Minutes of the Meeting held at The Flyford’s Hall on Tuesday 26th September 2023

Present

Sadie Densham
David Waide (Chairman)
Richard Davey
David Rhodes
Andrew Short
Mark Broughton-Taylor attended as clerk

1. Apologies

Linda Robinson
Jane Hand

2. Declaration of Interest

David Rhodes recorded a non-pecuniary interest in the planning item Meadow Croft.

3. Public Participation

The meeting was live streamed but there were no online participants.

There were eleven members of the public in attendance.

Relevant comments from the public are recorded under the items minuted.

4. Minutes of the meetings on 18th July and 29th August 2023

Meetings held on 18th July and 29th August 2023 were approved (subject to correct of £100 to £1000 18th July Item 9)

Proposed: Sadie Densham
Seconded: Richard Davey
All in agreement

5. Matters Arising from the Minutes

None

6. Local Police and neighbourhood Watch

A letter has been received from the police concerning the SNT Parish Contract requesting our three priorities for policing in the parish.

It was agreed that these would be:

Overwhelming concern about speeding on A422 and other village roads. Noisy motorbikes.

Park at Flyford School.

Proposed: David Waide
Seconded: Sadie Densham
All in agreement

7. Flyford Green

It was reported that the annual inspection of the play equipment had been arranged with ROSPA who would be contacting David Rhodes in due course.

It was reported that there had been no further news from the Land Registry.

Flyford Pond

Again, we are still waiting for the Land Registry.

8. District and County Councillors Report

I apologise for not being able to join you later. Please find attached my report for noting. I would just like to congratulate you on hosting the public meeting so efficiently last week. It was good to see so many residents and hope they found it informative. I am sure there are some interesting conversations ahead for us all. I particularly picked up on greater enforcement and the need for suitable hard standing for mobile speed traps. Perhaps the Parishes along the A422 could make up a list of possible sites?

I shall look forward to seeing some of you at the Open Day on Saturday.

County have published the deadline for High School applications as the 31st October 2023.

For more information and to apply go to worcestershire.gov.uk/schooladmissions

Whilst on the subject of schools we have been informed that none of our council-run schools in Worcestershire have been affected by the same ‘collapse risk’ concrete (RAAC) that has forced more than 100 others nationally to close. However, this statement does not include Academies such as Pershore High School. I was informed earlier that they have closed their drama building over RAAC fears after surveys have been undertaken.

Evidently County Hall has RAAC present in its roof. As a precautionary measure staff are being relocated to lower floors and meetings will be held on the ground floor whilst larger full council meetings are to be relocated elsewhere while more surveys are carried out.

No doubt you will have heard of a proposal to close many ticket offices at our stations. I am not in favour of this proposal as I feel it will disproportionately affect many rail users. For those amongst you who agree with me there is a live petition opposing ticket office closures and asking for the need to force a debate in the House of Commons. 100,000 signatures are needed and 94,000 have already been received. Please follow petition.parliament.uk/petitions/636542. The deadline is October 18th.

Parkway Station

Worcestershire Parkway opened in February 2020.

MORE than half a million trips were made at a county-wide railway station within 12 months.

Figures show over 540,000 journeys have been made from Worcestershire Parkway Railway Station in 12 months.

The journeys made were between April 2022 and March 2023 and is the kind of volume the county council did not expect to achieve for at least another eleven years.

A special event took place to celebrate Worcestershire Parkway organised by Great Western Railway (GWR). Which I was pleased to attend as the station lies within my County Division.

Mrs Beatrice Grant, His Majesty's Lord-Lieutenant of Worcestershire, West Worcestershire MP Harriett Baldwin and Lord Faulkner of Worcester, chair of the North Cotswold Line Task Force, were all in attendance, as well as councillor Simon Geraghty, leader of Worcestershire County Council.

Councillor Marc Bayliss, cabinet member with responsibility for economy, infrastructure and skills, said: “It’s fantastic that Parkway has exceeded all the initial expectations and significantly more people are using it than we had hoped for only three years after opening.

“Rail is critical to the ongoing economic development of Worcestershire, providing low carbon travel choice and the potential for enhanced connectivity to high growth economies throughout the country for businesses and residents in Worcestershire.”

GWR Business Development Portfolio Director Tom Pierpoint said: “We are delighted that Worcestershire Parkway customer numbers are so far ahead of expectations.

"To be hitting travel figures now that were initially anticipated to be reached in 2031 is remarkable and a testament to everyone involved in the planning, design and building of the station.

“It shows how much appetite there is for a modal shift to rail and how important the railway is for economic development and sustainability.

