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 Meeting held at The Flyford’s Hall on Tuesday 29th August 2023

Present

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

1. Apologies

Mr Mark Bennett.

2. Declaration of Interest

None.

3. Public Participation

Four members of the public joined by Zoom. 20 members of the public attended in person.

4. Application for a Street Trader Consent

It was agreed to comment that no street trading should be allowed to interfere with the café business in Flyford Flavell or within the vicinity of the school.

Proposed: Sadie Densham
Seconded: David Rhodes
All in agreement

5. Planning Matters:

To Formulate Comments.

5.1 W/23/01596/PIP

Land New Road
Flyford Flavell

Residential Development in Principle for up to six dwellings.

Following open discussion and input from members of the public the following 2 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 opposed application 23/01134/PIP on Radford Road which was refused on 4th August. It is intended that this application will 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 development 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 to the north where in time it would be difficult to resist further development.
  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, in the open countryside parish of North Piddle 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 6 houses would certainly mean 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. Again, the parish Council considers 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 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.
  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. An open meeting for residents to express their concerns about applications 23/01682/PIP and 23/01596/PIP was held on 23rd August. A 4 considerable number of people highlighted the issue of parking in the village. There is a primary school relatively close to the proposed development site and it is considered that this application will increase the number of cars taking children to school. 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 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 6 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.
  12. 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 many 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 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 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.
  13. 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 5 determination of this application.
  14. 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 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.
  15. 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. This is poor use of location and nothing is offered to the community.
  16. 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 6 is out of step with new, fully consulted policy.
  17. Access to this site is very poor and a new opening onto A422 is considered to be a very dangerous proposition. The parish council consider any new access to the A422 in this location to be unworkable and believe that the proposed access will not comply with Highways sightline requirements for a 50mph limit. The parish council further understands that visibility splays can not be created on the applicant’s land and it is unlikely that land will be available for these to be formed. The parish council will make further comment on this point if necessary once the Highways comment has been published. This is a salient consideration concerning location.
  18. 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. The apish council also considers the proposal for the footpath is unrealistic. The access to the path to the north and south is very dangerous and there is very poor visibility as it joins the highway. This is not a suitable route for unaccompanied children to walk to school. This is a salient consideration concerning location.
  19. There are trees on the site which are not mentioned in the application. The parish council has concerns that the environmental damage caused by the development will out way the benefit of the development.
  20. Two previous applications 13/01083/OU and 14/02703/OU for similar housing development were made on this site. Both applications were refused. The reasons for refusal of the 2014 application included the following statements: (nb the previous applications were to the north of the application site but on the same field and by the same applicant, the comments are considered to be relevant). The development of this site would therefore be incompatible with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to resist isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances and to manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of sustainable modes of travel.” “The proposed development will also go against the aims of the development plan to both concentrate most new residential development to sites within or adjacent to urban areas and also to reduce reliance upon private motor vehicles as a means of transport.” ‘Given the location of the site, it is likely that the proposal will result in a high dependence upon the private motor vehicle to reach nearby facilities within surrounding 7 villages/towns, given that there is no safe pedestrian access from the site to relevant village facilities.’ “The application fails to demonstrate that the application site could accommodate two residential units without significant detrimental harm to the historic and established built character of the village. Due to the nature of the application site, it is reasonable to conclude any development consisting of two units would result in built development sited back from the highway, behind existing residential properties. Such an arrangement would be at odds to the historic and established built form and character of the village. As such the proposals are contrary to saved Policies GD2 and SUR1 of the Wychavon District Local Plan (June 2006); the advice contained within the Residential Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document); and paragraphs 7 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework” “The submission has failed to reasonably demonstrate that safe vehicular access to serve the proposed development can be achieved off the existing highway network. Furthermore, the proposal fails to demonstrate that suitable pedestrian facilities are available from the site. As such, the proposals are contrary to saved Policy GD2 of the Wychavon District Local Plan (June 2006) and paragraphs 35 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework”. The parish council believes that little has changed in terms of these polices over the years and that the reasons for refusal ten years ago are still relevant today. An appeal was made against the refusal of application 14/02703 which was dismissed by the inspectorate. APP/H1840/W/15/3130311 In the summing up of the appeal decision the inspector concluded: However, in terms of negative aspects, the proposal would mean that future occupiers of the housing would primarily be dependent on private vehicular transport and, judged in isolation, this consideration would represent a significant negative aspect. However, this is tempered slightly by the fact that there are a limited range of facilities and services available within the village of Flyford Flavell to which future occupiers would have access by cycle and on foot, even if the use of a grass verge rather than a footway is not ideal. The proposal would represent housing development in an open countryside location on an area with some biodiversity value and which is outside of the designated settlement boundary for the village, albeit on the immediate outskirts of the village. As such the proposal would be contrary to saved LP Policy GD1, to which I attach significant weight. Furthermore, although this is an outline application, the layout of the development would conflict with the established character and appearance of the area to an intrusive degree, and thus would not accord with saved Policies GD2 and SUR1 of the LP. When taken as a whole, and in the context of paragraph 49 of the Framework, I therefore conclude that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Although the designation of GD1 land no longer exists the principles enshrined in the NPPF and SWDP protect land where development would be unsustainable and the parish council consider the arguments amount to the same thing. For these reasons the parish council opposes this application and respectfully asks that it is refused by the Local Planning Authority.
  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.

