Two-storey extensions and loft conversion at 10 Perrywood Walk, Worcester

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for front, side and rear extensions, a loft conversion and a rear dormer window.

“The submitted application seeks retrospective planning permission for the erection of a two-storey side extension, single-storey front and rear extensions, and a loft conversion incorporating a rear dormer window.”

“The development carried out and subject to this retrospective application differs from the previously approved scheme in a number of respects. These include the addition of a rear dormer as part of the loft conversion, the two-storey rear extension now has a gable end rather than the previously approved hipped roof, there are also alterations to the position and design of certain windows and doors, and the rooflights within the front roof slope have been introduced.”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The property is a brick house in an established residential area, similar in age, size, design and construction to nearby homes.

“The site is located within an established residential area of the Cathedral Ward. The property is of brick construction with a tiled pitched roof. The property is of a similar age, size, design and construction to neighbouring properties within the street scene.”

“The property is not in a conservation area and it does not adjoin any listed buildings. An extract of the submitted Location Plan is included as follows.”

Officer report

Earlier planning permission

An earlier permission approved two-storey side and single-storey front and rear extensions, but the built development included several changes.

“Previously approved planning application 22/00757/HP is of particular relevance to the consideration of the current proposals. That permission allowed for the erection of a two-storey side extension and single-storey front and rear extensions.”

Officer report

Main planning effects

Officers considered the design, privacy, light, parking, biodiversity and drainage effects acceptable, subject to conditions.

“The submitted parking plans were considered by the Highway Authority during the course of the previously approved planning permission 22/00757/HP. No objections were raised. The previously approved scheme did not include any cycle parking. As this application relates solely to amendments to that approved development, it would not be reasonable or consistent with planning principles to impose a new requirement for cycle parking at this stage.”

“The report does however recommend that to improve roosting opportunities for local bats, a bat box could be installed onto the building. A condition has therefore been recommended for the provision of a bat box. To provide a further biodiversity enhancement, a condition for a bird box has also provided. As the application is retrospective, it is recommended that these are installed within one calendar month from the date of any planning permission.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

Five objections and one general comment raised concerns about privacy, the dormer, overdevelopment, drainage, parking, boundaries and possible extra bedrooms.

“Formal consultation has been undertaken in respect of the application. The following comments from statutory and non-statutory consultees and interested third parties have been received in relation to the proposals and are summarised as follows: Neighbours and other third party comments: During the course of the application, a total of five objections and one general comment has been received.”

“South Worcestershire Land Drainage raised initial concerns with the lack of information submitted with regards to drainage. A revised drainage plan was however subsequently submitted and South Worcestershire Land Drainage commented stating that the submitted drawing, showing the location of the proposed soakaway, is in principle satisfactory.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The Head of Planning and Economic Development presented the application, while the registered applicant speaker could not attend.

Members’ discussion

Members discussed the rear construction, parking, retrospective permission, the dormer, boundaries, possible bedrooms and the property’s context.

“Some Committee Members did not like retrospective applications and asked if these were a regular occurrence. The Development Management Services Manager explained how retrospective applications come about, some are related to design changes during construction, which then need to be regularised, hence the retrospective application.”

“Reference was made to the concerns of residents who felt that the property would become a seven-bedroom property if the proposed use of rooms were changed, this would also require more parking spaces. The Development Management Services Manager stated that it was difficult to see that seven bedrooms could be created that would provide adequate sizes.”

Minutes

The vote

Members voted eight for, three against and none abstaining on a proposal to approve the application.

“A proposal to approve the application had been made and this was seconded. There being no further points made the Chair requested the voting of each Member of the Committee who were eligible to vote. Following the recording of the votes the proposal was agreed as recommended, with the amendment to condition 3 as set out in the Late Paper.”

Minutes

The committee’s decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to the report’s conditions and an amendment to drainage condition 3.

“RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report and the amendment of condition 3 as set out in the Late Paper.”

Minutes

Conditions of permission

Conditions covered approved plans, biodiversity boxes, drainage works, future roof additions and obscure glazing to a side window.

“February 2026). Boundary and 45 Degree Cose Assessment Plan Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations Plan Location Plan Existing Floor and Elevations Plan Reason: To ensure compliance with the approved scheme. Within a period of one calendar month from the date of this planning permission, at least one bat box and one bird box shall be installed externally within the ownership of No. Perrywood Walk.”

“Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (or any other order revoking and re-enacting that Order with or without modification), no roof additions under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A, B, C and E to the property hereby approved shall be undertaken without the express consent of the Local Planning Authority.”

Officer report