The application was being reported to the Planning Committee because on objection hadbeen received from a statutory consultee which had not been resolved through the course ofdealing with the application. As such the application fell outside the Scheme of Delegation to Officers.
Officers presented the report and in doing so, drew Members’ attention to the presentation slides on pages 1-12 of the Site Plans and Presentation Pack.
The application was for demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a new 4 bedroom replacement dwelling in the same position as the original on the Site of 55 Alcester Road, Feckenham.
Officers drew Members’ attention to the image BoRLP Proposal Map as detailed on page 2 of the Site Plans and Presentations Pack and highlighted to Members the properties position as being just inside the green belt.
Officers informed Members that there was an existing prior approval detailed on page 8 of the Site Plans and Presentation Pack, this prior approval was for two single storey rear extensions to the property and had been approved under the larger homes scheme. Officers further detailed to Members that this application represented an extant fallback position with regards to development and would thus compare the proposed application to this fallback position.
Officers further compared the two applications highlighting that the proposed application had a smaller footprint than the extant prior approval.
Officers informed the Committee that the property was classified as a non-designated heritage asset. However, due to a number of extensions and modifications to the property, Officers believed the harm to the Councils cultural assets would be low.
In conclusion, having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, Officers recommended that planning permission be granted.
At the invitation of the Chair Mr J Scoffham of J S Architects spoke in support of the application.
Members then asked questions of the Officers.
Members enquired as to the extent to which the property would retain its original features and thus its cultural significance, Officers replied that there had been substantial building work carried out on the property and therefore the property retained very little historical heritage.
Members sought clarification on the table as detailed on page 24 of the Public Reports Pack, Officers explained that the table compared the proposed application to the extant prior approval and that out of the 5 measured criteria, 3 showed that the application had a smaller footprint and thus a lesser impact on the greenbelt.
Members then considered the application which Officers recommended be granted.
Members commented on the property being a non-designated heritage asset, in considering the extent of the modifications Members did not believe that any real heritage aspects had been retained.
Members commended the developers on their plans for a low carbon footprint property. Members also highlighted the commitment to recycle and reuse building materials and waste during demolition and in the construction of the new property.
Members further commented that they did not believe that the application should be compared to the extant prior approval, and expressed the view that they should only consider the current application and not any potential future developments. Officers informed Members that the extant prior approval was a valid fallback position and therefore it would be suitable to compare the application against.
On being put to a vote it was
Having had regard to the development plan and to all other material considerations, planning permission be granted subject to the Conditions outlined on pages 25 to 27 of the Public Reports Pack.