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

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 3 rd December 2014 and 8th June 2015 Bromsgrove District Council (BDC) and Redditch Borough Council (RBC) would like to take the opportunity to re-emphasise and add the following comments.

2. The Councils’ consider that the Foxlydiate and Brockhill East urban extensions represent the most appropriate locations for meeting Redditch’s housing needs within Bromsgrove District. The analysis that informs this view can be found in the Housing Growth Development Study (HGDS) [CDX1.1], and further explanation is found in the more recent Narrative on the Site Selection Process for the Growth Areas at Redditch January 2016 [“The Narrative”] which were completed jointly by BDC and RBC officers. Both set out the process of analysis undertaken to identify appropriate locations to meet Redditch’s unmet housing need. Revised wording to address the amended developable area boundary of Site 1(Foxlydiate / Area 4) will be provided in the Schedule of Modifications. This will be published before the Hearings in March 2016.

3. Both the HGDS and The Narrative emphasise that no area is perfect and that the process boils down to a fine balancing act. The choice that has to be made therefore is on the basis of the area(s) which most suitably deliver the required amount of development and associated infrastructure with the least negative impacts.

4. Both Councils’ consider that the methodology for selecting appropriate sites for development is robust and transparent, as demonstrated in the HGDS and explained in The Narrative and as set out in the previous Hearing Statements.

5. The HGDS, HGDS Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and Addendum documents comprehensively examine all alternative locations around Redditch’s urban area and The Narrative provides further explanation and detail on this process.

6. The previous Hearing Statements explain how exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated. However, the Councils’ have further comments to make on this issue.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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. 3

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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 16 th 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.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

The Councils’ consider that it should be noted that a Statement of Common Ground (SoCG) has been agreed between Severn Trent Water Limited (STWL), the Environment Agency (EA), RBC and BDC. Furthermore policies in the Bromsgrove District Plan state that: RCBD1.9 VI. (Proposed Modifications underlined) “Flood risk from the Spring Brook on Site 1 Foxlydiate and the Red Ditch on Site 2 Brockhill East should be managed through measures that work with natural processes to improve the local water environment . Any necessary measures to mitigate flood risk are to be implemented and flood modelling will be required, which must be outlined in a site specific Flood Risk Assessment. Surface water runoff must be managed to prevent flooding on, around and downstream of both sites through the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems (SuDS)”.

BDP 23.1c) Water Management policy “Ensuring development addresses flood risk from all sources, follows the flood risk management hierarchy when planning and designing development, and does not increase the risk of flooding elsewhere. Where inappropriate developments in areas at risk of flooding are necessary after the sequential test is applied, appropriate designs, materials and escape routes that minimise the risk(s) and loss should be incorporated”.

See also Hearing Statement XB1/2f Appendix 10 Flood Risk Assessment by WSP dated November 2014 which states that: “.. the drainage strategy must not only consider flood risk but must also aim to achieve the Greenfield run off rates to ensure that conversion from Greenfield to suburban land use does not reduce recharge rates to the aquifer. In addition we will be expecting the recharge to be of high quality and we will expect the highest level of treatment for SUDS schemes”.

This issue was also discussed in the Hearing Sessions in June 2015 where it was stated that this issue is addressed in policy. It is a requirement of the NPPF that run off is not increased as a result of new development. b) Area 8

Some respondents were confused about the remarks in the conclusion of The Narrative (Page 100 para 16.19) in relation to Area 8 and the Abbey Stadium.

The Councils’ would like to clarify that benefits are identified in The Narrative including the possibility of providing the Bordesley Bypass, the distance to leisure facilities and recreation and its ‘perceived proximity’ to the Town Centre. There are other factors which outweigh these benefits. These benefits/ strengths/opportunities as detailed in the SWOT analysis on page page 143. The reason ‘perceived’ proximity to the Town Centre is listed is because many objectors claim that Bordesley is closer to the Town Centre than other areas. Whilst it is closer than some it is approximately 4.1 km away (beyond what is considered to be a reasonable walking distance). Officers

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

have considered more than purely distance in relation to the Town Centre including accessibility along main roads, legibility and safety. e) Coalescence and Green Belt gap

Some respondents did not consider that the Green Belt gap issue and coalescence had been consistently addressed and considered that the development of Area 4 will significantly reduce the Redditch / Bromsgrove gap. Some considered that this Green Belt purpose was of lesser importance than some of the other Green Belt purposes such as sprawl and encroachment into the countryside and suggested the coalescence of Redditch and Studley was acceptable.

The Councils’ consider that the NPPF makes no distinction between the importance of the five Green Belt purposes and at para 80 states one of the purposes is to ‘to prevent neighbouring towns merging into one another’. This clearly does not extend to hamlets, any loose arrangement of buildings or names of areas. The HGDS for completeness did however consider this issue at this finer detail. Page 38 of The Narrative also acknowledges the issue of the Green Belt gap/ Strategic Green Belt gap – “…wherever issues arose about the potential reduction of the Green Belt Gap based upon the distance between settlements, the HGDS described the nature of the issue and which settlements are potentially compromised”.

The Councils’ consider that, in relation to development at Foxlydiate and Brockhill East, neighbouring towns would not merge into one another. f) Urban Sprawl

There appeared to be some confusion in some of the responses over what is meant by the term ‘urban sprawl’.

The Councils’ would like to clarify that urban sprawl is defined as ‘the uncontrolled expansion of urban areas.’ It is the Councils’ opinion that as the sites are selected and identified for allocation through the Local Plan process, that this is not urban sprawl but planned development. Land is only able to be removed from the Green Belt through a Green Belt and Local Plan review. By identifying and enhancing strong Green Belt boundaries via this process this will prevent urban sprawl from occurring. g) Access to employment

Some respondents did not consider that access to employment was adequately covered in The Narrative.

The Councils’ consider that access to employment areas in relation to each Area is covered in the HGDS. It should however be noted that due to the efficiency of the highways network around Redditch Town this makes all

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

employment areas readily accessible. The Narrative discusses this issue in the sense that the Town Centre is accessible from all parts of the Town and further, the Town Centre hosts the bus station and the Train station which supports frequent and easy public transport movements (page 49 paras 9.38- 9.39) h) Area 8

Some respondents considered the suggestion that Area 8’s capacity equates to just 1,000 homes is a ‘rabbit out of the hat’, given that plan-making to date (including engagement) has reflected an assumed capacity of 2,451 (see HGDS, p 176).

The Councils’ do not consider that this is a ‘rabbit out of the hat’ as this information is contained in the Gallaghers /Pegasus Hearing Statement XB1/14 December 2014: “As set out in representations submitted in relation to the Proposed Submission Local Plan stage in November 2013 the proposals have been developed based on a landscape led approach, leading to a revised allocation boundary and a resulting capacity of a minimum of 1000 dwellings with an element of employment generating uses on part of the site”. Officers are unaware of firm evidence from the developers that in excess of 1000 dwellings can be delivered on Area 8. i) Bordesley By-pass

It has been suggested in representations that the potential for the development of a by-pass in Bordesley, means that Area 8 should be considered for development over Areas 4 and 6 or Webheath ADR. It is suggested that the bypass would not only remove traffic from Bordesley but would also improve connections between Redditch, the M42 and the North. Indeed the Councils’ acknowledge, in the conclusions of The Narrative (para16.19) that the development of Area 8 has the possible benefit of the provision of the bypass.

The Councils’ raise questions about the potential costs and feasibility of the Bordesley Bypass in the SWOT analysis (page148) of The Narrative. Whilst representations on behalf of the developer have stated that Gallagher Estates control the land required to deliver the Bordesley Bypass and can assist with resolving this longstanding highway capacity issue (Jubb - Transport Assessment for a SUE, 2014), there is no evidence as to the potential costs of the project and how it would be funded and delivered. If a contribution is required from the public purse this has not been specified nor has evidence been produced that the likelihood of receiving funding has been assessed.

Planning permission for the Bordesley Bypass that was previously in place in 2004 has since lapsed and the Councils are unaware of any evidence that has been prepared for a fresh application, nor is there any indication from Worcestershire County Council (WCC) that permission would now be granted.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Indeed the Council is not aware of any pre-application discussions about a bypass application. It is for these reasons that the potential for a bypass at Bordesley has not been considered a significant factor in the site selection process. j) Concerns were expressed that the conclusions of White Young Green (WYG 1 and White Young Green2 (WYG2) were not pursued in their entirety and no explanation has been given for this departure.

The WYG1 work was not conclusive as it did not define sites, which is why WYG2 was carried out. However these studies were completed within a different context and with different housing numbers. The Narrative attempts to provide a summary of the process followed in eventually deciding on the preferred sites and a summary of WYG 1 and 2 is included in the Early Stages of Plan making section for completeness. The Narrative explains at para 2.21: “…..many of its key conclusions such as the optimum location for growth and the return of ADRs to Green Belt were not expressly rejected by the Panel, as documented in the Panel Report dated September 2009 [CDR 6.6a] (see below). However, some of the research conducted in this Study does remain valid, for example, in relation to Redditch’s open space”. And at para 2.24 “In light of the findings of WYG2 [CDX1.4], that the ADRs at Brockhill, Webheath and the A435 corridor were not considered suitable for development, the Preferred Draft Core Strategy proposed they should be designated as Green Belt. However, the conclusions of WYG2 were not accepted by the Councils after the independent panel of experts who considered the WMRSS Phase 2 review concluded there was a need to make use of the Redditch ADRs”. The HGDS, published in January 2013, whilst using the boundaries demarked by WYG1, reviewed the site selection process afresh partly as the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (WMRSS) was imminently due to be revoked and new evidence, for example, regarding housing figures had been produced (Page 9 para 3.11). k) West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA)

It is considered by some respondents that Bordesley ( Area 8) is the correct area for growth on the basis that as RBC is part of the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA). Bordesley (Area 8) is considered the ideal geographical location to build thousands of new houses, because it is closest to new employment sites at Redditch Eastern Gateway.

The Councils’ do not consider that the argument in relation to the West Midlands Combined Authority (WMCA) is cogent. In any case BDC is not part of the WMCA and therefore it does not follow that land for development should be allocated in Bromsgrove District in relation to this issue. Even if BDC were part of the WMCA this relates to the whole of the West Midlands not just Birmingham, so to locate development here rather than other areas around Redditch or elsewhere does not follow.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

l) Heritage Issues

1. Norgorve Court

Some respondents considered that the Councils should have given greater consideration to the impact of development on Norgrove Court, being only Grade I listed building in Redditch Borough.

The Heritage Asset Setting Assessment carried out by Wardell Armstrong [XB1/2t Statement by Heyford Developments and Rockspring Barwood June 2015 Appendix 2] examined the impact of development at Foxlydiate in relation to this heritage asset. This Assessment has been endorsed by Bromsgrove District Council. It states that: 5.3 The proposed development lies approximately 650m to the north of Norgrove Court, on higher ground to the north of Pumphouse Lane. Pumphouse Lane represents the boundary from which land to the north of Norgrove Court can be experienced when viewed from the footpath immediately to the west of building. There is no view of land within the proposed development area from this location or from those further to the north with only views of intervening vegetation possible. 5.4 The proposed development will involve the development of land to the north for residential use. The proposals will involve the construction of residential units to the north of Pumphouse Lane behind open space. This will serve to preserve the skyline from visual intrusion by built development. The application of sensitive detailed masterplanning through the implementation of design codes will ensure that the sense of isolation and tranquillity which contributes to the significance of Norgrove Court and Old Cottage will be maintained.

2. Hewell Grange Estate

It was considered by one respondent that one of the failings identified by the Inspector was that an inconsistent approach was taken to assessing the potential impacts on built heritage assets with respect to Areas 4 and 5. It was felt that the additional assessment had done little to address this imbalance.

The Council considers that the report evidenced that development on Area 5 had the potential to impact on the Conservation Area (CA) and the Registered Park and Garden (RPG), while Area 4 had the potential to impact on the Water Tower and the Walled Garden specifically, although it is appreciated that they are located in the CA and RPG. Section 4.1 highlights the very short contiguous boundary between Area 4 and the CA and the RPG, which are in addition separated by the A448, a four lane dual carriageway. The topography combined with views from Hewell Lane across Area 5 towards the CA and

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

RPG, results in any proposed development on Area 5 having the potential to impact greatly on the CA and RPG.

In light of the topography, short contiguous boundary and intervening four lane highway between Area 4 and the heritage assets at Hewell Grange, it was considered that the only impact would be on the Walled Garden and the Water Tower. The most recent Setting Assessment therefore considered this impact in detail. Therefore in relation to Hewell Grange it was not required to assess all of Area 4 in the same level of detail as Area 5 as explained above as large parts do not impact on the setting of a heritage asset The setting assessment concludes that to minimise harm to these Heritage Assets (Has), development of the top north west corner of Area 4 should be excluded. This is indicated on the Map in the Setting Assessment.

3. Lanehouse Farm

There is a comment that BDC appear to intimate that the mitigation to Lanehouse Farm is not simply a means of minimising harm to a designated heritage asset but also a public benefit. It is suggested that BDC have failed to assess the harm and potential mitigation on this listed building.

It is the Council’s opinion in light of the Setting Assessment, that a sufficient part of Area 4 has been excluded from the developable area to minimise the harm of development of Area 4 on Lanehouse Farm. In addition, it is also considered that the reinforcing of existing boundaries, planting of hedgerow and native species trees, with considered planning, will also help to screen some development, and minimise the impact on the rural setting of Lanehouse Farm. It is a public benefit that this harm is minimised.

m) SA issues

1. Some respondents considered that an SA on the new scenarios detailed in The Narrative should have been carried out.

The Narrative explains at page 75 para 9.180: It has not been judged necessary to conduct any further SA work in respect of the individual Areas, as all of the Areas (including the Areas within Redditch Borough, i.e. ADR component of Area 3 (3R), 3A, 7 and 18) were considered in the HGDS and the HGDS Addendum in both the text and the Assessment Matrices. But what the Inspector did request in his Post-Hearings Note of July 2015 was an update to the original scenarios for looking at Areas in combination (paragraph 10c). It is not considered appropriate to look at all possible combinations of the 7 Areas because these are numerous and clearly the Area selection decision is being made on the basis of most suitable Areas to emerge from the selection process. These are Areas 4, 6, 3R and 18. However, the Inspector wanted the scenarios set out in the original HGDS to be updated and this has been done below and four additional scenarios have been examined.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

In identifying new scenarios it should be noted that available capacity within Redditch in the intervening period between January 2013 and December 2015 has increased but that of the 4 new scenarios identified none of the ‘reasonable alternatives’ are able to exclude the Webheath ADR and still provide the required quantum of development.

2. SA of alternative levels of growth for Redditch not carried out.

Higher growth levels were explored through the WMRSS and lower growth levels via the Core Strategy process (Redditch Revised Preferred Draft Core Strategy (January/March 2011) [CDR 1.16]) as well as a ‘no plan’ option all of which have been subject to Sustainability Appraisal. RBC consider that all reasonable alternatives were subject to the SA process.

