Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM · Recommendation Members are recommended to: (i) note the advice set out in the Legal Context and Implications; ... Counties Co-op v

Agenda Item No: 6

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 7th December 2010 Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND ENVIRONMENT Contact Officer(s) Stephen Alexander (Head of Development Control) Telephone Number(s) (01902) 555610 Title/Subject Matter PLANNING APPLICATIONS Recommendation Members are recommended to: (i) note the advice set out in the Legal Context and Implications; (ii) determine the submitted applications having regard to the recommendations

made in respect to each one.

2

PLANNING COMMITTEE (7th December 2010) Legal Context and Implications The Statutory Test 1.1 S70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 provides that where a local planning

authority is called upon to determine an application for planning permission they may grant the permission, either conditionally or unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit or they may refuse the planning permission. However, this is not without further restriction, as s.70 (2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 requires that the authority shall have regard to the provisions of the development plan so far as material to the planning application and to any other material considerations. Further, section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that determinations of planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Officers will give guidance on what amounts to be a material consideration in individual cases but in general they are matters that relate to the use and development of the land. Conditions

1.2 The ability to impose conditions is not unfettered and they must be only imposed for a planning purpose, they must fairly and reasonably relate to the development permitted and must not be manifestly unreasonable. Conditions should comply with Circular Guidance 11/95.

Planning Obligations

1.3 Planning Obligations must now as a matter of law (by virtue of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010) comply with the tests set down in the Circular 5/2005, namely, they must be:

i) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms ii) Directly related to the development; and iii) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

This means that for development or part of development that is capable of being charged Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), whether there is a local CIL in operation or not, it will be unlawful for a planning obligation to be taken into account when determining a planning application, if the tests are not met. For those which are not capable of being charged CIL, the policy in Circular 5/2005 will continue to apply."

Retrospective Applications 1.4 In the event that an application is retrospective it is made under S73A of the Town and

Country Planning Act 1990. It should be determined as any other planning permission would be as detailed above.

Applications to extend Time-Limits for Implementing Existing Planning

Permissions 1.5 A new application was brought into force on 1/10/09 by the Town and Country

(General Development Procedure) (Amendment No 3) (England) Order 2009 (2009/2261) and the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2009 (2009/2262).

1.6 This measure has been introduced in order to make it easier for developers and LPAs

to keep planning permissions alive for longer during the economic downturn, so that they can be more quickly implemented when economic conditions improve. It is a new

3

category of application for planning permission, which has different requirements relating to:

• the amount of information which has to be provided on an application; • the consultation requirements; • the fee payable.

1.7 LPA's are advised to take a positive and constructive approach towards applications

which improve the prospect of sustainable development being taken forward quickly. The development proposed in an application will necessarily have been judged to have been acceptable at an earlier date. The application should be judged in accordance with the test in s.38(6) P&CPA 2004 (see above). The outcome of a successful application will be a new permission with a new time limit attached.

1.8 LPAs should, in making their decisions, focus their attention on development plan

policies and other material considerations (including national policies on matters such as climate change) which may have changed significantly since the original grant of permission. The process is not intended to be a rubber stamp. LPA's may refuse applications where changes in the development plan and other material considerations indicate that the proposal should no longer be treated favourably.

Reasons for the Grant or Refusal of Planning Permission 1.9 Members are advised that reasons must be given for both the grant or refusal of

planning decisions and for the imposition of any conditions including any relevant policies or proposals from the development plan.

1.10 In refusing planning permission, the reasons for refusal must state clearly and

precisely the full reasons for the refusal, specifying all policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision (art 22(1)(c) GDPO 1995).

1.11 Where planning permission is granted (with or without conditions), the notice must

include a summary of the reasons for the grant, together with a summary of the policies and proposals in the development plan which are relevant to the decision to grant planning permission (art 22(1)(a and b) GDPO 1995).

1.12 The purpose of the reasons is to enable any interested person, whether applicant or

objector, to see whether there may be grounds for challenging the decision (see for example Mid - Counties Co-op v Forest of Dean [2007] EWHC 1714.

Right of Appeal 1.13 The applicant has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State under S78 of the Town

and Country Planning Act 1990 against the refusal of planning permission or any conditions imposed thereon within 6 months save in the case of householder appeals where the time limit for appeal is 12 weeks. There is no third party right of appeal to the Secretary of State under S78.

1.14 The above paragraphs are intended to set the legal context only. They do not and are

not intended to provide definitive legal advice on the subject matter of this report. Further detailed legal advice will be given at Planning Committee by the legal officer in attendance as deemed necessary.

The Development Plan 2.1 Section 38 of the 2004 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act confirms that the

development plan, referred to above, consists of the development plan documents which have been adopted or approved in relation to that area.

4

2.2 Wolverhampton’s adopted Development Plan Documents are the saved policies of Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (June 2006) and the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy.

Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

3.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) require that where proposals are likely to have significant effects upon the environment, it is necessary to provide an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to accompany the planning application. The EIA will provide detailed information and an assessment of the project and its likely effects upon the environment. Certain forms of development [known as 'Schedule 1 Projects'] always require an EIA, whilst a larger group of development proposals [known as 'Schedule 2 Projects'] may require an EIA in circumstances where the development is considered likely to have a “significant effect on the environment”.

3.2 Schedule 1 Projects include developments such as:-

Oil Refineries, chemical and steel works, airports with a runway length exceeding 2100m and toxic waste or radioactive storage or disposal depots.

3.3 Schedule 2 Projects include developments such as:-

Ore extraction and mineral processing, road improvements, waste disposal sites, chemical, food, textile or rubber industries, leisure developments such as large caravan parks, marina developments, certain urban development proposals.

3.4 If it is not clear whether a development falls within Schedule 1 or Schedule 2 the applicant can ask the local authority for a “screening opinion” as to which schedule is applicable and if Schedule 2, whether an EIA is necessary.

3.5 Even though there may be no requirement to undertake a formal EIA (these are very rare), the local authority will still assess the environmental impact of the development in the normal way. The fact that a particular scheme does not need to be accompanied by an EIA, is not an indication that there will be no environmental effects whatsoever.

5

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS WARD PAGE NO 10/01067/RP Golden Eagle

Hordern Road Wolverhampton WV6 0HJ

Park Page 9

Application Type Change of use

10/00887/FUL The New Highcroft Public

House Old Fallings Lane Wolverhampton WV10 8BU

Bushbury South And Low Hill

Page 16

Application Type Smallscale Major All Other Development

10/00923/FUL Land Adjacent To 286

Aldersley Road Wolverhampton WV6 9NN

Tettenhall Regis Page 28

Application Type Minor Dwellings

10/01134/FUL 130 Castlecroft Road

Castlecroft Wolverhampton WV3 8LU

Tettenhall Wightwick

Page 38

Application Type Minor Retail

10/01002/FUL 1-3 Hinchliffe Avenue

Wolverhampton WV14 9PQ

Spring Vale Page 45

Application Type Minor Dwellings

10/01136/FUL 14 Corfton Drive

Wolverhampton WV6 8NR


Page 52

Application Type Householder - Resubmission

6

10/01096/FUL Braybrook Centre Bellamy Lane Wolverhampton WV11 1NN

Wednesfield South

Page 58


10/01105/FUL Wednesfield High School

Lichfield Road Wednesfield WV11 3ES

Wednesfield South

Page 67


10/01106/FUL Coppice Performing Arts

School Ecclestone Road Wolverhampton WV11 2QE

Wednesfield North Page 75


10/01108/FUL South Wolverhampton And

Bilston Academy Prosser Street/Dudley Street Bilston WV14 0QD

Bilston East Page 85


10/01022/FUL Land At Selbourne Crescent

Wolverhampton WV1 2EB

East Park Page 97

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling

10/01079/VV Lidl

Finchfield Hill Wolverhampton WV3 9EN


Page 104

Application Type Smallscale Major Retail

7

10/01128/DWF Waste And Recycling Service

Hickman Avenue Wolverhampton WV1 2BU

East Park Page 109


10/00814/OUT Land Adjacent To Unit E5

Hilton Trading Estate Hilton Road Wolverhampton

Spring Vale Page 115

Application Type Largescale Major All other developments

10/01053/OUT Molineux Stadium

Waterloo Road Wolverhampton WV1 1SB

St Peters Page 127


10/00998/RC Bankfield Works

Greenway Road Wolverhampton WV14 0TJ

Bilston East Page 141


10/00928/FUL Autherley Junction

Oxley Moor Road Wolverhampton WV9 5HW

Oxley Page 147


10/00685/VV Alameda Gardens

Aldersley Wolverhampton

Tettenhall Regis Page 155


8

10/01066/FUL Site At The Rear Of

61 Crowther Street Wolverhampton WV10 9AG


Page 161


10/00972/FUL

& 10/00973/LBC

Moseley Hall Farm House Moseley Road Bushbury Wolverhampton WV10 7HZ

Bushbury North Page 171

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling & Listed Building Consent (alter-extend)

