examinations of the bromsgrove district plan (bdp) …...2016/03/01 · examinations of the...

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.


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.


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 runoff, thereby increasing risks of flooding downstream.


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


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


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.


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.


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


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.


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.


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.


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


14

OED/33a



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


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?



15

OED/33a



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


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.



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




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


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





Scoring

A435 (Including Site 18)


Listed Building(s) (+2)

Scoring


Adverse effect with mitigation (-

1)

Appendix D





Scoring Scoring Appendix D


16

OED/33a



Site 3A


Listed Building(s) (+2)

Site 3A


1)





Scoring

Site 4

Improve or no effect (+2)

Scoring

Site 4


1)

Appendix D





Total Score


48

Total Score


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)


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


18

Appendix 2

Bromsgrove District Plan / Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.4

5 Year Housing Land Supply Topic Paper

4 March 2016


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.


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


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.


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


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’.


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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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.)


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%


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


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.


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.



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.


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


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


39



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



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


40



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’.


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.”


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.


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.


44

Details of Lapsed Large Site Commitments in Redditch Borough since 1st April 2010


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


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


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


45


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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


Total Net Outstanding 1,090


Units on Outstanding Sites (exc. Replacement dwellings) (Appendix D) 660


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


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


Total Net Under Construction 180


Total Net Outstanding 912


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).


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


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.


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


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


Woodhouse

Farm, Packhorse

Lane,

Hollywood, B38

0DN Wythall

Replacement

bungalow 12/04/2013 12/04/2016 1.00 0.00 No


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


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


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.


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


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


55


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


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


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


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


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


56


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


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


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


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


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


Galtons, Hartle

Lane, Belbroughton

Proposed

Replacement Dwelling 29/04/2014 29/04/2017 1.00 0.00 No


57

Belbroughton,

DY9 9TR


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


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


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


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


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


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


496-498

Groveley Lane,

Cofton Hackett,

Cofton

Hackett

Proposed New

Dwelling 11/09/2014 11/09/2017 1.00 1.00 No


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


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


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


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


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


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


59


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


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


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


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


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


60

landscaping.


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


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


47 Beacon Hill

Rubery

Birmingham

Worcestershire

B45 9QW Rubery

Proposed new

dwelling 19/02/2015 19/02/2018 1.00 0.00 No


61


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


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


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


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


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


62


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


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


7D Twatling

Road, Barnt

Green,

Birmingham,

Worcestershire,

B45 8HX Barnt Green


dwelling and erection

of replacement

dwelling. 11/12/2014 11/12/2017 1.00 0.00 No


Pine Cottage

Rumbow Lane

Romsley

Halesowen B62

0LX Romsley


detached cottage and

construction of new 4

bedroomed detached

cottage. 26/01/2015 26/01/2018 1.00 0.00 No


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


6 Cherry Hill

Road Barnt

Green

Birmingham Barnt Green


house. Erection of

detached, two storey

five bedroom dwelling 12/03/2015 12/03/2018 1.00 0.00 No


63

Worcestershire

B45 8LH


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


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


Linger Longer,

Chapmans Hill,

Romsley, B62

0HD Romsley


dwelling and

construction of

replacement dwelling. 24/08/2015 24/08/2018 1.00 0.00 No


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


Strathearn,

Western Road,

Hagley, DY9 0HZ Hagley


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


64


Finstall Mount

Hotel, 45

Alcester Road,

Finstall,

Bromsgrove,

B60 1EN Finstall


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


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


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


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


65


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


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


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


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


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


7A Plymouth

Road, Barnt

Green, B45 8JE Barnt Green


dwelling and the

erection of 2 No. new

detached dwellings. 18/05/2015 18/05/2018 2.00 1.00 No


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


66


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


67


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


448 Birmingham

Road, Catshill,

Worcestershire,

B61 0HR Catshill New Dwelling 04/12/2015 04/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes


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


Bewell Head

Working Mens

Club, 44 Bewell

Head,

Bromsgrove,

Worcestershire,

B61 8HY Bromsgrove


Working Mens Club

and erection of 9 no.

new dwellings 29/01/2016 29/01/2019 9.00 9.00 Yes


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


37 Greenhill,

Blackwell, B60

1BL Blakewell

Change use of


the north of the

former conference

centre to a residential

dwelling. 02/10/2015 02/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No


68


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


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


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


Brackendale,

Holt Lane,

Romsley, B62

0ND Romsley


buildings and

construction of

replacement dwelling

and barn / stables. 22/10/2015 22/10/2018 1.00 0.00 No


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


69


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


development. 25/08/2015 25/08/2018 2.00 2.00 No


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


development. 10/08/2015 10/08/2018 1.00 1.00 No


Wayside, Third

Road,

Wildmoor,

Bromsgrove,

B61 0BT Bromsgrove Replacement Dwelling 17/11/2015 17/11/2018 1.00 0.00 Yes


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


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


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


452 Birmingham

Road, Catshill,

Worcestershire, Catshill

Removal of workshop

and erection of

bungalow. 05/11/2015 05/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes


70

B61 0HR


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


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


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


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


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


71

Ash, B61 0QL extension.


The Cottage,

Dordale Road,

Bournheath,

DY9 0AX Bournheath


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


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


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


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


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


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


72

floor.


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


19 Lickey Rock,

Marlbrook,

Bromsgrove,

Worcestershire,

B60 1HF Bromsgrove

Detached

dwellinghouse. 27/11/2015 27/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes


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


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


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


73

infilling and minor

associated works.


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


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


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


74


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


development. 09/11/2015 09/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes


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


White Haze

Farm, Chapel

Lane,

Alvechurch,

Worcestershire,

B48 7QJ Alvechurch

Change of Use of


a single dwelling. 17/12/2015 17/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes


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


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


75

B61 7HA


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


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


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


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


Unit 2 Long Acre

Field,

Brickhouse

Lane, 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


76


Unit 1 Long Acre

Field,

Brickhouse

Lane, 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


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


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


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.


79


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



Totals 0 0 90 367 481 250 1188 1887


80

Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Deliverable SHLAA Sites (10+ units) included within 5 Year Land Supply at 1st

March 2016


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.


81


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



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



Totals 0 0 90 367 481 379 1317 1887


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


15/1085. 1 1

Update to database


15/1085 on 29/12/2015.


83

Lane

14/0762

19 Plymouth

Road, Barnt

Green

Replacement

Dwelling Outstanding 12/12/2014 12/12/2017


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


15/0990. 1 1

Update to database


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


15/0923. 1 1

Update to database


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




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


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




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)


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


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


Completions at 1.3.2016

Not Started Under Construction


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


13/292 Old Yarr stables, Hunt End 2 2 0 G

13/320 Adj. First House, Lady Harriet’s Lane 1 1 0 G


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


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


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


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


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




Not Started

Under Construction

Site 1 Foxlydiate 671 G 671 0

TOTAL 671 671 0


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


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


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


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.


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


10

examinations of the bromsgrove district plan (bdp) …...2016/03/01 · examinations of the...

Documents