3. Some respondents are critical of the Councils description of the SA process being a ‘simple and rudimentary process’.

The Councils’ consider this issue is clearly justified in The Narrative at para 2.63 it states that: The purpose of the SA is therefore as a tool in the site selection process to inform decision making. Decisions made typically consider the results of the SA process but are not driven by it; other higher level policy objectives may take more prominence in decision making as is illustrated above. The SA therefore has some limitations in terms of the final decision making process due in part to it being of necessity based on a simple and rudimentary scoring system in which it is difficult to properly address some planning judgments such as the degree to which an Area is close to the town centre but physically and lacking good connectivity with the urban area (Area 8) and especially the clear need to use land not in the Green Belt which is suitable for development when most land around Redditch is in the Green Belt (Areas 3R and 18). Therefore whilst the SA process is useful it not sophisticated enough for decisions to be based purely on its outcome .

XB1.3 Is it clear how development of the Brockhill Urban Extension (BDP policy RCBD1.1) would relate to the development of the adjoining Brockhill East Strategic Site (BORLP4 policy 46)? Is it intended that cross-boundary co- ordination would take place - for example in respect of infrastructure provision? If so, is this clearly provided for in the two Local Plans?

8. The Councils’ have no further comments to add on this issue in addition to those made in the previous Hearing Statements.

XB1.4 Is the scale and location of the Ravensbank Expansion Site (policy BDP5B) adequately justified?

9. The Councils’ have nothing further to add on this issue to the previous Hearing Statements.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

9. Other issues

Modifications to the Plans

Schedules of Modifications showing all the wording changes proposed by the Councils’ to BORPL4 and the BDP will be submitted to the Examination before the commencement of the Hearing Sessions on 23rd March 2016.

SA minor suggested changes

The Councils’ have given consideration as to whether the information that is now available (notably the new and revised Setting of Heritage Assets Assessments) requires either the most recent BDP or BORLP4 SAs to be amended. For completeness and accuracy it is considered that some minor changes could be made. The suggested changes to the scoring in the SAs are not sufficient to affect the overall planning judgement made in relation to site selection.

For information therefore, the suggested changes to the BDC SA May 2015, the HGDS SA and the BORLP4 SA May 2015 are detailed in Appendix 1.

Five Year Housing Land Supply

The housing supply issue is dealt with in detail in Appendix 2.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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 Page 126 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. Add Page 127 Key Policy Weaknesses 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

The Setting A ssessment referred to above Page 127 requires that development is avoided in certain Recommendations for Mitigation parts of Site 1 (Area 4/The Foxlydiate site) to mitigate the adverse impact of development.

OED/33a Redditch SA (update March 2016) Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required Likely effects Likely effects Page xvii (Likely There are a number of ways that There are a number of ways that Sustainability Effects of the the Local Plan aims to improve the Local Plan aims to improve BORLP4 and their the quality of the built the quality of the built mitigation)Objective 16 environment, for example environment, for example through the redevelopment and through the redevelopment and regeneration of the New Town regeneration of the New Town Also on page 35 era District Centres, general era District Centres, general protection for elements of the protection for elements of the historic environment, and design historic environment, and design policies. The protection and policies. The protection and enhancement of the Borough’s enhancement of the Borough’s historic assets are ensured heritage assets are ensured through the Historic Assets policy through the Historic Environment in the Local Plan which relates to policies in the Local Plan which the Borough’s local relate to the Borough’s local

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

OED/33a Redditch SA (update March 2016) Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required distinctiveness. There are some distinctivene ss. There are some clusters of Listed Buildings in a clusters of Listed Buildings in a number of cross boundary number of cross boundary locations although the preferred locations although the preferred locations for development help locations for development help to to achieve this objective. 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 Proposed mitigation Pa ge xvii (Likely None identified The Local Plan includes policies Sustainability Effects of the on the built environment, design BORLP4 and their and the historic environment mitigation) Objective 16 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. Overall Sustainability Overall Sustainability Page 83 Implications Implications Appendix B:Overall There is one Conservation Area There is one Conservation Area Sustainability Implications within the cross boundary within the cross boundary (including cumulative development locations at Beoley development locations at Hewell effects) of the Local Plan. which would be the only location Grange. A Setting Assessment has Objective 16, Guide to have a negative effect on this been carried out on the Hewell Question: Will it enhance criteria. All other options would Grange Estate and it has been the Borough’s Conservation have no effect. concluded that development in Areas? the preferred locations would cause ‘less than substantial harm’ to the setting of heritage assets. Comments Comments Appendix D Brockhill West/Site 5 and Site 11 Brockhill West/Site 5 and Site 11 significantly adversely affect the significantly adversely affect the Page 234 (Objective 16, Hewell Grange Conservation Hewell Grange Conservation guide question (ii) Will it Area. Sites 9 and 10 significantly Area. Site 4 is partially adjacent to enhance the Borough’s adversely affect the Beoley the Hewell Grange Conservation Conservation Areas? Conservation Area. Site 4 is Area but its adverse effects with partially adjacent to the Hewell mitigation are less than that of Page 254 (Objective 16,

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

OED/33a Redditch SA (update March 2016) Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required Grange Conservation Area but its Site 5 and 11. Sites 9 and 10 guide question (ii) Will it adverse effects are less than that significantly adversely affect the enhance the Borough’s of Site 5. Conservation areas will Beoley Conservation Area and Conservation Areas? not be affected by the other sites Site 13 would have a significant as they are not within or adverse effect on Sambourne adjoining a Conservation Area. Conservation Area. Conservation areas will not be affected by the other sites as they are not within or adjoining a Conservation Area. Scoring Scoring Appendix D Site 13 Site 13 Page 254 (Objective 16, Site not in or adjoining Significant adverse effect on guide question (ii) Will it Conservation Area (+2) Conservation Area (-2) enhance the Borough’s Conservation Areas? Comments Comments Appendix D Only four sites (3a, 18, Land to Only three sites (Brockhill Page 234 (Objective 16, the rear of the Alexandra Strategic Site/Site 6, Land to the guide question (iii) Will it Hospital and Woodrow Strategic rear of the Alexandra Hospital help to safeguard the Site) have no Listed Buildings on and Woodrow Strategic Site) Borough’s Listed Buildings? the sites or adjacent and will have no Listed Buildings on the meet this criteria. Brockhill/Site 6 sites or adjacent and will meet Page 254 (Objective 16, has opportunities to improve this criteria. Setting Assessments guide question (iii) Will it Listed Buildings within the site as have been carried out whereby it help to safeguard the part of the site development. Site has been concluded that there is Borough’s Listed Buildings? 4 has no predicted effect on its ‘less than substantial harm’ to the one listed building. Other sites setting of heritage assets in have numerous Listed Buildings relation to the proposed cross which may have an adverse boundary development at Area 4 impact. Site 3 includes Redditch’s (Foxlydiate). Other sites have only grade 1 Listed property numerous Listed Buildings which although mitigation can be may have an adverse impact. Site undertaken. 3 includes Redditch’s only grade 1 Listed property although mitigation can be undertaken. Scoring Scoring Appendix D Brockhill Strategic Site (Including Brockhill Strategic Site (Including Page 234 (Objective 16, Site 6) Site 6) guide question (iii) Will it Improve or no effect (+2) Site not Listed or adjacent to help to safeguard the Listed Buildings (+2) Borough’s Listed Buildings?

Scoring Scorin g Appendix D A435 (Including Site 18) A435 (Including Site 18) Page 234 (Objective 16, Site not Listed or adjacent to Adverse effect with mitigation (- guide question (iii) Will it Listed Building(s) (+2) 1) help to safeguard the Borough’s Listed Buildings?

Scoring Scoring Appendix D

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

OED/33a Redditch SA (update March 2016) Current wording/score Suggested change Where update required Site 3A Site 3A Page 234 (Objective 16, Site not Listed or adjacent to Adverse effect with mitigation (- guide question (iii) Will it Listed Building(s) (+2) 1) help to safeguard the Borough’s Listed Buildings?

Scoring Scoring Appendix D Site 4 Site 4 Page 234 (Objective 16, Improve or no effect (+2) Adverse effect with mitigation (- guide question (iii) Will it 1) help to safeguard the Borough’s Listed Buildings?

Total Score Total Score Appendix D A435 (Including Site 18) A435 (Including Site 18) Page 239 48 45 Total Score Total Score Appendix D Site 3A Site 3A Page 239 19 16 Total Score Total Score Appendix D Site 4 Site 4 Page 239 37 34 Total Score Total Score Appendix D Site 13 Site 13 Page 258 13 9

CDB 3.1 Housing Growth SA (update March 2016) Suggested change Where update required A Setting Assessment has been carried out Page 30 para 4.67 entitled “Hewell Grange Estate setting of Page 79 para 5.17 Heritage Assets Assessment December 2015” in Page 82 para 5.31 which it has been concluded that there is ‘less Page 87 para 5.55 add change and delete than substantial harm’ to the setting of Heritage reference to Area 4 in first sentence) Assets. Page 208- E4 Page 215-E4 “the S etting Assessment requires that Page 30 Para 4.70 development is avoided in certain parts of Area 4 Page 33 Para 4.86 to mitigate the adverse impact of development Page 80 para 5.19 of Foxlydiate”. Page 84 para 5.37 Page 88 para 5.60 Area 4 reduced capacity Page 32 Para 4.79 This paragraph under key strengths should be It is stated that as there are no listed buildings deleted and a new paragraph added under ‘key within the area and that this is a key strength. weaknesses’ at 4.82 to state the same wording (Although it is noted that there is one Listed as above at 4.67 Building close to the area on Cur Lane).

E4 - change score to -0.5 Page 92 Table 5 (under column Areas 4 and 6)

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Page 201 E4 change score to -1 Page 111 Page 116 Amend sub total score to -2 Page 92 Table 5 Amend grand total score 5.5 Page 92 Table 5

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Appendix 2

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

5 Year Housing Land Supply Topic Paper

4 March 2016

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

1. Introduction

1.1 This Topic Paper has been produced in response to the representations on housing matters which were received during the most recent consultation period. The key issues raised in the representations have been categorised and will be dealt with in turn in this Paper. The issues raised affect both the Bromsgrove and Redditch Plans and the responses deal with both Districts separately. Where the issue relates to only one of the Districts, this has been articulated within the text.

1.2 The issues raised and addressed in this Paper are:

• Persistent under-delivery and the application of an appropriate buffer • Lapse Rates and Non-implementation Rates • Commitments and additional plan flexibility • Range of commitments and Appropriate lead-in times • The Five Year Housing Land Supply 1.3 Another issue raised was that of C2 Uses. These are not discussed in detail in this Paper as C2 Uses do not now appear in the five year supply. The Councils could include Extra Care units in the housing land supply as they are individual residential units, but since both Councils can demonstrate a five year supply without their inclusion, they have been excluded from the calculations in this Paper.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

2. Persistent under delivery and the application of an appropriate buffer

Introduction

2.1 The issue of persistent under delivery has been raised by respondents to the recent consultation period. Representations consider that assessing performance against previous Plan delivery is inappropriate/ irrelevant and that delivery should be tested against the current housing requirement. Whilst this issue was discussed in detail at previous Hearing Sessions, both Councils have taken the opportunity to restate their case for the application of a 5% buffer to the five year housing land supply (5YHLS). This section has been produced to update the position of both Councils in relation to the Inspector’s original Matter 2 (Housing), and more specifically B2.1(a) and R2.1(a) “Has the Council shown a record of persistent under-delivery of housing, in the terms of paragraph 47 of the Framework?”, in light of the publication of updated 5YHLS documents in December 2015 for the purposes of public consultation. This document responds to comments received during the consultation period.

2.2 For a number of years it has been necessary for local authorities to maintain a supply of deliverable sites to ensure that there is a constant supply of new build properties available to meet identified housing needs. Following the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) it has become clear that local planning authorities should significantly boost the supply of housing to address the low levels house building nationally in recent years. It is considered that increased levels of house building will help to meet unmet need and demand for both affordable and market housing whilst also stimulating economic recovery.

2.3 The NPPF (para 47) states that local planning authorities should include an additional buffer in the 5YHLS figure (moved forward from later in the plan period) to ensure choice and competition in the market for land. The buffer should be an additional 5%, unless the local authority had persistently under delivered against its housing target, in which case a 20% buffer should be added.

2.4 The NPPF provided no further guidance as to how local planning authorities should determine whether to apply an additional 5% or 20% buffer. However the publication of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) in 2014 offered planning practitioners a steer on this matter. NPPG (ID: 3-035-20140306), states:

“How should local planning authorities deal with past under-supply?

The approach to identifying a record of persistent under delivery of housing involves questions of judgment for the decision maker in order to determine whether or not a particular degree of under delivery of housing triggers the requirement to bring forward an additional supply of housing.

The factors behind persistent under delivery may vary from place to place and, therefore, there can be no universally applicable test or definition of the term. It is legitimate to

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

consider a range of issues, such as the effect of imposed housing moratoriums and the delivery rate before and after any such moratoriums.

The assessment of a local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term view is taken, since this is likely to take account of the peaks and troughs of the housing market cycle…”

2.5 The following sections take NPPG paragraph 35 and apply its steer to underpin the decision to apply a 5% buffer to the 5YHLS figures for both Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Appropriate time period for assessing a local delivery record

2.6 NPPG (Para 35) states: “The assessment of a local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term view is taken, since this is likely to take account of the peaks and troughs of the housing market cycle.”

2.7 Following its autumn 2014 event on the 5YHLS, the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) produced some FAQs on its website ( http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/- /journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE#16 ).

Of particular interest is Q14:

14. When does a 5% buffer become 20%? Is it based upon cumulative totals against the requirement or on a purely annual basis? How far into the past do you go? Is it 5 years, or Plan period, or as far back as possible?

There is no universally applicable test and no consistency about what length of time should be considered and no exact definition of persistent under-delivery. This is epitomised by the situation in East Cheshire where 5 different Inspectors applied different buffers. However, this has now been clarified by the Local Plan Strategy Inspectors interim views (6 Nov 2014) Inspectors are considering ‘under-delivery' differently and there are examples of many different approaches. In principle it is about understanding your track record by comparing your completions against your requirement over a reasonable time period as evidenced in your AMR. Something is persistent when it has continued over time. The South Worcestershire Core Strategy Inspector said that this is a matter of degree and the Judge Lewis in the Cotswold judgement ([2013] EWHC 3719 (Admin) 27 November 2013) said that ‘it should not be a ‘temporary or short lived fluctuation'.

The Rother Inspector said that despite low levels of completions there had not been persistent under- delivery. However, in many other cases where delivery has fallen short on a continuous basis, a 20% buffer is being applied. The Parsons Brinkerhoff housing supply research for CPRE August 2014 notes that of all appeals for residential development on greenfield land since the publication of the NPPF two thirds of the time a 20% buffer has been applied.

While some Inspectors say five years is appropriate in a S78 appeal situation, local plan inspectors are mindful that a longer period is more appropriate when considering a 15 year plan period. The Practice Guidance recognises that the local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term view is taken since this has regard to the economic cycles and market conditions. While the recession should not be used as an excuse for low delivery, it is suggested that it is useful and appropriate to take a longer term view, which would probably be at least 10 years.

