Agenda item - 22/00483/FUL - Detached double garage (retrospective) - 1A St Catherines Road, Blackwell, Bromsgrove, B60 1BN - Mr. D. Jones

Agenda item

22/00483/FUL - Detached double garage (retrospective) - 1A St Catherines Road, Blackwell, Bromsgrove, B60 1BN - Mr. D. Jones


It was noted that there was no Committee Update for this Application.


Officers clarified that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor J. E. King, Ward Councillor.


It was noted that Councillor J. E. King, had registered to address the Committee for this item as Ward Councillor. Councillor J. E. King left the meeting room and only returned to address the Committee, under the Council’s public speaking rules.


Officers presented the report and presentation slides, and in doing so, highlighted that the application was a retrospective application for a detached double garage.


The property was detached and was situated at a road junction with ‘Greenhill’ to the south, and St Catherine’s Rd to the east. Access to the property was via St. Catherine’s Rd. The property was constructed in the 1970’s as a single storey bungalow. A loft conversion which included the insertion of several dormer windows was implemented following the granting of planning permission for these works in 2019, as set out in the planning history, as detailed on page 106 of the main agenda report.


An earlier application for a detached garage in this location of the site was submitted under planning ref 17/01401/FUL and was refused planning permission on 26.02.2018 for the reason, as detailed on page 106 of the main agenda report.


Despite this, a detached garage was erected in this location. A new planning application was submitted on 01.03.2021 (planning ref 21/00321/FUL) seeking the retention of the garage. This retrospective application was refused planning permission on 26.04.2021 with no appeal being lodged.


Officers highlighted that, the current application before Members, submitted on 01.04.2022, again, sought the retention of the detached garage.


No.1a St Catherine’s Road sat at the end of a row of dwellings which were mostly detached and were well set-back from the highway. The application site, like its neighbour, 1 St Catherine’s Road had a substantial front garden, and a characteristic and consistent building line existed.


The host dwellings’ plan form and plot size were similar to that of No. 1 St Catherine’s Road and No. 3 St Catherine’s Road which were situated to the north.


The garage was substantial in size and was positioned approximately 8.4m forward of the dwellings' principal elevation. It was located within close proximity of the St Catherine’s Road / Greenhill junction. The garage was considered to be prominent in appearance and the siting of a substantial garage adjacent to the highway was considered to be at odds with the pattern of development locally.


Consequently, the garage appeared as an unduly dominant and obtrusive feature at the core of the village, harming the street scene in this highly prominent location.


Officers referred to the objection received from Lickey and Blackwell Parish Council, who had objected to the application, commenting that the garage was too large and that earlier applications had been refused planning permission.


In summary, the garage as erected was unduly prominent within the street scene and at odds with the pattern of development locally, harming the character and appearance of the area.


Approval of this application would conflict with Policy BDP19 of the Bromsgrove District Plan and Policy BD2 of the Lickey and Blackwell and Cofton Hackett Neighbourhood Plan which amongst other matters, collectively required that development enhanced the character and distinctiveness of the local area and provided support for well-designed proposals that were in keeping with their surroundings.


The application would be inconsistent with guidance set out within the Councils High Quality Design SPD which advised that outbuildings set forward of the principal elevation would not usually be appropriate as it may harm the character of the street scene. It would also be contrary to the provisions of the NPPF which seek well-designed places.


At the invitation of the Chairman, Councillor J. E. King, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee.


Members then considered the application, which officers had recommended be refused.


Some Members commented that the structure was not out of character and that a garage, needed for storage, could not have been erected anywhere else on the site.


Other Members commented that if the detached garage was being solely used for storage only, then access could have been gained at the side of the building. Members also commented that the garage was hidden by a laurel hedge, however, the Committee should be consistent with the Councils High Quality Design SPD, with regard to outbuildings.


Members questioned the removal of the dormer windows and in response officers reiterated that the Committee needed to consider the application before them.


Members stated that whilst they respected the statement made by Councillor J E. King, Ward Councillor, in support of the retrospective application; Members agreed with officers that the retrospective application be refused.


RESOLVED that Planning Permission (retrospective) be refused for the reason as detailed on page 107 of the main agenda report.

Supporting documents: