Forthcoming Council Meetings
(No meeting in January)
6th February 2012 (Blackwell)
5th March 2012 (Lickey)
2nd April 2012 (Blackwell)
14th May (Lickey)
All meetings start at 7.30 but a Councillor will be available from 7.10pm- Lickey Venue - The Trinity Centre, Old Birmingham Road, Lickey
- Blackwell Venue - The Wheel, St Catherines Road, Blackwell
Planning Applications
| List of Planning Applications |
|
Anyone with access to the web can view the details by logging on to Bromsgrove District Council’s Public Access siteand using the Application Number. More information is available on the Planning page
Application Number: 11/0246
LBPC decision: - tba BDC Decision: Expiry date for standard consultations: tba Application Number: 11/0236 LBPC decision: - Concerns BDC Decision: Expiry date for standard consultations: 7/4/2011 Application Number: 11/0224 LBPC decision: - No objection BDC Decision: Permitted Application Number: 11/0223
LBPC decision: - No objection BDC Decision: Expiry date for standard consultations: 14/4/2011
Application Number: 11/0198
LBPC decision: - No objection BDC Decision: Expiry date for standard consultations: 11/4/2011
Application Number: 11/0171 LBPC decision: - No objection BDC Decision: Expiry date for standard consultations: 8/4/2011
Application Number: 11/0079 LBPC decision: - Withdrawn BDC Decision: Application Withdrawn Application Number: 11/0060 LBPC decision: Objection BDC Decision: Permitted
Application Number: 11/0036 LBPC decision: Concerns Expiry date for standard consultations: 15/2/2011 Application Number: 10/1237 LBPC decision: Objection BDC Decision: Permitted
Application Number: 10/1206 LBPC decision: No objection. Although it is in a prominent position in an Area of Great Landscape Value, we do not believe it will have a detrimental affect.
Application Number: 10/1205 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/1179 LBPC decision: tba Application Number: 10/1154 LBPC decision: No objection, providing the proposed new roof height is not tall enough to dominate the neighbouring property. There are no indications of the difference in height between the existing and proposed new building. BDC Decision: Permitted
Application Number: 10/1135 LBPC decision: No objection
Application Number: 10/1112 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/1101 7 Dunedin Drive, B45 8HZ LBPC decision: Objection. We did not object to 09/0991, the application to replace the existing bungalow, but this application to replace it with two houses raises our concern. Application Number: 10/1097
LBPC decision: No objection BDC Decision: Refused
Application Number: 10/1093 LBPC decision: Objection. The garden is not large as described in the application, and there is now a presumption against such "garden grabbing". Though we acknowledge that the new proposed dwelling is smaller than in the previous application, it has an increased footprint, and therefore the dwelling would still appear squeezed in. The site is on a busy cross roads with bus stops, the village shop and the entrances to St Catherine's Church and the Blackwell Methodist Hall adjacent or very close. Application Number: 10/1091 LBPC decision: Objection. The increased height of the extension appears out of scale and will dominate neighbouring properties.
Application Number: 10/1084 LBPC decision: No objection
Application Number: 10/1027 3 Plymouth Road, B45 8JE LBPC decision: Objection. It is in the Barnt Green Conservation Area and, whilst we appreciate that the proposed design is attractive and "in keeping", the size and position of the extension is too close to the neighbouring property and will give a "squashed in" appearance inappropriate in such an Area.
Application Number: 10/1011 LBPC decision: Objection. Application Number: 10/1005 LBPC decision: Objection. We note that the proposed dwelling is smaller than previous applications. However our objection is against another dwelling in a back garden. Twatling Road has had many such developments over recent years and the nature of the road is in danger of being changed irrevocably. Our Village Design Statement is against sub-division of plots, and there is a new presumption against "garden-grabbing". Application Number: 10/0980 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0974 LBPC decision: Objection. Our Village Design Statement is against sub-division of plots, and there is a new presumption against "garden-grabbing". Moreover the building design itself is further against our VDS which states in 9.3 "New houses should generally reflect the character, setting and style of the housing in the immediate vicinity." Blakes Field Drive is predominantly bungalows set in spacious plots. The decision to permit 6A to be built in the over-imposing style in its dominant position at the highest point in the drive was criticised at the time. We do not want this to be made worse by the building of another such house. Application Number: 10/0973 LBPC decision: Objection. Our Village Design Statement is against sub-division of plots, and there is a new presumption against "garden-grabbing". Application Number: 10/0970 LBPC decision: Objection. The proposed extensions are large and imposing, and would have an impact on the street scene. Also, the proposed metal gated entrance goes against our Village Design Statement which states such gates should be avoided and "if they must be used they must be set well back out of sight" Application Number: 10/0949 LBPC decision: Objection. First of all, contrary to the application statement, there are trees/hedge that will have to be removed to create the access. Our Village Design Statement has a presumption against the destruction of hedges, and it is not clear why a new access is needed. The field has what appears to be better access already. The proposed access will be more difficult to manoeuvre into than the existing entrance. Application Number: 10/0948 LBPC Decision: We are unclear about this application, which states that no hedge or trees are to be affected, but in the plan no mention is made of the existing hedge and tree. Our Village Design Statement, which values hedges, states: 11.3 No tree/hedge should be felled, especially if...it is at the front of the property. We object to the removal of the hedge and tree and urge that, if the fence and gates are essential for security reasons, that they be placed behind the hedge, so that the semi-rural nature of the area is maintained. Application Number: 10/0894 LBPC Decision: Objection. Whilst appreciating the changes made since 10/0372, we still consider that our fundamental concern that the density of dwellings in the area is increasing and is in danger of changing the character of the area has not been addressed. In particular we think that applications should be considered in the light of BDC's Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment where on page 9, under Appropriate Densities for Potential Sites, it states "Some of the smaller settlements in the district such as Barnt Green and Blackwell are characterised by large properties with large gardens." and our Village Design Statement's Settlement guidelines, 7.2 "preserve the openness in residential areas by avoiding subdivision of plots and in-fill development." Application Number: 10/0887 