There are two methods which can be used, either using a straight comparison of annual rates and measuring the frequency of under delivery over a number of years, or alternatively considering the cumulative completions. The Inspector in the Broughton

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Appeal in Kettering (APP/L2820/A/13/2204628) agreed with the Council that ‘since 2001 cumulative completions have exceeded the cumulative requirement in all but the last few years since 2010', agreeing that this was due to the economic recession rather than a failing by the Council. However the Inspector in the Tetbury appeal rightly recognised that economic circumstances form no part of national policy under paragraph 47 of the NPPF.

It is possible to have a 5% buffer and a shortfall and is the circumstance in which both Kettering and Rother are in. They have been able to successfully argue that their under delivery is not ‘persistent'. - See more at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/- /journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE#16. Do persistent under delivery, and the 20% trigger relate specifically to delivery against adopted housing targets (even based on Regional Strategy) or is it appropriate to use the latest household projections, in advance of submission of a new local plan?

Based on the above Guidance and PAS advice, both Councils have adopted the approach of considering cumulative completions over a Plan period, which offers a longer term view for consideration in respect of a local plan .

2.8 The adopted development plan comprises the Councils’ adopted Local Plan, and until their revocation on 20 May 2013, the Worcestershire County Structure Plan (June 2001) and the Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (January 2008). Therefore, it is considered appropriate to test housing delivery performance against the targets embedded within these Plans and the timeframes they represent. Assessment across a longer-term Plan period is considered to offer the longer term view advocated in the NPPG, and is considered to be representative of the fluctuations within a housing market cycle.

2.9 The Worcestershire County Structure Plan (June 2001) set out housing targets for each Worcestershire District in the 15 year period between 1996 and 2011. This period runs consecutively with the current Plan period and presents a strong dataset against which to assess consistent delivery against the housing requirement. This equated to 3950 dwellings and 4504 dwellings for Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough respectively.

2.10 The adopted (and subsequently revoked) Regional Spatial Strategy (RSS) (January 2008) prepared for the construction and completion of a maximum of 26,200 dwellings in Worcestershire between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2021. The proportion of the RSS housing target attributed to each Worcestershire District was the same proportion as was applied to each District in the Worcestershire County Structure Plan. This equated to 3668 dwellings and 4242 dwellings for Bromsgrove District and Redditch Borough respectively.

2.11 The above Plans cover different time periods, thus providing trend data over an 18 year period, adding to the data’s robustness and represents the Councils’ interpretation of a ‘longer term view’.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Local delivery performance in Bromsgrove District

Worcestershire County Structure Plan (1996-2011)

2.12 The Worcestershire County Structure Plan set out housing targets for each Worcestershire District in the 15 year period between 1996 and 2011. The target for Bromsgrove District over this period was for the construction and completion of a maximum of 3950 dwellings (263 per annum). The table overleaf highlights the number of homes delivered each year throughout this Plan period.

2.13 A moratorium was imposed in Bromsgrove in 2003 due to the excessive number of permissions being granted. Even with this control in place the Structure Plan target was achieved in 2005/06 which was five years before the end of the Plan period. Over the whole Plan period the target of 3950 was exceeded by almost 850 dwellings.

2.14 As the completions trend dates back to 1996 and covers the whole of the Structure Plan period, it is considered that this timeframe reflects both peaks and troughs in the property development market, specifically in relation to the most recent global economic crisis, and runs consecutively with the current District Plan period.

2.15 It presents a strong dataset to support consistent delivery against the housing requirement. Therefore, it can be concluded that there has been no under delivery against the Structure Plan housing target.

Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy

2.16 The adopted (and subsequently revoked) RSS prepared for the construction and completion of a maximum of 26,200 dwellings in Worcestershire between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2021. Bromsgrove District’s proportion of this target was the same proportion which was applied to Bromsgrove in the Worcestershire County Structure Plan i.e. 14%. Therefore: 26,200 x 14% = 3668 dwellings up to 2021 (183 dwellings per annum).

2.17 The RSS was revoked on 20 May 2013, therefore the monitoring period for the purpose of demonstrating local delivery rates has only been taken up to the 2012/2013 monitoring year. Beyond this point in time, the RSS housing target becomes meaningless and the requirement for local authorities to demonstrate and provide for their own objectively assessed housing need gained momentum. The table overleaf highlights the number of homes delivered each year throughout this Plan period, up to its revocation. 3522 dwellings were completed, which equates to 293 dwellings per annum, some 110 dwellings above the annual average requirement. Therefore, it can be concluded that there has been no under delivery against the housing target.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Bromsgrove District Local Plan delivery rates

Worcestershire County Structure Plan Completions 1996 - 2011

96/ 97/ 98/ 99/ 00/ 01/ 02/ 03/ 04/ 05/ 06/ 07/ 08/ 09/ 10/ Total 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

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 +28 +19 -45 +23 +343 +619 +874 +1085 +1331 +1400 +1413 +1288 +1181 +990 +849 requirement (263 dpa)

Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy delivery rates

RSS Completions 2001 - 2013

01/ 02/ 03/ 04/ 05/ 06/ 07/ 08/ 09/ 10/ 11/ 12/ Total 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

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 +356 +691 +982 +1308 +1457 +1550 +1502 +1478 +1367 +1306 +1379 +1326 requirement (183 dpa)

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Local delivery performance in Redditch Borough

Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3

2.18 The Worcestershire County Structure Plan housing target attributed to Redditch Borough formed the housing provision adopted in the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3, which prepared for the construction and completion of a maximum of 4504 dwellings between 1 April 1996 and 31 March 2011. During this period, 4452 dwellings were completed, equating to 98.8% of the maximum completion target. The table overleaf highlights the number of homes delivered each year throughout this Plan period.

2.19 As the completions trend dates back to 1996 and covers the whole of the Plan period, it is considered that this timeframe reflects both peaks and troughs in the property development market, specifically in relation to the most recent global economic crisis, and runs consecutively with the current Local Plan period.

2.20 It presents a strong dataset to support consistent delivery against the housing requirement. Therefore, it can be concluded that there has been no under delivery against the housing target.

Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy

2.21 The adopted (and subsequently revoked) RSS prepared for the construction and completion of a maximum of 26,200 dwellings in Worcestershire between 1 April 2001 and 31 March 2021. Redditch Borough’s proportion of this target was the same proportion which was applied to Redditch in the Worcestershire County Structure Plan i.e. 16.19%. Therefore: 26,200 x 16.19% = 4242 dwellings up to 2021 (212 dwellings per annum).

2.22 The RSS was revoked on 20 May 2013, therefore the monitoring period for the purpose of demonstrating local delivery rates has only been taken up to the 2012/2013 monitoring year. Beyond this point in time, the RSS housing target becomes meaningless and the requirement for local authorities to demonstrate and provide for their own objectively assessed housing need gained momentum. The table overleaf highlights the number of homes delivered each year throughout this Plan period, up to its revocation. 2764 dwellings were completed, which equates to 230 dwellings per annum. Therefore, it can be concluded that there has been no under delivery against the housing target.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3 delivery rates

BORLP3 Completions 1996 - 2011

96/ 97/ 98/ 99/ 00/ 01/ 02/ 03/ 04/ 05/ 06/ 07/ 08/ 09/ 10/ Total 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11

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 -38 +42 +26 +198 +381 +314 +298 +417 +405 +367 +521 +457 +257 +128 -48 requirement (300 dpa)

Adopted Regional Spatial Strategy delivery rates

RSS Completions 2001 - 2013

01/ 02/ 03/ 04/ 05/ 06/ 07/ 08/ 09/ 10/ 11/ 12/ Total 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13

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 +21 +93 +300 +376 +426 +668 +692 +580 +539 +451 +302 +220 requirement (212 dpa)

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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/ 13/ 14/ 15/ Total 12 13 14 15 1 Nov 15

Annual completions 256 130 176 228 334 1124

Cumulative completions 256 386 562 790 1124 1124

Cumulative requirement 368 736 1104 1472 1687 1 (368 dpa)

+/- average annual -112 -360 -542 -682 -563 requirement (368 dpa)

1 This part year has been assessed pro rata in relation to cumulative completions 368/12x7=215 28

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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/ 13/ 14/ 15/ Total 12 13 14 15 1 Nov 15

Annual completions 63 130 150* 312^ 84 739

Cumulative completions 63 193 343 655 739 739

Cumulative requirement 337 674 1011 1348 1544 2 (337 dpa)

+/- average annual -274 -481 -668 -693 -805 requirement (337 dpa)

*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 29

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Other influencing factors

Housing Moratorium

2.26 NPPG (Para 35) states: “ The factors behind persistent under delivery may vary from place to place and, therefore, there can be no universally applicable test or definition of the term. It is legitimate to consider a range of issues, such as the effect of imposed housing moratoriums and the delivery rate before and after any such moratoriums.”

2.27 Both the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and the RSS imposed maximum housing targets on the Shire Districts as part of the regional initiative of urban renaissance, which directed growth, development and investment to the major urban areas.

2.28 A moratorium was imposed by Bromsgrove District Council between 2003 and 2009 as the Council was in such a significant position of over-supply that greater control was needed to ensure conformity with relevant Structure Plan and RSS policies. No new permissions were granted for market housing during this period, meaning that most completions had been built out by 2007.

2.29 Redditch Borough Council imposed a moratorium between 2006 and 2008, as sufficient planning consents had been granted to meet its Local Plan housing target.

2.30 Both Councils acknowledge that following the build-out of pre-moratorium commitments and the subsequent lifting of those moratoriums, lead-in times and housing delivery has, until very recently, struggled to regain momentum. It is considered that the global economic crisis compounded this position, which is now being reflected as completions increase and the market conditions respond to the economic upturn.

Global Economic Crisis

2.31 The PAS FAQ advice states: “ The Practice Guidance recognises that the local delivery record is likely to be more robust if a longer term view is taken since this has regard to the economic cycles and market conditions. While the recession should not be used as an excuse for low delivery, it is suggested that it is useful and appropriate to take a longer term view, which would probably be at least 10 years.”

2.32 Whilst both Councils acknowledge that an economic downturn should not be used as an excuse for low housing delivery levels, it should be noted that the embryonic stage of the emerging Plans has been totally consumed by the recession which is only now, showing signs of recovery. These economic circumstances have thrust housing completions to a national historic low and the housing market ‘trough’ is apparent from the delivery tables earlier in this document. Both Councils consider that to judge their housing delivery performance on the emerging Plan period alone is misrepresentative of a robust economic cycle and maintains that consideration of previous Plan period delivery provides a longer-term and more realistic view of market fluctuations in accordance with advice from both DCLG and PAS.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Pertinent Appeal Decisions

705 Haslucks Green Road, Majors Green, Shirley 3(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, Redditch 4(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 31

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Conclusions

2.35 This section systematically reviews the guidance and advice relating to the demonstration delivery rates and applies it in a manner which is considered to offer a robust and appropriate interpretation of that guidance and advice in order to substantiate the application of a 5% buffer to the 5YHLS calculation of both Councils.

2.36 The Councils consider that a longer-term view of delivery rates offers a realistic and appropriate mechanism, which is representative of fluctuations within a housing market cycle; a view which is advocated in the NPPG.

2.37 Cumulative delivery rates over previous Plan periods show that both Councils met their housing requirements, which is substantiated by the imposition of a moratorium in both Districts. They were put in place in order to ensure policy compliance and so as not exceed the ‘maximum’ housing targets imposed by higher tiers of planning strategy.

2.38 Both Councils acknowledge that delivery levels in their emerging Plans fall somewhat short of annual average delivery rates for the period up to 2030. However, the emerging Plan periods have been totally consumed by the global economic crisis, which is only now showing some signs of recovery. The Councils consider that judging their persistent delivery record against a period totally consumed by recession is neither representative of a complete housing market cycle, nor is it in the spirit of the NPPG and other advice. This approach is supported by Inspectors’ appeal decisions in both Districts, which is considered to add to the robustness of the Councils’ approach.

2.39 Both Councils have demonstrated that during the emerging Plan periods, delivery rates are steadily climbing year-on-year. Therefore, with respect to Question 2(a), and recent criticisms of the 5YHLS documents during the consultation period, both Councils stand by their original response to Question 2(a) and continue to demonstrate that there is no record of persistent under-delivery of housing in either District.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

3. Lapse Rates and Non-implementation Rates

Introduction

3.1 The issue of applying an appropriate lapse rate to existing housing commitments was raised by respondents to the recent consultation period. Representations made several suggestions as to what an appropriate lapse rate might be, including:

• It is known that between 10-20% of consents are never implemented • Apply a consistent rate across all areas of delivery • At least 10% should be applied to all large and small sites • Include a 10% non-implementation/ delivery rate to the entire supply • Introduce a 10% reserve site allowance • Apply a 10% discount to all sites not under construction. The representations received present several options to addressing lapsed planning applications, which contradict each other to a certain degree, and no representations present any evidence to underpin their suggestion. There is no reference in the NPPF for the need or desirability of including an allowance for lapsed planning permissions and PAS advises that the application of a lapse rate should be based on local historic data. This section presents the lapse rates for both Councils based on historic data dating back to 1st April 2010. The historic data used for this section is a record of the number of planning permissions that have expired since 1st April 2010. An expired planning permission is one that was granted planning permission but was not implemented before the planning permission expiry date. Planning permissions usually expire after 3 years of the decision date, although there are a few examples within the early years of the historic data where planning permissions expired after 5 years of the decision date.

3.2 Each monitoring year recorded in this Paper starts from 1st April to 31st March and covers a five year period from 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2015. The historic data provides a breakdown of the net number of dwellings on large and small sites, as well as providing an overall total net dwelling figure for each monitoring year. The large sites are those of 10 or more dwellings and the small sites are sites with 9 or less dwellings. The historic data also shows the total net outstanding commitments for each monitoring year, i.e. with planning permission but development not started. (Note: the net dwellings do not include C2 use.)

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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 Total Number of Number of Lapse Rate Lapse Rate Expiry Outstanding Dwellings Dwellings for Large for Small Commitments Expired on Expired on Sites Sites (Net) Large Sites Small Sites (10+ (less than dwellings) 10 dwellings) 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 4316 74 47 years Average 1.71% 1.09% over 5 years

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 Total Outstanding Lapse Rate % Expired (Net) Commitments (Net) 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 2.80% year period

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Therefore, the average lapse rate for Bromsgrove District is 2.80%, based on the last five monitoring years covering the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2015.

3.5 The results show a higher lapse rate percentage of 19.80% for 2010/11 compared to the other monitoring years. This higher percentage is because the total number of outstanding commitments was considerably less than the other years, which would have been caused by the effects of the recession when fewer houses were being built in the district. The total number of expired net dwellings for this year was 40, which included two large sites consisting of 24 dwellings (2003/1048) and 12 dwellings (2003/1008). The other 4 dwellings lost during that monitoring year were located on four small sites.

3.6 The results also show a slightly higher percentage of 4.20% for 2013/14. This higher percentage is mainly due to the loss of 38 dwellings for application 10/0378 which expired on 21/02/2014. Although this application expired in 2013/14, there was a new application submitted for this site on 22/10/2013 (13/0819) and was granted permission on 13/07/2015. Application 13/0819 is a full application for 24 dwellings on the same site as 10/0378, and the development was under construction on site when last monitored in October 2015.

