DMBC

Planning application search

> Search Criteria > Search Results > Application Details
Application Details
Planning Application Ref:

P22/1516

Application Date:

14-Oct-2022

Registration Date:

08-Nov-2022

Decision Date:

13-Jan-2023

Application Type:

Full Planning Permission

Area:

Ward:

Pedmore and Stourbridge East Ward

Main Location:

50, REDLAKE DRIVE, PEDMORE, STOURBRIDGE, DY9 0RX

Proposal:

Single storey rear extension (following demoltion of existing conservatory)

Status:

Approved with Conditions on 13-Jan-2023

Comment:

This application has already been decided. You cannot comment on it

Applicant Details

Address:

50, REDLAKE DRIVE, PEDMORE, STOURBRIDGE, DY9 0RX 

Case Officer:

Bethany Shinton 

Agent Details

Title:

 

Forename/Initial:

 

Surname/Company Name:

Sam Priest 

Company Contact Name:

 

Address:

Priest Building Design, 59 High Farm Road, Halesowen, B63 4JL 

Decision Details

Decision:

Approved with Conditions on 13-Jan-2023 

Decision Date:

13-Jan-2023 

Publicity Details

Publicity Start Date:

 

Publicity End Date:

 

Conditions/Reasons For Refusal

Type Short Desc
Condition AHOU0B - Standard Householder B - Materials as Plans
 

Associated Media

View Documents associated with this Application.

Appeal Details

There are no appeal details for this application

Legal Agreements

There are no legal agreements for this application

Consultees

Name Address Last Letter Date Target Response Date
ANDY FERN

Interested Parties

Address Last Letter Date Target Response Date
 

Neighbours

Address Last Letter Date Target Response Date
52, Redlake Drive, PEDMORE, STOURBRIDGE, West Midlands, DY9 0RX
50A, REDLAKE DRIVE, PEDMORE, STOURBRIDGE, DY9 0RX
10, IRON BRIDGE WALK, PEDMORE, STOURBRIDGE, DY9 0SF
47, REDLAKE DRIVE, PEDMORE, STOURBRIDGE, DY9 0RX
 

Amendments

Amendment Type Notes Response Date Requested Cutoff Date Received Date
Plan 1. Amended plans were sought to remove the proposed rear dormer and loft conversion which was included on the original submission. The proposed dormer was considered excessive in terms of scale and massing and overly prominent and incongruous due to its proposed use of render on the walls of the rear dormer. The proposal was therefore considered contrary to guidance outlined in PGN17 – The House Extension Design Guide and due to the use of materials differing from the host dwelling’s tiled roof and could not be considered permitted development. Amended plans were provided removing the proposed dormer loft conversion as requested. 03-Jan-2023
 
HTS Name: wphappdetail-default.hts
Logical ID: WPHAPPDETAIL