Hanley Castle Parish Council

Minutes of the October Meeting of the Parish Council held on Thursday, 21st October
2021 in Hanley Swan Village Hall at 19:00.

Present: Councillors: Sue Roberts (Chairman), Alex Walker, Lesley Smith, Alison
Sparkes, Alan Rogers, Sue Adeney.

Apologies: Cllrs Pippa Barkley, Sara Beadon. DCllr Martin Allen, Peter Goodyear
(PPW), CCllr Tom Wells.
In Attendance: The Clerk, DCllr Andrea Morgan, Nick Harper (Pond Warden), 16
Parishioners.

53/21 Declarations of Interest & Dispensation Requests from Councillors.

a) To declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests in items on the agenda and their
nature: None Received
b) To declare any Other Disclosable Interests in items on the agenda and their
nature: None Declared
c) To Consider Written Requests from Councillors for the Council to Grant a
Dispensation (S33 of the Localism Act 2011) – None received

54/21 Welcome & Minutes: Cllr Roberts welcomed everyone to the October
Meeting of the Parish Council. The Minutes of the September Meeting of the Parish
Council held on Thursday, 16th September had been previously circulated and the
minutes were approved.

55/21 Ian O’Gorman from Lockley Homes: Mr O’Gorman gave a short

presentation to the Council on planning application 21/01717/FUL and invited
questions from the Councillors and members of the public at the end. He
advised he was aware that the application was contrary to the NHDP but the
application had been made because MHDC had lost a planning application appeal
due to a failure to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply.

The meeting was then closed to allow members of the public to ask questions or
make comments.

The comments and objections made were mainly centered around two points;
that the application site was outside the settlement boundary (and was in fact
adjacent to Apple Tree Gardens which was itself outside the boundary); that the
increase in traffic was a concern in Winnington Gardens, at the junction with
Picken End and in Picken End itself.

56/21 Matters Arising and Progress Reports for information:

a)Tree works quotations – The Application had been return by MHDC requiring
additional information.
ACTION: The Clerk to liase with The Pond Warden to complete it.
b) Action List – The Action List was discussed and updated.

57/21 Finance:
a) To consider and APPROVE any payments notified in writing prior to the
meeting. These were agreed.
b) Receipt Received - £11,000 2nd precept instalment.
58/21 Planning: a) To Consider the following applications referred by MHDC for
consultation:

Application Location Proposal

Number

21/01717/FUL Land At (Os 8157 Erection of 6no dwellings, new access arrangements and
4265) Winnington associated works
Gardens Hanley
Swan

Objection as contrary to the NHDP: Full objection in Appendix 2

21/01645/FUL Willow End Park Class E and Class B8 flexible-use business units,
Blackmore Park including associated access, parking and landscaping.
Road Welland
Malvern WR13
6NN

No Objection

21/01744/FUL The Old Motor Application to vary conditions 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9

Pool Hanley Road attached to planning permission 19/00418/FUL that
Welland Malvern amended condition 2 on planning permission
WR13 6NP 17/01650/FUL (construction of new motor workshop,
including MOT bay and training room) to allow the
position of building to be moved, doors omitted from rear
and showing development in phases.

Application Supported

21/01755/HP 3 Vicarage Fields Erection of detached single garage

Hanley Castle
WR8 0BF

No Objection

21/01614/HP Greenways Erection of garage

Roberts End
Hanley Swan
Worcester WR8
0DL

No Objection

21/01849/FUL Veeda Glenta Creation of a new access from Blackmore Park Road to
Blackmore Park Veeda Glenta and includes the change of use of an area
Road Welland of Pasture land on which the new access will be located
Malvern WR13 to a residential use.
6NN

The Parish Council would support the opinion of Highways regarding the creation of a new
entracnce onto the road.
 b) Planning Applications received after the Agenda produced:
None Received

c) Planning Decisions:

21/01516/HP Ivers Worcester Road Demolition of existing garage, Application

Hanley Swan proposed front, rear and side single Approved
Worcester WR8 0EA storey extensions

21/01580/CM Waste Incineration Unit County Matter consultation by WCC Decision –

Hangmans Lane for retention of external lighting & Other
Hanley Castle CCTV provision (retrospective).
Worcester WR8 0AJ

21/01494/HP The Beeches Gilberts Proposed detached brick orangery Application

End Hanley Castle Approved
Worcester WR8 0AS

21/01330/LB Cherry Tree Cottage Replacement of oil-fired boiler and Application

Picken End Hanley storage tank with hybrid heat pump, Approved
Swan Worcester WR8 2no additional radiators, associated
0DQ controls and LPG tanks.

21/01390/HP 1 Hawberry Close Extension to existing double garage. Application

Malvern WR14 3PD Approved

21/01103/FU St Gabriels Worcester Renovation and improvements to Application

L Road Hanley Swan existing domestic outbuilding to form Approved
Worcester WR8 0EA holiday let/granny annexe.

d) NHDP: Next Steps & Actions – This would be updated at the next meeting.

59/21 District and County Councillors’ Reports

DCllr Angela Morgan updated the Council on the latest at MHDC and talked
about Connected Communities which is a funding matching initiative. She also
said there was Ward money available if there was a project that the Parish
Council required funding for; if not it would be given to Upton Young Farmers.

60/21 Report of the:

a) Parish Paths Warden – Received and read out.
b) Pond Wardens (Nick Harper) – it was agreed that the strimming equipment
could be replaced and that it could also be used by the new verge warden and also
by the Parish Paths Warden. Nick would look into appropriate equipment. It was
noted that the duck houses also needed refurburishment.
ACTION: The Clerk to look into the insurance cover provided for Volunteers
by the Council’s insurance policy.
c) Playing Field Warden – None received.
d) Local Police – None received

61/21 Highways Matters

a) Road Safety Matters– Action plan. Cllrs Barkley & Beadon were not present. An
update would hopefully be available at the next meeting.
b) Email from D Webb regarding speeding on Gilberts End – circulated ahead of
meeting and discussed.
c) Works for Lengthsman.

