The Committee considered an application for the amendment
of condition 2 of permission P14D0330 for the erection of a side
extension to the restaurant at 55 Sidbury.
Reason Why Being Considered by Planning
The application had been referred to Planning Committee at
the request of Councillor Denham.
The report set out the background to the proposal, the site
and surrounding area, the proposal itself, relevant policies,
planning history and representations and consultations where
There were no late papers circulated.
The application is for an amendment to condition 2 of
P14K0330 (the approved plans) to allow for revised proposals
showing an extended roof terrace with a glazed balustrade, a small
extension and relocated toilets. The
amendments were highlighted in paragraph 3.1 of the
applicants stated that they are only changing the approved plans to
provide for the balustrading around the roof as there was no
restriction placed on the original permission to prevent the roof
being used as a terrace for customers; they also conclude that the
toilet relocation is minor; and that a S73 application is the most
appropriate submission. In the course of the application, they have
supported the view that they do not need permission to use the roof
as a terrace with a legal opinion which was disputed by officers
(appendix 1 attached to the report refers).
The information was presented as set out by the Corporate
Director – Planning and Governance, in conjunction with a
powerpoint presentation for the
The following people had registered to speak on the
Frances Fosh and Sam
Coomber (Objectors) and Phillip Rawle
(Agent for the Applicant)
Key Points of Debate
The first objector,
whose property was adjacent to the proposal, raised concerns about
the relocation of the toilet block which would be placed up tight
to her garden wall. The property is
Grade II listed and the base of the wall is medieval. It was preferred that the toilet block be moved
back to where originally proposed which was less intrusive and
would have less of an impact upon the amenities of those living
The second objector,
who had properties in Amber Wharf, directly overlooked the roof
terrace and was concerned over the increase in noise
levels. The roof terrace proposed is
larger than originally allowed and would result in a loss of
responded to questions from Members in relation to noise and noise
prevention, location of the bottle bins and the location of the
toilets adjacent to the Grade II listed building wall.
The Senior Technical
Officer from Worcestershire Regulatory Services (WRS) referred to
the Noise Assessment carried out by the applicant, and raised no
objection to the application in terms of noise. The proposal for a
2.4m high wall adjacent to the roof terrace was seen as a
The agent for the
applicant in response stated that the toilet block would be built
independently from the wall and confirmed ...
view the full minutes text for item 131.