Solihull Metropolitan Borough Council’s planning committee will be asked to make a decision on the plan, pictured below, tomorrow night.
Click the headline or link below to read the rest of this story.
The case officer recommends the new application, below, be rejected.
Their report says: “The proposed dwelling due to its considerable width, height, depth and scale represents an uncharacteristically large and bulky development, appearing squeezed in to what is a small plot in relation to the size of the dwelling proposed.
“As such the proposal would appear as a discordant feature within the streetscene which would be seriously harmful to the character, appearance and local distinctiveness of the area.”
It comes after it this month threw out a plan to demolish 62 Avenue Road, above left, for two detached two-storey homes. The council’s planning officer recommended approval.
But the committee rejected it, saying of 58 and 62: “They make a positive contribution to the local distinctiveness and character of the area. the proposed development would result in the loss of this spacious character, in particular by reducing the space to the side of the plot which would appear cramped and at odds with the space afforded to the dwelling on the opposite corner.
“This would erode the spacious and balanced nature of the entrance into Spring Coppice Drive thus having an adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area.”
Some 37 letters opposed the plan. A scheme for one home was rejected last month as it would ‘cramp the site’.
One says: “The development is out of character with the area and has a detrimental
impact on the streetscene.”
Another says: “Development represents garden grabbing contrary to guidance.”
The Government changed the definition of previously developed land – which is easier to get council permission to build on – to remove garden land to halt ‘garden grabbing’.
But a council planning officer’s report said this ‘does not create a presumption against housing on all garden sites’ and the plan must show ‘site specific harm’ to be refused.
Meanwhile, a bid to knock down a bungalow at 18 Knowle Wood Road, first picture, right, for two detached two storey homes was approved on January 6.
The case officer said: “It is considered that the proposal is of a size, siting, scale, design and character to respect the character, appearance and local distinctiveness of the streetscene and will not be unduly detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of any nearby dwellings.”
What do you think? Leave your comments below. No registration required.
Click here to get stories by email.