62/21 Carbon Neutral Working Group

Cllrs Rogers and Adeney updated the Council on the work of the group. Two
meetings had been held as there was a need to re-engage with the Parish, review the
roles and responsibilities, and reflect on the success that some sections had
achieved. A new public meeting was arranged for the 25 th November from 3.30pm in
the Village Hall. It would be a consultation on what direction should be taken as it
had been two years since the first open meeting.

a) Verge Warden – Request to purchase a petrol trimmer, this was discussed under
the Pond warden section; the possibility of purchasing a rechargeable strimmer
was discussed.
ACTION: The Clerk to look into the insurance cover provided for
Volunteers by the Council’s insurance policy and to check with Highways
that work is allowed.

b) Bike Racks – Installation costs and paving slabs.

ACTION: Cllr Smith to ask Colin Smith to speak with the Pond Warden to find
out what is required for the bike racks and to undertake the work.

63/21 Correspondence
a) Copy of Letter dated 20th July 2017 from Jack Hegarty re MHDC 5 year
housing supply
b) Emails regarding long grass by Chapmans Orchard – it was clarified that the
grass verge was the responsibility of Highways and the hedge belonged to the
housing association.
ACTION: Councillor Roberts said she would have a look at the verge and
see what could be done.
c) Worcestershire CALC AGM – 16th November 2021
d) Parish Lengthsman Scheme change of Liaison Officer – now Hannah Davies
e) Worcs CALC Launches new Employment Kite Mark Scheme – Circulated
f) SWDP Review Newsletter - Circulated
g) Consultation on Welland’s Draft Neighbourhood Plan – Circulated
h) MHDC Connected Communities Consultation – Circulated ahead of meeting

64/21 Topics raised by Councillors, Committees, Clerk & Parishioners

a) The Budget would be on the agenda for the next meeting.

65/21 Date of next meeting: The date of the next meeting was set for 18th
November 2021.

Signed ……………………………… Date: 18th November 2021

Chairman
Appendix 1: Schedule of Payments & Receipts 21st October 2021.

460.4
Rebecca Abunassar   Sept Clerk Duties 0
New Farm Ground 740.4
Maintenance   Sept Cuts 0
Nick Harper Pond Expenses 66.59
125.0
WDBF Ltd   Glebe Rent 0
600.0
G James Ag Services Wild Verge Flailing 0
1992.3
9

Appendix 2 : Response to Planning Application 21/01717/FUL

The Parish Council wish to strongly object to the planning application 21/01717/FUL which
proposes a development of six houses to be built on an infill site that is adjacent to a previous
development at Apple Tree Gardens, Hanley Swan. Apple Tree Gardens is outside the
development boundary. This proposal further extends the previous breech in the development
boundary into open farmland.

This application seeks to exploit an appeal decision in April 2021, relating to land south of the
Bransford Rd Rushwick (19/00375/OUT and APP/J1860/W/19/3242098 refer). The appeal
decision said at the time of the appeal, MHDC could not demonstrate that they had a plan to
cover 5-years housing supply. Based on this decision the Developer claims that there is a
presumption in favour of sustainable development within the National Planning Policy.

It should be noted that unlike Hanley Castle Parish, Rushwick Parish does not have a
neighbourhood plan and that Hanley Castle’s Neighbourhood Plan should take precedence over
the SWDP. The NPPF is very clear. Para 12 in section 2 of the NPPF reads as follows: -

“The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not change the statutory status of
the development plan as the starting point for decision-making. Where a planning application
conflicts with an up-to-date development plan (including any neighbourhood plans that form part
of the development plan), permission should not usually be granted. Local planning authorities
may take decisions that depart from an up-to-date development plan, but only if material
considerations in a particular case indicate that the plan should not be followed”

The applicant has not presented any material considerations and the application goes against
several areas of the Neighbourhood Plan the most prevalent being:
It is outside the Settlement Boundary and it is Infill.
The Parish Council would only support an application outside the development boundary if it met
the following conditions outlined in Policy RE 2 – Settlement Identity
This site is also confirmed as an infill site within the Applicant’s Constraints and Opportunities of
the Design and Access Statement. It states that:
“Opportunity to utilise and enhance the corner plot within Picken End comprising of sensible infill
development adjacent to recent permitted development.”

It should be noted that the proposed site does not have adjacent roads on two sides of its
boundaries so cannot be considered a corner plot. For the Parish Council to support infill it would
need to meet the conditions of Policy MnGr 4 of the NHDP detailed below:

The application does not fulfil any of the above conditions.

The Neighbourhood Development plan also proposes a housing mix under Policy MnGr 1. It identifies a
particular need for:
• Affordable housing
• Starter homes
• Two and three bedroom family homes
• Homes for the elderly or disabled
Which would enable people with local connections to remain in the parish.
Whilst this application is a mixture of bungalows and 3 bedroom properties their design is of the high end
of the market and does not match the needs criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

1) The argument that sustainable development is an overriding consideration is incorrect. The NPPF
specifically directs decision makers to the Neighbourhood Plan.
2) The Neighbourhood plan specifies under what conditions building outside the Development
Boundary can be conducted. None of these conditions are satisfied within this application.
3) The site is an infill site and extends the built-up area of the village. The proposal conflicts with
MNGR4 of the Neighbourhood plan.

Had the applicant proposed a development of affordable homes the application could be
considered more favourably. However, in its present form it conflicts with the Neighbourhood plan
and cannot be supported.

Signed ……………………………… Date: 18th November 2021.

Chairman