5.2 W/23/01628/PIP

Land New Road
Flyford Flavell

Residential Development in Principle for up to two dwellings.

Following open discussion and input from members of the public 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 opposed application 23/01134/PIP on Radford Road which was refused on 4th August. It is intended that this application will 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 development 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 to the north where in time it would be difficult to resist further development.
  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, in the open countryside parish of North Piddle 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 2 houses would certainly mean 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. Again, the parish Council considers 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 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.
  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. An open meeting for residents to express their concerns about applications 23/01682/PIP and 23/01596/PIP was held on 23rd August. A considerable number of people highlighted the issue of parking in the village. There is a primary school very close close to the proposed development site. 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 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 6 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.
  12. 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 many 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 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 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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 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.
  15. 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. This is poor use of location and nothing is offered to the community.
  16. 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.
  17. Access to this site is very poor and a new opening onto New Hill is considered to be a very dangerous proposition. The parish council consider any new access to the hill in this location to be unworkable and believe that the proposed access is illegal. An enforcement enquiry is presently underway W/ENF/23/0281 to determine whether the access is legal. It should be noted that in previous refused application is 2013, 2014 and a subsequent appeal the access was consistently considered to be dangerous and unworkable. The parish council will make further comment on this point if necessary once the Highways comment has been published. This is a salient consideration concerning location.
  18. 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.
  19. There are trees on the site which are not mentioned in the application. The parish council has concerns that the environmental damage caused by the development will out way the benefit of the development.
  20. Two previous applications 13/01083/OU and 14/02703/OU for similar housing development were made on this site. Both applications were refused. The reasons for refusal of the 2014 application included the following statements: The development of this site would therefore be incompatible with the principles of sustainable development as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework which seeks to resist isolated homes in the countryside unless there are special circumstances and to manage patterns of growth to make the fullest possible use of sustainable modes of travel.” “The proposed development will also go against the aims of the development plan to both concentrate most new residential development to sites within or adjacent to urban areas and also to reduce reliance upon private motor vehicles as a means of transport.” ‘Given the location of the site, it is likely that the proposal will result in a high dependence upon the private motor vehicle to reach nearby facilities within surrounding villages/towns, given that there is no safe pedestrian access from the site to relevant village facilities.’ “The application fails to demonstrate that the application site could accommodate two residential units without significant detrimental harm to the historic and established built character of the village. Due to the nature of the application site, it is reasonable to conclude any development consisting of two units would result in built development sited back from the highway, behind existing residential properties. Such an arrangement would be at odds to the historic and established built form and character of the village. As such the proposals are contrary to saved Policies GD2 and SUR1 of the Wychavon District Local Plan (June 2006); the advice contained within the Residential Design Guide (Supplementary Planning Document); and paragraphs 7 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework” “The submission has failed to reasonably demonstrate that safe vehicular access to serve the proposed development can be achieved off the existing highway network. Furthermore, the proposal fails to demonstrate that suitable pedestrian facilities are available from the site. As such, the proposals are contrary to saved Policy GD2 of the Wychavon District Local Plan (June 2006) and paragraphs 35 and 58 of the National Planning Policy Framework” The parish council believes that little has changed in terms of these polices over the years and that the reasons for refusal ten years ago are still relevant today. An appeal was made against the refusal of application 14/02703 which was dismissed by the inspectorate. APP/H1840/W/15/3130311 In the summing up of the appeal decision the inspector concluded: However, in terms of negative aspects, the proposal would mean that future occupiers of the housing would primarily be dependent on private vehicular transport and, judged in isolation, this consideration would represent a significant negative aspect. However, this is tempered slightly by the fact that there are a limited range of facilities and services available within the village of Flyford Flavell to which future occupiers would have access by cycle and on foot, even if the use of a grass verge rather than a footway is not ideal. The proposal would represent housing development in an open countryside location on an area with some biodiversity value and which is outside of the designated settlement boundary for the village, albeit on the immediate outskirts of the village. As such the proposal would be contrary to saved LP Policy GD1, to which I attach significant weight. Furthermore, although this is an outline application, the layout of the development would conflict with the established character and appearance of the area to an intrusive degree, and thus would not accord with saved Policies GD2 and SUR1 of the LP. When taken as a whole, and in the context of paragraph 49 of the Framework, I therefore conclude that the adverse impacts of granting permission would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits. Although the designation of GD1 land no longer exists the principles enshrined in the NPPF and SWDP protect land where development would be unsustainable and the parish council consider the arguments amount to the same thing. For these reasons the parish council opposes this application and respectfully asks that it is refused by the Local Planning Authority.
  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.

Members of the public were advised that any comment made should be made on both application separately to ensure that the comments were taken in to account on both applications.

Cllr Robinson undertook to ensure that the applications were taken to committee should the officer be minded to approve.

15. Any Other Business

The chairman reiterated the call for more parish councillors.

16. Date of Next Meeting

19th September 2023