Councillors approve plans for 41 new homes in Wombourne
Plans for 41 new homes in Wombourne have been approved by councillors after a developer amended plans to add more open space and change housing mix.
Members of South Staffordshire Council’s planning committee raised concerns about “clustering” of affordable homes on the site, housing mix and open space provision at their May meeting and sent the proposals for land west of Orton Lane back to developer Bellway Homes.
On Tuesday, the application returned to the committee, with changes including a previously proposed four-bedroom home being substituted with a three-bed property and three affordable home plots being moved to the east of the site.
A foul pumping station earmarked for the south western corner or the site has been removed, with the area now becoming open space, and a revised Drainage Strategy has been provided setting out that foul drainage will now be via a gravity fed connection to the mains sewer in Orton Lane.
There were 24 objections to the proposals. Concerns raised included the condition of Orton Lane and the number of new housing developments the village has already seen in recent years.
Craig Perkins, who spoke against the proposals at Tuesday’s meeting, said: “It appears the developer has only addressed the bare minimum raised at the last meeting, just enough to tick the box for approval. They have ignored key issues raised.
“To reference the need for a pumping station, this has now been removed entirely for a play area to tick the open space box. Residents living on both ends of the field have concerns about drainage.
“The site is not in keeping with the surrounding area – two storey homes are still looking over single storey homes. Social rented homes are still grouped together and this risks creating a ghettoised area.”
Jessica Herrity, who spoke in support of the application, said: “We have worked collaboratively with officers to review the layout and a series of updated plans were submitted to officers at the end of May.
"The area previously proposed for the pumping station will be grassed and form part of the landscape.”
At last month’s meeting she said that the site had previously been earmarked for future development in 2018. “The application is coming forward because South Staffordshire Council cannot demonstrate a five-year housing land supply”, she added,
“We feel it is better to meet this need with sites already identified rather than sites not included in the Local Plan. This is not a speculative application.
“The 17 affordable homes will be shared ownership or social rent. We will work with officers and the housing association to ensure they go to local people who need them the most.”
Ward councillor Dan Kinsey, who raised concerns about the impact of the development on local residents, said: “A lot of what we are seeing here is very policy-compliant and we know our requirements put on us by national Government.
“We know the planning system is really frustrating and I consider it to be quite inhuman, in that an application is a legal framework.
"These residents have to live with the decision made under this quite unfeeling, inflexible system.
“I am grateful to the developer in the way they have gone about it since the last meeting. They have reached out and explained the elements to me.
“The removal of the pumping station is a great concern and there are still non-materal issues residents are concerned about. And at the last meeting members said it must be one of the worst roads in Staffordshire.”
Committee member Councillor Victor Kelly questioned play area provision, as well as the possibility of a road on the proposed housing site providing an access route for another future development.
Councillor Val Chapman, who described Orton Lane as an “absolute mess”, raised concerns about healthcare provision.
Fellow committee member Councillor Jeff Ashley said: “This is a difficult decision for members to make. The area of land is safeguarded land, designated land for housing.”
Four members voted to approve the application, with one against and five abstentions.
The decision was met with comments including “disgusting” and “disgraceful” by members of the public at the meeting.