10/00931/FUL 5 Rollesby Drive

Wolverhampton WV13 3JG

Bilston North Page 184

Application Type Householder

10/01018/DWF Park And Ride

Showell Road Wolverhampton WV10 9LD


Page 189


9

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Dec-10

COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 Situated on the junction of Court Road and Hordern Road the application site is a

former public house, which prior to the present use was closed for a period. The original building was a good example of an interwar public house in a Neo-georgian style and is locally listed.

1.2 The building is ‘L’ shaped and has entrance doors on both the Court Road and

Hordern Road frontages. There is an enclosed car park to the rear, accessed off Court Road. The immediate vicinity does have parking restrictions along both Hordern Road and Court Road.

1.3 The area is predominantly populated by residential properties with a mixture of

terraced and semi – detached house types. There is retail, commercial and educational facilities in close proximity to the site.

2. Application Details 2.1 The application is for a retrospective change of use from public house (A4) to

Community Centre (D1). There have been a number of comments from residents referring to the use as a place of worship. However both uses are contained within the same use class as defined within the Use Classes Order 2005 and the application should be determined as a change of use to D1.

2.2 The community centre will cater for the needs of the Kurdish Community, providing

facilities that will include educational services, prayer facilities, religious guidance and social provision.

2.3 There have been a number of alterations to the building, some of which require

planning permission, but these works do not form part of this application and are currently being investigated by the Planning Enforcement Team. Although the use has commenced the works to the rear car park have not yet been completed.

APP NO: 10/01067/RP WARD: Park

DATE: 17-Sep-10 TARGET DATE: 12-Nov-10

RECEIVED: 17.09.2010 APP TYPE: Retrospective Planning Permission SITE: Golden Eagle, Hordern Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Retrospective Application for change of use from public house to community

centre APPLICANT: Mr Iftikhar Ahmed Perton Solutions Limited 21 Lytham Road Perton Wolverhampton WV6 7YY

AGENT:

10

2.4 The internal works have resulted in significant changes to the interior of the building.

On the ground floor there is a meeting room which can hold up to one hundred people, an office, washing facilities, two classrooms, a kitchen and two storerooms. On the first floor there are three further rooms and toilets.

3. Planning History 3.1 There is no relevant planning history for this property. 4. Relevant Policies The Development Plan 4.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

D1 Design Quality EP1 Pollution Control EP5 Noise Pollution HE19 Development Affecting a Local List Bldg C1 Health, Education and Other Community Services C2 Location of new comm. serv. development C3 Community Meeting Places AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

Other relevant policies 4.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development 4.3 PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment 4.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents 4.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 4.5 Regional Spatial Strategy 5. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 5.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and

Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) require that where certain proposals are likely to have significant effects upon the environment, it is necessary to provide a formal "Environmental Impact Assessment" to accompany the planning application. (This is explained at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications).

5.2 This development proposal is not included in the definition of Projects that requires a “screening opinion” as to whether or not a formal Environmental Impact Assessment as defined by the above regulations is required

11

6. Publicity 6.1 Twenty-four representations have been received in objection to the application these

comments can be summarised as follows:

• A high volume of traffic generated by the use is detrimental to highway safety. • The onsite car parking provision is inadequate • On street car parking by visitors to the Centre is causing problems for

residents. • Unacceptable location for a community centre at a busy road junction. • Use of the centre at night causing noise nuisance. • The Centre use is restricted to only a certain section of the community.

6.2 One letter in support of the application has also been received. 7. Internal Consultees 7.1 Access Team - The disabled persons parking bay should be marked out correctly and

the main entrance should be accessible. 7.2 Historic Environment Team - No objection on historic environment grounds to the

change of use. 7.3 Environmental Services – If food is to be prepared on site then the applicant should

ensure a system for the effective control of cooking odours is installed. There is potential for noise nuisance to local residents from persons accessing/leaving the premises and delivery/refuse collection activities.

7.4 In order to limit the opportunity for noise nuisance it is recommended that if planning

permission is granted for this proposal conditions are imposed on the permission which restricts opening/delivery times. There is also potential for noise nuisance to neighbours from amplified music and other sources of entertainment at the premises.

7.5 Planning Policy Section - Providing the applicants can meet the requirements of

Policy C3 there are no objections to the proposal. 7.6 Transportation Development – The current operation of the community centre

regularly results in significant amounts of related on-street parking on Hordern Road and Court Road. It is therefore clear that a significant proportion of attendees to the community centre, particularly at prayer times travel to the site by car. The proposed off-street parking provision of fourteen spaces is insufficient to meet the demand of the current community centre operation. This clearly conflicts with the information submitted in support of the planning application.

7.7 After careful consideration of the information Transport Strategy are unable to support

this application in its current form as the observed operational parking issues and the Parking Services report show that the community centre use is resulting in inappropriate manoeuvres and parking which could be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic.

8. External Consultees 8.1 CAMRA - object to the proposal as in their opinion the use is contrary to UDP Polices

HE18, HE19, AM6 and C3

12

9. Legal Implications 9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. 9.2 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment: Those parts of the historic environment

that have significance because of their historic, archaeological or artistic interest are called heritage assets in the Statement including those which are not designated, including locally listed buildings, but are of heritage interest and are thus a material planning consideration. Accordingly in considering the impact of the development on a heritage asset account should be taken of the significance of the heritage asset and the heritage asset’s conservation and any aspect of the development. This consideration has been more particularly addressed in paragraphs 10.4 to 10.8.

[KR/05122010/Z] 10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issues are: -

• The principle of the change of use • Implications of the use for the locally listed building • Noise generated by the use • Car parking and highway safety

The Principle of the Use

10.2 UDP Policies C1 and C2 seek to protect sites and buildings in community use. 10.3 The established use of the building as a public house confirms the building is a

community meeting place. Therefore although there is a difference in class use as defined by the Use Classes Order 2005, and planning permission is required, the principle of the site to facilitate community activities is established. Therefore providing the proposal meets the requirements of the relevant policies set out within the UDP there is no objection to the use in principle.

Implications of the use for the Locally Listed Building 10.4 At the local level Policy HE19 sets out the criteria for development that affects a locally

listed building. 10.5 The application building dates from 1926 and is a good example of the work of local

architect W. A. Hutchins. The building is locally listed due to the architectural merit of both the interior and exterior features. PPS5 is therefore relevant, this states that the impact on such an historic asset should be taken into consideration.

10.6 The public house had been vacant for a period of time and bringing the building back

into use is welcomed. The change of use of the building to a community centre will not in itself have an adverse affect on the features of special character or historic interest and the use therefore complies with UDP Policy HE19.

10.7 Unfortunately a number of internal alterations have taken place prior to this application

without the Council being able to record the features. However these works did not require planning permission and they do not form part of this application. New UPVC windows have also been installed to the street frontages. These windows do require planning permission, however the windows are not part of this application and are being investigated by the Planning Enforcement Section.

