Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor J. E. King, Ward Councillor.
Officers drew Members’ attention to the Relevant Planning History, as detailed on page 200 of the main agenda report and in doing so, informed the Committee that, with regard to Planning Application 19/01388/FUL, this was post adoption of the Neighbourhood Plan and that significant weight had been given to it by the Planning Inspector. The presentation slide, as detailed on page 23 of the main agenda report, detailed the development allowed at appeal.
Members were further informed that under consideration of planning application 20/00759/REM (Reserved Matters for 5 dwellings) to the rear of 32 to 36 Lickey Square, the density of development on the site as a whole (5 rather than 3 which would occur if planning permission were to be granted under this application) was much higher, with gardens serving the dwellings being relatively modest in comparison. Here, the occupiers would benefit from a garden area measuring approximately 400m square metres in area, which would greatly exceed the Councils minimum requirement as set out in the High-Quality Design SPD which was 70 square metres and 10.5m garden length. Therefore, officers were that the proposed dwelling would experience acceptable access to light and would not put remaining trees at undue risk of pruning in the future.
Officers highlighted that both Worcestershire County Highways and the Arboricultural Officer had raised no objections.
Officers further drew Members’ attention to the Residential amenity considerations, as detailed on pages 203 and 204 of the main agenda report.
At the invitation of the Chairman, Dr. P. Ollis addressed the Committee in objection to the Application. Mr. D. Jones, Planning Agent addressed the Committee on behalf of the Applicant and Mr. S. Knock addressed the Committee, in objection to the Application, on behalf of Lickey and Blackwell Parish Council.
The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended for approval.
Officers responded to questions from Members with regards to the objections raised in respect of the separation distance and explained that the Council’s High Quality Design Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) served as a guide to calculate the appropriate separation distance between habitable windows of properties that directly faced each other. It specified that a minimum separation distance of 21 metres was required where existing and proposed habitable rooms windows directly faced each other. Further details on separation distance were detailed under ‘residential amenity considerations’ on pages 203 and 204 of the main agenda report.
Members commented that the Appeal allowed 2 detached dwellings under Planning Application 19/01388/FUL.
Officers further responded to questions regards the proposed rear orangery.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted subject to the Conditions as detailed on pages 205 to 208 of the main agenda report.
At this point in the proceedings the Chairman announced that the meeting be adjourned in order for everyone to take a comfort break.
Accordingly, the meeting stood adjourned at 19:50pm and reconvened at 20:00pm.