We were instructed by a group of local residents to oppose an outline planning application for a major development of up to 78 dwellings on land near Stoke Prior, Worcestershire. In all, we represented 14 local families, enabling them to share the cost of securing professional planning representation.

Green Belt policy is complex and objections need to be carefully constructed to carry the fullest possible planning weight. It’s vital to clearly set out the relevant planning policy framework. We commented as follows:

“The construction of new buildings in the Green Belt is inappropriate except for certain specific categories listed in paragraph 149 of the Framework. These include the limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, which would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the local area. Policy BDP4 of the adopted Bromsgrove District Plan 2017, sets out a similar approach.”

The applicant sought to argue that the site was previously developed land, which is treated more favourably in planning terms than greenfield land. It was therefore important to challenge this assertion. We argued as follows:

“We dispute that this part of the site genuinely constitutes previously developed land, having regard to the definition given in the Framework. In particular, there is evidence in an unsuccessful enforcement appeal that much of the former commercial development and use of this part of the site was unauthorised. It is our understanding, having reviewed the aforementioned appeal decision and the relevant planning history, that the lawful use of the land, or at least the great majority, is agricultural.”

We went on to show that the proposal would constitute an over-intensive and unduly urban form of development, which would be materially harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and the character and quality of the local environment. We concluded that:

“The proposed development would be of a size, scale, form and intensity that would fundamentally erode the form, character and setting of the settlement in the wider landscape. This would demonstrably harm not only the openness but also the visual amenity of the Green Belt and the local area; and the degree of such harm would be severe in the extreme. In all these respects, the proposal is contrary to Policies BDP4, BDP19 and BDP21 of the District Plan.”

We were able to demonstrate that significant further harm would be caused to the character, appearance and setting of a local conservation area, war memorial and various listed buildings in the vicinity of the site. Our analysis showed how the proposal would lead to significant, cumulative loss of significance of important designated heritage assets, contrary to locally adopted development plan and national planning policies.

We raised further objection on highway grounds:

“We would also question the suitability of XXXX Road in providing an acceptable and safe means of access in highway terms. The road is narrow, with restricted pedestrian footways, and visibility is constrained at numerous points by the curvature of the road and its undulating nature. The road already suffers from problems of speeding, and heavy goods vehicles often divert along Stoke Pound Lane through a series of narrow country lines that are entirely unsuitable for this type and level of traffic.”

Finally, we provided a detailed rebuttal of the various arguments put forward in support of the application in an attempt to justify approval, despite the many objections to the scheme.. In particular, we were able to demonstrate that a shortfall in local housing land supply did not over-ride the relevant provisions in national policy.

The planning application was refused and a subsequent appeal did not succeed.

Note: Full details of the case have not been disclosed to protect the clients’ privacy. Images shown are for illustrative purposes only and do not show the actual case.