13

Noise Generated by the Use 10.8 Policy EP1 refers to the general control of pollution through noise, smell, dust,

vibration, light and heat, while Policy EP5 deals specifically with the control of noise pollution.

10.9 The application states the community centre will be open between 7.00am and

10.00pm seven days a week. There have been a number of allegations made within the neighbour letters, which refer to instances of unacceptable levels of noise being generated at the site, particularly late at night. The building is immediately adjacent to residential properties. However the use of the building as a public house would have generated a level of noise comparable to that of the proposed use. It is considered that the proposal is therefore not anymore harmful to residential amenity than the established use. Consequently providing conditions are imposed which regulate the Centres opening times to 7.00am – 10.00pm, delivery/refuse collection activities and amplified music use the proposal complies with UDP Polices EP1 and EP5.

Car Parking and Highway Safety 10.10 UDP Policy AM12 details the provision of car parking required for developments while

AM15 concerns itself with highway safety and personal security. Policy C2 states community uses will only be permitted if a number of criteria are met. These include the need for the site to offer safe and easy access to public transport, reduce the need for travel by car and not significantly increase local traffic levels.

10.11 On street parking within the vicinity of the site is limited. The junction where the

application site is located has parking restrictions and there are double yellow lines the length of one side of Court Road. On one side of Court Road all the residential properties are terraced type housing with no off street parking.

10.12 The applicant has stated that 14 on site parking spaces are adequate to meet the

needs of the development. They add that the majority of the visitors to the facility will either walk or use public transport. In addition to visitors there will be one full time member of staff and four part-time employees at the centre. The site is well serviced by public transport with several bus routes passing the building. Although the community centre is currently open the car park has yet to be marked out but is used by visitors.

10.13 The biggest single objection raised by local residents is traffic congestion and parking

issues generated by the use. The Transport Officers report contains information from the Parking Services Manager that demonstrates there is a significant increase in vehicular traffic using the site particularly at busy times. This has resulted in inappropriate parking and vehicle manoeuvres in close proximity to the site. This conflicts with the information submitted by the applicant that fourteen parking spaces are adequate provision for the use. Therefore due to the increase in traffic levels generated and the inappropriate on street parking and vehicle manoeuvres the proposal is detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic contrary to UDP Policies C2, AM12 and AM15.

11. Conclusion 11.1 Although bringing the building back into use is welcomed and the proposed use would

be an acceptable alternative to a public house at the site. The additional levels of traffic generated by the use, the insufficient level of on site parking and on street parking problems are detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic and contrary to UDP Policies.

14

12. Recommendation 12.1 That Planning Application 10/01067/RP is refused for the following reason:

The current use of this site as a community centre significantly increases local traffic levels and causes congestion. The on site parking provision is not sufficient to cope with the number of visitors to the centre at busy periods. This causes excessive and inappropriate on street parking which has a detrimental impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. The proposal is therefore contrary to UDP Policies C2, AM12 and AM15.

Case Officer : Colin Noakes Telephone No : 01902 551124 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

15

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01067/RP Location Golden Eagle, Hordern Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389844 300072 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 977m2

16


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located approximately three miles to the north-east of

Wolverhampton City Centre. It is an irregular shape and covers an area of 0.26 hectares.

1.2 The site is occupied by a locally listed public house, which is still trading. The public

house is located at the back of the site with the car park in front. 1.3 The site is situated on the corner of Old Fallings Lane and Whitgreave Avenue, to the

north-west of a traffic island forming the focus for a number of radial roads that serve a large residential area, comprising mainly two storey houses. There are vehicular accesses onto both Old Fallings Lane and Whitgreave Avenue. There is a local shop less than 100m to the south of the site on the west side of Old Fallings Lane.

1.4 The public house is two storey with red/brown brick walls under a hipped roof set

behind a parapet. The principal elevations are broken up by projecting bays and there are two substantial chimneys.

1.5 There is a Poplar tree within the western part of the site that is of amenity value. 2. Application Details 2.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing public house and the erection

of a residential care home for the elderly including car parking and amenity space. Residential care homes fall within Use Class C2.

APP NO: 10/00887/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill

DATE: 16-Aug-10 TARGET DATE: 15-Nov-10

RECEIVED: 03.08.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: The New Highcroft Public House, Old Fallings Lane, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of Care Home for the elderly. APPLICANT: Ideal Care Homes Ltd C/o Agent

AGENT: Phil Brock LNT Construction Helios 47 LNT Construction Garforth Leeds West Yorkshire LS25 2DY

17

2.2 The agent states that the care home would generally accommodate people aged between 70 and 80 years old, in need of care. It would provide accommodation for forty eight residents in single bedrooms. All bedrooms would have en-suite bathrooms.

2.3 They expect that 36 full-time equivalent jobs would be created. There would be a

maximum of thirteen staff on site at any one time. Staff would work in two shift windows, 08.00 – 20.00 hours (Day) and 20.00 – 08.00 hours (Night). Six of the thirteen staff in the day would work the full twelve hours. All five night shift staff would work the full twelve hours.

2.4 The proposed three storey building would be an ‘L’ shape, positioned such that it

would turn the corner of Old Fallings Lane and Whitgreave Avenue. 2.5 On the ground floor there would be a reception area, resident accommodation and

communal areas, staff facilities, laundry and kitchens. The above ground floors would include resident accommodation and communal areas.

2.6 The building would be predominately constructed from brickwork and render, under a

pitched roof. There would be projecting gabled bays including one on the corner of Old Fallings Lane and Whitgreave Avenue. The main entrance into the building would be from the rear, accessed via the car park.

2.7 On the north elevation, facing 109 Old Fallings Lane is proposed a three sided

projecting bay which would accommodate a ‘quiet lounge’ on each of the three floors. 2.8 Of the two existing vehicular accesses, the access onto Old Fallings Lane would be

retained as the sole vehicular access for the site. The rear private car parking area would provide twelve parking spaces and an ambulance/taxi drop-off area.

2.9 Also to the rear, between the car park and the building, would be the private amenity

space for residents with a useable area of approximately 270sq.m. In addition, there would also be a semi-private area of amenity space which wraps around the edge of the site.

2.10 1.8m high railings and brick piers would be positioned on the site frontages on the

back edge of the footway. Gates to the car park are also shown on the back edge of the footway.

2.11 The surfacing material for the car park and vehicular access road would be

tarmacadam. Pedestrian footways are to be surfaced using block paving. 2.12 The application includes a letter of support from Bushbury Hill Estate Management

Board. They state that the demolition of the public house will be beneficial to the local community. It is alleged that the customers of the public house cause noise and other forms of disturbance which are detrimental to the living amenities of local residents. It is also stated that the new building would be an improvement on the existing, there is a need for a care home at this location and the new jobs are welcomed.

3. Constraints 3.1 Locally Listed Building – The New Highcroft Public House

18

4. Relevant Policies The Development Plan 4.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm (Public Space / Private Space) D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale-Height D8 Scale-Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety (Part I) D11 Access for People with Disabilities (Part l) D13 Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use) D14 The Provision of Public Art EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness HE19 Development Affecting a Local List Building or Site HE20 Demolition of a Local List Building or Site N7 The Urban Forest B12 Access to Job Opportunities C1 Heath, Education and other Community Services C3 Community Meeting Places R7 Open Space for New Developments H1 Housing H4 Housing Allocations H6 Design of Housing Development H11 Special Needs Accommodation H12 Residential Care Homes AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

Other relevant Policy Documents 4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing

PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13 Transport

PPG17 Planning for Open Space and Recreation PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG 24 Planning and Noise

PPS25 Development and Flood Risk 4.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG 2 Access and Facilities for Disabled People

SPG 3 Residential Development SPG 16 Public Art 4.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

19

5. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 5.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and


5.2 This development proposal is not included in the definition of Projects that requires a

“screening opinion” as to whether or not a formal Environmental Impact Assessment as defined by the above regulations is required.