"There is the potential for even greater growth, and we look forward to continuing our work with Worcestershire County Council and the Department for Transport to truly realise the potential for this very important station.”

At the event, there were several speeches made and a plaque was unveiled by Beatrice Grant to mark the occasion.

Worcestershire Parkway, located east of Junction 7 of the M5, is accessible for commuters and longer-distance travellers from all over the county.

The station serves two railway lines - North Cotswold Line, which goes to London Paddington and the Birmingham to Bristol Line.

The station was the first new station to open in Worcestershire in over 100 years.

Overgrown Hedges & Fallen Trees

Here is some useful advice in view of the high winds forecast for this week and the rapid growth experienced in hedges and vegetation due to the hot wet weather we have experienced this year.

95% of trees and hedges in our county are in private gardens. If you spot vegetation obstructing a public pavement, a road, sign or streetlight WCC can give the land owner notice to cut back their foliage and take appropriate action if this does not happen.

You can also report any fallen trees that are obstructing the public highway.

Please report any issues directly to: capublic.worcestershire.gov.uk/HighwaysFaultsPublic/OvergrownTreeOrShrubbery.aspx

9. Planning Matters

9.1 Land on Radford Road, Flyford Flavell - W/22/02163/FUL, W/23/00431/FUL and W/23/01134/PIP

It was reported that all these applications have now been refused.

9.2 Briary House Farm - W/23/01596/PIP

North Piddle
WR7 4PR

Change of use to convert an agricultural building to domestic use.

Refused.

9.3 Ashfield Cottage - W/23/01141/HP

Grafton Flyford
WR7 4PJ

Extension to the rear of the property, a new garage and new vehicular access.

Approved.

9.4 The Heathers - W/22/02502/HP

Worcester Road
WR7 4PW

Single storey extension.

Approved.

9.5 Land At (OS 9778 5515) New Road - W/23/01628/PIP

Permission in Principle for up to 2 dwellings.

Refused.

9.6 Land At (OS 9778 5515) New Road - W/23/01592/PIP

Permission in Principle for up to 6 dwellings.

Refused.

9.7 Meadow Croft - W/23/01778/PIP

Bishampton Road
Flyford Flavell
WR7 4BT

Permission in principle for the construction of up to 9 dwellings.

Mr. Broderick spoke in support of this application:

I have made a Planning in Principle application to develop the land to the rear of The Poplars, Bishampton Road, Flyford.
This is the ‘Preferred Option’ for the area in the emerging South Worcestershire Development Plan (SWDP). https://www.swdevelopmentplan.org/component/fileman/file/Documents/South%20Worcestershire%20Development%20Plan/SWDP%20Review/Preferred%20Options/PO%20PDF%20Maps/Flyford-Flavell-A3.pdf?routed=1&container=fileman-files

I would have waited until the much delayed SWDP has been adopted before making this application, but have become concerned that, whilst Wychavon cannot demonstrate its housing supply, other applications have been, and will be, made on countryside adjacent to the village. I understand that increasing weight is now being given to the emerging Plan. Unfortunately, the timetable for submission for Independent scrutiny has slipped again. The latest published date on the SWDP website showed adoption was scheduled for Oct 2023. There are detailed arguments within the application to support permission being granted at this time.

I am seeking support from local people for the following reasons:

This site has been through a selection procedure titled as a ‘Call for Sites’ as part of the SWDP, which included submissions from more than a dozen other parcels of land adjacent to Flyford. It was selected on the basis of sustainability, does not extend the boundary of the village any further to the East and occupies garden land.
Should this application be successful, there is a stronger argument against other more speculative applications, as Flyford can reasonably demonstrate that it has made its contribution to the housing supply deficit. This development represents structured growth, via a mechanism devised by the local Planning Authorities, which protects the village in the long term.
Although this is a Planning in Principle (PiP) application, it does mention a mix of housing, including bungalows and there has already been interest from local residents in at least five of the properties and my intention is that there would be a mix of properties appropriate to local needs.
The development would be carried out by ourselves and the main construction elements of the development would be offered to local contractors, both main and sub. Contributing to the local economic wellbeing of the village.
Given the location, any future resident children attending Flyford School would be able to walk to school, as my children did. This would reduce the number of cars dropping children at the school at the beginning and end of each day. There is a wide verge between the proposed development entrance and the village green and a path inside the green to offer a safe and pleasant route to the green’s playground gate, thereafter there is a paved path to the school. The procedure for admission to the school is dictated by the LA, weighted by straight line distance from the school. There are, currently, year 5 places available.
Well planned and controlled growth in rural areas is important to help maintain local services, some of which have dwindled over the past decade or so. This development would help to maintain those services and would also make a financial contribution to same via the Infrastructure Levy.
An increase in the number of residents will naturally increase the use of local businesses, such as The Boot Inn, The Flyford Arms, Nom and both of the Garages. These businesses need all the support that they can get.
The proposed housing density is slightly lower than the 12 dwellings initially allocated in the SWDP and I will welcome input from local residents and the Parish Council whilst forming more detailed and technical aspects of any application, should this PiP be successful.
The Parish Council supported the Draft SWDP when published, as the concession of one sustainable development within the three parishes was deemed acceptable. No objection to this development was raised at the relevant PC meeting.

