Appeal 6004815

The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for demolition of existing building and the erection of a care home at [site address] , [site address] , Hollywood, Worcestershire [postcode] in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref 24/01225/FUL, subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

An application for costs was made by John Green, of HCD against the decision of Bromsgrove District Council. This application is the subject of a separate decision.

The Council's first reason for refusal does not refer to any relevant development plan policies. However, it cites Paragraph 181 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework), and relevant development plan policies are identified in the Council’s planning committee report (PCR). I have dealt with the appeal based on the totality of the written evidence before me.

The main issues are: • whether or not the location would be suitable for the proposal having regard to flood risk and safe emergency pedestrian access / egress arrangements; • the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and • the effect of the proposed development on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to privacy.

The appeal site comprises a former business centre building and its associated land, located within the residential area of Wythall. Vehicle access is taken from [site address] to the front of the site. The site lies in [name] 1, which represents the lowest risk of flooding from rivers or the sea and is less than a hectare in size.

Although located within [name] 1, a site-specific Flood Risk Assessment & [name], May 2025 (the FRA) has been submitted due to known surface water flooding issues, particularly along [site address] , adjacent to the site access. The FRA identifies that although the majority of the appeal site is flood free, part of the site is at risk of flooding from a tributary of the [name], which runs to the east of the site.

Policy BDP23 of the Bromsgrove District Plan 2011-2030 adopted January 2017 (the BDP) states, amongst other things, that development should ensure that flood risk from all sources is addressed. Paragraph 181 of the Framework advises that when determining any planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that flood risk is not increased elsewhere, and where appropriate, applications should be supported by a site-specific flood-risk assessment. Development should only be allowed in areas at risk of flooding where, in the light of this assessment (and the sequential and exception tests, as applicable) it can be demonstrated that, amongst other things, safe access and escape routes are included where appropriate, as part of an agreed emergency plan.

The FRA is a robust document and concludes that the proposed development would not increase flood risk elsewhere. In addition, with detailed hydraulic modelling, the FRA establishes that, subject to the finished floor level of the building being 300mm above the estimated flood levels, the proposed building would not be at risk of flooding. Indeed, a Flood Management Plan (FMP), prepared by the appellant, identifies that during a flood event the future residents could remain in the building. However, in instances of a medical emergency, when [site address] and the site access are flooded, alternative arrangements for the safe access and egress of staff and possible emergency services would be necessary.

The FMP includes an alternative emergency access / egress route plan, via a pedestrian link to the footpath within the adjacent Beaudesert Nature Park. The footpath is unlit, but it is a solid surface, and it would provide pedestrian access to [address]. Even though parts of the route may be at risk of flooding, the hazard caution rating is classed as very low. As such, in an emergency situation, I concur with the Lead Local Flood Authority that the route is acceptable.

Without any other substantiated evidence which demonstrates that the route to [address] would not allow the safe access and egress of staff and emergency services during a medical incident (at times of a flood event), the proposed development would provide safe emergency escape routes. Likewise, and for similar reasons, as the hazard caution rating is classed as very low, in the unlikely event that the building had to be evacuated during an extreme flood event, I am satisfied that with suitable mitigation measures set out in an FMP, future residents, even those with poor mobility, would be able to use the alternative route.

Suitably worded planning conditions to secure that the building’s finished floor level is 300mm above the estimated flood levels, a scheme for surface water drainage, and approval of a final FMP are reasonable and necessary to ensure that flood risk and sustainable drainage matters are achieved. A condition which prevents existing ground levels being raised in the area’s modelled to be at surface water and / or fluvial flooding risk is also reasonable and necessary to ensure that the proposed development does not create or exacerbate flood risk on site or within the surrounding local area.

For the reasons given and on the evidence before me, I conclude that the location is suitable for the proposal having regard to flood risk and safe emergency pedestrian access / egress arrangements. Therefore, the proposed development would accord with Policy BDP23 of the BDP and Paragraph 181 of the Framework.

The business centre is a single-storey building, set within a sizeable plot with a parking area to the front and overgrown land to the rear. The building is vacant and in a state of disrepair.

The surrounding area has a prevailing residential character, largely comprising detached and semi-detached two storey houses, with pitched tiled roofs. With a long parade of shops and commercial uses opposite, as well as parking spaces to the front, this part of [site address] is a relatively busy environment.

Land to both sides rises gently upwards, and the appeal site occupies a lower ground level than many of the houses on [address] to one side and a lower or similar level to the houses on [address] to the other side. There is an abundance of mature trees within the adjacent nature park to the rear, as well as along the road and within neighbouring rear gardens, which contribute to the verdant character of the area.