6. Publicity 6.1 No representations received. 7. Internal Consultees 7.1 Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions relating to

boundary treatments, provision of acceptable visibility splays, the redundant dropped kerb to be made good, cycle parking and the operators to join Company Travelwise.

7.2 Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to ventilation

and cooking odour control systems, refuse storage, restricting hours of delivery to between 09:00 hours and 19:00 hours, operational hours during demolition and construction and contaminated land remediation.

7.3 The existing use of the site as a public house has generated a number of complaints

from local residents regarding disturbance from noise. A residential care home is likely to result in less noise disturbance than the existing public house.

7.4 Landscape – No objection subject to a landscape condition. 7.5 Access Team, Building Control, Trees and Adults and Communities – No

objections. 7.6 Historic Environment – Object. The proposals would result in the demolition of a

locally listed building without adequate justification and are therefore contrary to PPS5 and UDP policy HE20 ‘Demolition of a Local List Building or Site’. If granted, request conditions requiring the building to be properly recorded and the information submitted for inclusion on the Sites and Monuments Record. The demolition should not take place until a contract to build the new building has been let.

8. External Consultees 8.1 Environment Agency, Police and Fire Service – No objections.

8.2 Severn Trent Water Ltd - No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission

of sustainable drainage details including an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context.

8.3 CAMRA – Object. The proposals would result in the unacceptable loss of the

community facility and locally listed building without adequate justification. The design of the new building is unacceptable and there would be inappropriate rear access,

20

inadequate private amenity space and car parking provision. There are alternative sites nearby that could better accommodate the proposed use and there is sufficient care home provision in the area to meet need. The proposals are contrary to UDP policies C3, D4, D6, D7, D8, D9, H11 and HE20.

9. Legal Implications 9.1 PPS5: Planning for the Historic Environment: Those parts of the historic environment

that have significance because of their historic, archaeological, architectural or artistic interest are called heritage assets in the Statement including those which are not designated, including locally listed buildings, but are of heritage interest and are thus a material planning consideration. Accordingly in considering the impact of development on a heritage asset account should be taken of the significance of the heritage asset and the value that it holds for this and future generations with a view to avoiding conflict between the heritage asset's conservation and any aspect of the development. This consideration has been more particularly addressed below at paragraphs 10.9 to 10.15.

9.2 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications [KR/23112010/Z]. 10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issues to be considered when determining this application are:

• Residential Care Home Use • Loss of Community Use • Demolition of a Locally Listed Building • Design Quality • Layout • Scale • Architectural Appearance • Residential Amenity • Landscaping and Trees • Access and Parking

Residential Care Home Use

10.2 UDP policy H12 ‘Residential Care Homes’ states that proposals for the development of residential care homes for the elderly will be assessed against: the suitability of the site; the character of the surrounding area; compatibility with adjacent land uses and the proximity to public transport and other local facilities. The site is not allocated for a specific use in the UDP. However, it is located in a residential area and has good daytime access to bus services and there is a local shop close by. A residential care home is therefore acceptable in principle, and would comply with UDP policy H12. Loss of Community Use

10.3 The proposed development would result in the loss of the existing public house. UDP policy C3 ‘Community Meeting Places’ requires that the loss of community meeting places, which includes public houses, will only be permitted if: i) There is no longer a need for the use; ii) There are other facilities nearby which can accommodate displaced community

activities; iii) The proposal would involve the replacement of the facility; or iv) The use is no longer economically viable.

21

10.4 The agent states that the public house primarily functions as a drinking establishment. It does not include facilities such as function rooms and is therefore unable to accommodate activities such as weddings and community meetings.

10.5 There are four other public houses within 1km of the application site and a further

three within a mile (1600m).

Name

Location Distance from the New Highcroft Public House

The Otter and Vixen PH

Old Fallings Lane

500m (0.31 miles)

The Bushbury Arms PH

Showell Cirucs

550m (0.35 miles)

The Talisman PH

Wildtree Avenue

800m (0.50 miles)

The New Pear Tree PH

Cannock Road

950m (0.59 miles)

The Golden Lion PH

Cannock Road

1300m (0.82 miles)

Noahs Ark PH

Wood End Road

1600m (1 mile)

Red Lion PH

Amos Lane

1600m (1 mile)

10.6 These alternative public houses are evenly distributed around the New Highcroft Public

House site, indicating that the catchment of the public house is sufficiently well served by other public houses.

10.7 The agent states that the public house is no longer economically viable and a letter has

been provided from Admiral Taverns which states that since buying the site in 2006, the public house has operated at a financial loss. It also states that while the public house is currently operating, the previous tenants surrendered their tenancy and the pub is now run on a “caretaking” basis, which the owners consider provides a higher level of security than a closed business. The premises have been marketed for sale, but no interest was shown in the public house use. Licensed property agents were used and the premises were marketed on their databases, including direct cold calling and mail shots. Local licensed operators and restaurants were cold called to encourage interest. After 24 weeks of marketing they received only one offer to purchase the property, from the applicant, conditional on planning permission being granted for a care home. The agent states that the lack of interest in the public house use is reflective of the general downturn in the public house trade and the fact that there are seven other public houses within one mile of the site. It also suggests that the public house use on the site is no longer economically viable.

22

10.8 In view of the above information, it is considered that there is probably no longer a need for the public house at this location, that there are other facilities nearby which can accommodate the displaced community activities and that the public house is no longer economically viable. The loss of the community use is therefore in accordance with UDP policy C3.

Demolition of a Locally Listed Building 10.9 The application proposes the demolition of the locally listed building. The building is

not statutorily listed and is not in a Conservation Area, and so could be demolished without the consent of the local planning authority. However, when considering a planning application for development that would result in the loss of a locally listed building PPS 5 is relevant. This states that the impact on the historic environment should be taken into account. UDP policy HE20 ‘Demolition of a Local List Building or Site’ is also relevant. It states that the total demolition of a locally listed building, which would result in the loss of features of historic interest, will not be permitted unless it can be demonstrated that “the replacement scheme provides overriding planning benefits and all reasonable alternatives to demolition have been explored”. UDP policy HE1 ‘Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness’ requires replacement buildings to be of comparable quality.

10.10 Policies HE1 and HE20 are supported by UDP policy D13 ‘Sustainable Development

(Natural Resources and Energy Use)’ which states that “existing buildings should be retained and re-used wherever possible”.

10.11 The public house, is a good example of the ‘reformed’ or ‘improved’ public house which was developed during the inter war years. This new type of public house was an attempt to change the image of drinking and attract “respectable” customers. These landmark buildings, which represent a distinctive period of public house architecture, are increasingly coming under threat of demolition, as many are claimed to be no longer viable as businesses. This public house is a building of architectural merit and reinforces local distinctiveness. The future use of the public house may be unviable but this in itself does not justify allowing a redevelopment of the site which would result in the loss of the building. There must be ‘overriding planning benefits’.

10.12 To demonstrate that the proposed scheme would provide ‘overriding planning benefits’

it is important that the existing building is replaced with one of comparable, or better, design and quality. ‘The benefits’ of the proposed development is also a consideration.

10.13 The design of the proposal would be of comparable quality to that existing, particularly

as the proposed layout would be a significant improvement. This is because the existing building is set a long way back from the corner with an unsightly car park at the front of the site. There would be 36 full-time equivalent jobs created and the development would make a contribution to the regeneration of the area. The provision of a socially desirable use would also constitute a benefit.

10.14 The agent states that they have considered all reasonable alternatives to demolition.

The possibility of converting the existing building to enable it to be used as a residential care home has been considered but is not practicable in this case. This is because modern care requirements favour purpose built modern facilities that have a long life and meet operators complex needs. Also, the operating costs of providing a care service from a converted building are higher than a new built development.