Several members of the public raised objections to the proposals. It was noted that there were 12 comments in support of the application on the Wychavon website but Councillors unanimously agreed to oppose the application. The clerk was asked to prepare a full comment to be submitted to Wychavon and the outline of the comment was agreed. It was also noted that Flyford Flavell had a carbon footprint twice the national average.

Proposed: David Waide
Seconded: Andrew Short
All in agreement with one abstention due to declared interest.

The full submitted comment is attached as an addendum to the minutes.

10. Highways and Footpaths

A very well attended Public Meeting had been held on 19th September with the Police and Crime Commissioner and Chief Inspector in attendance. Many members of the public had spoken in unison about their concerns of speeding on the A422 and other roads. The issue of the noisy motorbikes was also raised.

Following further discuss at the parish council meeting in which the chairman invited members of the public to join in, the following points were agreed to be explored:

The VAS on Radford Road should be moved further out of the village
Members of the public were to write to their delivery companies and ask their drivers to be more considerate with the speed in the villages
The parish council will seek funding for a second VAS so that it does not have to be shared between the two sites in Flyford Flavell.
Highways to repaint the 30 mph roundels that were tarmacked over in Flyford Flavell.
The clerk to set up an A422 interest group between the parish council along the route.
It was agreed to set aside £200 to engage a Highways Engineer to help rework the Highways and Transport Plan to make it more technically viable.
Another public meeting is to be convened with elected members of WCC responsible for Highways in November.
The parish council endorsed a petition concerning speeding on Radford road.
The parish council will research ‘Operation Snap”.

11. Treasurer’s Report

Appeal Fund: £1,570.00

Deposit Acc: £11,854.60
Current Acc: £1,952.53

12. Flyford Church

It was reported that the church has been used over the summer and that services are continuing.

13. Flyfords Hall

The Annual Open Day will take place on 30th September between 10.00 and 4.00. All are welcome. There will be bike marking with Smartwater available and the Fire Service should also be in attendance to give advice about safer homes.

14. Any Other Business

The chairman reiterated the call for more parish councillors.

15. Actions Required By Councillors

Three vacancies to be filled
Vacancy for Footpaths Officer and Tree Warden to be filled
Liaison with Neighbourhood Watch – David Rhodes & Sadie Densham
Village Green working group to be convened – David Rhodes

16. Date of Next Meeting

5th December 2023

Addendum

W/23/01778/PIP

Meadow Croft, Bishampton Road, Flyford Flavell, WR7 4BT

1.0 - This is the official comment of Flyford Flavell, Grafton Flyford and North Piddle Parish Council.

2.0 - The Flyford Flavell, Grafton Flyford and North Piddle Parish Council oppose this application. As an application for Permission In Principle the matters for consideration are limited to location, land use and amount of development. The parish council considers the application is deficient in all these areas:

2.0 Location

2.1 - The development would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the area. It would extend beyond the present boundary of the village. It should be noted that 4 recent applications in the village have been refused on landscape considerations. Please refer to decisions on W/23/01592/PIP, W/23/01628/PIP, W/23/01134/PIP. The following grounds of refusal from W/23/01628/PIP are typical of the reasons for refusal of the other 3 applications. The parish council considers that they apply equally to this site.

2.1.1 - The proposed development would result in adverse impact on the character of the landscape by reason of the location and land use which would result in encroachment into the countryside and introduce domestication within the rural landscape that would be uncharacteristic to the identified landscape character ‘Village Claylands Landscape Type’. Subsequently the introduction of built form into this rural location divorced in nature to the built form of the village, would adversely impact the rural and historic dispersed setting of the area and would result in harmful visual intrusion of development into the landscape and open countryside. These identified harms would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policies SWDP21 (Design) and SWDP25 (Landscape Character) of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016 together with the Worcestershire County Council Landscape Character Assessment 2018 together with the objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2021.

