Agenda and minutes
PDF 159 KBContact: Pauline Ross
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Apologies Minutes: No apologies for absence were received. |
|
|
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 P. L. Thomas asked for it to noted that with regards to Agenda Item 7 (Application 20/01482/FUL – 7 Marlborough Avenue, Bromsgrove, Worcestershire, B60 2PG), that as the Ward Councillor, he had spoken with a resident and the planning case officer; but he was not predetermined.
|
|
|
Updates to planning applications reported at the meeting Minutes: It was noted that there were no Committee updates. |
|
|
Minutes: This item was withdrawn from the agenda. The application would be brought back to a further meeting of the Planning Committee. |
|
|
Additional documents: Minutes: This item was withdrawn from the agenda. The application would be brought back to a further meeting of the Planning Committee.
|
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor G. Denaro, Ward Councillor.
Officers presented the report and in doing so informed the Committee that the application site consisted of a dormer bungalow, a detached garage and an outdoor swimming pool.
Planning permission was granted under application B/2001/0158 for an extension to provide two further bedrooms at ground floor level and an additional bedroom with a balcony on the first floor. A Larger Homes Extension application was submitted in January 2020 – 20/00153/HHPRIO and Prior Approval was granted for an 8m x 3m extension to the rear of the dwelling. This had not yet been implemented.
A Certificate of Lawfulness was submitted for an existing two storey rear extension and a single storey extension at the side of the dwelling. The two-storey extension had been granted consent under application B/2006/0365, however, it had not been constructed in accordance with the then approved plans. The purpose of the certificate was to agree that the extensions had been constructed more than four years ago. The certificate was granted.
Members were further informed that this proposal was for an extension of the existing roofline at first floor with dormer to create a home office, alterations to 2 no. dormers to the front elevation, alterations to one dormer to the rear.
Officers highlighted that the dwelling was detached and lay within an area designated as Green Belt, therefore regard was given to Policy BDP4 of the Bromsgrove District Plan (January 2017) (BDLP) and the guidance set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Policy BDP4 sets out that the development of new buildings in the Green Belt were considered inappropriate, except in specific circumstances.
In considering whether or not it would be inappropriate development, a determination had to be made as to whether or not it would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building.
Policy BPD4 interpretated disproportionate additions as being extensions that would represent more than a maximum 40% increase of the original building or a maximum total floor space of 140 square metres. In this respect, the dwelling had already been extended by 73.83% and the proposal would add a further 10.6% taking the cumulative increase to a total of approximately 84.50%. The total floorspace would equate to approximately 280 square metres. This would be considered inappropriate development in the Green Belt.
Officers further drew Member’s attention to the matters raised by the applicant, as detailed on page 63 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. P. Mannion, the Applicant addressed the Committee.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for refusal.
Officers responded to questions from Members with regards to permitted development rights and footprint; and in doing so explained that the proposed development amounted to new floorspace on the first floor as the proposed balcony would be enclosed.
Officers further commented that no very special ... view the full minutes text for item 73/20 |
|
|
Additional documents:
Minutes: Officers presented the report and presentation; and explained that the application followed a number of previous applications on site. In 2017 and 2020 permission was refused for construction of dwellings to the rear of the plot. In 2016 planning permission was granted for the Coach House to No. 11 to be converted into a separate dwelling. In 2017 planning permission reference 17/01010/FUL was granted for the conversion of the existing dwellings into five apartments.
Members were asked to note that the 2017 permission had not been legally implemented and would ordinarily have expired on 8th December 2020. However, under the Government emergency Covid-19 legislation the timeframe for this permission was automatically extended until 1st May 2021. Given this automatic extension, the permission was extant and therefore a material consideration on this proposal.
Officers further explained that the proposed dwelling was sited on the parking areas for the approved apartments and the approval of planning permission could result in the displacement of vehicles should both permissions be implemented. The applicant had therefore agreed to enter into a Unilateral Undertaking with the Council to revoke the extant 2017 planning permission onsite given that they had outlined a preference to implement this current proposal.
The application was for the erection of a detached dwelling adjacent to No. 7 Marlborough Avenue. The dwelling would be sited in the building line with the existing built form along Marlborough Avenue and would infill the existing side garden of No. 7. The dwelling had been designed to reflect the character and fenestration details of No. 7 and parking to the front with the formation of a new vehicular access.
The application site was located within the residential area of Bromsgrove, in a sustainable location. Therefore, Policy was supportive of residential development so long as it respected the character and appearance of its surroundings and did not impinge on the residential amenities enjoyed by occupiers of existing nearby development.
The application site formed part of a number of sizable, individually designed dwellings along the eastern side of Marlborough Avenue. Most of the dwellings along this part of the street had some space at the boundary, however, it was an urban area with a consistent built form of development on both sides of the street.
The proposed dwelling had been provided with approximately 1m space at each boundary. The proposal maintained a 3m distance to No. 7 and a 2m distance to the proposed dwelling at No. 11. These dwellings were also set back from the road, with mature vegetation along the front boundary retaining this open verdant character.
Officers further drew Members attention to the Heritage Asset and the comments received from the Conservation Officer as detailed on page 78 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. A. Morley addressed the Committee in objection to the application. Mr. T. Lynch addressed the Committee with regards to landscaping and Mr. S. Stojsavljevic, the Applicant’s agent also addressed the Committee.
The Committee then ... view the full minutes text for item 74/20 |