Appeal 6002354

The appeal is allowed and Permission in Principle is granted for the proposed erection of a three-storey building comprising eight apartments at upper floors and 185 sqm commercial floorspace falling within Use Class E(g) at ground floor, at [site address] , Redditch, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 25/00587/PIP.

The appeal results from the failure of the Council to determine the application within the prescribed period and so there is no formal decision notice. However, the Council’s Statement of Case sets out the reasons why it would have refused the application had it been empowered to do so.

The proposal is for Permission in Principle. As such, the scope of the considerations at this stage is limited to location, land use and the amount of the proposed development. All other matters would be considered as part of any subsequent application for [name] (TDC). Although plans of a possible layout, access and parking have been provided, I have treated these as being only illustrative.

The main issues are whether the location, land use and amount of the proposal would: • have an acceptable effect on the character and appearance of the area, • accord with the strategy of the Development Plan with regard to employment use, and • have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of future occupiers with regard to privacy, outdoor space, noise and pollution.

The site consists of an area of grass and hard surfacing forming part of the grounds of a church. Adjacent to the site is the church itself, and its other parking and landscaped areas. On the other side of the site is a [name] building and its parking area. Opposite the site are single and two-storey dwellings set back from [site address] behind front gardens. The appeal site therefore forms part of an area that has been developed at a fairly low density, but is close to Redditch town centre and has higher densities close by.

The proposal seeks to erect a three-storey building containing eight apartments at upper floors, and 185 sqm of floorspace under Use Class E(g), for example as offices. Although the application is for Permission in Principle, the number of apartments and storeys is specified within the application description, as is the amount of commercial floorspace. Therefore, I must determine the appeal on this basis rather than, for instance, a smaller number of flats or storeys, or a different amount of commercial floorspace.

The appeal site forms a largely open, undeveloped grassed space, with trees and vegetation on its boundaries. As such, it contributes positively to the green and lower density of development hereabouts. The proposed building, having several storeys and illustratively covering much of the plot, would be large in scale. As a result, it would inevitably cause a loss of the sense of openness formed by the site.

Furthermore, the three-storey height of the building would be much taller than the single-storey [name] building adjacent to it, as well as being indicatively close to and forward of it. The proposed building would therefore potentially appear overly dominant. The submitted block plan shows that the building would be positioned well beyond the frontage of the church, although separated from it by the parking area. Nevertheless, for the reasons given, the proposal would conflict with the pattern and character of development on [site address] , and so would appear somewhat out of place.

However, the impact of the proposal would be lessened by the range of building heights and scales in the wider area, reflecting its proximity to the town centre. These include the tall, elevated residential developments on the other side of the railway line to the rear. Furthermore, the siting and the design of the building are matters for TDC stage. A form and layout may be developed that improves on that shown illustratively, over which the Council has control. I am mindful too that the Council seeks employment use of the land, which would also be likely to undermine the green, spacious character of the site.

For the reasons given above, the location, land use and amount of the proposal would have a harmful effect on the character and appearance of the area. Consequently, it would conflict with policies 16 and 39 of the Borough of Redditch Local Plan No. 4 (BRLP), adopted January 2017. These require development to have no detrimental impact on the character of the neighbourhood, to protect green spaces and ensure a high-quality natural environment. However, as identified above, the extent of the adverse effects would be tempered. Accordingly, I give this harm and conflict only moderate weight.

The site lies within a Primary Employment Area, as designated in the Local Plan. BRLP policy 24.2 makes clear that proposals will not be permitted where they would restrict the current or future use or development of such land for employment purposes. It defines employment land with reference to the former use classes which include Use Class B1, which has now been replaced by Use Class E(g).

Policy 24 aims to protect employment land, to ensure that the Borough’s supply of such land remains available. It makes clear that non-employment development will only be permitted in certain circumstances. Policy 24.3(i) requires that the proposal would not cause or accentuate a significant shortage of land for employment use. The Council does not dispute the appellant’s evidence that, at April 2024, there was some 63 hectares of employment land available, and that the Council has performed well in the delivery of such land. I therefore find no conflict with policy 24.3(i).

