Agenda item

The planning application was for a two storey and a single storey rear extensions to 80 Ledbury Road, Netherton and a new 2 metre high boundary wall.

It was officer’s recommendation that planning permission be refused, for the reasons set out in the report. The Head of Development and Construction provided an overview of the application and highlighted a number of key issues within the report and update sheet.

Councillor Fitzgerald, Ward Councillor, addressed the Committee and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The planning history of this development was set out in the report and had been ongoing for a significant length of time.

·         Councillor Fitzgerald was speaking on behalf of Stewart Jackson and fellow Ward Councillor, Councillor Maqbool, who had all received complaints in relation to the development.

·         It was considered that the proposals reflected an overdevelopment of the site and were not acceptable.

·         The applicant had housed a large amount of rubble on the front of the sight, which continued to sour relations with neighbours.

·         The Councillor fully supported the reasons given by officers in the report for the refusal of planning permission.

·         There was concern that the applicant would continue with work regardless of the success of the application.

·         The extension of the boundary face infringed on land owned by the City Council. The applicant had not originally served notice on the Council, though had done so now.

·         It was considered that the expansion was to cater for a driveway, which the Councillor would object to.

Phil Branston, Agent, addressed the Committee in support of the application and responded to questions from Members. In summary the key points highlighted included:

·         The increased footprint of the ground floor was going through the prior approvals process.

·         The two storey element of the proposal would not impinge upon neighbours and fitted within the scheme of the building. As such, there would be no additional visual impact.

·         The extension of the boundary fence would still leave a wide space beyond. It was accepted that the applicant did not own this land and progress on this aspect would be investigated.

·         The applicant intended to live in the development with his family. As a developer it was felt more economical to tailor the dwelling to his requirements.

·         It was believed that the extension of the boundary was in order to gain access down the side of the property.

The Planning and Highways Lawyer advised Committee that Members were not permitted to speculate on the applicant’s future actions and that the ownership of land was not relevant to the application. This was addressed through private law and was not for Committee to consider.

The Committee agreed with the officer recommendations, considering that the application would have a detrimental impact on neighbours and that the extension was bulky and incongruous.

A motion was proposed and seconded to agree that permission be refused, as per officer recommendation. The motion was carried unanimously.

(unanimous) that planning permission is REFUSED for the reasons set out below.

Reasons for the decision

The proposal was unacceptable having been assessed in light of all material considerations, including weighing against relevant policies of the development plan and for the specific reasons given in the report.