Replacement five-bedroom dwelling at 6 Whittington Road, Worcester

The site and surroundings

The existing dwelling sits centrally within a large sloping plot, accessed from a dual carriageway, beside a public footpath and near an oil pipeline.

“The application site relates to a detached dwelling which is set within the centre of a large, elongated plot set within a hillside, wherein the land slopes down in a southerly direction.”

“The dwelling is accessed via a private driveway from Whittington Road (the A44), a dual carriageway, to the north and is set back approximately 60m from the road with the intervening space comprising a large mature garden and tarmac parking area.”

Officer report

Earlier planning history

Earlier advice generally supported a replacement dwelling, while a previous refused application concerned an additional bungalow and was not directly comparable.

“Prior to the submission of the planning application, the applicant submitted a pre- application under reference 25/00043/PA seeking Officer advice pertaining to the principle of a replacement dwelling. Although the advice is confidential and not available for public perusal, Officers were generally supportive of the replacement dwelling proposals.”

“Planning permission was refused under reference P00K0178 for: ‘Construction of new bungalow’. It should be noted that this was for a new bungalow in the front driveway/garden area, in addition to the existing dwelling and not for a replacement dwelling and as such this application is not directly comparable to the current application.”

Officer report

Why officers supported it

Officers considered the replacement dwelling acceptable in design, neighbouring amenity, green space, environmental, historic, drainage, highway and energy terms.

“The application is considered to be in accordance with the development plan which is not outweighed by any other material considerations in this case. All comments received as part of the consultation process have been acknowledged and it is considered that all material planning issues have been considered in the determination of this application.”

“Furthermore, the development is considered to comprise acceptable design in accordance with Policy SDWP 21, and results in acceptable impacts to the natural environment, historic environment, drainage and flooding, highways safety, energy efficiency and the nearby pipeline. The development is considered to be acceptable, broadly according with the SWDP and NPPF when read as a whole and is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.”

Officer report

What consultees and residents said

Residents raised concerns about scale, privacy, overlooking, daylight, drawings and excavation, while two neighbours supported the design and consultees raised no objections subject to conditions.

“Consultations 6.1 Formal consultation, including four separate neighbour notification periods, 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 original and amended proposals and are summarised as follows: Neighbours and other third-party comments: The application was subject to an initial 21-day consultation period, and three further…”

“November 2025 - three letters were received one in objection and two in support. The comments are summarised below: Whittington Gate (object) Comments carried forward from 1 st , 2 nd and 3 rd consultation events: - Impact on Residential Amenity: iii) Overbearing; ii) loss of privacy and overlooking.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant’s agent and architect spoke about design, neighbouring amenity, sustainability, drainage and the request to approve the application.

What members discussed

Members discussed sustainability, drainage, permitted development controls, neighbouring concerns and the importance of the site visit.

“The agent and architect provided further clarification on the comments of the Land Drainage Partnership who stated that the surface water strategy and the pump solution was not deemed satisfactory. Committee Members were informed that a second expert on drainage was appointed and revised details were submitted. The proposal was now to discharge via a new gravity fed surface water sewer.”

“In referring to Permitted Development rights, the Head of Planning and Economic Development referred Committee Members to condition 8 which referred to no extensions, porches, roof additions or outbuildings without first obtaining planning permission. Condition 9 also limits the use of the green roof area.”

Minutes

The committee vote

Members approved the proposal with eleven votes in favour, no votes against and no abstentions.

“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, subject to…”

Minutes

The decision

Planning permission was granted subject to the conditions set out in the officer recommendation.

“RESOLVED: That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report.”

Minutes