Conclusion

3.7 There is no reference in the NPPF for the need or desirability of including an allowance for lapsed planning permissions. However, footnote 11 of the NPPF states that "sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years..." . In the Appeal Case APP/P1805/A/13/2196784 the Inspector was not persuaded that there was any need for Bromsgrove District Council to include "an automatic figure for lapsed unimplemented planning permission, particularly where no specific evidence was put forward in relation to individual sites." (para 18, page 4, Appeal Ref: APP/P1805/A/13/2196784).

3.8 The advice from PAS is that the decision about whether to apply a lapse rate depends on how robust the delivery information is considered to be, and is only necessary where there is uncertainty about whether some of the sites are going to come forward. If a good evidence base is available and where developers are able to confirm that the sites will come forward then there may not be a need for a lapse rate. PAS suggest that if a lapse rate is to be applied then it should be based on historic data for the local authority area, not on a standardised approach. (Ref: PAS website http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/- /journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE - see Q20)

3.9 With this advice in mind, Bromsgrove District has reviewed its historic data to check if a lapse rate should be applied to the 5YHLS. This report has presented the findings of this review based on the Council's historic record of expired planning permissions.

3.10 The historic data presented in this report shows that Bromsgrove District does not experience a high number of lapsed planning permissions per year, with a low average percentage of 2.80% over a 5 year period since 2010/11. One of the main reasons for having a low average lapse rate is because Bromsgrove District is an affluent rural area situated next to the Birmingham conurbation. Approximately 91% of Bromsgrove District is Green Belt

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

land, which restricts development. Therefore, development on land outside the Green Belt is in high demand because of the District’s location next to the conurbation and good transport network. This makes the demand for housing high so development will get built quickly, as is shown by the low number of lapsed planning permissions. The planning department also works with applicants all the way through the planning application process, starting at pre- application stage to ensure the application process runs smoothly and that the development will be suitable and appropriate for the site. This proactive approach to the planning application process reduces the likelihood of planning permissions lapsing as development should be able to commence soon after planning permission has been granted.

3.11 It is therefore concluded that Bromsgrove District Council does not need to apply a lapse rate to its 5YHLS as historic records show a low average lapse rate of 2.80%, some of which was based on recession years when the housing market slowed down.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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

No. of Dwellings No. of Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date (Gross) Dwellings (Net) 444 Lickey Road, Cofton Hackett, Worcs, B45 2003/1048 8UU 20/04/2005 20/04/2010 24 24 Swallowfields, Sanders Road, Bromsgrove, 2003/1008 Worcs, B61 7DQ 21/12/2005 21/12/2010 12 12 Total: 36 36

Note:

• The effects of the recession is likely to have had a negative impact on development during this period of time as the housing market slowed down and fewer houses were being built in the district. Large Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014

No. of No. of Dwellings Dwellings Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date (Gross) (Net)

10/0378 Land at Brook Crescent, Hagley 21/02/2011 21/02/2014 38 38 Total: 38 38

Note:

• Although application 10/0378 expired on 21st February 2014, it has been superseded by application 13/0819 which was submitted on 22/10/2013 and approved on 13/07/2015. Application 13/0819 is a full application for 24 dwellings on the same site as 10/0378, and development was under construction on site when last monitored in October 2015.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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

No. of No. of Decision Dwellings Dwellings Site Address Date Expiry Date (Gross) (Net) 2005/0297 182 Worcester Road, Hagley 12/05/2005 12/05/2010 1 1 Fenn Farm, Chapel Lane, 2004/0579 Belbroughton 25/05/2005 25/05/2010 1 0 2007/0449 Fernlea, Dark Lane, Hollywood 26/06/2007 26/06/2010 1 0 Rear of 53 Twatling Road, Barnt 2007/0453 Green 03/07/2007 03/07/2010 1 1 Berries View, Banks Green, Upper 2007/0677 Bentley, Redditch 15/08/2007 15/08/2010 1 0 Church Hill Farm, Church Hill, 2005/0270 Beoley 02/09/2005 02/09/2010 1 1 2007/0919 21 Pine Grove, Lickey 07/11/2007 07/11/2010 1 0 Pinewood, Aqueduct Lane, 2007/1312 Alvechurch 31/01/2008 31/01/2011 1 0 2008/1060 4 Church Lane, Bromsgrove 11/02/2009 11/02/2011 1 1 Orchard House, Astwood Lane, 2008/0051 Stoke Prior 12/03/2008 12/03/2011 1 0 Total: 10 4

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012

No. of No. of Decision Dwellings Dwellings Site Address Date Expiry Date (Gross) (Net) 2006/0018 493 Birmingham Road, Bordesley 03/04/2006 02/04/2011 1.00 0.00 Tickeridge Farm Barns, 2004/1314 Timberhonger Lane, Upton Warren 06/06/2006 05/06/2011 1.00 1.00 Park Bungalow, Dusthouse Lane, 2006/0418 Finstall 20/06/2006 19/06/2011 1.00 0.00 Tylers Lock Public House, 2006/1200 Tardebigge 15/01/2007 14/01/2012 1.00 1.00 Total: 4 2

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2013

No. of No. of Dwellings Dwellings Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date (Gross) (Net) Hurst Farm, Hockley Brook 09/0973 Lane, Belbroughton 12/02/2010 12/02/2013 1 1 Orchard Cottage, Rowney Green 09/0357 Lane, Rowney Green 27/07/2009 27/07/2012 1 0 8 St. Catherines Road, Blackwell, 09/0777 Bromsgrove 17/12/2009 17/12/2012 1 0 The Chalet, Highfield, Dark 10/0020 Lane, Hollywood 24/03/2010 24/03/2013 1 1 Total: 4 2

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014

No. of No. of Dwellings Dwellings Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date (Gross) (Net) Brackendale , Holt Lane, 10/0149 Romsley 19/04/2010 19/04/2013 1 0 10/0281 37 Silver Street, Wythall 11/06/2010 11/06/2013 1 1 White Walls, Dark Lane, 10/0752 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 Severn Trent Building Site, 10/0747 Alcester Road, Burcot 27/10/2010 27/10/2013 4 4 2 Eton Walk, Hagley, 10/0491 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 Inkford Cottage Hotel, Inkford 10/0347 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 15 Golden Cross Lane, Catshill, 10/1155 Bromsgrove 07/02/2011 07/02/2014 2 2 Total: 25 21

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015

No. of No. of Dwellings Dwellings Site Address Decision Date Expiry Date (Gross) (Net) The Cottage, Wassell Grove 11/0061 Lane, Hagley 16/05/2011 16/05/2014 1 1 145 Alcester Road, Hollywood, 11/0316 Birmingham 12/07/2011 12/07/2014 1 0 27 Lickey Square, Lickey, 11/0975 Birmingham 25/01/2012 25/01/2015 1 1 9 Plymouth Road, Barnt Green, 11/0630 Birmingham 11/10/2011 11/10/2014 1 0 26 - 28 Austin Road, 11/0508 Bromsgrove 09/08/2011 09/08/2014 7 5 77 Lyttleton Avenue, 11/0439 Bromsgrove 16/09/2011 16/09/2014 1 1 79 Lyttleton Avenue, 11/0438 Bromsgrove 16/09/2011 16/09/2014 1 1 6 St. Catherine's Road, 11/0655 Blackwell, Bromsgrove 26/10/2011 26/10/2014 1 1 Heather Lodge, 28 Station Road, 12/0046 Blackwell, Bromsgrove 16/03/2012 16/03/2015 1 1

103 Wildmoor Lane, Catshill, 11/0871 Bromsgrove 01/12/2011 01/12/2014 3 3 24 Woodrow Lane, Catshill, 11/0412 Bromsgrove 01/07/2011 01/07/2014 1 1 Waseley Hill Farm, Gunner Lane, 11/0161 Rubery 21/04/2011 21/04/2014 1 0 Finstall Park Bungalow, Dusthouse Lane, Finstall, 12/0003 Bromsgrove 22/02/2012 22/02/2015 1 0 Spout House Farm, Fockbury 11/0549 Road, Dodford, Bromsgrove 19/08/2011 19/08/2014 1 1 34 Red Lion Street, Alvechurch, 11/0138 Birmingham 21/04/2011 21/04/2014 1 1 11/0183 7 Station Road, Hagley 04/05/2011 04/05/2014 1 1 Total: 24 18 Note:

• Although application 12/0046 expired on 16/03/2015, a renewal application (15/0286) was submitted on 06/03/2015 and granted permission for a detached dwelling on 28/05/2018. When a site visit was made in October 2015 the developments progress was recorded as ‘not started’.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

• Although 11/0871 expired on 01/12/2014, application 14/0921 was submitted on 19/11/2014 for approval of reserved matters (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale) of application 11/0871. Application 14/0921 was granted permission on 18/02/2015. Analysis of Redditch Borough Lapse Rates

3.12 Redditch Borough Council has historically monitored lapse rates since 1996, and whilst this monitoring information has provided the Council with a trend of historic data on which to make a planning judgement regarding the application of a lapse rate to its commitments, the methodology has never been tested or questioned prior to this Examination.

3.13 As lapse rate monitoring data within Bromsgrove District only covers a period dating back some five years, Redditch Borough Council has aligned its data analysis with that of Bromsgrove District Council, in order to present a comprehensive dataset for discussion at the Examination. This approach is considered to be robust based on the conclusions reached by the Inspector examining the South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP, Inspector’s Report, February 2016), which states:

“78. The Plan applies a non-delivery discount rate of 4% to all commitments – that is to say, sites with planning permission for housing – excluding dwellings under construction. That rate is supported by detailed evidence of lapsed planning permissions for each of the three districts (EX.214-217b). However, the information for each district covers a different period of time, ranging from 18 years at Worcester City to six at Wychavon. Moreover, the “average” lapse rate for each district appears to have been arrived at by calculating the mean of the percentage lapse rates for each year. This is mathematically inexact if the objective is to assess the overall percentage lapse rate over the period in question.

79. I also note that, in Malvern in particular and to a lesser extent in Worcester, there are much higher annual lapse rates in the years after 2007 compared with the period from 2000 to 2007. In order to achieve a robust discount figure that takes account of recent market conditions, and is reasonably consistent across all three districts, I therefore consider that it should be calculated by reference to figures from 2006/07 onwards – the earliest date for which figures for Wychavon were provided.

80. Summing all the available figures for lapsed permitted dwellings since 2006/07, and dividing that sum by the total number of dwellings with outstanding planning permissions over the same period, gives an average lapse rate of 4.8% across South Worcestershire. On this basis I conclude that a robust and sound non-delivery discount figure to be applied to commitments in SWDP Table 4e is 5% , rather than the 4% used in the Plan as submitted.”

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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 Total Number of Number of Lapse Rate Lapse Rate Expiry Outstanding Dwellings Dwellings for Large for Small Commitments Expired on Expired on Sites Sites (Net) Large Sites Small Sites (10+ (less than dwellings) 10 dwellings) 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 2014 15 46 years Average 0.74% 2.3% over 5 years

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 Total Outstanding Lapse Rate % Expired (Net) Commitments (Net) 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 3.0% year period

Therefore, the average lapse rate for Redditch Borough is 3.0% , based on the last five monitoring years covering the period 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2015.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

3.16 In Table 4, the results show a higher lapse rate percentage of 9.6% for 2010/11 and 7.4% for 2011/12 compared to the other monitoring years. These higher percentages can be attributed to lower levels of outstanding commitments and lead-in times following the lifting of the moratorium and the economic downturn as these lapsed sites were granted planning permission before the extent of the deepening recession was realised.

Conclusion

3.17 There is no reference in the NPPF for the need or desirability of including an allowance for lapsed planning permissions. However, footnote 11 of the NPPF states that "sites with planning permission should be considered deliverable until permission expires, unless there is clear evidence that schemes will not be implemented within five years..." .

3.18 The advice from PAS is that the decision about whether to apply a lapse rate depends on how robust the delivery information is considered to be, and is only necessary where there is uncertainty about whether some of the sites are going to come forward. If a good evidence base is available and where developers are able to confirm that the sites will come forward then there may not be a need for a lapse rate. PAS suggest that if a lapse rate is to be applied then it should be based on historic data for the local authority area, not on a standardised approach. (Ref: PAS website http://www.pas.gov.uk/local-planning/- /journal_content/56/332612/7363780/ARTICLE - see Q20)

3.19 With this advice in mind, and taking note of the SWDP Inspector’s conclusions and aligning the timeframe of its historic data with that of Bromsgrove District Council, Redditch Borough Council has reviewed its historic data to check if a lapse rate should be applied to the 5YHLS.

3.20 The historic data presented in this Paper at Table 4 shows that Redditch Borough does not experience a high number of lapsed planning permissions per year, with a low average percentage of 3.0% over a 5 year period since 2010/11 (based on the approach advocated by the SWDP Inspector). This is further substantiated by the earlier evidence presented in this Paper in relation to persistent under-delivery. A high level of lapsed planning permissions would have hampered the strong delivery rates evidenced in this Paper.

3.21 Applying a lapse rate to commitments is not a requirement of the NPPF or the NPPG, and remains a matter of planning judgement. Therefore, it is concluded that Redditch Borough Council does not need to apply a lapse rate to its 5YHLS as historic records show a low average lapse rate of 3.0%, some of which was based on recession years when the housing market slowed down.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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

Large Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012

No. of No. of Decision Expiry Dwellings Dwellings Site Address Date Date (Gross) (Net) 08/305 Land at Wirehill Drive 05/11/08 05/11/11 15 15 Total: 15 15

Note: Land at Wirehill Drive lapsed but has recently been through application and appeal processes. The site was allowed on appeal in December 2015.

