Agenda and minutes
PDF 417 KBVenue: Parkside Suite, Parkside, Market Street, Bromsgrove, B61 8DA
Contact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
To receive apologies for absence and notification of substitutes Minutes: Apologies for absence were received from Councillor A. J. B. Beaumont, it was noted that Councillor A.D. Kriss submitted his apologies as the substitute Member for Councillor Beaumont, and Councillor P. M. McDonald with Councillor H. Rone-Clarke in attendance as the substitute Member. |
|
|
Declarations of Interest To invite Councillors to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests or Other Disclosable Interests they may have in items on the agenda, and to confirm the nature of those interests. Minutes: Councillor A. B. L. English declared in relation to Agenda Item No. 5 – (Planning Application 21/00561/FUL – 22 Dellow Grove, Alvechurch. Worcestershire, B48 7NR), (Minute No. 40/21), in that she would be addressing the Committee for this item as Ward Councillor under the Council’s public speaking rules.
Following the conclusion of public speaking, Councillor A. B. L. English left the meeting room.
|
|
|
Minutes: The minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 6th September 2021 were received.
It was noted that, on page 3, St. Lawrence’s Church yard, should refer to St. Laurence’s Church yard.
RESOLVED that, subject to the correction as detailed in the preamble above, the minutes of the Planning Committee meeting held on 6th September 2021, be approved as correct record.
|
|
|
Updates to planning applications reported at the meeting Minutes: The Chairman announced that a Committee Update had been circulated to all Planning Committee Members and she asked if all Members had received and read the Committee Update.
|
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor A. B. L. English, Ward Councillor.
Officers reported that since the Planning Committee agenda had been published, that an amended site plan had been received. As a result of this, the plan Condition 1 had been amended, as detailed on page 1 of the published Committee Update, copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers presented the report and in doing so, informed the Committee that the planning application related to a single storey rear extension (conservatory on the rear elevation, part retrospective) to a recently constructed four bedroom detached dwelling, which, if Members recalled, was granted planning permission on 23rd December 2020 following consideration at Planning Committee.
At the time of receipt of the current planning application, the new dwelling had been substantially completed on site and internally had all the facilities required for day to day living and to function as a dwelling house. Having regard to this, a householder planning application was considered to be the correct application type to pursue.
Officers referred to the Assessment of the Proposal, as detailed in full on page 8 of the main agenda report.
Officers explained that the size and positioning of the proposed extension would usually compromise permitted development and would therefore not require the benefit of planning permission. However, as a planning condition to restrict permitted development rights was placed on the permission for the new dwelling, therefore the proposed development required planning permission.
Given that the application site lay within a residential area, as defined on the proposals map, and identified within policy BDP2 of the Bromsgrove District Plan (BDP), the principle of the development was considered acceptable subject to other considerations. The main planning considerations that needed to be considered with this planning application were design and appearance, impact to residential amenity and technical matters; as detailed on pages 8 to 10 of the main agenda report.
Officers further informed the Committee that since the submission of the current application, the design of the proposed single storey extension had been amended. The extension would be comprised of a substantial amount of glazing which would reduce the dominance of the structure.
Officers referred to the Residential Amenity, as detailed on page 9 of the main agenda report. This referred to the single storey nature of the development and the intervening boundary feature, highlighting that there would not be any detrimental loss of privacy to the neighbouring occupiers of these dwellings. Therefore, there would be no adverse impact to residential amenity. Officers further drew Members’ attention to the reduction in the size of the garden and the Council’s SPD, also detailed on page 9 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor A. B. L. English, Ward Councillor addressed the Committee in objection to the Application.
The Committee then considered the ... view the full minutes text for item 40/21 |
|
|
Additional documents: |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: Officers reported that further consultation responses had been received from the Environment Agency. That Stratford on Avon District Council had no objections to the proposals, as detailed on page 2 of the published Committee Update Report, copies of which were provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.
Officers presented the report and in doing so, referred to the planning application granted in April 2019, which was made under Section 73 (S73) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. Officers briefly explained the criteria for S73.
Officers drew Members’ attention to the proposal, as detailed on page 63 of the main agenda report. The application proposed minor changes to the approved scheme, which related to two areas of the site, as detailed on page 67 of the main agenda report. The minor changes were all within the site boundary of the building and yard as previously approved.
Officers referred to the presentation slides and highlighted that the Air Handling Unit (AHU) was tucked away on the rear elevation by an established woodland, so there would be no adverse impact on any neighbours.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for approval.
RESOLVED that the variation of Condition 1 of Planning Permission 19/00619/REM be granted, subject to the Conditions as detailed on page 68 of the main agenda report. |