Agenda item

Officers informed the Committee that the Application was validated on 6^th April 2023; and that the former District Councillor for the Lickey Hills Ward, former Councillor J. King had called the application in, to be determined by Planning Committee Members.  The current Ward Member, Councillor B. Kumar had also requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee Members. 

Officers presented the report and the presentation slides, as detailed on pages

42 to 59 of the main agenda report.

Officers highlighted that planning permission was granted for a two-storey dwelling at this site under reference 21/00312/FUL on 06.07.2021. Following this, planning permission was granted for a part two storey, part three storey dwelling at the site under reference 22/00978/FUL on 08.02.2023.

The elevations of the dwelling as approved under reference 22/00978/FUL were included within the presentation pack of the officer’s report.

The principle of the development which included its means of access from Lickey Square had been established and it was only necessary to compare the respective detailed changes between the proposal and the extant approvals in terms of its siting and appearance in considering whether the current application was acceptable or not.

The overall height of the dwelling would not exceed that of the development granted under reference 22/00978/FUL.

In this context, the proposed development would deliver acceptable design and would not harm the overall character and appearance of the surrounding area. It would comply with Policy BDP19 of the Bromsgrove District Plan (adopted January 2017).

As detailed on page 33 of the main agenda pack, to minimise the impact the development would have upon the occupiers of number 16 The Badgers having had regard to the perception of overlooking / loss of privacy raised during the consideration of earlier applications, the proposed dwelling had been rotated clockwise via its south-west corner by approximately 18 degrees such that the rear elevation would face more towards the south-west, looking less directly towards the side garden serving number 16 The Badgers. 

Officers further informed the Committee that the Council could not currently demonstrate a five-year housing land supply (3.23 years at the time of writing). The presumption in favour of sustainable development therefore applied in accordance with Paragraph 11(d) of the Framework. In this case, Paragraph 11 (d) ii commented that planning permission should be granted unless any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies of the Framework as a whole.  Significant weight should be attributed to the positive contribution the proposal would make towards addressing this current significant housing shortfall.

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. P. Ollis addressed the Committee in objection to the application.

Mr. D. Jones, the Applicant’s Agent addressed the Committee in support of the Application.

The Committee then considered the Application, which Officers had recommended that planning permission be granted.

Members raised a number of questions and concerns with regard to the following:

·         The Ecology Report being out of date.

·         The ground level difference and overall height of the proposed development, as detailed of page 32 of the main agenda report.

·         Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) with regard to separation distance, overbearance and overlooking with regard to the Juliet Balconies.

·         Not in keeping with neighbourhood dwellings.

·         Visibility Splay being met, the Committee needed to ensure that there was safe access.

The Highways Officer, Worcestershire County Council informed Members that there were two extant consents and that the visibility splay should not be reconsidered.  If Members were minded to refuse the application the developer could still continue to build to the two extant consents.  The consent granted on appeal by the planning inspectorate did not raise any concerns on the ability to deliver the visibility splay.  The proposed development was fully assessed and as detailed in the report, the visibility splay could be achieved.  The visibility plans submitted were accepted by the planning inspector.  Highways officers considered the rotation and screening to be ok in their view.

Officers further informed the Committee that dwellings 1, 2 and 3 would have Juliet Balconies, which would have a guard rail only; they would not be a ‘walk out’ balcony.  As detailed in Condition 7 on page 37 of the main agenda report.

Some Members continued to question the visibility splay being met and expressed their concerns that Planning Committee Members had not seen the access plan.

Members then debated if a Site Visit would be beneficial in order for Members to see the scale of the proposed development, access, visibility splays and any potential overlooking/overbearance.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the ‘Relevant Planning History’ as detailed on page 30 of the main agenda report.  Officers suggested that Members take caution when reaching a decision and referred to the application in 2016 that was refused by BDC and allowed at appeal subject to conditions; and the recent planning applications considered acceptable and therefore granted by previous Planning Committee Members.

Following on from the concerns and issues raised, some Committee Members were of the opinion that the application be deferred in order for Committee Members to conduct a Site Visit.

In response, Officers confirmed that a Site Visit could be arranged. 

Members agreed that a Site Visit was necessary in order to provide a clearer picture of the proposed development and that the visibility plan be viewed by Committee Members. It was important that Members ensured that access was safe.

Following on from this debate, an Alternative Recommendation was proposed that the application be deferred in order for Committee Members to attend a Site Visit and see the visibility plan.

On being put to the vote, it was

RESOLVED that the Application be deferred and brought back to a future meeting of the Committee once Planning Committee Members had carried out a Site Visit; and had seen the visibility plan.