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

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2010 to 31st March 2011

No. of No. of App. Decision Expiry Dwellings Dwellings No. Address Date Date (Gross) (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 Adj. 12 Greenfields, The 07/328 22/10/07 22/10/10 2 2 Mayfields Total: 15 13

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2011 to 31st March 2012

No. of No. of App. Decision Expiry Dwellings Dwellings No. Address Date Date (Gross) (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 Adj. The Vicarage, Church 08/255 10/9/08 9/9/11 5 5 Road 08/303 Land at Peterbrook Close 5/11/08 4/11/11 5 5 08/355 2-4 Chapel Street 22/12/08 21/12/11 4 4 08/360 Fladbury Close 7/1/09 6/1/12 2 2 Total: 20 18

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2012 to 31st March 2013

No. of No. of App. Decision Expiry Dwellings Dwellings No. Address Date Date (Gross) (Net) Adj. Sandycroft, West 09/040 7/4/09 7/4/12 1 1 Avenue 09/102 19 Lodge Road 10/7/09 10/7/12 2 1 RO 320 Evesham Rd (Corn 09/220 2/12/09 2/12/12 3 3 Stores) 09/261 RO 1 Ivor Road 15/2/10 15/2/13 1 1 Total: 7 6

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2013 to 31st March 2014

No. of No. of App. Decision Expiry Dwellings Dwellings No. Address Date Date (Gross) (Net) 10/178 RO 1142 Evesham Road, AB 13/9/10 13/9/13 1 1 First House, Lady Harriets 10/254 7/12/10 7/12/13 1 1 Lane Total: 2 2

Small Site Commitments lapsed between 1st April 2014 to 31st March 2015

No. of No. of App. Decision Expiry Dwellings Dwellings No. Address Date Date (Gross) (Net) 11/064 Adj 760 Evesham Road 7/4/11 7/4/14 2 2 Adj. The Rectory, Icknield 11/086 8/5/11 8/5/14 1 1 Street 239 Evesham Road, Headless 11/105ol 10/6/11 10/6/14 2 1 Cross 11/134 144 Paddock Lane 13/7/11 13/7/14 2 1 11/274 74A Lodge Road 3/11/11 3/11/14 1 1 12/019 Rock Hill Farm 8/3/12 8/3/15 1 1 Total: 9 7

Note: Land adj. 760 Evesham Road gained a new planning consent shortly after this lapse and has now been completed.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

4. Commitments and additional plan flexibility

4.1 Representations received queried the BORLP4 commitment level and raised the following issues:

• If it is demonstrated that RBC has no 5YHLS, and there is no capacity within the Borough to address this, it cannot be rectified without a lengthy Plan review • If the Council’s delivery assumptions are not correct and realistic, there is currently no contingency and no flexibility 4.2 Since the preparation of BORLP4 and understanding the Borough’s identified capacity, there have been a number of large site windfalls that have boosted the Council’s commitments figure year on year. At 1 April 2015, identified commitments within the Borough amounted to around 3460 dwellings, some 460 dwellings above the emerging Plan’s allocation within the Borough. These have generally come forward on brownfield sites that could not necessarily have been picked up during SHLAA updates. The Council considers that this increase in available commitments within the Borough affords the Plan the flexibility needed to address and maintain an adequate 5YHLS.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

5. Range of commitments and Appropriate lead-in times

5.1 Representations received raised the following issues:

• To maximise housing supply, the widest possible range of sites, by size and market location are required to ensure house builders of all types and sizes have access to suitable land in order to offer the widest range of products • Multiple smaller sites achieve faster sales and build out rates than a limited number of large sites • Methodology relies upon an exceptionally high confidence level for the delivery of sites within the current supply • The contribution that Foxlydiate will make to the 5YHLS is questionable due to: - scale - planning application has yet to be submitted - significant infrastructure requirements is likely to mean slow short-term delivery - expected timetable is unrealistic 5.2 RBC considers that its supply of sites in the 5YHLS does reflect the widest possible range of sites by size and market location. There is a good selection of small, medium and large sites with planning permission on both brownfield and greenfield sites, the majority of which have been identified through the SHLAA process and include a steady stream of implementations. Site diversity is further supplemented by large greenfield allocations, both at the edge of the urban area and closer to existing infrastructure connectivity.

5.3 The promoters of all large scale developments, including Foxlydiate, provide the Councils with their delivery schedules in order that the Councils can populate their 5YHLS appropriately. The Councils consider that the site promoters are in a better position to formulate and defend their delivery schedules.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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 1 st April 2011- 31 st Oct 2015 1124 (256+130+176+228+334) c Undersupply to 31 st Oct 2015 against BDP target 564.5 ((368.4 x 4) + 214.9) - b (1688.5 – 1124) d Requirement for 5 years 1 st Nov 2015 – 31 st Oct 2020 2526.8 505.37 (368.4 x 5) + c + 5% buffer e Net Commitments at 1 st Nov 2015 1270 (1090 Net Outstanding + 180 Net Under Construction) f Net Units with Resolution to Grant Planning 52 Permission subject to S106 Agreement g SHLAA Deliverable Sites (Nov 2015 – Oct 2020) 1188 h Windfall Allowance 143.2 (40 x 3 years + (40 x 58%) for final 7 months) i Total Supply less 5 Year Requirement +126.4 (e+f+g+h - d) (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 1 st November 2015

Total Net Completions 1 st April 2015 - 31 st October 2015 334 Units on Completed Sites (Appendix B) 150 Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 184

Total Net Under Construction 180 Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 180

Total Net Outstanding 1,090 Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 430 Units on Outstanding Sites (exc. Replacement dwellings) (Appendix D) 660

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Total future commitments (Under Construction and Outstanding) 1,270 The following C2 Uses were removed from the 1 st 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 1 st April 2011- 29 th Feb 2016 1124 (256+130+176+228+334) c Undersupply to 29 th Feb 2016 against BDP target 687 ((368.4 x 4) + 337.7) - b (1811 – 1124) d Requirement for 5 years 1 st Mar 2016 – 28 th Feb 2021 2655.45 531 (368.4 x 5) + c + 5% buffer e Net Commitments at 1 st Mar 2016 1092 (912 Net Outstanding + 180 Net Under Construction) f Net Units with Resolution to Grant Planning 368 Permission subject to S106 Agreement g SHLAA Deliverable Sites (Mar 2016 – Feb 2021) 1317 h Windfall Allowance 156.7 (40 x 3 years + (40 x 91.7%) for final 11 months) i Total Supply less 5 Year Requirement +278.25 (e+f+g+h - d) (2933.7 – 2655.45) j Number of years supply (e+f+g+h / 531 ) 5.52 years supply

Equivalent to 5 years, 6.24 months

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Summary of Completions and Commitments at 1 st March 2016

Total Net Completions 1 st April 2015 – 29 th February 2016 334 Units on Completed Sites (Appendix B) 150 Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 184

Total Net Under Construction 180 Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 180

Total Net Outstanding 912 Units on Under Construction Sites (Appendix C) 430 Units on Outstanding Sites (exc. Replacement dwellings) (Appendix D) 482

Total future commitments (Under Construction and Outstanding) 1,092

The following C2 Uses were removed from the 1 st March 2016 Commitments:

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Redditch 5YHLS - 1 November 2015 – October 2020

Average per Calculation with 5% buffer (Sedgefield method) Dwellings Annum Redditch Housing Requirement 2011 to 2030 (net) a 6400 337 (6400 dwellings ÷ 19 years) b *Completions 1.4.2011 to 31.10.2015 (net) 739 Completions shortfall c (337 x 4 + 196.5 – 739) 806 (net) (337÷12 x 7 = 196.5) d Commitments at 1.11.2015 (identified in Section 5) 2595 Requirement for 5 years 1.11.2015 to 31.10.2020 e 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

Average per Calculation with 5% buffer (Sedgefield method) Dwellings Annum Redditch Housing Requirement 2011 to 2030 (net) a 6400 337 (6400 dwellings ÷ 19 years) b *Completions 1.4.2011 to 31.10.2015 (net) 739 Completions shortfall c (337 x 4 + 196.5 – 739) 806 (net) (337÷12 x 7 = 196.5) d Commitments at 1.3.2016 (identified in Section 5) 2813 Requirement for 5 years 1.3.2016 to 28.2.2021 e 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

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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 (1 st November 2015 update, OED/46d). This correction was made to the last 7 months in the table, changing figures from 120 to 70 units. This change makes the total deliverable SHLAA sites as 875.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Sites Outstanding at 1 March 2016

New Commitment since 1st Nov Status App Type App No Address Settlement Description Decision Date Expiry Date Gross Units Net Units 2015? Coach Yard Adj 643 Haslucks Green Road, Majors Green, Construction of three Outstanding FUL 13/0028 B90 1DF Majors Green detached dwellings. 23/07/2013 23/07/2016 3.00 3.00 No Proposed demolition of existing public house and Ivy Cottage, 30 construction of Gibb Lane, fourteen one bedroom Outstanding FUL 13/0046 Catshill, B61 0JR Catshill flats 01/04/2014 01/04/2017 14.00 13.00 No Woodhouse Farm, Packhorse Lane, Hollywood, B38 Replacement Outstanding FUL 13/0063 0DN Wythall bungalow 12/04/2013 12/04/2016 1.00 0.00 No Proposed Conversion 6, 8 and 10 The of Former Store Strand, Rooms to Two Bromsgrove, Number One- Outstanding FUL 13/0071 B61 8AB Bromsgrove Bedroom Flats 12/04/2013 12/04/2016 2.00 2.00 No Proposed New 57 Rock Hill, Residential Dwelling Bromsgrove, Off Enfield Close, Outstanding FUL 13/0131 B61 7LN Bromsgrove Bromsgrove 14/06/2013 14/06/2016 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

No, but dwelling number amended to Redevelopment of the remove C2 former latex factory use and to site to provide mixed- take into use development account full including up to 157 application dwellings […..] and a 15/0687 for nursing/care home 202 Former Polymer (Use Class C2)…(See dwellings, Latex Site, 15/0687 - Residential following Weston Hall development for 202 comments Road, Stoke dwellings - pending received by Outstanding OUT 13/0213 Prior Stoke Prior decision) 30/01/2015 30/01/2018 202.00 202.00 written reps. 10 Dale Hill, Proposed Change of Blackwell, Use of Garage, Stable Bromsgrove, and Workshop Block Outstanding FUL 13/0252 B60 1QJ Blackwell to Single Dwelling 14/06/2013 14/06/2016 1.00 1.00 No Conversion of listed barn to form two private dwelling Green Hills houses. Conversion of Farm, Wapping two implement sheds Lane, Beoley, to form garage and Outstanding COU 13/0448 Redditch Beoley storage. 15/08/2014 15/08/2017 2.00 2.00 No Conversion of existing ground floor flat to 2x 1 bedroom flats and 1 Fiery Hill Road, construction of 2 Barnt Green, storey extension Outstanding FUL 13/0501 B45 8LB Barnt Green incorporating 2 flats. 12/11/2013 12/11/2016 3.00 0.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Tyrells Lane Farm, Tyrells Conversion of Lane, Lower redundant barns and Bentley, B60 farm buildings into 3 Outstanding FUL 13/0551 4HX Bentley dwellings. 17/01/2014 17/01/2017 3.00 3.00 No Bordesley Hall Farm Barns, Storrage Lane, Rowney Green, Proposed conversion Birmingham, of redundant office Worcestershire, Rowney buildings into Outstanding PRIOR 13/0569 B48 7ES Green residential use 12/09/2013 12/09/2018 6.00 6.00 No Change of Use application from Rigby Hall, Rigby Office accommodation Lane, to apartments with Bromsgrove, external works and Worcestershire, refurbishment to Outstanding PRIOR 13/0603 B60 2EW Bromsgrove Rigby Hall. 15/11/2013 15/11/2018 6.00 6.00 No Erection of an agricultural dwelling at Laurel Farm Laurel Farm, Dagnell Dagnell End End Road Redditch Road Redditch Worcestershire B98 Worcestershire 9BD (Amended Outstanding FUL 13/0624 B98 9BD Location). 21/01/2015 21/01/2018 1.00 1.00 No 21 Hopgardens Extension of time of Avenue, planning permission Bromsgrove, referenced 10/0819 Worcestershire, for the construction of Outstanding FUL 13/0647 B60 2NX Bromsgrove a detached dwelling. 18/09/2013 18/09/2016 1.00 1.00 No 17 Alexander Plot severance and Close, Catshill, erection of a detached Outstanding FUL 13/0671 B61 0PF Catshill bungalow. 07/10/2013 07/10/2016 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Building of 7 no terraced houses on rear western car park The Greyhound, and opening up of 30 Rock Hill, existing driveway on Bromsgrove, Albert Road to existing Outstanding FUL 13/0674 B61 7LR Bromsgrove car park. 24/09/2015 24/09/2018 7.00 7.00 No Change of use to convert existing barn to residential dwelling. Highfield Farm, Existing barn has Middle Lane, current permission to Kings Norton, be converted to Outstanding FUL 13/0682 Birmingham Wythall offices. 18/11/2014 18/11/2017 1.00 1.00 No 210 Old Birmingham Demolition of existing Road, bungalow and Marlbrook, B60 construction of new Outstanding FUL 13/0762 1HH Catshill dwelling. 03/12/2013 03/12/2016 1.00 0.00 No New dwelling to rear 22 Old of 22 Old Birmingham Birmingham Road as granted under Road, Lickey reference End, B/2006/0325 but with Bromsgrove, access and layout as Worcestershire, granted under Outstanding FUL 13/0787 B60 1DE Lickey End 13/0238 10/04/2014 10/04/2017 2.00 1.00 No J & J Convenience Store, 6-8 Birmingham Change of Use from Road, Hagley, retail (Class A1) to Outstanding FUL 13/0840 DY9 9LZ Hagley Residential (Class C3) 02/01/2014 02/01/2017 1.00 1.00 No Galtons, Hartle Proposed Outstanding FUL 13/0886 Lane, Belbroughton Replacement Dwelling 29/04/2014 29/04/2017 1.00 0.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Belbroughton, DY9 9TR Land Adjacent 2 Victoria Road, Bromsgrove, Erection of Building Worcestershire, comprising 2 no. 1- Outstanding FUL 13/0979 B61 0DW Bromsgrove bedroom apartments. 01/05/2014 01/05/2017 2.00 2.00 No Proposed detached Algoa House, house on land Western Road, adjacent to Algoa Hagley, House, Western Road, Outstanding OUT 14/0002 Stourbridge Hagley Hagley 23/04/2014 23/04/2017 1.00 1.00 No 44 Church Proposed 3 Bedroom Street, Hagley, Detached House on Stourbridge, Land Adjacent to 44 Outstanding OUT 14/0004 DY9 0NA Hagley Church Street, Hagley 11/06/2014 11/06/2017 1.00 1.00 No Change of use of two former agricultural Rose Cottage buildings (dairy and Farm, Seafield barn) to provide four Lane, Portway, dwellings and all Outstanding FUL 14/0038 Birmingham Portway associated works 13/06/2014 13/06/2017 4.00 4.00 No The Old Chapel, Forge Lane, Prior approval for Belbroughton, change of use from Worcestershire, B1(a) office to 2 Outstanding PRIOR 14/0064 DY9 9TD Belbroughton residential units 06/03/2014 06/03/2019 2.00 2.00 No 37 Orchard Croft, Barnt Demolition of semi- Green, detached dwelling and Birmingham, erection of 1No. new Outstanding FUL 14/0076 B45 8NJ Barnt Green dwelling. 06/05/2014 06/05/2017 1.00 0.00 No 496-498 Groveley Lane, Cofton Proposed New Outstanding FUL 14/0088 Cofton Hackett, Hackett Dwelling 11/09/2014 11/09/2017 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Birmingham