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0869 LBPC decision: Objection. There is now a presumption against such "garden grabbing". The access to the proposed dwelling is along a bridle path. There is at present no vehicular access at the Greenfield Avenue end of the bridle path. There will be no access into Greenfield Avenue as the right of access is privately owned. So a narrow bridle path would be changed into a single carriageway access drive. The increased traffic generated by this proposal along such a narrow path will be a danger to riders and pedestrians. Application Number: 10/0827 LBPC decision: Objection. The garden is not large as described in the application, and there is now a presumption against such "garden grabbing". The dwelling would be, and look, squeezed in. The site is on a busy cross roads with bus stops, the village shop and the entrance to the Blackwell Methodist Hall adjacent or very close. The Parish Council values the village shop and there are concerns that developing the garden may reduce its future viability by limiting future plans. Application Number: 10/0826 LBPC decision: No objection, providing the single storey roof terrace will not impinge on the privacy of neighbouring properties Application Number: 10/0825 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number:10/0824 LBPC decision: Objection. The application is contrary to our Village Design Statement adopted by BDC as Supplementary Planning Guidance. In this there is a presumption against large metal gates unless they are set well back, which these are not. They would adversely change the character of the cul de sac. Application Number: 10/0817 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0813 LBPC decision: No objection, though we have concerns that the extension of the drive area may need separate planning permission unless a permeable surface is used. Application Number: 10/0810 LBPC decision: As an ecologically aware Parish Council, we welcome efforts by our residents to reduce their carbon footprint. We note that this design is better for wildlife and is quieter than the propeller design. However the site is in the Green Belt and in an Area of Great Landscape Value and so special care must be taken in the position of such a turbine. It may be that a smaller scale model would be more appropriate as this 10Kw unit seems designed for a commercial enterprise, small farm and the like, as opposed to a consumer requirement. Previously this Parish Council, along with others, asked for guidance from BDC on the size and siting of such installations, but we are not aware of any being drawn up. Therefore this seems to us to be a test case. For this reason we have asked for the plans to be called in and a site visit to be made. We, also, have concerns that the neighbouring properties have not been informed, and the public notice has been sited badly. This has lead to some local disquiet. Application Number: 10/0792
LBPC decision: No objection
Application Number: 10/0774 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0765 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0757 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0637 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0613 LBPC decision: No objection, provided the guide lines from the Bat Survey & Tree Officer are adhered to. Application Number: 10/0610 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0587 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0543 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0533 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0519 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0518 12 Shepley Road, B45 8JW LBPC decision: Objection: The house is in the Barnt Green Conservation Area. We have concerns that the particular character of the house will be significantly changed. Application Number: 10/0488 LBPC decision: Objection. There are serious concerns about this application. The profiling of the site will have flooding implications for neighbouring properties. We would urge that the biodiversity of the site be looked at. We, also, want the transportation of materials to and from the site to be considered as Greenhill is a steep and narrow lane. We are surprised that this is not part of a wider application so that the landscaping is seen in the context of the future development plans for Wadderton. We have asked for this application to be called in and for a site visit. Application Number: 10/0471 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0458 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0457 LBPC decision: Objection. It undermines our Village Design Statement 11.4 "Trees and hedges should be retained as boundaries in preference to brick walls, wooden or metal fencing.". We prefer the previous permitted entrance plans (08/0628) of planting and wooden gate as more in keeping with the character of Dale Hill. Application Number: 10/0419 LBPC decision: Objection. It contradicts our Village Design Statement which values hedges and states: 11.3 No tree/hedge should be felled, especially if...it is at the front of the property. Application Number: 10/0385 BDC Decision: Permitted
Application Number: 10/0312 LBPC decision: No objection Application Number: 10/0245 LBPC decision: Objection. It is contrary to the settlement guidelines in our Village Design Statement (VDS) which states that "Lickey and Blackwell and Marlbrook should be protected against becoming part of the urban sprawl by the following means: preserve the openness in residential areas by avoiding sub- division of plots and in-fill development, especially if it joins areas of housing previously seen as distinct and separate; . maintain current density levels, which vary through the parish, wherever possible." Moreover, the site is adjacent to the Barnt Green Conservation Area, so is particularly sensitive. The size and density of the proposal also contradicts building guidelines in the VDS which states that "New houses should generally reflect the character, setting and style of the housing in the immediate vicinity." The density of the building will be obtrusive to the neighbouring properties. The access road will be too narrow to have a pedestrian pavement, which, in view of the fact that there are 5 dwellings proposed, is a potential hazard. The application states that there is no flooding risk, whereas the properties in Plymouth Road and Brookhouse Road have had a history of problems with flooding, which could be exacerbated by this development. We have concerns that this will affect the wildlife of the area. Many of the trees on the site have TPOs and it is hard to see how the dwellings can be built without major effects on these and the related wildlife. Our VDS places great emphasis on retaining trees and hedges. Furthermore the application makes no reference to the badger sett which abuts the hedge of the proposed site, and may well continue into the site. A similar scheme was rejected by both BDC and the Planning Inspectorate in 2001/2, and the current application is not materially different enough to change the reasons for rejection then. New Government guidelines no longer consider gardens as brown field sites. We request that this application be referred to the planning committee and recommend a site visit. |