10.15 Taking account of the design quality of the replacement scheme and the planning

benefits in terms of job creation, contribution to the regeneration of the area, the provision of a socially desirable use and the information provided by the applicant regarding converting the public house, the demolition of the locally listed building is justified and in accordance with UDP policies HE1, HE20, D13 and PPS5.

23

10.16 In accordance with UDP policy HE20, prior to demolition the locally listed building should be properly recorded and the information submitted for inclusion on the Site and Monuments Record. To ensure against an empty site, demolition of the building should not be permitted until a contract to carry out works has been agreed. These matters can be secured by condition. Design Quality

10.17 Planning Policy Statement No.1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ states that, “good design is indivisible from good planning” and that development should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted.

10.18 This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ which encourages all new

development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”.

10.19 More specifically in relation to the proposed use of the site for a care home the CABE

document ‘Homes For Our Old Age: Independent Living by Design’ states ‘good design is vital, because it makes for a building where people are able to live how they want, and enables the delivery of home care and/or support services’ and that fundamentally the aim is to design, ‘good homes, not care homes’.

10.20 In order to determine whether the proposal has achieved a sufficiently high quality of

design, it is necessary to consider its layout, scale and massing and architectural appearance. These are discussed in the following paragraphs. Layout

10.21 UDP policy D5 ‘Public Realm’ states that proposals should promote active street frontages and that fronts and backs of buildings should be clearly defined to ensure that places are easily understood. UDP policy D6 ‘Townscape and Landscape’ states that proposals should reinforce local distinctiveness. UDP policy D10 ‘Community Safety’ states that proposals should take full account of the need to prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime and promote community safety and that opportunities for surveillance of public space should be maximised. UDP policy AM1 ‘Access, Mobility and New Development’ states that access to development on foot should be given the highest priority in the layout and detailed design. UDP policy AM9 ‘Provision for Pedestrians’ states that all new developments will be required to provide attractive, direct, safe and convenient routes for pedestrians’.

10.22 The location of the proposed building on the site is acceptable. The building would sit

parallel with the street frontages and effectively turn the corner, providing definition to the site and streets.

10.23 The proposed location of the building also allows for the provision of car parking and

amenity to the rear where they could be easily secured. Also, residents using the amenity space would be afforded some privacy and the car park would not be visually prominent.

10.24 The submitted layout plan shows the site frontage defined by 1.8m high railings with

brick piers and with the access gated. This would provide security and is acceptable in design terms.

10.25 The main entrance to the building would be at the rear, from the car park, and not from

the front. However, there will be two pedestrian accesses to the front of the building for residents, and the windows and active rooms, including the main day lounge, dining

24

areas, kitchens and resident accommodation, face the public realm and provide an active facade.

10.26 The proposal is therefore in accordance with UDP policies D1, D5, D6, D10, AM1 and

AM9. Scale

10.27 UDP Policies D7 ‘Scale-Height’ and D8 ‘Scale-Massing’ require that all development proposals be of a height and massing that helps achieve a strong sense of place and make a positive contribution to the appearance of an area. Policy D7 also states that corner buildings should emphasise the prominence and importance of their position.

10.28 The proposed three storey building would be higher than the existing public house and

the surrounding two storey housing. The adjacent houses are 8m high and the proposed care home would be 11m high.

10.29 Nevertheless, because of the degree of separation from the adjacent houses, the

prominent corner location and the size of the space onto which the building would face (the traffic island) the scale of the building would not appear over-dominant and would be appropriate to its context. Therefore, the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policies D1, D7 and D8. Architectural Appearance

10.30 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ requires that all development proposals make a positive contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials.

10.31 The building would feature hipped roofs and projecting three storey gabled bays. The

composition, proportion and articulation of the architectural elements represents good quality design and would result in a development that would make a positive contribution to the locality, in accordance with UDP policies D1 and D9. Residential Amenity

10.32 The private bedrooms would all be single aspect. As communal sitting areas would be provided, which would offer a variety of orientations, single aspect bedrooms as proposed would be acceptable.

10.33 UDP policy H12 ‘Residential Care Homes’ requires that adequate useable shared

private amenity space is provided for all new care homes and that they should be compatible with adjacent land uses.

10.34 The private amenity space is to the rear of the building, with a total area of

approximately 270sq.m. The space would be a usable shape, including footways and planting, and is of sufficient quality to meet the needs of residents, taking into account the constraints of this particular site.

10.35 In addition, there would also be a semi-private area of space which wraps around the

edge of the site. This would have a width of six metres and in this case, this space would also constitute meaningful amenity space for residents.

10.36 With regard to neighbouring amenity, the position of the proposed building would not

have a significant impact in terms of loss of daylight and outlook. However, on the north elevation, facing 109 Old Fallings Lane is proposed a three sided projecting bay which would accommodate a ‘quiet lounge’ on each of the three floors. To prevent unacceptable overlooking of the rear private garden of 109 Old Fallings Lane, the north-west facing windows serving the ‘quiet lounges’ at first and second floor level are to be obscurely glazed (there are other windows in these lounges that would provide an outlook for the residents).

25

10.37 The existing public house has given rise to a number of complaints due to disturbance

from noise. A residential care home is likely to result in less noise disturbance than the existing public house.

10.38 The proposal is therefore in accordance with UDP policies D1, H12 and SPG3. Landscaping and Trees 10.39 UDP policy D6 ‘Townscape and Landscape’ states that developments should include

attractive landscaping. The applicants have submitted a landscape scheme in accordance with policy D6. The detailed design of the landscaping scheme can be secured by a condition.

10.40 UDP policy N7 ‘The Urban Forest’ states that the removal of mature and healthy trees

will be discouraged. UDP policy D12 ‘Nature Conservation and Natural Features’ states that trees should be retained where possible.

10.41 The Council’s Tree Officer has confirmed that the large poplar tree on the western side of the site can be removed as it is in very poor condition. The proposals are in accordance with UDP policies N7 and D12.

Access and Parking 10.42 UDP policy AM1 ‘Access, Mobility and New Development’ states that all new

development proposals will be expected to contribute towards improvements in access and mobility. Proposals should be designed to minimise the adverse effects of any traffic on neighbouring residential areas or other sensitive uses. UDP policy AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ states that maximum levels of car parking should be provided in accordance with this policy. UDP policy AM9 ‘Provision for Pedestrians’ states that walking should be given at least equal consideration with the other modes of transport when designing new development. UDP policy AM15 ‘Road Safety and Personal Security’ states that all development should be designed to contribute towards improving road safety and personal security.

10.43 The site layout includes an adequate number of car parking spaces. Access to the car

park during the evening and at night time will be controlled by a security gate in order to ensure security for residents. In these regards, the proposals are in accordance with UDP policies AM1 and AM12.

10.44 The existing vehicular access off Old Fallings Lane would be utilised. Subject to

conditions requiring satisfactory visibility splays and the dropped kerb and footway to the redundant access to be reinstated, the proposals are in accordance with UDP policy AM1, AM12 and AM15.

11. Conclusion 11.1 The principle of a care facility on this site is acceptable and in accordance with UDP

policy H12. 11.2 The application would result in the loss of the community use and satisfactory

information has been provided to justify the loss of the community facility, in accordance with UDP policy C3.

11.3 The proposed layout would be a significant improvement compared to the existing

layout. 11.4 Taking account of the design quality of the proposed development, the overriding

planning benefits in terms of job creation, the regeneration of the area and the provision of a socially desirable use, together with the information regarding converting

26

the existing public house for use as a care facility, it is considered that the demolition of the locally listed building is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D6, D13, HE1 and HE20.

11.5 The proposed scheme would provide an acceptable level of amenity for the potential

occupiers whilst potentially improving the amenity of neighbouring residents, in accordance with UDP policies D1, H12 and SPG3.