Badgers Bank Farm, New Residential dwelling Road, Fairfield, without conditions Outstanding CPE 14/0150 B61 9LP Fairfield imposed by B13140. 28/07/2015 1.00 1.00 No 12 Alcester Road, Lickey End, Erection of detached Bromsgrove, dwelling-Renewal of Outstanding FUL 14/0258 Worcestershire Lickey End 11/0233 06/05/2014 06/05/2017 1.00 1.00 No 57 - 59 Twatling Road, Barnt 4 No detached houses Green, replacing previous Birmingham, permission for 3 Outstanding FUL 14/0260 Worcestershire Barnt Green detached houses. 16/07/2014 16/07/2017 4.00 3.00 No Land Rear 7A - 11, Plymouth Road, Barnt Erection of four Outstanding FUL 14/0288 Green, B45 8JE Barnt Green detached houses. 20/04/2015 20/04/2018 4.00 4.00 No Conversion of first, second and third floors of front range of 22-24 High Street to provide 4 no. 1 First Second And bedroom flats and 1 Third Floors, 22 - no. 3 bedroom flat; 24 High Street, refuse and recycling Bromsgrove, storage; and cycle Outstanding FUL 14/0394 Worcestershire Bromsgrove store. 28/11/2014 28/11/2017 5.00 5.00 No The Oaks, Redditch Road, Change of use of Prior Alvechurch, Approval from Birmingham, agricultural building to Outstanding PRIOR 14/0405 Worcestershire Alvechurch 2 No residential units. 24/06/2014 24/06/2019 2.00 2.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Proposed New Detached Residential 106 New Road, Dwelling On Land Bromsgrove, Adjacent To 106 New Worcestershire, Road, Bromsgrove, Outstanding FUL 14/0411 B60 2LB Bromsgrove B60 2LB 01/07/2014 01/07/2017 1.00 1.00 No Pizza Hut (Uk) Proposed change of Ltd 14-16 High use the upper floors to Street dwellings (C3) from Bromsgrove ancillary A1 use (Shop) Worcestershire and installation of roof Outstanding FUL 14/0423 B61 8HQ Bromsgrove lights. 17/03/2015 17/03/2018 3.00 3.00 No Upper Inkford Farm, Alcester Change of use of Road, Wythall, agricultural buildings Outstanding PRIOR 14/0487 Birmingham Wythall to 3 dwellings 31/07/2014 31/07/2019 3.00 3.00 No 130 Old Birmingham Road, Lickey End, Proposed new Bromsgrove, dwelling and Outstanding FUL 14/0491 Worcestershire Bromsgrove associated works. 16/09/2014 16/09/2017 1.00 1.00 No New single storey visitor centre (825 sq.m.) 3 bed single storey ranger's accommodation, car park (178 vehicles including disabled Land South spaces and coach A456 Hagley parking), new access Causeway, and access drive on to Hagley Hall, Hall the A456 Hagley Lane, Hagley, Causeway and Outstanding FUL 14/0501 Worcestershire Hagley associated 12/10/2015 12/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

landscaping.

Residential Development of 6 flats on land between 16 16 Rock Hill Rock Hill and 14 Rock Bromsgrove Hill (as amended by Worcestershire plans received on Outstanding FUL 14/0586 B61 7LJ Bromsgrove 26.01.2015) 13/02/2015 13/02/2018 6.00 5.00 No Langabeer Farm Erection of a Alcester Road replacement Wythall dwellinghouse, Birmingham B47 detached garage and Outstanding FUL 14/0588 6AP Wythall associated works 22/01/2015 22/01/2018 1.00 0.00 No 47 Beacon Hill Rubery Birmingham Worcestershire Proposed new Outstanding FUL 14/0598 B45 9QW Rubery dwelling 19/02/2015 19/02/2018 1.00 0.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

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 Land At with associated Kidderminster changes to house Road, Hagley, types and positioning Outstanding FUL 14/0629 Worcestershire, Hagley of dwellings). 06/11/2015 06/11/2018 17.00 17.00 Yes 55 Lyttleton Avenue, Bromsgrove, Proposed New Worcestershire, Dwelling and Outstanding FUL 14/0696 B60 3LH Bromsgrove Associated Parking 22/10/2014 22/10/2017 1.00 1.00 No Barn At Sweet Meadow Farm, Ickneild Street, Change of Use of part Weatheroak Hill, of agricultural building Outstanding PRIOR 14/0720 B48 7DS Alvechurch to residential (C3). 15/06/2015 15/06/2018 1.00 1.00 No Prior Notification of a Fox Farm, St change of use from Kenelms Road, agricultural barns to 2 Romsley, residential dwellings Outstanding PRIOR 14/0730 Halesowen Romsley (Use Class C3) 27/10/2014 27/10/2019 2.00 2.00 No 118 Kidderminster Road, Demolition of Existing Bromsgrove, Bungalow and the Worcestershire, Construction of 18 Outstanding OUT 14/0755 B61 7LD Bromsgrove dwellings (OUTLINE) 02/12/2014 02/12/2017 18.00 17.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

74 - 76 Birmingham Road, Bromsgrove, Proposed 2 no. Worcestershire, residential flats and Outstanding FUL 14/0776 B61 0DD Bromsgrove alterations to shop. 04/12/2014 04/12/2017 2.00 2.00 No Proposed New 206 Stourbridge Detached Residential Road Dwelling To Land Bromsgrove Adjacent 206 Worcestershire Stourbridge Road, Outstanding FUL 14/0786 B61 0AR Bromsgrove Bromsgrove 05/02/2015 05/02/2018 1.00 1.00 No 7D Twatling Road, Barnt Green, Demolition of existing Birmingham, dwelling and erection Worcestershire, of replacement Outstanding FUL 14/0803 B45 8HX Barnt Green dwelling. 11/12/2014 11/12/2017 1.00 0.00 No Pine Cottage Demolition of existing Rumbow Lane detached cottage and Romsley construction of new 4 Halesowen B62 bedroomed detached Outstanding FUL 14/0832 0LX Romsley cottage. 26/01/2015 26/01/2018 1.00 0.00 No Change of use of ground floor from A1 (retail) to A2 (financial & professional 38 High Street services) and change Bromsgrove of use of upper two Worcestershire floors to residential Outstanding FUL 14/0850 B61 8HQ Bromsgrove use (C3) 03/02/2015 03/02/2018 2.00 2.00 No 6 Cherry Hill Demolition of existing Road Barnt house. Erection of Green detached, two storey Outstanding FUL 14/0931 Birmingham Barnt Green five bedroom dwelling 12/03/2015 12/03/2018 1.00 0.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Worcestershire B45 8LH

130 Old Birmingham Road Lickey End Bromsgrove Proposed sub-division Worcestershire of existing dwelling Outstanding FUL 14/0944 B60 1DH Lickey End into 2 no. dwellings. 24/02/2015 24/02/2018 2.00 1.00 No Job Centre Churchfields Erection of 7 dwellings Bromsgrove following the Worcestershire demolition of the Outstanding FUL 14/0982 B61 8DX Bromsgrove existing buildings 10/03/2015 10/03/2018 7.00 7.00 No Linger Longer, Demolition of existing Chapmans Hill, dwelling and Romsley, B62 construction of Outstanding FUL 15/0014 0HD Romsley replacement dwelling. 24/08/2015 24/08/2018 1.00 0.00 No East Barn, Change of use from C2 Birmingham use to create two Road, Hopwood, dwellings (C3) with Outstanding FUL 15/0018 B48 7AJ Hopwood minor alterations. 12/05/2015 12/05/2018 2.00 2.00 No Demolition of existing house and provision of 7 family dwellings including parking, Strathearn, landscaping, materials Western Road, and associated Outstanding FUL 15/0054 Hagley, DY9 0HZ Hagley infrastructure. 11/08/2015 11/08/2018 7.00 6.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Demolition of existing former hotel and associated dwelling and erection of Finstall Mount dwellings with garages Hotel, 45 and parking (Outline Alcester Road, Planning Permission) Finstall, (as amended by plans Bromsgrove, received on Outstanding OUT 15/0063 B60 1EN Finstall 06.02.2015) 02/04/2015 02/04/2018 4.00 3.00 No Change of use of existing retail unit to 1 No. Two Bed Apartment and 29 Meadow Construction of rear Road Catshill extension to provide 2 Worcestershire No. One Bed Outstanding FUL 15/0118 B61 0JJ Catshill Apartments. 31/03/2015 31/03/2018 4.00 2.00 No Renovation of the former Wadderton Conference Centre including demolition of existing extensions and detached outbuildings to form a single dwelling and 37 Greenhill, the erection of 3 No. Blackwell, B60 new dwelling houses Outstanding FUL 15/0121 1BL to the rear. 02/07/2015 02/07/2018 4.00 4.00 No Longfield Manor, Rowney Green Lane, Change of Use of Rowney Green, Rowney Barns to One C3 Outstanding FUL 15/0128 B48 7RA Green Residential Unit 29/04/2015 29/04/2018 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

17 Summerfield Erection of one no. 3 Road, Holy bedroom detached Cross, dwelling as per Stourbridge, previous approval ref Outstanding FUL 15/0142 DY9 9RG Holy Cross 09/0156. 25/03/2015 25/03/2018 1.00 1.00 No First Floor, 189 Storbridge Road, Bromsgrove, Subdivision of Existing Outstanding FUL 15/0160 B61 0AR Bromsgrove Flat into 3 Units. 10/06/2015 10/06/2018 3.00 2.00 No Land Between 37 and 39, Walls Proposed detached Road, Stoke two bedroom Outstanding FUL 15/0183 Prior, B60 4LZ Stoke Prior dwelling. 06/05/2015 06/05/2018 1.00 1.00 No Land To The Rear Of 103 Wildmoor Lane, Erection of a single, Catshill, two storey dwelling Bromsgrove, with associated car Outstanding FUL 15/0187 B61 0PQ Catshill parking. 17/04/2015 17/04/2018 1.00 1.00 No 17 Linthurst Newtown, Blackwell, Replacement Dwelling Bromsgrove, - Resubmission of Outstanding FUL 15/0201 B60 1BP Blackwell 13/0877 06/07/2015 06/07/2018 1.00 0.00 No Demolition of existing 7A Plymouth dwelling and the Road, Barnt erection of 2 No. new Outstanding FUL 15/0217 Green, B45 8JE Barnt Green detached dwellings. 18/05/2015 18/05/2018 2.00 1.00 No Demolish existing 58 Fox Lane, dwellinghouse. 4 new Bromsgrove, flats and associated Outstanding FUL 15/0235 B61 7NL Bromsgrove parking. 28/10/2015 28/10/2018 4.00 3.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Prior approval for change of use of Land Rear Of 36, horticulture building Middle Lane, Headley to dwellinghouse Outstanding PRIOR 15/0266 Headley Heath, Heath (Class Q (a) only). 18/05/2015 1.00 1.00 No Heather Lodge, 28 Station Road, Blackwell, Outline permission for Bromsgrove, detached dwelling - Outstanding FUL 15/0286 B60 1PZ Blackwell Renewal of 12/0046 28/05/2015 28/05/2018 1.00 1.00 No Land Adjacent 19, Foley Gardens, Stoke Proposed dwelling on Prior, land adjacent to No. Outstanding FUL 15/0360 Worcestershire Stoke Prior 19 Foley Gardens. 03/11/2015 03/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes 1 Warwick 1 No. Detached Avenue, Bungalow on Land Bromsgrove, Adjacent No 1 Outstanding FUL 15/0368 B60 2AH Bromsgrove Warwick Avenue. 05/08/2015 05/05/2018 1.00 1.00 No Balan Farm, Packhorse Lane, Hollywood, Change of use from a Birmingham, garage to a 3 bedroom Outstanding FUL 15/0380 B38 0DN Hollywood dwelling. 17/07/2015 17/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No Land At 10 Development of Marlborough vacant site to create Avenue, 2x semidetached Outstanding FUL 15/0389 Bromsgrove, Bromsgrove family houses. 26/10/2015 26/10/2018 2.00 2.00 No Holly Tree Farm, Dark Lane, Conversion of brick Hollywood, B47 barn to a residential Outstanding FUL 15/0390 5BU Hollywood dwelling. 28/07/2015 28/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Change of use from B1 office to single C3 4 Hartle Lane, dwelling. Belbroughton, Renewal of permission Outstanding FUL 15/0393 DY9 9TG Belbroughton 12/0442 09/07/2015 09/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No 448 Birmingham Road, Catshill, Worcestershire, Outstanding FUL 15/0397 B61 0HR Catshill New Dwelling 04/12/2015 04/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes

27 Long Proposed dwelling on Compton Drive, land adjacent to 27 Outstanding FUL 15/0429 Hagley, DY9 0PD Hagley Long Compton Drive. 24/07/2015 24/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No Bewell Head Working Mens Club, 44 Bewell Head, Demolition of existing Bromsgrove, Working Mens Club Worcestershire, and erection of 9 no. Outstanding FUL 15/0464 B61 8HY Bromsgrove new dwellings 29/01/2016 29/01/2019 9.00 9.00 Yes Prior approval of proposed change of use of agricultural building to a dwellinghouse (Use The Rockings, Class C3), and for Alcester Road, associated operational Outstanding PRIOR 15/0469 Burcot, B60 1PN Burcot development. 15/07/2015 15/07/2018 1.00 1.00 No Change use of agricultural building to the north of the 37 Greenhill, former conference Blackwell, B60 centre to a residential Outstanding FUL 15/0482 1BL Blakewell dwelling. 02/10/2015 02/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Demolition of part of Balan Farm, existing building and Packhorse Lane, conversion of Hollywood, B38 remainder to a single Outstanding FUL 15/0492 0DN Hollywood dwelling. 06/10/2015 06/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No Prior Approval for a Linton, The Change of Use of Piggery, Upper Agricultural Building to Gambolds Lane, a Dwellinghouse (Class Stoke Pound, C3), and for Bromsgrove, Associated Operation Outstanding PRIOR 15/0505 B60 3HD Stoke Pound Development. 20/07/2015 20/07/2018 2.00 2.00 No Demolition of one 19 Plymouth dwelling and Road, Barnt construction of two Outstanding FUL 15/0512 Green, B45 8JF Barnt Green dwellings 27/07/2015 27/07/2018 2.00 1.00 No Demolition of existing Brackendale, buildings and Holt Lane, construction of Romsley, B62 replacement dwelling Outstanding FUL 15/0514 0ND Romsley and barn / stables. 22/10/2015 22/10/2018 1.00 0.00 No CONVERSION OF FORMER WYHALL POLICE STATION INTO 2 NO DWELLINGS, WITH REAR 387 Alcester EXTENSION TO FIRST Road, Wythall, FLOOR. TOGETHER Birmingham, WITH A DETACHED Outstanding FUL 15/0518 B47 6JL Wythall GARAGE TO THE REAR 15/09/2015 15/09/2018 2.00 2.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Proposed conversion Little Harbours of existing agricultural Farm, Moorgate building to two Road, Harbours dwelling houses (use Hill, Class C3) and Bromsgrove, associated operational Outstanding PRIOR 15/0530 B60 4AP Bromsgrove development. 25/08/2015 25/08/2018 2.00 2.00 No Notification of Prior Approval for a Change of Use of Agricultural Building to a Field Barn, Dwellinghouse Whitford Bridge (ClassC3), and for Road, Stoke associated operational Outstanding PRIOR 15/0540 Prior, Stoke Prior development. 10/08/2015 10/08/2018 1.00 1.00 No Wayside, Third Road, Wildmoor, Bromsgrove, Outstanding FUL 15/0547 B61 0BT Bromsgrove Replacement Dwelling 17/11/2015 17/11/2018 1.00 0.00 Yes Conversion of ancillary outbuilding to 19 Warren Lane, separate residential Outstanding FUL 15/0552 Lickey, B45 8ER Lickey dwelling. 27/08/2015 27/08/2018 1.00 1.00 No Otters Holt, Holt Hill, Beoley, Development of Redditch, B98 detached house in Outstanding FUL 15/0556 9AT garden of Otters Holt. 15/10/2015 15/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No Pinewood Farm, Conversion of existing Winwood Heath storage buildings and Road, Romsley, garages into 2no. Outstanding FUL 15/0590 B62 0JY Romsley three bed dwellings. 17/09/2015 17/09/2018 2.00 2.00 No

