Three-bedroom dwelling at 41 Walton Road, Aldridge, Walsall

The site and surroundings

The proposed dwelling would sit at the end of the rear garden, face Northgate and adjoin residential properties and industrial units.

“A site visit was carried out on 21-Feb-2024 and 03-Apr-2025.”

“The applicant seeks full planning permission of a new dwelling house at the end of the rear garden of number 41 Walton Road, this amended proposal has been submitted for consideration following previous refused application 23/1271 and following pre-application advice. Number 41 fronts Walton Road and has a large rear garden which boarders Northgate.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and advice

A similar application was refused in March 2024, and pre-application advice said the authority was unlikely to support the proposal.

“2: The design of the proposal new dwelling with distance of 20 metres between the habitable windows of the proposed dwelling and rear properties of Walton Road and 5.6m high and 14.18m long wall hard up against the side garden boundary with No 39 Walton Road would create a perceived mass of brick wall visible from particularly the rear of 35-39 Walton Road, and their private rear amenity space and would have a detrimental impact on the amenity and outlook of these neighbours…”

“Pre-application submission: ENQ/0582 Proposed three bedroom dwelling in rear garden of 41 Walton Road, with access from Northgate. Response provided 05-Nov-2024 and on 21-Jan-2025 to amended plans submitted: Therefore, on balance, it is unlikely that the local planning authority would be able to support this proposal, due to the design impact on street scene and neighbouring amenity.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the amended plans did not overcome the design, amenity, conservation, highway and biodiversity concerns.

“This application is considered to not accord with local and national planning policies and guidance as set out in this report. The amended plans are more accurate than previous plans submitted however by reason of its poor design, scale and size, is visually incongruous and over dominant, failing to harmonise with the established character of the surrounding area.”

“Officers have considered that the amended plans are more accurate in terms of the siting of the dormers, the minor changes to the internal layout and a cross section of the lowering of the land level is provided, although it is noted there is no scale on this plan to ascertain if these measurements are correct. However, the plans are still not wholly accurate.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The Highway Authority and Natural England objected, while Public Health and Severn Trent Water raised no objection subject to matters being addressed.

“Objection - The Highway Authority had previously asked for information to be provided by the developer at the pre-application stage should a planning application be submitted. This has not been provided to demonstrate safe access into the site and parking spaces are achievable. (These concerns will be discussed within the body of the report).”

“Objection – Regarding Cannock Chase SAC and Biodiversity duty contained within Annex A – Natural England general advice. (These concerns will be discussed within the body of the report).”

Officer report

Comments from neighbours

No comments were received from neighbours or other interested parties.

“Neighbour and interested parties’ comments (planning officer’s summary)”

Officer report

Who spoke

The agent spoke in support, saying the access had been used for years, the proposal fitted the mixed street scene and neighbours supported it.

Questions and debate

The agent accepted there was no dropped kerb, while the highways manager said required information was missing and classified-road access concerns were unlikely to be overcome.

“Responding to questions, [name withheld] stated that there was not an existing dropped kerb at the proposed access and that the applicant was prepared to include a dropped kerb as a condition. He added that the applicant had resided at the property for twenty-five years and the proposed access had been used as such for much of this time.”

“Responding to questions, the Development Control and Public Rights of Way Manager explained that the highways comments from February 2024 had required that numerous conditions be met to achieve highways approval and the necessary information to meet these conditions had not been provided, hence the objection to the current application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Councillors moved and seconded refusal, which was approved by a majority vote.

“Following a period of debate, it was moved by Councillor Hicken and seconded by Councillor Waters and upon being put to the vote it was;”

“That Planning Committee refuse planning permission for application 25/0159 for the reasons set out in the officer’s report.”

Minutes