Policy 24.3(ii) requires that the site must no longer be viable as an employment area. This should be demonstrated by a period of marketing or a viability assessment. Neither of these have been undertaken, and so the development would conflict with policy 24.3(ii). However, the site is not in employment use, and there is little to suggest that, absent the proposal, it would be developed for business purposes. Moreover, the aim of the policy, to secure continued employment land supply, would be achieved despite the inclusion of the flats.

For the reasons given above, the location, land use and amount of the proposal would not fully comply with the strategy of the Development Plan with regard to employment use, conflicting with BRLP policy 24. However, given my findings, I give this conflict only limited negative weight in the planning balance.

The Council’s Statement of Case refers to concerns regarding the height, design and layout of the proposal and its effects on the privacy and outdoor amenity space of its future occupiers. However, little evidence is before me, with reference to planning policy, to suggest that the provision of eight apartments here would result in a shortfall against any standard or requirement regarding outdoor space.

The Council’s concerns regarding privacy have not been specified in any detail. Dwellings opposite the site would face towards the proposal, but they are on the other side of the road and set back behind gardens. This may well provide enough distance to ensure adequate privacy for future occupiers. In any case, the position of the proposal and the location of windows are for TDC stage. Similarly, I have little substantive evidence to suggest that the effects on future occupiers of road noise and pollution could not be overcome as part of a TDC application.

For the reasons set out above, the location, land use and amount of the proposal would have an acceptable effect on the living conditions of its future occupiers with regard to privacy, outdoor space, noise and pollution. BRLP policies 16 and 39 do not refer to living conditions, and so I find no conflict with them in this respect. This matter is therefore neutral in the planning balance.

The Council accepts that it cannot demonstrate an adequate five-year supply of housing land, and does not dispute the appellant’s figure of only 2.8 years’ worth of supply. In such circumstances, paragraph 11(d) of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) makes clear that permission should be granted unless paragraph 11(d) applies.

Paragraph 11(d)(i) of the Framework relates to situations where the application of Framework policies to protect areas or assets of particular importance (defined at footnote seven) provide a strong reason for refusal. However, on the evidence before me, the appeal site does not contain or constitute an area or asset identified as important. As such, despite the Council’s position to the contrary, I conclude that paragraph 11(d)(i) does not apply.

Framework paragraph 11(d)(ii) relates to circumstances where the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits inherent in providing additional residential units to assist in addressing the undersupply. I have found conflict with BRLP policies 16, 24 and 39, but that this carries only the levels of negative weight identified above.

Against this, the proposal would make a positive contribution to the supply of housing in the area, by the addition of a further eight units, close to the services and facilities of central Redditch. The Framework emphasises the desirability of maintaining an area's prevailing character. Nonetheless, it also supports the development of under-utilised land, especially to meet identified needs for housing where land supply is constrained.

The Local Plan acknowledges that Redditch Borough has extremely limited development potential, requiring a balancing of the protection of green areas with maximising the use of space. As a matter of planning judgement, I give the housing supply benefits of the proposal substantial weight. The proposal would also assist economic growth, both through its construction and the new commercial units themselves. I give this additional significant positive weight. It follows that paragraph 11(d)(ii) does not apply.

The proposal would generate additional traffic on a road said to be busy with [name] vehicles and as a through road. It would generate additional demand for parking, which I understand is already under pressure because of the close proximity of the town centre. However, the indicative proposal includes nine off-street spaces. Furthermore, given the proximity of the centre, some future residents of the development may choose not to keep a vehicle. The Highway Authority did not raise concerns regarding highway safety or vehicle parking, and I see little reason to disagree. Drainage is a matter for TDC stage.

Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 states that applications for permission, and therefore appeals, must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

The proposal benefits from the presumption of sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 11 of the Framework. I have found that the adverse impacts of granting permission would not significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the Framework read in the round. Therefore, despite the conflict with the Development Plan, material considerations indicate that permission in principle should be granted.

For the above reasons, having regard to the Development Plan as a whole, the approach in the Framework, and all other material considerations, the appeal is allowed.