11.6 There would be satisfactory car parking provision and servicing arrangements in

accordance with UDP policies AM1 and AM12. 12. Recommendation 12.1 That planning application 10/00887/FUL be granted subject to any necessary

conditions including:

• Drainage • Building and site security • Levels • Contaminated land remediation • Prior to demolition the locally listed building to be properly recorded and the

information submitted for inclusion on the Sites and Monuments Record • Contract to carry out works to be in place prior to demolition • Materials • Hard-surfacing • Large scale architectural details • Landscaping • Boundary Treatments • Targeted recruitment and training • Public art • Parking to be provided and retained • External lighting • Amenity space as shown • Exterior of building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and

details prior to occupation • Visibility splays • Redundant dropped kerb made good • Occupier to join Company Travelwise • Ventilation and kitchen odour control equipment • Cycle parking • No external plant, ventilation equipment, meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials,

satellite dishes etc without written approval • Refuse storage • Operational hours during demolition and construction • Obscure glazing • Development to be used for the purposes applied for (residential care home for

the elderly) • Hours of deliveries to be between 09.00 hours and 19.00 hours

Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 01902 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

27

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00887/FUL Location The New Highcroft Public House, Old Fallings Lane,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392800 301826 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 2550m2

28


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The site concerned used to be part of garden land to the neighbouring property at No.

286 Aldersley Lane, located north of the house. To the north of the site is Hugh Porter Way, which is also the main entrance to Aldersley Leisure Village. The Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve walkway passes east of the site.

1.2 No. 286 Aldersley Lane, is a detached 1960’s house, with its private garden area now

located south of the house with very little amenity to the rear of the property along the eastern boundary. On the opposite side of the road to the application site are 1930’s style semi detached houses, and further to the south past 286 Aldersley Road is a parking court and terraced and semi detached houses of a similar age to property 286. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

1.3 The application site is located one metre higher than the adjacent footway, with a

retaining wall along the site frontage, with trees forming part of the Local Nature Reserve on land adjoining the rear perimeter of the site to the north and east.

2. Application details 2.1 The proposal is for the erection of one dwelling house, comprising of three bedrooms

set over three floors, with the top floor being contained within the roof. The ground floor consists of a w.c., living room and family kitchen, both of which have direct access onto the garden which is located south of the house along the side. The second floor includes an outdoor roof terrace accessed by a central staircase. There is parking for two cars and garden space to the frontage.

2.2 The proposed dwelling is contemporary in design, although the street frontage

elevation has a more traditional render and brick appearance in keeping with other properties within the surrounding area, and to the rear a timber clad façade to blend in with the natural environment present to this aspect. The roof design has an asymmetrical pitch roof resulting in a lower pitch and eaves level again in keeping with

APP NO: 10/00923/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Regis


RECEIVED: 11.08.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: Land Adjacent To 286 Aldersley Road, Wolverhampton WV6 9NN PROPOSAL: Erection of one three bedroom detached dwelling with associated car parking

and landscaping. (Amended location plan received) APPLICANT: First Step Group Ltd. 4 Jordan Street Manchester Greater Manchester M15 4PY

AGENT: Mr Ben Mabbett Online Architects Ltd The Mews 13A St. Paul's Square Birmingham B3 1RB

29

the surrounding street scene. The design incorporates large windows to provide high levels of daylight, with living rooms to the ground floor having a dual aspect.

2.3 The proposed house is also designed to meet Level 4 of the Code of Sustainable

Homes. Features that are part of this include: A 44% improvement in insulation values over current building regulations and a high level of air tightness to reduce fabric heat loss, a whole house ventilation system, and a highly insulated structural concrete core which helps to keep the house warm in winter and cool in summer, and low water use.

2.4 The location of the proposed dwelling would be set back approximately 4.5m from the

public footpath, and slightly set forward 1.5m of the neighbouring property at No. 286 Aldersley Road. The separation between the proposed dwelling and the neighbouring property is 12m, the dwelling would have a rectangular shape with a depth of 8.4m and width of 11.8m.

2.5 It is the aim of the applicant to provide a house which is well designed, innovative and

environmentally planned dwelling that looks to achieve a minimum of level 4 of the Code for Sustainable Homes, at a reasonable price.

3. Planning History 3.1 03/1336/FP/R for Erection of new bungalow, Refused, dated 08.01.2004. 3.2 05/0097/FP for Erection of 1 No. bungalow, Refused, dated 16.03.2005. 3.3 08/00641/FUL for Residential development comprising the erection of a two storey

building containing 2, two bedroom flats, including ancillary car parking Refused, dated 02.07.2008.

3.4 04/0330/FP/R for Erection of 1 No. bungalow, Refused, dated 30.04.2004. 4. Constraints 4.1 Sites and Monuments

Policy: Local Nature Reserve Policy: Site of Importance for Nature Conservation


AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security H6 - Design of Housing Development D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D5 - Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part D12 - Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy N7 - The Urban Forest N9 Protection of wildlife Species.

30

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development 5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents

SPG3 - Residential Development 5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and


6.2 This development proposal is not included in the definition of Projects that requires a “screening opinion” as to whether or not a formal Environmental Impact Assessment as defined by the above regulations is required.

7. Publicity 7.1 Six representations received, objecting on the following issues:

• Traffic • Parking • Highway Safety • Cramped • Loss of light • Conservation Issues • Wildlife • Privacy • Out of Character • Loss of Trees • Lack of Visibility • Loss of Green Space

8. Internal Consultees 8.1 Planning Policy Section - No planning policy comments subject to compliance with

UDP Policies. 8.2 Disabled Access Team -

Planning - The main entrance should be level/ramped. Building Regulations – No objections.

8.3 Archaeology - No archaeological implications. 8.4 Parks & Green Spaces (Leisure) -

Concerns regarding the close proximity of the proposed dwelling to existing trees and located in the Local Nature Reserve(LNR) and the visual impact on the LNR.

31

8.5 Environmental Services - Residential properties close by, therefore, operational hours during construction including commercial vehicle movements to or from the site should be restricted. All habitable rooms facing onto and at right angles to Aldersley Road should be fitted with standard thermal double glazing.

8.6 Transportation Development - No objections subject to a condition requiring off-site

landscapng works as shown on drawing number L1199/d1 to be implemented prior to first occupation of the dwelling, to ensure visibility.

8.7 Tree Officers – None of the trees along the frontage of the site are of any value in

Tree Preservation Order terms and the tree protection information supplied for the trees adjacent to the site complies with BS5837.

No objections subject to additional planting (three trees) in the LNR to replace any

possible detriment to trees within this area. 9. Legal Implications 9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications. 9.2 The Planning Authority is a competent authority for the purposes of The Conservation

of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 ( “the Habitat Regulations”) and the Planning Authority is under a duty to have regard to the Habitats Directive ( Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora)in the exercise of its function so far as any requirements of the Habitats Directive may be affected by the exercise of those functions. Planning authorities should give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site to reflect these requirements in reaching planning decisions. Regulation 40 of the Habitats Regulations defines European Protected Species. In this case possible Bats on site are a protected species and are in addition also protected under part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981

9.3 It should be noted Paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation - Statutory Obligation and their impact within the Planning System provides that It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all the relevant material considerations may not have been addressed before making the decision . The need to carry out ecological should only be left to planning conditions in exceptional circumstances.

9.4 It is noted that the surveys are being carried out to ascertain whether or not any such

species exist on site and due regard will be had to the above matters prior to the grant of any permission. (LC/22112010Q)

10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issues are: -

• Design • Access • Sustainability • Effect on trees, wildlife and Local Nature Reserve • Effect on Neighbours

32

Design 10.2 Policy D1 (Design Quality) and Policy H6 (Design of Housing Development) encourage

high standards of design. 10.3 Policy D4 (Urban Grain) states “Proposals should respond positively to the established

pattern of streets and buildings, including plot sizes, spatial character and building lines, of which they form a part. Those elements that contribute to the quality of the surrounding environment should be respected. Imaginative designs and layouts that make more efficient use of land without compromising the quality of the environment are encouraged”

10.5 It is considered that this particular parcel of land situated on the north side of 286

Aldersley Road relates well to the established residential development surrounding the site. The proposed development site is to be accessed directly from the existing highway. Whilst the depth of the plot is quite constrained being of a rectangular shape and well treed along the north and southern aspects, the overall plot size is similar to those existing properties within the local vicinity, especially the neighbouring property at 286 Aldersley Road. Therefore, it is considered that the site would be suitable for some form of residential development of a size and design to suit the individual constraints of the site.

