The Committee considered an application for a
detached garden room at 18 Broadfield
Reason Why Being
Considered by Planning Committee
The application had been referred to Planning
Committee at the request of Councillor S. Hodgson on the grounds as
set out in paragraph 1.2 of the report.
The report set out the background to the
proposal, the site and surrounding area, the proposal itself,
relevant policies, planning history and the representations and
consultations where applicable.
The Committee’s attention was drawn to
the late papers which related to neighbour/medical practice letters
of support for the proposal.
The information was presented as set out by
the Deputy Director – Economic Development and Planning, in
conjunction with a powerpoint
presentation for the item.
The Development Management Team Leader drew
the Committee’s attention to paragraph 6.1 of the report,
which stated that site notices had been displayed as part of the
consultation. This had not been the
case, however all required consultations had taken
The Committee were also asked to note that no
comments had been received from the Consulting Arborist and as no
response had been received within the 21 days deadline, it is
assumed there is no objection.
The Development Management Team Leader stated
that although the outbuilding would be clearly visible he did not
consider the proposal unacceptable or equated to an unacceptable
degree of harm.
The following people had registered to speak
on the application:
John Reed on behalf of Mr and Mrs Bishop
(Objectors) and James Hughes on behalf of Darren Smith
Key Points of
The speaker, on behalf of the objectors, raised their concerns and
asked the Committee that their comments be noted. The concerns related to drainage and insufficient
information on plans, no reference to the roof slope for which they
have concerns about flooding, close proximity of tree on boundary,
height of building which is above permitted development, over
bearing in size and no cladding at rear of the proposed
The Chairman in response informed the speaker that the roof was to
be flat and does not have a pitch, according to plans seen, also
the officers report provides comments from the South Worcestershire
Land Drainage Partnership (SWLDP) which
provides some answers to the drainage issues.
The speaker in response welcomed the suggestions by the SWLDP but
still had concerns over the roof, where would the water run to even
if the roof was flat, it needs to go somewhere.
The speaker, on behalf of the applicant, in response informed the
Committee that he was aware of some of the issues, particularly the
drainage, the ground conditions are not suitable for a
soakaway. The property has an
individual defined storm system. The
height of building was reduced by using a warm roof to cold roof
construction. With regard to the
cladding, he would be happy to take advice from planning officers
on what would be suitable for the neighbours.
In response to a question ...
view the full minutes text for item 42.