452 Birmingham Removal of workshop Road, Catshill, and erection of Outstanding FUL 15/0598 Worcestershire, Catshill bungalow. 05/11/2015 05/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

B61 0HR

Land to the Rear Of 6 St Four-bedroom two- Catherines storey new dwelling Road, Blackwell, with detached garage Bromsgrove, on land to the rear of Outstanding FUL 15/0608 B60 1BN Blackwell 6 St Catherines Road. 13/10/2015 13/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No Conversion of 3no Chadwich agricultural buildings Grange Farm, (A-C) into residential Malthouse Lane, use (C3 Use Class) Chadwich, including demolition Bromsgrove, of 1 no agricultural Outstanding FUL 15/0636 B61 0QH barn. 02/10/2015 02/10/2018 3.00 3.00 No Willow Tree Change of use into Cottage, 55/57 two separate Golden Cross dwellings (conversion Lane, Catshill, of existing dwelling Outstanding FUL 15/0668 B61 0LG Catshill into two dwellings). 24/09/2015 24/09/2018 2.00 1.00 No Existing garage and part ground floor kitchen and porch removed. Proposed new two storey 149 Shawhurst dwelling. Proposed Lane, separate entrances to Hollywood, each dwelling and to Worcestershire, include a proposed Outstanding FUL 15/0706 B47 5JR Hollywood drop kerb. 06/11/2015 06/11/2018 2.00 1.00 Yes Former Club Conversion of former House, clubhouse to Halesowen residential dwelling Outstanding FUL 15/0726 Road, Lydiate with proportionate 23/09/2015 23/09/2018 1.00 1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Ash, B61 0QL extension.

Demolition of existing residential dwelling, detached garage and games room. The Cottage, Erection of new Dordale Road, replacement dwelling, Bournheath, detached garage and Outstanding FUL 15/0727 DY9 0AX Bournheath basement. 07/10/2015 07/10/2018 1.00 0.00 No Wendron House, Chapel Change of Use of Street, redundant offices to a Bromsgrove, single private Outstanding FUL 15/0744 B60 2BQ Bromsgrove dwelling. 26/10/2015 26/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No Brookhouse Conversion of former Farm, Sandy redundant stable Lane, Wildmoor, building into Worcestershire, residential Outstanding FUL 15/0748 B61 0QW Wildmoor accommodation. 03/11/2015 03/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes Brookhouse Farm, Sandy Lane, Wildmoor, Conversion of Worcestershire, redundant barn into Outstanding FUL 15/0749 B61 0QW Wildmoor residential dwelling. 03/11/2015 03/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes 144 New Road, First floor rear Bromsgrove, extension provide 2 Worcestershire, additional residential Outstanding FUL 15/0786 B60 2LE Bromsgrove units 20/11/2015 20/11/2018 5.00 3.00 Yes Change of use of first floor from C3 to office, 5 St Kenelms staff room, freezer Road, Romsley, and chiller associated Outstanding FUL 15/0800 B62 0NU Romsley with A1 use on ground 30/10/2015 30/10/2018 -1.00 -1.00 No

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

floor.

New build detached, two storey, three bedroom dwelling on 69 Fordhouse land adjacent to 69 Road, Fordhouse Road, to Bromsgrove, include new access to Outstanding FUL 15/0809 B60 2LU Bromsgrove 69 Fordhouse Road. 15/10/2015 15/10/2018 1.00 1.00 No 19 Lickey Rock, Marlbrook, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, Detached Outstanding FUL 15/0816 B60 1HF Bromsgrove dwellinghouse. 27/11/2015 27/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes Erection of 41 Land Off East dwellings landscaping Works Drive, and associated Cofton Hackett, Cofton development Outstanding FUL 15/0819 Worcestershire Hackett infrastructure. 09/02/2016 09/02/2019 41.00 41.00 Yes The Woodlands, Fiery Hill Road, Resubmission - One Barnt Green, single storey Birmingham, apartment and Worcestershire, ancillary parking / Outstanding FUL 15/0823 B45 8LB Barnt Green landscaping. 15/12/2015 15/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes Conversion of vacant A1/A2 unit into smaller unit, with change of use of rear 2 - 4 High Street, of premises at ground Bromsgrove, floor to 2 No Outstanding FUL 15/0826 B61 8HQ Bromsgrove apartments, window 02/11/2015 02/11/2018 2.00 2.00 Yes

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

infilling and minor associated works.

Demolition of self- contained single storey studio apartment & construction of new detached chalet 30 Stourbridge bungalow with Road, integral carport on Bromsgrove, land adjacent to No. Worcestershire, 30 Stourbridge Road, Outstanding FUL 15/0827 B61 0AE Bromsgrove Bromsgrove, B61 0AE. 24/11/2015 24/11/2018 1.00 0.00 Yes Change of use of part 3 - 4 The Square, of ground floor from Alvechurch, B48 residential (C3) to Outstanding FUL 15/0833 7LA Alvechurch financial services (A2). 27/10/2015 27/10/2018 -1.00 -1.00 No Prior Approval of Use of Proposed Change of Headley Heath Use of Agricultural Farm, Headley Building to a Heath Lane, Dwellinghouse (C3) Headley Heath, and Associated Worcestershire, Headley Operational Outstanding PRIOR 15/0871 B47 6JX Heath Development. 16/11/2015 16/11/2018 2.00 2.00 Yes

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Notification of Prior Approval for a Brook Farm, proposed change of Ickneild Street, use of Agricultural Beoley, Building to a Redditch, Dwellinghouse and for Worcestershire, associated operational Outstanding PRIOR 15/0874 B98 9AL Beoley development. 09/11/2015 09/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes 97 King George Close, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, Proposed New Outstanding FUL 15/0881 B61 8SQ Bromsgrove Dwelling 03/12/2015 03/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes Use of the building The Granary, known as 'The Dagnell End Granary' (as outlined Road, Redditch, in red) as a separate Worcestershire, and independent Outstanding CPE 15/0884 B98 9BE Redditch dwelling C3. 25/11/2015 25/11/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes White Haze Farm, Chapel Lane, Alvechurch, Change of Use of Worcestershire, agricultural building to Outstanding FUL 15/0923 B48 7QJ Alvechurch a single dwelling. 17/12/2015 17/12/2018 1.00 1.00 Yes Full application for conversion of existing property into 2 407 Stourbridge apartments and Road, Catshill, outline application for Outstanding OUT 15/0934 Worcestershire Catshill new dwelling 12/02/2016 12/02/2019 3.00 2.00 Yes The Priests Change of Use of House, Grafton stables and Lane, garage/workshop to Outstanding FUL 15/0937 Bromsgrove, Bromsgrove provide dwelling 01/02/2016 01/02/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

B61 7HA

Renewal of Planning Permission 12/1032 249 Worcester Proposed New Road, Stoke Bungalow to the Rear Heath, of 249 Worcester Bromsgrove, Road, Bromsgrove Worcestershire, approved under Ref: Outstanding FUL 15/0963 B61 7JA Stoke Heath 10/0171 05/01/2016 05/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes Redcross Farm, Perryfields Road, Demolition of Existing Bromsgrove, Outbuilding and Worcestershire, Erection of New Outstanding FUL 15/0990 B61 8QW Bromsgrove Dwelling. 12/01/2016 12/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes 99 Wildmoor Erection of 3 no. two Lane, Catshill, storey dwellings with Bromsgrove, parking and turning Outstanding FUL 15/1006 B61 0PQ Catshill area. 12/02/2016 12/02/2019 3.00 3.00 Yes Proposed two-storey extension to the rear 133 Worcester of the property to Road, Hagley, create larger ground Worcestershire, floor retail area and Outstanding FUL 15/1048 DY9 ONW Hagley additional flat above. 26/02/2016 26/02/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes Proposed Change of Unit 2 Long Acre Use from storage or Field, distribution buildings Brickhouse (Class B8) and any Lane, Stoke land within its Prior, curtilage to a dwelling Outstanding PRIOR 15/1062 Worcestershire Stoke Prior house (C3). 28/01/2016 28/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Proposed Change of Unit 1 Long Acre Use from storage or Field, distribution buildings Brickhouse (Class B8) and any Lane, Stoke land within its Prior, curtilage to Outstanding PRIOR 15/1063 Worcestershire Stoke Prior dwellinghouse (C3). 28/01/2016 28/01/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes 528 Groveley Lane, Cofton New Dwelling at the Hackett, rear of 528 Groveley Worcestershire, Cofton Lane (re-submission of Outstanding FUL 15/1085 B45 8UB Hackett app no. 14/0480) 03/02/2016 03/02/2019 1.00 1.00 Yes Totals: 519.00 482.00

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Sites with Resolution to Grant Planning Permission, subject to Section 106 Legal Agreement at 1 st March 2016

Status App Type App No Address Settlement Description Gross units Net units C2 Use? Comment New for 1st March 2016 5YHLS calculation. This is a reserved matters Reserved Matters Application application including appearance, landscaping, submitted on layout and scale, following outline 20/11/2015 that Application Land At Norton planning approval ref. no. 12/0709. supersedes the Subject to Farm, Birmingham Residential development comprising outline app S.106 REM 15/0996 Road, Bromsgrove, Bromsgrove 316 dwellings 316 316 No 12/0709. Included in 1st Land Rear Algoa Nov 2015 and Application House, Western 1st March 2016 Subject to Road, Hagley, Residential development comprising 5YHLS S.106 OUT 14/0408 Worcestershire Hagley the erection of 26 dwellings. 26 26 No calculations. Yes Demolition of existing structures and (Extra the erection of 81 bed care home and Care = 66 bed extra-care apartments for 37 units Included in 1st older persons and 26 affordable but not Nov 2015 and Application Land at Recreation apartments for older persons, with included 1st March 2016 Subject to Road, Bromsgrove, supporting facilities, parking and in 5YHLS S.106 FUL 14/0821 B61 8DT Catshill access 173 26 5YHLS) calculations. Totals: 515 368

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Deliverable SHLAA Sites (10+ units) included within 5 Year Land Supply at 1 st November 2015

SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1 st Nov 2015 Nov 15 – 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019- Apr 20 – Oct Total Total Mar 16 (5 20 20 with 5 site months) (7 months) years capacity BDC20 Perryfields Road, Bromsgrove • BDP Allocation site BROM2 (Market and Affordable) • Detailed pre-application discussions held • Outline Application due to be submitted January 2016 • Indicative Master plan submitted as part 0 0 40 210 325 162 737 1300 of BDP Examination, details phasing (1300 housing units SoCG 5) • Taylor Wimpey BDP Examination Submission/Letter validates build out rates 6 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). 0 0 50 120 120 70 360 490 • Reserved Matters discussions had previously commenced • Site pushed back by 5YHLS to reflect recent refusal and appeal . No. of units within 5YHLS reduced accordingly. 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. 78

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1 st Nov 2015 Nov 15 – 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019- Apr 20 – Oct Total Total Mar 16 (5 20 20 with 5 site months) (7 months) years capacity Street, Alvechurch application following SHLAA submission. BDC102 5, 7 & 9 Worcester Road, • Site being progressed to planning 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 12 Hagley application following SHLAA submission. BDC163 Finstall Training Centre, Stoke • Users currently being relocated from Road, Bromsgrove the site. 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 12 • Site to be completely vacant in 2015. BDC168 The Council House, Burcot • BDC Cabinet report on 03/07/13 Lane, Bromsgrove agreeing to the disposal of site for residential development. • BDC secured planning permission for new offices at Parkside, Bromsgrove, in 0 0 0 25 26 0 51 51 November 2013 and construction has commenced. • Relocation of staff from Council House occurring and to be completed by winter 2015. BDC192 All Saints Vicarage, Burcot • Site being progressed to planning 0 0 0 0 0 9 9 12 Lane, Bromsgrove application following SHLAA submission. Totals 0 0 90 367 481 250 1188 1887

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Bromsgrove 5YHLS – Deliverable SHLAA Sites (10+ units) included within 5 Year Land Supply at 1 st March 2016

SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1 st March 2016 Mar 16 – 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019- Apr 20 – Total Total Apr 16 (1 20 Mar 21 with 5 site month) (11 months) years capacity BDC20 Perryfields Road, Bromsgrove • BDP Allocation site BROM2 (Market and Affordable) • Detailed pre-application discussions held • Outline Application due to be submitted January 2016 • Indicative Master plan submitted as part 0 0 40 210 325 247 822 1300 of BDP Examination, details phasing (1300 housing units (see SoCG 7) • Taylor Wimpey BDP Examination Submission/Letter validates build out rates 8 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). 0 0 50 120 120 110 400 490 • Reserved Matters discussions had previously commenced • Site pushed back by 5YHLS to reflect recent refusal and appeal . No. of units within 5YHLS reduced accordingly. 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. 80

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

SHLAA Ref Site Location Site Status at 1 st March 2016 Mar 16 – 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019- Apr 20 – Total Total Apr 16 (1 20 Mar 21 with 5 site month) (11 months) years capacity Street, Alvechurch application following SHLAA submission. BDC102 5, 7 & 9 Worcester Road, • Site being progressed to planning 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 12 Hagley application following SHLAA submission. BDC163 Finstall Training Centre, Stoke • Users currently being relocated from Road, Bromsgrove the site. 0 0 0 12 0 0 12 12 • Site to be completely vacant in 2015. BDC168 The Council House, Burcot • BDC Cabinet report on 03/07/13 Lane, Bromsgrove agreeing to the disposal of site for residential development. • BDC secured planning permission for new offices at Parkside, Bromsgrove, in 0 0 0 25 26 0 51 51 November 2013 and construction has commenced. • Relocation of staff from Council House occurring and to be completed by winter 2015. BDC192 All Saints Vicarage, Burcot • Site being progressed to planning 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 12 Lane, Bromsgrove application following SHLAA submission. Totals 0 0 90 367 481 379 1317 1887

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Bromsgrove 5YHLS – List of Amendments to Commitments at 1 st March 2016