10.6 The proposed residential property has been designed both externally and internally, so

as to address restrictions surrounding the site considering both the limitation of light due to a well screened boundary from trees with the Local Nature Reserve at Smestow Valley and carefully considering the relationship with the neighbouring residential property. The proposed dwelling would be located 1.9m away from the boundary with the Local Nature Reserve, and due to its elevated position, the proposed dwelling would be evident from the Smestow Valley walkway. Therefore, careful consideration of materials would be necessary, so as not to impede on the visual appearance of the Local Nature Reserve, however, this can be effectively provided by condition.

10.14 The proposed dwelling would have an elevated position and would be the last

of a line of properties along this side of Aldersley Road as it meets the access to Aldersely Stadium and the Smestow Nature Reserve. The property would be appropriately set back from the street frontage at a depth of 4.5m, and although positioned slightly forward of the neighbouring property at 286 Aldersley Road, the property would not appear dominant or obtrusive in the street scene or significantly out of keeping with the established building line, especially as there is a generous spatial separation between existing and proposed dwellings. The ridge height harmonises with level differences which rise from the south to the north, maintaining the stepped setting of properties along Aldersley Road, and although the constraints of the site has resulted in a property which is quite slender (depth of 4.5m) in comparison to other properties, the form of the proposed dwelling with a similar width and height, results in a positive contribution to the street scene maintaining character and appearance.

10.15 It is considered that the site area is large enough to support the

proposed three bedroom house, with a garden area of approximately 91sqm. Ideally garden land should be privately set towards the rear of dwellings; however, due to the constraints of the site, the garden area would be located to the south. A side orientated garden would not be out of keeping, as there are other properties within Aldersely Road, with a similar setting, such as the neighbouring property at 286 Aldersely Road. This neighbouring property also has side facing windows which overlook the application site and its garden area. However, the boundary would be screened with an appropriate treatment, and buyers would be aware of this situation.

10.16 Orientation is acceptable as the proposed dwelling provides dual aspect

windows to living quarters, with windows placed on eastern, southern and western elevations, and bedrooms having northern, eastern, southern and western orientated

33

windows. Concern has been raised that existing trees within the nature reserve would restrict light and sunlight to those windows on the north and east elevations, however, this would be compensated by the dual aspects, and smaller windows placed on the southern elevation, providing pockets of light into the property. It is also considered that woodland setting of the site, provides character and interest to the property, and any future occupier would be fully aware of the requirement to protect this specific setting. If trees are to be removed as part of this development it will be conditional on suitable replacement trees being planted further away from the boundary.

10.17 There is a driveway and parking for two cars, which would provide sufficient off road

parking for the proposal. 10.18 It is considered the application provides a high quality design, with a layout which has

carefully considered the constraints of the site, harmonising with neighbouring residential properties, and resulting in a positive contribution to the street scene and surrounding area. Therefore the proposal is compliant with UDP Policies D1 and D4.

Access 10.19 Policy AM12 (Parking and Servicing Provision) states “Provision of maximum levels of

car parking, minimum levels of disabled car parking and of cycle parking, motorcycle parking and servicing for new developments should be provided in accordance with the details of this Policy.”

10.20 Policy AM15 ( Road Safety and Personal Security) states “All development proposals

should be designed and implemented to contribute towards improving road safety and personal security.

10.21 The Transport Officer has confirmed that there are no objections to the proposed

layout of parking and accessibility subject to a condition requiring the off site landscaping works as shown on drawing NO. L1199/d1 to be completed prior to first occupation of the dwelling, and subject to standard conditions. The site is identified as having good level of accessibility to local transport, with an appropriate level of parking and manoeuvrability, and visibility subject to off site landscaping works, therefore the proposal is compliant with UDP Policies AM12 and AM15.

Sustainability

10.22 Policy D13 (Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use)) states “All proposals should respect the principles of a sustainable environment in terms of their use of resources and energy”.

10.23 The proposed house is designed so as to meet Level 4 of the Code for Sustainable

Homes. Features that are part of this included:

• Improvement in insulation values over current building regulations • High Level of Air tightness to reduce fabric heat loss • Whole house ventilation system with heat recovery • Healthy internal living environment by the provision of constant supply of fresh

air • Air source heat pump what will provide domestic hot water and space heating

through an underfloor heating system, being 250% efficient • Constructed from Insulated Concrete Formwork, which result in a highly

insulated structural concrete core, which helps to keep the house warm in winter and cool in summer.

• Sustainable materials • Low water usage

10.24 Therefore, it is considered that the proposal meets the requirements for sustainable development compliant with UDP Policy D13.

34

Effect on Trees 10.25 Policy N7 ( The Urban Forest) states “The Council will, in partnership with others, seek

to preserve, enhance and extend the urban forest within Wolverhampton” 10.26 Policy D12:(Nature Conservation and Natural Features) states “All proposals should

demonstrate a consideration of the following:

Woodland, trees, hedgerows, wetland habitats, watercourses, flood plains, geological features and other natural features or habitats should be retained, where possible”.

10.27 The application proposes the felling of a total of eight trees, of which six are of poor

form being Cypress Leylandii, and two being of good vigour which are Sycamore trees. The two most notable trees proposed to be removed are Middle age with an estimated contribution of 20 – 40 years, described as being between 8 and 10 metres high, and in good condition. Due to the close proximity of one of the trees in relation to a retaining wall, and self seeded into highway, causing damage to the retaining wall, and obstructing light splay of street light, the other sycamore has minor dead wood. There has been no objection from the tree officer regarding the removal of these trees.

10.28 It is also the intention to carry works on land, part of the adjacent highway outside the

ownership of the application, which entails the cutting back and removal of vegetation on the embankment that borders the footpath to the north of the site. It is the intention to relandscape and smooth the bank and provide lower growing species to act as cover. This will enable low maintenance over the long term and help to achieve a low height so as not to obstruct the visibility of vehicles leaving the application site.

10.29 Concern has been raised about the close proximity of the property to trees along the

north and eastern boundary, which are within the Local Nature Reserve. 10.31 The tree officer has confirmed that three suitable trees could be planted, to

compensate for any potential loss of trees, to attempt to protect the Local Nature Reserve from visual intrusion, and to provide security for the proposed dwelling. This could be effectively provided via a condition.

10.32 The proposal is considered to be in accordance with UDP Polices D12 and N7. Wildlife 10.33 Policy N4 (Protection, Declaration and Enhancement of Local Nature Reserves) states

“Development likely to have a harmful effect on the nature conservation value of all or part of a Local Nature Reserve will not be permitted. In considering development proposals the Council will seek to enhance the nature conservation value and the level of interpretation provision of Local Nature Reserves”.

10.34 Policy N5 (Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and

Landscape Features of Value for Wildlife or Geology) states “Where a proposed development site includes or adjoins:

• A Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation; or • Any landscape feature of value for wildlife, as specified in the Conservation

(Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations 1994

The protection and long term management of important features will be sought through the use of conditions, planning obligations or management agreements, where appropriate. Developers will usually be required to submit an ecological / geological survey and impact assessment to accompany any proposal.

35

10.35 Policy N9 Protection of Wildlife Species , seeks to protect species which are protected by law, or otherwise recognised are under threat, by ensuring that adequate account id taken to protect them and their habitat.

