# Land adjacent to 22 Alcester Road, Hollywood / Wythall (up to 6 dwellings PIP) - **Decision:** approved, 7 September 2026 - **Decided by:** Council officer (delegated): Ruth Bamford (Assistant Director, Planning, Leisure and Culture) - **Authority:** Bromsgrove (West Midlands) - **Application reference:** 26/00845/PIP - **Procedure:** delegated - **Development:** Permission in principle for up to six dwellings on a 0.17 ha greenfield plot - **Homes:** 6 - **Site context:** green-belt, settlement-edge - **Green Belt:** yes (grey belt accepted) - **Framework applied:** August 2026 NPPF - **Determinative policies:** GB7(1)(g)(i), GB7(1)(g)(ii), GB7(1)(g)(iii), GB7(1)(g)(iv), S5(1)(j) - **Development plan policies:** Bromsgrove District Plan 2017 BDP1, BDP2, BDP4, BDP16, BDP23 - **Main issues:** grey belt, sustainable location, PIP scope, flood risk deferral - **Tags:** grey-belt-accepted, not-inappropriate, housing-shortfall, sustainable-location-pass, PIP, small-scheme, drafting-slip ## Summary PIP for up to six homes on a small greenfield plot 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall settlement boundary, in the Green Belt. Bromsgrove has no five-year supply. The officer ran all four GB7(1)(g) limbs and granted permission in principle. Grey belt was accepted because Hollywood is not a large built-up area and no towns would merge. Unmet need follows from fn41. The location is sustainable: lit footways both sides and a bus stop 60 m away with regular services. The drainage body's refusal recommendation on surface-water flooding was left to the technical details stage. ## Issues and findings - **Grey belt, GB7(1)(g)(i): PASS.** "Hollywood is not defined as a large built-up area (as defined in the Inspectors Report for Appeal 3356219). As such, the site makes a weak contribution to purpose A … The nearest town to the east of the site, Solihull, is too far away (7.53km) to be considered 'neighbouring'" (Notice p.3). "the comparatively small nature of the site itself, within an existing run of development is such that it does not fundamentally undermine purpose c)" (p.3). - **Need, GB7(1)(g)(ii): PASS.** "The NPPF at footnote 41 explains that evidenced unmet need would apply where there is a lack of five year supply … The Council cannot currently demonstrate a 5 year supply" (p.3). - **Location, GB7(1)(g)(iii): PASS.** "Alcester Road has footpaths on both sides of the road, along with street lighting. The combination of bus services, nearby district and retail centres would provide alternatives to using private vehicles" (p.4). Bus stops are "approximately 60 metres to the north, with regular services to Redditch and Birmingham City Centre" (p.4). - **Flood risk deferred.** "whilst the application site could have an impact upon flooding in the locality, it would not be warranted at the PIP stage to recommend refusal, as the matters for consideration under a PIP are location, land use and amount" (p.5). ## Planning balance "the Council does not have a 5YHLS, the site meets the definition of Grey Belt and therefore is an exception to development within the Green Belt. Permission in Principle should be granted" (p.6). No separate "substantially outweighed" balance under S5(5) is recorded. ## What made the difference The location. Lit footways on both sides, a bus stop 60 m away with frequent services, and a large settlement next door. Together with the missing supply, all three limbs passed easily. Compare wychavon-W-26-01639-PIP, where the same GB7(1)(g) route failed on an infrequent bus and narrow unlit lanes, and on a restored supply. ## Transferable points - GB7(1)(g)(iii) passes where there are lit footways on both sides and a regular bus within about 60 m. That is the kind of evidence that distinguishes a sustainable grey-belt site from a rural one. - A "large built-up area" for purpose (a) excludes a village or suburb such as Hollywood. Bromsgrove relied on an earlier Inspector's finding (appeal 3356219). - Flood risk objections are routinely deferred to technical details consent at the PIP stage (following appeal 6004489). - Drafting slip: the five purposes are attributed to "Policy GB1"; they are in GB2(1). The notice also frames the principle via S5(1)(j), which S5(5) disapplies in the Green Belt. ## Policy findings - **GB7(1)(g)(i): pass.** purpose (a) weak (Hollywood is not a large built-up area, citing appeal 3356219); (b) weak (Solihull 7.53 km away, no loss of separation from Birmingham); (d) none; (c) and (e) not fundamentally undermined - **GB7(1)(g)(ii): pass.** fn41, no five-year supply - **GB7(1)(g)(iii): pass.** 7 m outside the Hollywood/Wythall boundary (a large settlement under BDP2); footways and lighting on both sides of Alcester Road; bus stop 60 m away with regular services to Redditch and Birmingham - **GB7(1)(g)(iv): not-engaged.** not major development, so the Golden Rules do not apply - **S5(1)(j): pass.** cited as the lens for the principle despite S5(5) excluding Green Belt land. An S5(5)-style approval was the effective outcome. ## Key facts - The site is 7 m outside the Wythall/Hollywood settlement boundary, with development to the south and west and open fields to the north and east - Bromsgrove cannot demonstrate a five-year supply (2.24 years at April 2025, per the Yew Tree Lane notice) - North Worcestershire Water Management recommended refusal on surface-water flood risk (depths of 60 cm to over 1 m); the officer deferred this to technical details consent, citing PIP appeal 6004489 (9 Bromsgrove Road, Romsley, 15 Jun 2026) - Seven objections and a parish council objection (flooding, highways, density); ward councillor support - The notice cites "Policy GB1 … sets out that the Green Belt serves five purposes", although the purposes are in GB2 ## Sources - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=TI9WGESE00V00 - https://publicaccess.bromsgroveandredditch.gov.uk/online-applications/files/92B3CF6EB7AD6621D53F9F1FEC2766D5/pdf/26_00845_PIP--1220564.pdf --- Source: https://planningdistilled.org/research/england/nppf-navigator/decisions/bromsgrove-26-00845-PIP.html A summary of a public planning decision, written from the decision notice. Not legal advice. © Planning Distilled. Released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/): share and adapt freely, with credit to Planning Distilled. Quotations from decision letters, plans and the Framework remain the copyright of their publishers.