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 Application, which Officers had recommended for approval.
Some Members commented that they were aware of the previous planning application. The officers report had highlighted that the size and positioning of the proposed extension would usually comprise permitted development and would therefore not have required planning permission.
In response to the condition suggested during Councillor English’s address to the Committee, officers reminded Members that conditions needed to be reasonable. As detailed on page 9 of the main agenda report, the required minimum garden standards found in the Council’s SDP, would not normally be applied to existing dwellings when considering extensions.
RESOLVED that Planning Permission be Granted, subject to the amended Condition as detailed on page 1 of the Committee Update.