We use essential cookies to make this website work. We’d also like to set additional cookies to understand how you use The Flyfords Parish Council. Read more

Skip to Content Accessiblity
The Flyfords

Our Next Meeting: 13th May, 2025

View PDF

Minutes of the Extraordinary Meeting held at The Flyford’s Hall on Tuesday 27th June 2023

Present

Sadie Densham
David Rhodes
Andrew Short
David Waide
Mark Broughton-Taylor attended as clerk

1. Apologies

Richard Davey and Linda Robinson.

2. Declaration of Interest

None.

3. Public Participation

One member of the public joined by Zoom. Problems with the quality of the transmission meant that he could not hear very well. The clerk was asked to investigate the problem before the next meeting.

4. Volunteer Recognition Awards

Jane Hand was nominated for a Volunteer Recognition award for her work with the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme.

Proposed: Sadie Densham
Seconded: David Waide
All in favour

5. Planning Matters

To Formulate Comment

5.1 W/23/01134/PIP/FUL

Land on Radford Road.

Residential Development in Principle.

The following comment was agreed:

  1. This is the official comment from the Flyford Flavell, Grafton Flyford and North Piddle Parish Council.
  2. The parish council opposes this application for very much the same reasons that it opposes application 22/02163 and 23/00431. It is noted that there are now three live applications for this site but this application is intended to encourage a swifter decision by restricting the criteria under consideration to location, land use and amount of development. Accordingly, the Parish Council emphasizes the following objections concerning the location and sustainability of the site and the proposal.
  3. The density of the development is not in keeping with the surroundings and would have a detrimental effect on the visual amenity of the area. It would extend beyond the present boundary of the village but create a green gap where in time it would be difficult to resist further development. The application is vague about the number of units intended for the site. On a site of 0.45 hectares 3 to 5 units is a significant difference and more clarity is required.
  4. A justification is made that Flyford Flavell is a category 2 village and so the criteria can be extended to this site. The parish council wish to point out that since the inception of the SWDP, Flyford has lost some of its facilities and no longer meets the criteria for category 2 status. Notwithstanding this, the site is outside the village boundary and should not be connected with the village for planning purposes. It is also noted that in the Village hierarchy in the emerging SWDP, Flyford Flavell has been downgraded to a category 3 village. (Emerging SWDP Annex A page 329). It is only right that the more up to date information in this area should be used as the original is now more than 10 years out of date.
  5. There is very poor drainage in the area and the opportunities for dealing with foul water waste is limited. (The Flyford Flavell sewage system is presently overloaded). The Parish Council does not know of any water course or other means of disposing of grey water from this site. It is restricted in size and the development of 5 houses would certainly mean 3 there is no room for percolation of the waste water on site. The Parish Council considers this to be a material consideration in determining whether the location of the site is suitable.
  6. 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. The applicant’s assertion that bungalows are suitable for old residents is therefore pure speculation. Again, the parish Council consider this a material consideration in determining the suitability of the location of the site.
  7. 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 linear 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.
  8. 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 and church have 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.
  9. 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. Again, this is a material consideration concerning the location of the site.
  10. The parish council held an open meeting for residents to express their concerns about application 22/02163. A considerable number of people highlighted the issue of parking in the village. There is a primary school very close to the proposed development site and it is now over subscribed. Amongst other issues this creates a very real traffic problem in the village with cars parked along the lane and in the vicinity of the school. Further development along here without the requisite infrastructure improvements is going to exacerbate an already fraught situation which would create a danger to school pupils and members of the public.
  11. 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 3 to 5 more bungalows. 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.
  12. The applicant suggests that a social need can be met by providing much needed housing. The numbers of housing proposed is too vague to make a true assessment of this criteria. With the threshold of the provision of affordable housing being 4 units, this application deliberately sets out to hedge the developer’s bets and so leave a commercial decision which has a direct bearing on the social sustainability of the site until a later date. This makes it impossible to form a firm decision and thus undermines the sustainability of the proposal.
  13. 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. It is known locally that this particular field has not been ploughed for about 40 years. It has 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 5 the east, pasture behind Tolley’s Garage, The Piddle Brook Meadows and on the SSSI in Naunton Beachamp on North Piddle Lane. At the very least the site should be subject to a detailed ecological survey as part of the planning determination. The Parish Council does not accept the term ‘redundant’ as the site is referred to in the Planning Statement but on the contrary, this is an important ecological field that forms part of the open countryside. 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 is an environmental heritage site in the open countryside.
  14. The hedgerows are also known to have been undisturbed for a considerable length of time. The hedge on the opposite side of the road, belonging to the Parish Council is dominated by elm, hawthorn and blackthorn and scores 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.
  15. The Parish Council also note the comments made by the Worcestershire Archaeologist for application 23/0431 and echo his concerns about Roman remains that may be on this site. The P C is aware of recent finds of Roman artefacts at The Old Post Office which is the property adjacent to the proposed site.
  16. In paragraph 4.3 - 5 of the Planning Statement the applicant refers to the lack of a 5 year land supply. 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 6 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.
  17. Following on this argument in paragraph 4.12 of the Planning Statement the applicant suggest that the bungalows will be suitable for “elderly occupiers”. The parish council would argue the exact opposite to the argument mounted by the applicant. This is a remote site for elderly people who are likely to have impaired mobility and will almost certainly rely on the motor car contrary to the SWDP policy. A walk to the local shop on the A422 entails a round trip of 1.2 miles along lanes without footways, a steep hill and a busy A road where the footway is on the opposite side of the road. It can be noted here that the increase in housing in Flyford Flavell has not lead to any community transport initiatives or demand-responsive forms of transport and we see no prospect of anything developing in the near or medium future. This is a material consideration concerning the location of the site.
  18. 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. It seeks to create disjointed ribbon development and provide isolated dwellings which will be dislocated from the village. Nothing is offered to the community and there is a vagueness about numbers which means no commitment is being made concerning affordable housing.
  19. The parish council is aware that emerging policy for South Worcestershire is almost ready for presentation 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.
  20. The parish Council considers that all comments made on applications 7 22/02163 and 23/00431are relevant to determining this application. Although all applications should be assessed on their merits it would be disingenuous not to take into account all the comments submitted as they apply to the same location, the land use and roughly the same number of units and are still all live.
  21. Should the planning officer be minded to approve this application the parish council respectfully ask our district member to refer the application to committee.