2.1.2 - The application site lies outside of defined development boundary within open countryside. The proposed land use would fail to safeguard and (wherever possible) enhance the open countryside contrary to the strategic objectives of Policy SWDP2 (Development Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy) specifically Part A iii. within the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016. This identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the proposal.

2.1.3 - The proposed development would be sited in a geographically unsustainable location with poor practical access to services and facilities and therefore future residents would be highly reliant on the private car to meet their day to day needs which would not reduce the need to travel and would result in increased car journeys and hence carbon emissions. The proposed development therefore conflicts with Policy SWDP1 (Overarching Sustainable Development Principles) and SWDP4 (Moving Around South Worcestershire) of the South Worcestershire Development Plan, 2016 together with the sustainable objectives of the National Planning Policy Framework. This identified harm would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits associated with the proposed development and therefore the development does not constitute sustainable development when assessed against the National Planning Policy Framework as a whole.

2.2 - Furthermore, the parish council has opposed over development on this site consistently for a number of years. An application in 2014, W/14/00268/OU was refused and an appeal was dismissed in 2015, APP/H1840/A/14/221630. In his final paragraph the inspector summed up “ Taking all those matters into account, I find nothing sufficiently compelling to alter my conclusion that development along the lines indicated would unnecessarily damage ‘priority habitats’, contrary to ‘saved’ and emerging planning policies and the advice of the Framework. Hence, this appeal should be dismissed.” A further application was refused and the decision upheld at appeal in 2016, APP/H1840/W/16/3160822. An application for one house in 2017, 17/02210/FUL was not opposed in principle by the parish council and permission was subsequently granted on 21st March 2018. The parish council consider this to be appropriate development for the site and the village.

2.3 - The entrance to the site is off Bishampton Lane in a sensitive and central location in the village. It will be difficult to create visibility splays on both sides of the entrance and it would introduce added traffic flows to an area which is already very congested due to the school nearby.

2.4 - The parish council has also draw attention to issues of drainage on this site in previous applications. Evidence has been submitted of lying fluvial water on the field and there is very little space to provide suitable attenuation for a site of 9 houses. An attenuation ditch for the adjacent development of 16 houses was required which can hold 101 cu metres of water. A pumping station was built for foul water but it is difficult to see how foul water could be drained from this site. Without detailed consideration of these issues the parish council deems that the location of the site can not be approved.

2.5 - Para 50 of the NPPF requires the L.P.A. to identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing required in a particular location. The P C is not aware that any Housing Needs Assessment has been carried out for Flyford Flavell and does not believe that any such need has been identified in respect to this application. Again, the parish Council considers this a material consideration in determining the suitability of the location of the site.

2.6 - Para 64 of the NPPF requires that permission should be refused for development that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area and the way it functions. The P C does not consider that this application improves the character and quality of the area. The development would constitute block development in the village and the Parish Council draws attention to the comments made by the Landscape Officer for application 23/00431. This is not appropriate development and offers nothing to the village.

2.7 - Since the inception of the present SWDP, the housing stock in the parish has increased by 30%, however the sustainability of the village has deteriorated. The village shop has closed and other services have a very uncertain future. Present bus services amount to the Redditch – Worcester service which passes by on the A422, 4 times a weekday and the Village Hopper service which is once a day. These are very intermittent services and frankly almost all inhabitants use their own transport. It is very unlikely that people of working age would be able to make use of these services and so would rely on their own transport.

2.8 - The proposed development would encourage dependence on the motor car which is contrary to environmental policy of the local planning authority. SWDP 4 seeks to limit the use of the private car and encourage other forms of sustainable transport. This application would result in much more dependence on the private car and is clearly in contradiction to LPA policy.

2.9 - According to the government website – Impact, Flyford Flavell has a carbon emissions of 30.8t CO2e per household which is about twice the national average. 19% of this is due to travel. Again, this is a material consideration concerning the location of the site which is not sustainable.

2.10 - The planning statement argues that the thread of sustainable development as envisaged in the NPPF is met by this proposal. That is the economic, social and environmental aspects of sustainability. The parish council begs to differ. As previously stated, the area cannot see any discernible economic benefit from the development in the village over the past ten years and sees no reason why this should change because of the development of 9 more dwellings. Furthermore, there are very few opportunities for employment in the village and surrounding area and anyone of working age is likely to need to travel to work by car.