As a three-storey building, with a flat roof and a large footprint, the scale of the proposed building would be at odds with the two storey houses and buildings nearby. It would also be significantly larger than the existing building. Within this context, the proposed development would conflict with the prevailing pattern of development within the street scene. However, with its modern design, use of contrasting facing materials, projecting elements, decorative stone features, well-proportioned windows, glass balustrades in front of windows, and a focal entrance design, the proposed development would be high quality.

Due to existing ground levels, and the flat roof design, the height of the proposed building would be comparable to the houses beyond each side boundary. The bulk and mass of the proposed building would also be reduced by its ‘L’ shaped footprint, and the architectural features incorporated into the design of the building.

Large parts of the proposed development would be screened by existing residential properties and by trees along the street, as well as those within neighbouring gardens and on the site frontage. The abundance of mature trees within the adjacent nature park would also provide extensive screening from vantage points to the rear. The trees would also soften the appearance of the proposed development, which could be supplemented by a scheme of soft landscaping throughout the site.

In these circumstances, despite its size, the proposed building would not be visually dominant or intrusive. The replacement of the existing vacant building, and the redevelopment of the unsightly, overgrown site, would also result in some visual enhancement to the appearance of the area. The redevelopment of previously developed land would make effective use of under-utilised land and buildings also.

For the reasons outlined above, I conclude that the proposed development would not be harmful to the character and appearance of the area, and it would accord with Policy BDP19 of the BDP, which amongst other things, seeks high quality design which enhances the character and distinctiveness of the local area.

As well as Policy BDP19 of the BDP, cited in the second reason for refusal, which seeks high quality design, my attention has been drawn to Policy BDP1 of the BDP. Policy BDP1 of the BDP sets out sustainable development principles, as well as requiring development proposals to have regard to, amongst other things, compatibility with adjoining uses and the impact on residential amenity.

Neighbouring residential properties to each side, which front [address] and [address], have a rear outlook towards the appeal site. With a sizeable footprint and a three-storey height, the proposed building would have a visual presence from the rear aspects of those properties. Also, with 65 bedrooms and communal areas, a number of the proposed windows, many with Juliette balconies would have an outlook towards the rear gardens and elevations of neighbouring properties. The large frontage car park would also be located near to the rear gardens of a small number of properties on [address].

The appeal site occupies a similar or lower ground level to many of the neighbouring houses and gardens to either side. Combined with its flat roof design, and despite its three-storey scale, the overall height of the proposed building would be comparable to the ridge heights of those neighbouring properties. Furthermore, although the proposed building would extend along the side boundary adjacent to the houses on [address], the separation distances between them would be significant. Indeed, the separation distances between the habitable windows of the proposed building and the adjacent two storey houses, and their gardens, along [address] would meet the Council’s High Quality Design SPD, June 2019 (the SPD). Existing trees within the neighbouring gardens and the adjacent park would also provide additional screening to further reduce the level of overlooking of neighbouring windows and gardens and soften the appearance of the building.

Large parts of the building are set substantially off the shared boundary with properties along [address]. However, a short section of the three-storey flank gable of the proposed building would be sited near to the rear boundary of two houses. The flank gable does not contain habitable windows, and separation distances meet the SPD. As such, the outlook from the rear windows and gardens of neighbouring properties on [address] would be acceptable.

While a small section of the frontage car park would also be located near to the rear gardens of a limited number of properties on [address], existing landscaping and boundary treatments could be supplemented by additional planting on the boundary to ensure that privacy levels of neighbouring occupiers are protected.

Consequently, for the above reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would not harm the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers, with regard to privacy. As such, it would not conflict with Policies BDP1 and BDP19 of the BDP.

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2010 and paragraph 58 of the Framework set a number of tests for planning obligations: they must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, be directly related to the development, and be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

A signed planning obligation in the form of a unilateral undertaking pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) (the S106) has been submitted with the appeal. The S106 secures financial contributions towards the provision of community transport services and healthcare provision locally, as well as a S106 monitoring fee.

The community transport obligation would help to support residents of the development by providing a door-to-door transport service so that they can access services and amenities in the wider area, thus mitigating the impact of the development. Likewise, the financial contribution towards healthcare provision would help to mitigate a development of this scale on health infrastructure locally.

The contributions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. They are directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. As such, I am satisfied that each of these obligations fall within the provisions of Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations 2010 and the Framework.