Proposed: David Waide
Seconded: Andrew Short
All in favour

5.2 W/23/01034/FUL

Church Cottage
Church Lane
Flyford Flavell

Proposed extension to existing cottage and erection of new dwelling. Two double garages to serve each dwelling.

The following comment was agreed: The Flyford Flavell, Grafton Flyford and North Piddle Parish Council cannot support this application in its present form.

The Parish Council draw attention to comments made for application 22/01616 however the Parish Council does consider this application to be an improvement on the previous submission. The retention and improvement of the original cottage, which is considered to be an historic village asset, is very much appreciated and the additional property is considered to be of a suitable size on plan. However, there is concern that the main ridge height is too high and that the street scene would benefit from a lower roofline.

It is noted that windows have been introduced to the rear elevation of the existing cottage which may impact on the privacy of users of the churchyard. It is therefore suggested that if this application is approved there is a condition that obscured glass should be used in these windows.

This is also a very congested part of the village and again it is suggested that if approved there is a condition that a Construction Environmental Management Plan (CEMP) is requested to ensure that the neighbours and particularly the school are not inconvenienced by the work.

It is noted that at the time of comment, Highways have not yet made their submission and the Parish Council will defer to their opinion but do have concerns about the entrance on the narrow part of Church Lane and the space available to turn vehicles around on the site to ensure vehicles leave in a forward direction.

Proposed: Sadie Densham
Seconded: Andrew Short
All in favour

16. Date of Next Meeting

18th July 2023