Additional storey at Holly House, Bromsgrove

What was proposed

The applicant sought a first-floor extension creating three en-suite bedrooms and two walk-in wardrobes, increasing the home from three to four bedrooms.

“Proposal Planning permission is being sought for a first-floor extension to the existing bungalow to create an additional storey. The rooms that would be created would serve as three en- suite bedrooms and two walk-in wardrobes.”

“This additional storey would require the raising of the existing roof ridge height form the current maximum height of 6 metres to a height of 8.6 metres.”

Officer report

The site and setting

Holly House is a detached bungalow in a residential area, with retaining walls and fencing beside higher-level properties towards Swallows Close.

“Site Description Holly House is a detached bungalow located within a residential area in the north of Bromsgrove. The host dwelling was constructed following the granting of permission under application 22/00681/FUL.”

“Due to differing land levels, an existing retaining wall and fencing borders the curtilage of the property to the North and West towards properties along Swallows Close, which are set a higher level than Holly House.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval, concluding that the proposal complied with design policies and would not harm neighbours’ amenities or the area’s visual qualities.

“Conclusion I am satisfied that the living conditions and amenities enjoyed by neighbouring properties would not be harmed by this development having regard to matters including loss of light, outlook or privacy. The proposals are also considered to be acceptable in all other aspects, in compliance with the Bromsgrove District Plan, the High Quality Design SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework 2024 and would not result in harm to the visual amenities of the area.”

“RECOMMENDATION: That planning permission be GRANTED”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s planning agent spoke in support, while the ward councillor spoke against the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed the proposed obscure, non-opening front windows and officers’ view that facing habitable-room windows did not require a minimum separation distance.

“Members then debated the application. From the comments and questions by members of the Committee, the following responses were made, and issues highlighted: • It noted that it was proposed that the first- floor windows to the front elevation would be non-opening and obscure glazed. • Officers considered that the proposal as amended did not require a minimum separation distance due to the lack of first-floor, facing habitable room windows.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The committee voted to grant planning permission, subject to the conditions in the agenda.

“RESOLVED that having had regard to all the information before them and all other material considerations that planning permission be granted, subject to Conditions as detailed on page 58 of the main agenda pack.”

Minutes

Conditions on approval

The permission included conditions on starting within three years, approved plans, matching materials, no additional first-floor windows and obscure, non-opening bathroom windows.

“4) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (England) Order 2015 (as amended) (or any Order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification) no additional windows, similar openings or enlargement thereof shall be constructed at first floor level, except for any which may be shown on the approved drawings.”

“5) The first floor windows to the front elevation that would serve en-suite bathrooms shall be fitted with obscure glass (Pilkington Glass level 3 or above, or equivalent) and shall be non-opening. The windows (and any subsequent replacement of those windows) shall remain so in perpetuity.”

Officer report