A comprehensive list of conditions is included in the Council’s Statement of Case in the event of the appeal being allowed, some of which I have amended for the sake of clarity and precision.

In addition to the conditions set out in the flood risk main issue, as well as the standard time limit condition, it is necessary to impose a condition that requires the development to be carried out in accordance with the approved plans for certainty. To ensure that the appearance of the development is high quality, a condition is imposed to require samples of the external materials to be approved prior to above ground construction works. Likewise, a condition to secure the prior approval and subsequent implementation of a landscaping scheme is justified to protect the character and appearance of the area.

In order to ensure the development proceeds in a satisfactory manner, and to provide certainty, a condition to ensure that the development is occupied as a residential care home / supported living apartments is necessary and reasonable in the context of the proposed development.

To protect highway safety, conditions would be necessary to secure the proposed access, visibility splays and parking and turning arrangements, prior to the occupation of the building. Likewise, and to protect the residential amenity of neighbouring occupiers, the prior approval and implementation of a combined demolition method statement and construction traffic management plan is reasonable and necessary.

To enhance pedestrian connectivity locally, particularly for future residents of the development, a condition which secures offsite improvements to crossing points on roads near to the site is reasonable and necessary, as requested by the highway authority. Similarly, to promote sustainable transport and travel to and from the building, a condition to secure cycle storage provision and the prior approval and implementation of a Travel Plan before the building is occupied would be necessary. A condition to secure the subsequent management of parking spaces is also necessary to avoid future issues arising.

Conditions to ensure that the development is carried out in accordance with the ecology survey and provide the long-term management and maintenance of biodiversity and habitats, as well as the prior approval of bat and bird boxes, are necessary to protect, conserve and enhance wildlife and biodiversity. A condition to secure tree protection fencing is also necessary to protect existing trees from harm during the demolition and construction periods.

To safeguard neighbouring living conditions from pollution, conditions which secure the prior approval of external lighting and equipment to control the emission of fumes and smell from the commercial kitchen of the development are reasonable and necessary in the context of the development proposed.

Ground contamination investigations, along with any associated remedial works conditions are necessary to prevent risk to the environment and to protect the living conditions of future occupants of the development. Similarly, a condition which secures the reporting of unexpected ground contamination is necessary.

Conditions 3-7 relate to pre-commencement activities. In each case I am satisfied that the conditions are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms and that it would have otherwise been necessary to refuse planning permission. The appellant has provided written agreement to the terms of these

I have given careful consideration to the significant number of concerns raised in relation to the proposal that have not been referred to in the Council’s reasons for refusal, including those by the Wythall Parish Council and the occupiers of neighbouring properties. These include, concerns related to the loss of the existing business park, unsuitable location, lack of need for a care home, lack of public transport opportunities, loss of daylight and sunlight to neighbouring houses and gardens, light pollution, noise, Japanese knotweed, impact of construction activity, effect on the nature park, local wildlife and harm to biodiversity, and the effect on existing infrastructure. It is also considered that alternative sites should be considered.

These factors are not in dispute between the main parties and there is no substantive evidence before me that the appeal scheme would be materially harmful in these regards. In particular, the [name] concluded that the principle of development in this location is acceptable, as is the effect on residential amenity levels, wildlife and biodiversity.

Highway and pedestrian safety and parking issues have also been cited as concerns. However, there is no substantiated evidence that the proposed development would exacerbate existing issues or raise safety concerns for children walking to school, even during the construction period. I am also mindful that vehicle movements during the peak morning and afternoon periods are shown to be less when compared to the existing uses of the site. Indeed, the Council and the relevant highway authority have raised no objections, subject to appropriate conditions which are included in the conditions schedule, and I have no reason to form a different view.

Reference is also made to the effect of the proposed development on the health of a child due to additional traffic and the implications on air quality. I have therefore had due regard to the Public Sector Equality Duty arising from Section 149 of the Equalities Act 2010 and the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 3(1) of the [name] on the Rights of the Child, which provides that the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions by public authorities concerning children. In reaching my decision, I have kept these interests at the forefront of my mind. Nevertheless, they are qualified rights, and interference may be justified where in the public interest. The concept of proportionality is key.

There is no suggestion from the main parties that the site lies within an area with poor air quality or that the proposal would result in a significant level of additional vehicle movements, which would lead to unacceptable air quality implications locally. Accordingly, taking into account the best interests of the child with a health condition as a primary consideration, the appeal proposal would not have a materially harmful impact upon neighbouring occupiers in terms of air quality.

