this letter. The phasing is described as follows: PHASE 1 (2016 - 2020) The first phase of development will be in the south. This will be linked to the delivery of the new roundabout junction from Kidderminster Road and the closure of the Perryfields Road/ Kidderminster Road junction. Circa. 425 residential units will be provided alongside the connecting spine road between the roundabout and Perryfields Road. The mixed use area located in this phase will be made available to the market. Green infrastructure will be delivered concurrently with each phase, in line with the Green Infrastructure delivery plan. It is also envisaged that during the later stages of this phase the new junction from Stourbridge Road to the north of the site will be commenced and a spine road spur provided in order to support the delivery of dwellings in Phase 2. PHASE 2 (2018 - 2020) Using the new Stourbridge Road junction to the north of the Site, circa 225 dwellings will be delivered. Works to the Battlefield Brook, landscape enhancements and preparation works for the recreation ground will be underway during this phase. The recreation ground will be completed or available for use by the completion of phase 3, at which time the proposed sports pavilion and pedestrian link from King George’s recreation ground should be available for use. PHASE 3 (2019 - 2019) This phase is relatively small when compared with other phases. This phase will deliver circa. 40 residential dwellings, alongside the provision of the sports pavilion and the formal park component of the wider open space and parkland provision. On completion of the pavilion and formal park including pedestrian links from the King George recreation ground, the parkland will be open to public use. This phase also delivers the remaining section of the new spine road link and enables all of the proposed alterations to Perryfields Road to be completed. PHASE 4 (2019 - 2022) Located centrally within the site; served directly from the existing Perryfields Road; and within the ownership/ control of one land owner, the County Council, this phase of development is likely to overlap with other phases of development. Circa 300 dwellings will be delivered in this phase, alongside strategic open space components.
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
9
This phase is self-sufficient in terms of surface water drainage and connections to outfalls. Informal landscape elements will be included with this phase of development. The existing SUSTRANs route, and PROW/ Bridleways will remain operational, although temporary diversions may be necessary to facilitate safe development or enhancements to the routes. PHASE 5 (2021 - 2022) Phase 5 is located to the west of the Perryfields Road and situated on the proposed spine road route. This phase comprises additional mixed uses which are intended to accommodate the local centre and extra care facilities. These are to be co-located with the existing Sidemoor First School to create and support a viable local centre. In addition further employment land will be made available to the market during this phase. The local centre will be advanced and expanded in this phase as a critical mass of new population will be in place to support the operation and therefore success of the local centre. In addition to the mixed uses, circa 160 dwellings will be delivered. PHASE 6 (2022 - 2024) Phase 6 is the final phase of development, delivering the remaining components of the scheme which includes circa 150 dwellings. I trust this information is of assistance in progressing the Local Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries. Yours sincerely
Tim Hoskinson
Associate Director Encl Perryfields Phasing Plan
Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions
10
Recommended