Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Allcock, Chapman and K Singh.

Members to declare any interests in matters to be discussed at the meeting.

Councillor Dhallu declared a personal interest in planning application DC/21/65543 because of a personal acquaintance with the objector.

To confirm the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2021 as a correct record.

Resolved that minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2021 are a correct record.

Planning Application DC/21/65438 – Proposed two/single storey side/rear extensions to extend existing Class E unit at ground floor with 6 bed HMO (house in multiple occupation) at first floor with residential parking at rear. 686 Wolverhampton Road, Oldbury, B68 8DB.

The Service Manager – Development Planning and Building Consultancy reported that an extra condition – provision and retention of a refuse storage area – had been requested by the planning officers.

There were no objectors or applicants present.

In response to member questions, the Committee noted the following:-

·      7 objections had been received and summarised within the report. No objectors had registered to speak at the meeting;

·      The applicant had not arrived to speak to the committee;

·      Three parking spaces had been provided at the property which was deemed adequate.

The Committee was minded to approve the application, subject to the conditions, including the extra condition requested above, now recommended by the Interim Director - Regeneration and Economy.

Resolved that planning application DC/21/65438 is approved, subject to conditions relating to the following:-

(i) External materials;

(ii) Noise assessment to safeguard HMO residents;

(iii) Contamination;

(iv) Cycle storage to be provided and retained;

(v) Boundary treatments;

(vi) Highway improvements to facilitate parking;

(vii) No subdivision of Class E unit;

(viii) Construction work limited to Monday to Friday 8.00 am to 6.00 pm, Saturday 8.30 am to 1pm, with no activity on Sundays or national holidays;

(ix) Provision and retention of a refuse storage area.

Planning Application DC/21/65762 – Proposed dormer window to front. 4 Newton Close, Great Barr, Birmingham, B43 6DJ.

It was noted that a site visit of the applicant’s property had been undertaken prior to the committee meeting. Councillors Allen, Dhallu, S S Gill, Z Hussain, Millar, Kalari and Webb attended the site visit and were lobbied by both the applicant and the objectors on site.

The Committee received some further information that had been submitted by the objectors after the site visit.

An objector was present and addressed the Committee with the following points:-

·      The proposed extension would result in a loss of privacy, light and significant loss of amenities for the surrounding properties;

·      The proposed extension was overbearing on the surrounding properties;

·      The extension would fill the patio area and extend into the lawn area of the property;

·      Amended plans to lessen the massing of the extension had not been submitted;

·      The proposal did not meet the minimum 21 metre separation distance for privacy, with 18.3m measured at one point between habitable windows (between dining room of the rear property and the rear window(s) of this extension);

·      Additional 4m two storey rear extension would exacerbate privacy concerns;

·      From the objector’s measurements, the applicant’s property sat in an elevated position of 1.5m. The objector said a change in ground levels was considered by some other local authorities as a factor when calculating minimum separation distances;

·      Birmingham City Council policy was cited by the objector, which required separation distance to be increased by 2 metres for every 1 metre rise in ground level;

·      Sandwell Residential Design Guide, page 56, paragraph 1 was quoted: ‘Separation distance of 21 metres (minimum) between building rear faces from two storey dwellings, rising to 27.5 metres for three storeys and above and/or where main living room and kitchen windows are located above ground floor, or the potential for overlooking existing neighbouring dwellings exists’;

·      The objector argued that this paragraph warranted the required separation distance to be increased for 27.5m as the difference in storey and ground levels existed at 27 Monksfield Avenue;

·      The extension would obstruct the sun reaching the rear of no. 29 Monksfield Avenue in winter months;

·      The objector questioned the location of the window from which projection angle to the neighbouring property was measured. It was claimed the measurement was not taken from the closest bedroom window;

·      The objector argued the extension did not comply with guidelines of the Sandwell Residential Design Guide.

The applicant was present and addressed the Committee with the following points:-

·      The planning officers had now recommended twice (the item was deferred at the previous meeting of the Planning Committee) that this planning application should be approved in its current form;

·      The design of the extension meets all the guidelines imposed by Sandwell Council;

·      Neighbouring properties to the rear and to the side already had similar extensions;

·      Planning officers’ report stated the separation distance of the proposed extension was measured at 22 metres to the property at the rear;

·      The applicant met with neighbours to explain the design of the extension and give the opportunity for  ...  view the full minutes text for item 65/21

Planning Application DC/21/65543 – Proposed single and two storey rear extension. 27 Monksfield Avenue, Great Barr, Birmingham, B43 6AP.

The Service Manager – Development Planning and Building Consultancy reported that the application generated no objections from the neighbours. It was considered before the committee because the agent worked for Sandwell Council.

Resolved that planning application DC/21/65762 is granted subject to external materials to match the existing property unless otherwise agreed by the local planning authority.

The Committee noted the planning applications determined by the Interim Director - Regeneration and Growth under powers delegated to her as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

The Committee noted that the Planning Inspectorate had made the following decisions in relation to appeals against refusal of planning permission:-