Effect on property values has also been raised. However, planning is concerned with land use in the public interest, therefore the protection of purely private interests, such as the impact of a development on the value of a neighbouring property, fall outside the scope of this appeal.

Given my findings above, the S106 and the suggested conditions by the Council, I have found no justification to dismiss the appeal.

For the reasons given above the appeal should be allowed.

The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with drawing numbers: • 31162 01 LOCATION PLAN EXISTING AND PROPOSED BLOCK PLAN • 31162 04 [name] • 31162 10 PROPOSED GROUND FLOOR PLAN • 31162 11 PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN • 31162 12 PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN • 31162 13 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN • 31162 20 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND SITE SECTION SHEET 1 • 31162 21 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS AND SITE SECTION SHEET 2 • 26376-01 SITE ACCESS VISIBILITY SPLAY PLAN • 26376-03 [name] • 26367-04 [name]

No development shall take place, including any works of demolition, until a [name] and Construction Traffic Management Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include: a) sequence of works and methodology for the demolition / removal of any structures supporting or abutting the public highway; b) measures to ensure that vehicles leaving the site do not deposit mud or other detritus on the public highway, including wheel washing facilities; c) details of site operative parking areas, material storage areas and the location of site operatives’ facilities (offices, toilets etc); d) the hours that delivery vehicles will be permitted to arrive and depart, and arrangements for unloading and manoeuvring; e) demolition and construction hours; f) temporary traffic management arrangements; g) mitigation for impacts on residents and businesses; h) details of any temporary construction accesses and their reinstatement; i) detailed tracking assessments for all vehicle types requiring access to the site, performing all entry and exit manoeuvres at nearby highway junctions; and j) key contact details, including an emergency telephone number. The measures set out in the approved [name] and Construction Traffic Management Plan shall be carried out and complied with in full during the demolition and construction period of the development hereby approved.

No development shall commence until the fences for the protection of the trees to be retained have been erected in accordance with the submitted arboricultural method statement by A G Douglas Arboriculture Ltd, dated 18 November 2024. The fences shall be erected and retained until the completion of the development and no vehicles, plant or materials shall be driven or placed within the areas enclosed by such fences.

Prior to the commencement of the development, a habitat creation method statement and a 30-year habitat management and monitoring plan for the retained, enhanced and newly created habitats on site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved habitat creation method statement and 30-year habitat management and monitoring plan.

No development shall commence until an assessment of the risks posed by any contamination (including gases and water quality) has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This assessment must be undertaken by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner, in accordance with [name] 10175: Investigation of potentially contaminated sites - Code of Practice and the Environment Agency - [name] (LCRM) (or equivalent [name] and [name] if replaced), and shall assess any contamination on the site, whether or not it originates on the site. The assessment shall include: a) a survey of the extent, scale and nature of contamination; and b) the potential risks to human health, property (existing or proposed), adjoining land, ground waters and surface waters; ecological systems and archaeological sites and ancient monuments.

No development shall take place where (following the risk assessment) land affected by contamination is found which poses risks identified as unacceptable in the risk assessment, until a detailed remediation scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall include an appraisal of remediation options, identification of the preferred option(s), the proposed remediation objectives and remediation criteria, and a description and programme of the works to be undertaken including the verification plan. The remediation scheme shall be sufficiently detailed and thorough to ensure that upon completion the site will not qualify as contaminated land under [name] of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to its intended use. The approved remediation scheme shall be carried out and upon completion a verification report by a suitably qualified contaminated land practitioner shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority before the development is occupied.

Any contamination that is found during the course of construction of the development hereby permitted that was not previously identified shall be reported immediately to the local planning authority. Development on the part of the site affected shall be suspended until a risk assessment has been carried out and submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Where unacceptable risks are found, the development shall not resume or continue until remediation, and verification schemes have been carried out in accordance with details that shall first have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

No works in connection with the site drainage or access shall commence until a scheme for surface water drainage has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This scheme shall be indicated on a drainage plan. If possible, infiltration techniques are to be used, and the plan shall include the details and results of field percolation tests. If infiltration drainage is not possible on this site, an alternative method of surface water disposal should be submitted for approval. There shall be no increase in runoff from the site compared to the predevelopment situation up to the 1 in 100 year event plus an allowance for climate change. If a connection to a sewer system is proposed, then evidence shall be submitted of the in-principle approval of [name] water for this connection. The scheme should include run off treatment proposals for surface water drainage and prevent surface water discharge onto the highway. The drainage scheme shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development and thereafter maintained as approved.

