Single-storey home extension at 17 Apple Tree Walk, Ombersley, Droitwich Spa

What was proposed

Retrospective permission was sought for a single-storey side and rear extension, two replacement front windows and a rear rooflight.

“Permission was granted in March 2023 (ref: W/22/02596/HP) for the erection of a two-storey side extension and single storey rear extension to the detached dwellinghouse. Following this a further application to amend the scheme was granted in May 2024 (ref: W/24/00601/HP). The changes included the reduction in size and scale of the development and amending the design to result in a single storey flat roof garage.”

“This application seeks to regularise the as-built development which differs from the approved plans as discussed above. The amended scheme is for a single storey side and rear extension, replacement of two front elevation windows and installation of 1 rooflight to the rear. The changes to the plans involve a much-reduced size and scale compared to the previous permissions.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the proposal was smaller, subservient, acceptable in design and unlikely to harm the street scene or conservation area.

“Whilst the scheme does include timber cladding as the facing material which differs from the main brick built dwelling, which is also the predominant material within the street scene, the dwelling is set back from the roadside and the extension is stepped in from the front elevation. This reduces the visual massing of the extension and its impact upon the street scene and surrounding area.”

“Whilst it is noted that the scheme is of a modern design which differs from the host dwelling and surrounding building environment, Policy SWDP21 is not inimical to modern design since it provides that new and innovative designs will be encouraged and supported where they enhance the overall quality of the built environment.”

Officer report

What consultees said

The conservation officer raised concerns about timber cladding but later considered the proposal’s visual impact lower than the earlier permitted design.

“There are no objections to the principle of this development from a built heritage perspective. Neither are their objections to the height of the single storey structure. However, the photos provided highlight how much the timber clad finish of the proposal stands out from its neighbours and as such may detract further from the setting of the conservation area.”

“In light of the fact that the property already has permission for a timber clad extension this has set a precedent for use in this instance. As such it is considered that the proposal would have a lower visual impact on the setting of the CA than the previous design. In order to help the cladding blend in with the surroundings quicker it may be helpful if the visible elevations of timber cladding were stained to a grey colour.”

Officer report

What residents said

Six neighbours objected to the appearance, materials, neighbouring impact and alleged failure to follow planning guidance.

“The material planning objections raised have been summarised by the case officer to include:”

“Harmful impact on the character of the area • Materials to front elevation changed to vertical cladding and not brick • Negative effect to nearby neighbours’ properties • Does not comply with planning guidelines • Visually intrusive and not in keeping with architectural character of Appletree Walk • Distasteful and eyesore • Side windows to be opaque glazing – all windows to be aluminium not mixed with UPVC • Reduction in size from original plans • Omission of brick…”

Officer report

Who spoke

The applicant spoke in support and answered questions about the panelling and whether further extension was intended.

What members discussed

Councillor Chris Day considered the timber panelling and flat-roofed structure out of character and suggested replacing the front wall with brick.

“The Local Member, Councillor Chris Day was concerned that the wood panelling was out of character for Ombersley and that the approved application for brick was more in-keeping with the neighbouring properties. In addition he stated that the solid wooden structure with a flat roof was out of keeping.”

“Councillor A M Rowley was disappointed that there had been no site visit and requested that site visits be automatic if there is a question of design.”

Minutes

The committee decision

The committee delegated authority to grant retrospective permission subject to conditions, including privacy film, drainage and grey staining of the timber cladding.

“To delegate authority to the Director of Planning and Infrastructure to grant planning permission subject to the planning conditions listed, allowing for any subsequent amendments to the planning conditions as required by the Director of Planning and Infrastructure.”

“Within 1 month of the date of the permission hereby granted, an opaque privacy film shall be fitted to the windows at ground floor on the side elevation of the extension as shown in drawing 22/SOBEY/04F. The privacy film shall be permanently retained in that condition thereafter.”

Minutes