3.0 Land Use

3.1 - The land around Flyford Flavell is generally classed as Grade 3 agricultural land which is deemed to have “moderate limitations that affect the choice of crops to be grown, timing and type of cultivation, harvesting or yield.” The parish council consider this site to be of agricultural value and the loss of the land would outweigh the gain offered by the development. Until very recently there was ancient ridge and furrow on this site and it had therefore likely developed a very particular ecosystem which could include rare wildflowers and orchids. These are known to exist on the Portway Farm SSSI located 0.34km to the east, pasture behind Tolley’s Garage, The Piddle Brook Meadows and on the SSSI in Naunton Beachamp on North Piddle Lane. The site has recently been ploughed up and much of the ecosystem may have been lost. The site should be subject to a detailed ecological survey as part of the planning determination to see what can be salvaged. The site should be respected for what it is and in terms of the ‘Golden Thread of Sustainability’ it is best left alone as a location unsuitable for development because it was an environmental heritage site in the open countryside.

3.2 - The hedgerows are also known to have been undisturbed for a considerable length of time. The hedges are dominated by elm, hawthorn and blackthorn and score a high value of +2 for natural conservation when assessed with the HEGS criteria. Again, the parish council would suggest that a full ecological report on the hedgerows is required before determination of this application.

3.3 - Recent developments in the village have offered tangible assets to the community. The village green was created in 2016 as a result of the provision of 16 houses. Four affordable houses were provided for the village, two of which are bungalows suitable for elderly people. The developments have either added to the sense of community or infilled in vacant gaps. This proposal does nothing of the sort. This is poor use of location and nothing is offered to the community.

3.4 - The parish council is aware that emerging policy for South Worcestershire has now been presented to the inspector. This policy takes a very different line to development and seeks to concentrate housing into four strategic zones. In future there will be little reliance on development in unsustainable locations such as this application and therefore the concept is out of step with new, fully consulted policy.

3.5 - The parish council does not consider that there is safe pedestrian access to the site and village. There is no footway along the carriageway and the grass verges are limited and uneven.

4.0 Amount of Development

4.1 - The parish council is concerned about the vague nature of the application. “Development up to 9 dwellings” leaves a lot to speculation for future determination. For instance, a development of 9 dwellings would require 4 affordable homes to be included whereas a development of 4 dwellings would not require any. The parish council is concerned in its analysis of the application about any gain to the village. In terms of affordable housing this is not possible under these vague terms. It is therefore deemed undeterminable by the parish council and so should be refused.

5.0 Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAAR)

5.1 - The parish council noted that this site has been submitted through the SHLAAR process for inclusion as a development site in the RSWDP. The applicant argues that it is not premature to make this application, partly because in the delay of adopting the RSWDP but also because of the lack of 5 year land supply in the Wychavon area. The parish council rejects this argument for the following reasons:

5.2 - The parish council understand that the 5 year land supply for Wychavon has technically defaulted but the overall situation is complicated. Overall, the South Worcestershire Councils have a five year land supply of 5.76 years but under the standard method, Wychavon is not allowed to take into account the oversupply in the past few years. The applicant quotes selectively from the December 2022 Five Year Land Supply Report. The SWDP area has overall provided 15,980 completions since 2013 against a requirement of 11,172. Furthermore, Wychavon proposed that a number of windfall sites should be included in the 5 year land supply figures. In 2021-2022 Wychavon predicated 82 dwellings on sites of less than 10 units but in reality 140 completions were delivered. The Parish Council understands that where a 5 year land supply cannot be demonstrated then decisions should be taken on the basis of sustainability under the NPPF. As stated in para 9 above, the village has seen considerable development over the past few years with a reduction in sustainability. Increasing housing on its own does not increase sustainability and there has been no increase in services or infrastructure in or around the village as a result of the recent development. Given the fact that there is no pressure on the area as a whole to deliver more housing – there are 4808 more houses than planned and an oversupply of windfall sites in particular- the parish council cannot see how this proposed development improves the overall need for housing. Given the high emissions per household as stated in paragraph 2.9 it would seem that permitting development in Flyford Flavell would exacerbate not improve the sustainability picture in Wychavon.

5.3 - In any case, adoption as a possible development site in the emerging policy does not immediately translate into permission in principle. The process is a lot less vigorous that the planning system and is more about allocating sites to ensure a supply of development though the plan period. On examination of this site in detail, the parish council considers that it is not suitable for the level of development proposed. The principle has been examined on many occasions in the past and has been rejected twice on appeal. There is no reason at all why development is needed on this site and there are plenty of other more sustainable sites in Wychavon for suitable development to take place.

6.0 - Should the planning officer be minded to approve this application the parish council respectfully ask our district member to refer the application to committee.