Amend Dwelling Decision Expiry Gross Number Reason for App Ref Address Proposal Status Date Date Amendments Units (Net) Amendment Redevelopme Former nt of the Amended housing figure of 247 to Polymer Latex former latex remove C2 use of 90 units and change Site, Weston factory site to dwelling number to 202 based on the Hall Road, provide submitted full planning application Comment in Harris Lamb's Stoke Prior, mixed-use 15/0687, which is currently pending written Representation 13/0213 B60 4AL development. Outstanding 30/01/2015 30/01/2018 decision. 202 202 (page 4). Comment in Harris Lamb written Representation Creating regarding gross and net 35 Brook additional figures (Para 2, Page 1 of Road, dwelling by rep). Figures checked and Bromsgrove, splitting no Under Amendment to Net Under Construction amendment made to net 15/0551 B61 7DD 35. Construction 26/08/2015 26/08/2018 figure - change from 2 to 1. 2 1 figure for this application. Outline Land at application Update to database Norton Farm, for the following submission of Birmingham construction reserved matters Road, of up to 316 Application superseded by 15/0996 application 15/0996 on 12/0709 Bromsgrove dwellings. Outstanding 20/12/2013 20/12/2016 (Granted Subject to S106 agreement) 316 316 20/11/2015. Proposed 17 Linthurst Replacement Newtown, Dwelling - Blackwell, Resubmission Bromsgrove, of Application Application has been superseded by 13/0877 B60 1BP 13/0041 Outstanding 08/04/2014 08/04/2017 15/0201. 1 0 Correction to database. 528 Groveley Provision of Lane, Cofton New Dwelling Hackett, to the Land at Update to database Birmingham, the rear of Application has been superseded by following submission of 14/0480 B45 8UB 528 Groveley Outstanding 13/01/2015 13/01/2018 15/1085. 1 1 15/1085 on 29/12/2015.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, issues and Questions

Lane

19 Plymouth Road, Barnt Replacement Application has been superseded by 14/0762 Green Dwelling Outstanding 12/12/2014 12/12/2017 15/0512. 1 0 Correction to database. Redcross Farm, Change of Use Perryfields and Road, extensions to Update to database Bromsgrove, form one 2- Application has been superseded by following submission of 14/0977 B61 8QW bed dwelling Outstanding 18/02/2015 18/02/2018 15/0990. 1 1 15/0990 on 19/11/2015. Erection of single dwelling. (Replacement Land off Fiery of Plot 60 on Hill Road, approved This application relates to 13/0522 that Barnt Green, application is Under Construction and already 15/0192 B45 8LF 13/0522) Outstanding 27/05/2015 27/05/2018 accounted for. 1 1 Correction to database. Notification for Prior Approval for a Proposed Change of Use of Agricultural Building to a Dwellinghous White Haze e (Class C3), Farm, Chapel and for Lane, Associated Update to database Alvechurch, Operational Application has been superseded by following submission of 15/0538 B48 7QJ Development. Outstanding 12/08/2015 12/08/2018 15/0923. 1 1 15/0923 on 23/10/2015.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

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 Brownfield/ Not Under Completions Greenfield Started Construction (2016-21) 143 Castleditch Lane/ Pheasant Lane 16 G 16 0 153 *† Prospect Hill 71 B 57 14 156 Land at Millfields and the Fire Station 30 B/G 30 0 158 * South of Scout Hut, Oakenshaw Road 21 G 4 17 TOTAL 138 107 31

Sites identified in Redditch SHLAA

No. Site Name Capacity for Brownfield/ Not Under Completions Greenfield Started Construction (2016-21) 200* Land at Wirehill Drive 12 G 12 0 203*† Former Dingleside Middle School 86 B/G 58 28 and Auxerre Avenue 209 Loxley Close 10 B 10 0 210 Ω Land to the rear of the Alexandra 145 G 145 0 Hospital 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 30 B 0 30 baths 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 2014/02 Ω 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 14 B 14 0 Rd 2014/07 Ω Former Youth House, Ipsley Street 10 B 10 0 Ω Former Holyoaks Field First School 20 B/G 20 0 TOTAL 1452 1389 63

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

* Sites with valid planning consent † Consent on part of site only ∆ Application pending outcome Ω Pre-app

Windfall sites (5 dwellings or more) identified since the adoption of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No.3

No. Site Name Capacity for Brownfield/ Not Under Completions Greenfield Started Construction (2016-21) 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 2 G 0 2 14/237* 3Bank Plymouth Road 6 G 6 0 14/311* Headless Cross Methodist Church 9 B 9 0 14/321 ∆ Unit 2, Millsborough House, Ipsley 14 B 14 0 15/043 * FormerStreet 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 Brownfield/ Not Under Completions Greenfield Started Construction (2016-21) 13/331 2 Ludlow Road, Southcrest 6 B 6 0 14/127 St Stephen’s House, 54 B 54 0 14/263 MerryProspect Oak, Hill Moors Lane, 1 G 1 0 15/087 SpringfieldFeckenham Farm, Astwood 1 G 1 0 15/099 ThreadneedleLane House, 37 B 37 0 15/197 Adj.Alcester Lower Street Tookeys Farm, 1 G 1 0 15/197 Adj.Astwood Lower Bank Tookeys Farm 1 G 1 0 15/226 5 Alcester Street, Town 4 B 4 0 Centre 2

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

15/237 1240 Evesham Road, 10 B 10 0 15/340 20Astwood Bromsgrove Bank Road 3 B 3 0

TOTAL 117 117 0

Grey highlight = new commitments since 1 November 2015

Small Site Commitments (4 dwellings or less) with valid planning consent

No. Site Name Capacity for Not Started Under Brownfield/ Completions at Construction Greenfield 1.3.2016 09/086 97 Prospect Road North, Lakeside 1 0 1 B 11/113 7 Morsefield Lane, Matchborough West 1 0 1 B 11/327 166 Mount Pleasant 1 0 1 B 12/099 Adj. 205 Evesham Road, Headless Cross 2 0 2 B 12/257 RO 247 Evesham Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 G 12/306 RO 36 Marsden Road, Smallwood 2 0 2 B 12/313 The Thatchers, Church Road, Webheath 2 2 0 G 13/003 Adj. 5 The Mayfields, Southcrest 1 1 0 G 13/064 Adj. 34 Birchfield Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 G 13/082 Phoenix Works, Summer Street, Smallwood 2 0 2 B 13/171 7 Beaufort Street, Southcrest 4 4 0 B 13/189 Barn at Mutton Hall 1 1 0 G 13/254 Uphill, Sambourne Ln, Astwood Bank 1 0 1 B 13/260 325 Evesham Road, Crabbs Cross 3 3 0 B 13/264 325 Evesham Road, Crabbs Cross 1 1 0 B 13/292 Old Yarr stables, Hunt End 2 2 0 G 13/320 Adj. First House, Lady Harriet’s Lane 1 1 0 G 14/046 324 Evesham Road, Crabbs Cross 1 1 0 B 14/160ol RO 112 Feckenham Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 G 14/203 40A Mason Road, Headless Cross 1 1 0 B 14/247 Adj. Greenfields, Field Farm Lane 1 0 1 G 14/297 1 The Grove, Holloway Drive 1 0 1 G 14/298 40 Chestnut Road, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G 14/325 Adj. Doebank House, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G 14/336 Adj. St Georges Court, Winyates Way 2 2 0 B 14/367 Adj. 55 Weatheroak Close, Webheath 1 1 0 G 14/371 171 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B 14/1515 5 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B 15/012 70 Maisemore Close, Church Hill North 1 1 0 B 15/049 78 Ash Tree Road, Batchley 1 1 0 B 15/056 Grand View, Sambourne Lane, AB 1 0 1 G 15/065 British Mills, Prospect Hill 1 1 0 B 15/086 Adj. Carantac, The Mayfields, Southcrest 1 1 0 G 15/097 RO 173 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B 15/108 42 Dagtail Lane, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G 15/119 RO 52 Bromsgrove Road 2 2 0 G 15/123 10 Market Place 1 1 0 B

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

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 Not Started Under Brownfield/ Completions at Construction Greenfield 1.3.2016 15/137 RO 123 -127 The Meadway, Headless Cross 4 4 0 G 15/167 27 Cranham Close 1 1 0 G 15/178 Adj. 17 Crumpfields Lane, Webheath 1 1 0 G 15/196 Black Horse PH, 7 -9 Mt Pleasant 2 2 0 B 15/261 Victoria House, Feckenham Road, AB 4 4 0 B 15/274 Adj. 35 Hazel Road, Batchley 1 1 0 G 15/280 Papermill Barn, Brooklands Lane 1 1 0 G 15/288 Green Acres, Crofts Lane 1 0 1 G 15/294 Adj. 10 Foxlydiate Crescent, Batchley 1 1 0 B 15/302 Above Simply Local, Dilwyn Close 1 1 0 B 15/324 Adj. Doebank House, Astwood Bank 1 1 0 G 15/361 51 Mount Pleasant, Southcrest 1 1 0 B 16/009 Vauns Oaks, 13 Icknield Street 2 2 0 G

TOTAL 72 56 16

∆ Application pending Grey highlight = new commitments since 1 November 2015

Small site commitments = 72 dwellings

Small Site Windfall Allowance

Small site windfall allowance on sites less than 5 dwellings = 32 dwellings

Cross Boundary contributions

No. Site Name Capacity for Brownfield/ Not Under Completions Greenfield Started Construction (2016-21)

Site 1 Foxlydiate 671 G 671 0

TOTAL 671 671 0

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

Delivery Schedule

Site Nov 15/16 2016/17 2017/18 2018/19 2019/20 1 Mar 21 Mayfields Works 5 18 Castleditch Lane/ Pheasant Lane 0 0 5 11 Land at Millfields, adjacent the Fire Station 0 0 0 30 South of Scout Hut 21 Former Dingleside Middle School 15 51 0 20 Loxley Close 0 0 0 10 Clifton Close 0 0 0 6 Prospect Hill 14 0 14 43 RO Alexandra Hospital 0 0 45 50 50 A435 ADR 0 0 0 30 50 46 Brockhill East (ADR) 0 16 65 65 65 60 Brockhill East (Weights Lane) 0 38 45 45 45 25 Webheath ADR 0 20 75 75 75 65 Land adjacent to Sandycroft 0 0 6 Birchfield Road (GB) 6 12 11 Former Hewell Road swimming baths 0 30 RO Windsor Road Gas Works 0 10 34 Studley Road/ Green Lane 0 4 6 Park House 0 6 8 The Elms 7 Conwil, Dagnell End Lane 0 0 6 Former ambulance station, Cedar Park Road 0 14 Former Jolly Farmer PH, Woodrow 0 4 10 Former Youth Centre, Ipsley Street 0 0 10 St Stephens House, Town Centre 0 54 Oak House, Herbert Street 0 9 Adj. Lower Tookey’s Farm, Astwood Bank 0 0 1 Threadneedle House 0 46 Land at Moons Moat Drive 0 4 10 The Paddocks 0 0 6 Suntrap, Edgioak Lane 2 Headless Cross Methodist Church 0 2 7 Former night club, Church Road 0 27 White Lion PH, Astwood Bank 0 7 132 Oakly Road 4 5 Ludlow Road 0 6 Springfield Farm 0 1 Millsborough House 0 14 Ashleigh Works, Bromsgrove Rd 0 5 5 Redditch Trades & Labour Club 0 14 14 Paper Mill Drive, Church Hill South 0 0 20 16 Wirehill Drive 0 4 8 3 Plymouth Road 0 0 6 Ipsley Court, Berrington Close 0 5 20 Bromsgrove Road 0 3 5 Alcester Street 4 1240 Evesham Road, Astwood Bank 0 10 Church Hill Medical Centre 0 0 16 Clive Road/ Prospect Hill 0 0 10 30 Millsborough House Ph2 0 0 15 15 10 Matchborough District Centre 0 0 0 35 35 Winyates District Centre 0 0 0 5 30 Former Holyoaks Field First School 0 0 0 0 20 Merry Oak Farm, Moors Lane 0 0 1 XBDY - Site 1 Foxlydiate 0 0 83 169 209 210

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

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

4 March 2016 Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Lt BDC Perryfields delivery rates 04.03.16 Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

Bromsgrove and Redditch Planning Policy Teams Town Hall Walter Stranz Square Redditch B98 8AH

By email only

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 Construction Period Residential Dwelling Phase Construction (Circa.) Phase 1 2016 – 2020 425 Phase 2 2018 – 2020 225 Phase 3 2019 – 2019 40

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

Phase 4 2019 – 2022 300 Phase 5 2021 – 2022 160 Phase 6 2022 – 2024 150 TOTAL 2016 – 2024 1300

A plan showing the proposed phasing for the site is attached to this letter. The phasing is described as follows:

PHASE 1 (2016 - 2020)

The first phase of development will be in the south. This will be linked to the delivery of the new roundabout junction from Kidderminster Road and the closure of the Perryfields Road/ Kidderminster Road junction. Circa. 425 residential units will be provided alongside the connecting spine road between the roundabout and Perryfields Road. The mixed use area located in this phase will be made available to the market. Green infrastructure will be delivered concurrently with each phase, in line with the Green Infrastructure delivery plan.

It is also envisaged that during the later stages of this phase the new junction from Stourbridge Road to the north of the site will be commenced and a spine road spur provided in order to support the delivery of dwellings in Phase 2.

PHASE 2 (2018 - 2020)

Using the new Stourbridge Road junction to the north of the Site, circa 225 dwellings will be delivered. Works to the Battlefield Brook, landscape enhancements and preparation works for the recreation ground will be underway during this phase. The recreation ground will be completed or available for use by the completion of phase 3, at which time the proposed sports pavilion and pedestrian link from King George’s recreation ground should be available for use.

PHASE 3 (2019 - 2019)

This phase is relatively small when compared with other phases. This phase will deliver circa. 40 residential dwellings, alongside the provision of the sports pavilion and the formal park component of the wider open space and parkland provision. On completion of the pavilion and formal park including pedestrian links from the King George recreation ground, the parkland will be open to public use.

This phase also delivers the remaining section of the new spine road link and enables all of the proposed alterations to Perryfields Road to be completed.

PHASE 4 (2019 - 2022)

Located centrally within the site; served directly from the existing Perryfields Road; and within the ownership/ control of one land owner, the County Council, this phase of development is likely to overlap with other phases of development. Circa 300 dwellings will be delivered in this phase, alongside strategic open space components.

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions

This phase is self-sufficient in terms of surface water drainage and connections to outfalls. Informal landscape elements will be included with this phase of development. The existing SUSTRANs route, and PROW/ Bridleways will remain operational, although temporary diversions may be necessary to facilitate safe development or enhancements to the routes.

PHASE 5 (2021 - 2022)

Phase 5 is located to the west of the Perryfields Road and situated on the proposed spine road route. This phase comprises additional mixed uses which are intended to accommodate the local centre and extra care facilities. These are to be co-located with the existing Sidemoor First School to create and support a viable local centre. In addition further employment land will be made available to the market during this phase.

The local centre will be advanced and expanded in this phase as a critical mass of new population will be in place to support the operation and therefore success of the local centre. In addition to the mixed uses, circa 160 dwellings will be delivered.

PHASE 6 (2022 - 2024)

Phase 6 is the final phase of development, delivering the remaining components of the scheme which includes circa 150 dwellings.

I trust this information is of assistance in progressing the Local Plan. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any queries.

Yours sincerely

Tim Hoskinson Associate Director

Encl Perryfields Phasing Plan

Bromsgrove District Council and Redditch Borough Council Response to the Inspector’s Matters, Issues and Questions