No development above ground level shall take place until details / samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the development hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details / samples.

No development above ground level shall take place until a landscaping scheme for the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The landscaping scheme must include, where appropriate, planting plans, written specifications, a schedule of plants and trees including species, plant and tree sizes and proposed numbers / densities and a programme of implementation. Plans must also include accurate plotting of all existing landscape features. The approved landscaping scheme shall be carried out not later than the first planting season following the substantial completion of the development or the first occupation of the care home building, whichever is the sooner. Any trees or plants which, within a period of five years, die, are removed, or have become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with ones of similar size and species to the satisfaction of the local planning authority, unless written consent has been obtained from the local planning authority for any variation.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until a final flood management plan, which shall include a suitable means of exiting the site during times of flooding, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved flood management plan shall be implemented prior to the first use of the development and thereafter maintained in accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the site access, as shown on Drawing 26367-04 [name] has been completed and is open for use by vehicular traffic. The site access shall thereafter be retained as such for the lifetime of the development.

The development hereby permitted shall not be occupied until the visibility splays shown on Drawing 26376-01 Site Access Visibility Splay Plan have been provided. The splays shall at all times be maintained free of obstruction above a height of 0.6m of the adjacent carriageway.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the turning area and parking facilities shown on Drawing 31162 04C Proposed Site Layout have been provided. These areas shall thereafter be retained and kept available for their respective approved uses at all times.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until a [name] for the vehicle parking spaces within the site has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. This shall include: a) details of employee shift patterns and numbers to understand the likely demand for staff parking on-site and the allocation of an appropriate number of spaces for use by staff; b) details of any visitors that will have access to parking spaces and how these will be allocated and managed; c) a strategy to ensure on-site deliveries / servicing will be safely accommodated and does not interrupt vehicle circulation or block parking bays; and d) a strategy to monitor and manage the car park. The car park shall thereafter only be operated in accordance with the approved [name].

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the cycle parking shown on Drawing 31162 04C Proposed Site Layout has been provided in accordance with the approved plan. The cycle parking shall thereafter be retained and kept available for use at all times.

The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the pedestrian crossing points as shown on Drawing 26376-03 [name] have been constructed and completed.

The development hereby permitted shall not be first occupied until a full Travel Plan has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The Travel Plan shall include: a) the identification of targets for trip reduction and modal shift for employees and visitors from single occupancy car use to walking, cycling and public transport; b) the measures to be implemented to meet these targets including an accessibility strategy to specifically address the needs of residents / staff with limited mobility requirements; c) the timetable / phasing of the implementation of the Travel Plan and its operation thereafter for a minimum period of five years, including the responsible body for each action; d) the mechanisms for monitoring and review; e) the mechanisms for reporting; f) the remedial measures to be applied in the event that targets are not met; g) mechanisms to secure variations to the Travel Plan; and h) appointment and contact details of a travel plan coordinator. The approved Travel Plan shall be implemented, monitored and reviewed for a minimum period of five years following occupation. In the event of failing to meet the targets within the approved Travel Plan, a revised Travel Plan shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority to address any shortfalls and where necessary make provision for and promote improved sustainable forms of access to and from the site. The revised Travel Plan shall thereafter be implemented as amended.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, a scheme for the provision of bat roost opportunities and bird nest boxes within the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented by suitably qualified personnel prior to the first use of the development and retained as such thereafter.

Prior to the first occupation of the development hereby permitted, equipment to control the emission of fumes and smell from any commercial kitchen shall be installed in accordance with a scheme to be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. All equipment installed as part of the approved scheme shall thereafter be operated and maintained in accordance with that approval and retained for so long as the use continues.

All proposed works shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations as set out in the [name] by [name] dated 11 July 2024.

The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the Flood Risk Assessment & [name], May 2025, by Waterco, and the finished floor level of the building shall be 300mm above the estimated flood levels for the site.

Existing ground levels on the site shall not be raised in the area modelled to be at risk of surface water and / or fluvial flooding.

No external lighting shall be installed on site unless details of such lighting, including the intensity of illumination and predicted lighting contours, has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Any external lighting that is installed shall accord with the approved details.

The development hereby approved shall be used for the purposes specified in the application ([name] and for supported living apartments) and for no other purpose (including any other purpose in Use Class C2 of the schedule to the Town and Country Planning ([name]) Order 1987 (as amended) or in any provision equivalent to that Class in any statutory instrument amending, revoking or re-enacting that Order). ***END OF SCHEDULE***