Agenda item

Further information on an additional representation, received on 22^nd May 2025, from Worcestershire County Council (WCC), Highways, raising two points of objections to the application, were detailed on page 3 of the Committee Update.

A copy of the Committee Update was provided to Members and published on the Council’s website prior to the commencement of the meeting.

It was noted that the Application had been brought to the Planning Committee for consideration at the request of Councillor R. E. Lambert, Ward Councillor.

Officers drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides, as detailed on pages 97 to 104 of the main agenda pack.

Officers presented the report and in doing so highlighted that the application was for a first floor rear extension and annex with ancillary use to the existing dwelling in the rear garden.

By its nature as a rear extension, the proposal would not be visible from the street scene and therefore would not impact upon the character of Lodge Crescent. Officers were content that the proposal was compliant with the 45 degree guidelines set out in the Council’s adopted High Quality Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

At the invitation of the Chairman, Mr. L. Billingham, speaking on behalf of local neighbours, addressed the Committee in objection to the Application. Mrs. C. Jones, the Applicant addressed the Committee (via Microsoft Teams). Having submitted their apologies, the Council’s Legal Advisor, read out a speech provided by Councillor R. E. Lambert, Ward Councillor.

Members then considered the application, which Officers had recommended that planning permission be granted.

Councillor A. Bailes then referred to the following:-

·       Page 95 – ‘The use of this structure is considered acceptable’. There was no information as to what the proposed structure would be used for.

·       Bromsgrove Development Plan - BDP 8.198 Development in residential gardens.

·       BDP19 n. - High Quality Design, Development of garden land.

·       BDP SPD section 3.17 – Overbearance, dominating extension contrary to BDP High Quality SPD.

·       Parking – Was there any evidence to show that 3 cars could park safely on the existing driveway without reversing onto the highway?

·       WCC, Streetscape Design Guide – with 6 or more bedrooms more car parking spaces were required.

Councillor A. Bailes further referred to the objections from WCC, Highways, as detailed on pages 93 and 95 of the main agenda pack, and an additional representation, as detailed on page 3 of the Committee Update.

In response Officers stated that the use of the proposed annexe would be ancillary, with no facilities for cooking, washing or washing clothes. As stated on page 95 of the main agenda report, a building of this type could be constructed under permitted development rights with a reduced height of 2.5m.  The concerns raised had been considered against the planning balance.

The Highways Officer was consulted with and had provided comments, and in doing so had quoted paragraph 116 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), which stated that there would need to be an unacceptable impact on highway safety and that the impacts on the road network would be severe. However, Officers were of a different opinion, in that the proposed extension would not be contrary to paragraph 116 of the NPPF.

The Development Management Manager took the opportunity to explain that 3 vehicles could be parked on the existing driveway. The requirement with the proposed extension would be 4 vehicles. As seen during the Site Visit, there was unrestricted parking on Lodge Crescent. One vehicle parked on the highway would not cause significant harm to the road network.

Members commented that at previous Planning Committee meetings they were told to listen to WCC, Highways as they are the experts, and yet Members were in this instance being asked to ignore their objections.

The Development Management Manager stated that Officers would struggle at an appeal on the grounds of the application being refused due to the lack of one parking space.

Councillor E. M. S. Gray stated that after listening to the Applicant and with the curvature of the road being explained, Councillor E. M. S. Gray stated that she did not have a problem with the proposed annexe being on the side and rear garden of the existing property. The proposed extension would not have an impact upon the character of the area.

Councillor A. Bailes further reiterated that in his opinion there were several reasons to refuse planning permission.

In response to a query from Councillor J. Clarke with regards to the images showing the orientation of the sun, as referred to by the Applicant during her address to the Committee; the Chairman took the opportunity to announce a comfort break whilst Officers directed Councillor J. Clarke to the images.

The meeting stood adjourned from 20:24 pm to 20:30 pm.

Having reconvened, the Chairman read out the recommendation, as detailed on page 96 of the main agenda report.

On being out to the vote, with four Members voting in favour of the recommendation and four Members voting against the recommendation; under the Council Procedural Rules, the Chairman used their casting vote, to vote in favour of the recommendation.

RESOLVED that Planning Permission be granted, subject to the Conditions as detailed on page 96 of the main agenda pack.