top of page

Refused: Planning Application 955 Pershore Road

29/07/2022: The latest planning application has been refused for the same reasons the previous application was refused:

1 The scale and design of the proposed dwellings would be out of context with the surrounding properties and would be unduly dominant. The overall intensity of the proposed development would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area. As such it would be contrary to Policy PG3 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, Policy DM2 contained within the Development Management In Birmingham DPD, guidance in Places for All/Places for Living adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The site is within the Selly Park Conservation Area and the proposed replacement by virtue of its scale, design and the use of inappropriate materials would have a harmful impact upon the character and appearance of the conservation area. As such the proposed scheme would be in conflict with the paragraphs PG3 and TP12 of the Birmingham Development Plan (2017) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 The location of the proposed gates to the frontage of the site would provide insufficient manoeuvring space which would result in disruption to the free flow of traffic within the highway. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies PG3 and TP44 of the Birmingham Development Plan 2017, Policies DM14 and DM15 contained within the Development Management in Birmingham DPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

21/06/2022: A planning application has been submitted for two, three storey dwellings on the vacant lot at 955 Pershore Road. The details can be found here Comments supporting or objecting the proposal can be made here which must be made by 06/07/2022.

The building in this application appears to be identical to what was submitted in a previous application which was rejected, see the full report here. The summary was:

Residents had raised concerns largely in line with the planners findings:

  • it was too tall compared with the adjacent bungalow and Christ Church

  • it's side walls were close to the boundaries of the plot and would dominate the neighbouring properties and views from the street

  • it could be intended to be an HMO. Each property has 5 bedrooms and bathrooms plus study areas and a cinema room. As the application is for domestic use, the planner could not consider this concern.

bottom of page