Two-bedroom dwelling at Land adj 21 Henwick Road, Worcester

What was proposed

The application proposed an end-terrace two-bedroom dwelling with one rear parking space accessed from Grosvenor Walk.

“The submitted proposals relate to the erection of an end of terrace two bedroom dwelling house adjacent to the Grosvenor Public House and No. 21a Henwick Road. The proposed dwelling looks to continue the existing row of terraces adjacent to the pub. The proposed dwelling includes parking for one vehicle to the rear of the site accessed off Grosvenor Walk. The application is accompanied by a full set of plans together with a suite of supporting documents that include:”

“Location and Block Plan (Drawing No: D01) Proposed Drawing (Drawing No: D03. Rev: B) Existing Drawing (Drawing No: D02)”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The site is a gap beside the Grosvenor Arms and modern terraced homes on a busy road leading towards Worcester city centre.

“The site and surrounding area 2.1 The application is located along Henwick Road adjacent to the Grosvenor Arms public house, the site is an existing gap between the pub and adjacent modern terraced properties which were given planning permission under application P15K0370. Henwick Road is a busy road within the St Johns Area leading into Worcester City Centre.”

“The application site is not listed or located within a Conservation Area, however the St Johns Conservation Area is located on the opposite site of the road opposite to the Grosvenor Public House to the south of the site. There are also some listed buildings opposite the site including, St Clement’s Church, No. 28 and No. Henwick Road which are all Grade II Listed. The site is also within an Archaeologically Sensitive Area.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the scheme complied with the development plan, added a home and caused no unacceptable harm after conditions.

“To ensure that full details of renewable energy measures are submitted, a condition is recommended within section 9 of this report, it is therefore considered that subject to satisfactory discharge and compliance with the recommended condition that the proposals are in compliance with Policy SWDP 27.”

“Overall, it is considered that the submitted scheme is acceptable, and as amended represents sustainable development which result in no harm that has not been addressed through suitable conditions, it is therefore recommended that planning permission is approved subject to conditions.”

Officer report

Consultation responses

The highway authority raised no objection subject to conditions, the archaeology officer requested investigative work, and the drainage partnership sought a drainage condition.

“Worcestershire County Council (Highway Authority): ‘Worcestershire County Council acting in its role as the Highway Authority has undertaken a full assessment of this planning application. Based on the appraisal of the development proposals, the Transport Planning and Development Management Team Leader on behalf of the County Council, under Article 18 of the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order, 2015 has no objection subject to…”

“South Worcestershire Land Drainage Partnership: ‘The surface water drainage details submitted within the Water Management Statement are, in principle, satisfactory. A suitable drainage condition should be attached.”

Officer report

Residents’ views

No third-party comments were received on 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: No third party comments have been received. Worcester City Council Archaeological Officer: ‘The proposed development is within an area of moderate archaeological potential.”

Officer report

Who spoke

No one registered to speak, and the officer presentation was given by the Head of Planning and Economic Development with a presentation.

What members debated

Members debated the narrow access, cycling restrictions, parking practicality, highway use, maintenance, amenity space and possible overdevelopment.

“Councillor Udall, who had called-in the application, raised several questions about the proposal, his main concern was the access through a very narrow footpath which has got a cycling prohibition upon it. He commented that if ii is considered inappropriate for cycling, then it would be inappropriate for vehicles. The Development Management Services Manager responded to each question raised.”

“Some Members still had concerns over the parking aspects, although parking at the rear does exist it was commented that it is hardly ever used. This is because it is inconvenient for the residents to use it because it is too far away from the properties concerned. They then park on the highway or on the space which is currently under discussion for this application, and it was considered that would remain unchanged.”

Minutes

The committee vote

The proposal to approve was seconded and passed with nine votes for, one against and one abstention.

“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 the additional conditions set out in the late paper and the additional condition for foul and surface water drainage.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee granted planning permission subject to the report’s conditions, updated condition numbering, archaeology and landscaping conditions, and a drainage condition.

“RESOLVED That the Committee grant planning permission, subject to the conditions set out in section 9 of the report, as updated in the Late Paper and an additional condition for foul and surface water drainage.”

Minutes