10.36 The site has potential value for nature conservation and is adjacent to a wider network of natural green space which acts as an important wildlife corridor and reservoir for biodiversity. A survey in relation to the possibility of bats on site has been requested, due to the amount of trees surrounding the site. The agent has confirmed that a bat survey has been arranged with information to follow. Once received, confirmation will be required from the Council’s Ecologists as to whether further investigation is necessary, or whether this aspect could be dealt with by suitable conditions to be compliant with UDP Policies N4, N5 and N9.

Effect on Neighbours

10.37 Policy D7 (Scale – Height) states “Proposals should take account of the following principles: Buildings should appear to be of a human scale overall and particularly at ground floor level and should not appear overbearing”.

10.38 Policy D8 (Scale – Massing) states “Proposals should make a positive contribution to

the appearance of an area by means of appropriate massing and orientation. The massing of a proposal should not adversely affect people’s amenities in respect of immediate outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and loss of privacy”

10.39 The proposed dwelling would be visible form those neighbouring properties opposite

the site which are well elevated at numbers 185a – 189 Aldersely Road. However, due to the distance between the neighbouring properties and the proposed dwelling, it is considered that there would be no significant detriment to neighbouring amenities.

10.40 With regards to the property south of the site at 286 Aldersely Road, the proposed

dwelling would be located some 12 metres away from the side elevation of this neighbouring property. The neighbouring property does have secondary side facing windows to both ground and first floor, however, it is considered that the proposed dwelling would be situated far enough away to have no significant impact on those windows. The windows proposed in the southern elevation of the proposed house are to be obscurely glazed and fixed so as to prevent any direct overlooking of this neighbouring property or into its side facing windows. Boundary treatment and landscaping could be conditioned to screen the property at ground floor, and due to the distance and orientation it is considered that there would be no significant loss of light or daylight to this property.

10.41 It is considered that the proposal is consistent with UDP Policies D7, and D8. 11. Conclusion 11.1 Subject to an acceptable Bat Survey, it is considered that the proposed dwelling is

acceptable. The proposal has demonstrated a high standard of design which contribute towards creating a strong sense of place, in keeping with the established character and appearance of the surrounding residential area, whilst offering a sustainable proposal. The proposal has a sufficient layout in relation to neighbouring amenities, and the Local Nature Reserve at Smestow Valley, with ample amenity and parking to support future occupants.

11.2 It is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of Planning Policies H6, D1,

D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D11, D12, AM12, AM15, N4, N5, N7, and N9 subject to conditions, including two specific conditions, for landscaping and tree planting on the adjoining site.

36

12. Recommendation 12.1 That the Director of Regeneration and Environment be given delegated authority to

grant planning application 10/00923/FUL subject to the receipt of an acceptable bat survey and any necessary conditions to include:

• Landscaping and Planting outside the application site. • Landscaping • Submission of Materials • Parking • Access • Standard Thermal Double Glazing • Any requirements from the Bat Survey recommendations • Disable Access • Operational Hours

Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 01902 555641 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

37

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00923/FUL Location Land Adjacent To 286 Aldersley Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV6 9NN Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389832 300947 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 342m2

38


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is a small two storey shop with a single storey element. It is the end unit in a

row of two storey shops at the junction of Castlecroft Lane and Bhylls Lane. The parade of shops is a busy group of shops including a hot food take-away. The unit has been vacant in excess of ten years from the information provided on the application forms.

1.2 There is existing parking and servicing space to the front and partly to the side. The

site is within a local centre as defined within the Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and adjoins the Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve and green belt land.

2. Application details 2.1 The application seeks full planning consent for a Class A3 (Cafe and Restaurant) with

extraction flue and parking provision. 2.2 Two off street parking spaces are shown, one for customers and one for staff parking. 2.3 Hours of operation are indicated to be 8am to 2.30pm Monday to Sundays, including

Bank Holidays and Public Holidays. 2.4 The proposal also includes the provision of bins to the rear of the site, the inclusion of

bollards to the forecourt area and an external extraction system to the rear of the building. The proposal also includes alterations to the shopfront.

3. Planning History 3.1 There is a considerable planning history on this premises including five refusals in

respect of changes of use to A5 hot food take aways.

APP NO: 10/01134/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick

DATE: 11-Oct-10 TARGET DATE: 06-Dec-10

RECEIVED: 06.10.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: 130 Castlecroft Road, Castlecroft, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Change of Use from A1 (Retail) to A3 (Cafe and Restaurants) opening hours

(0800-1400) with external extraction flue. APPLICANT: Mr Stavros Georgiou Flat 14 Griffiths Drive Ashmore Park Wolverhampton WV11 2JW

AGENT: Anthony McGlue AJM Planning Associates Ltd East Wing Wrottesley Hall Wolverhampton WV8 2HT

39

4. Constraints 4.1 The application site adjoins Smestow Valley Local Nature Reserve and green belt

land. 5. Relevant Policies The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

D1 - Design Quality D6 - Townscape and Landscape D9 - Appearance D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part EP1 - Pollution Control EP5 - Noise Pollution AM1 - Access, Mobility and New Development AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security SH8 - Local Centres SH10 - Protected Frontages SH14 - Catering Outlets B5 - Design Standards for Employment Sites

5.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy Other relevant policies 5.3 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG24 - Planning and Noise

5.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents 5.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and



7. Publicity 7.1 Eleven representations received.

(i) Problems with parking; (ii) Increase in traffic; (iii) Increase in anti-social behaviour; (iv) Sufficient takeaways in the area; (v) Smells, litter; noise and nuisance;

40

8. Internal Consultees 8.1 Environmental Services -

Details of ventilation and odour control system and of chiller location and noise output are required as are details of refuse disposal including disposal of cooking odours.

8.2 Transportation Development -

Site Location/Accessibility The site is directly off Castlecroft Road, opposite the with junction with Bhylls Lane and close to the former rail bridge. The curve in the highway at this point reduces forward visibility for vehicles travelling along Windmill Lane/Castlecroft Lane from the west.

8.3 Accessibility is classed as medium. Local bus services are reasonable and the site is

within the Castelcroft local centre as indicated on the Councils UDP. 8.4 Site Access/Visibility

Whilst there is an existing access at this point visibility to the west for emerging vehicles is very poor due to the MEB sub station and fencing. Speed surveys carried out on Castlecroft Road in the vicinity of the site have shown that vehicle speeds regularly exceed the 30mph posted speed limit.

8.5 The access is also restricted by an existing lighting column (not indicated on the

submitted plans) which is situated approximately half way between the eastern boundary and the MEB fencing.

8.6 Parking Issues

One dedicated staff parking bay is indicated on plan plus one bay for customers 8.7 This level of proposed parking provision is highly unlikely to be sufficient to meet the

anticipated demand of the proposed use and consequently additional vehicles are likely to park on the Highway in the vicinity of the site which would exacerbate existing parking problems on this stretch of Castlecroft Road. Given the site location on the junction of Castlecroft Road and Bhylls Lane and restricted visibility for vehicles approaching from the west, additional on-street parking on Castlecroft Road near to the site could be detrimental to Highway Safety and the free flow of traffic.

8.8 In order to reduce the potential for inappropriate on-street parking in the vicinity of the

site (in connection with the proposed use) a "No Waiting at Any Time" Traffic Regulation Order would need to be implemented by the applicant at his cost, to protect appropriate sections of Castlecroft Road and Bhylls Lane

8.9 Conclusion

In Highway Terms, the proposed use is not ideal at this location. However providing that a suitable condition be attached to any approval, requiring the implementation of parking restrictions protecting the Highway in the vicinity of the site and the applicant submit revised plans to include appropriate cycle parking provision, then the change of use can be supported.

8.10 Access Team -

The parking bay on the frontage is considered would be better used as a disabled person's parking bay which should have a 1.2metre access strip at the side and rear and a national disability logo installed on the ground as well as a sign off the ground.

8.11 The proposal requires access for person's with mobility difficulties to be improved

particularly at the entrance with an access ramp.

41

9. Legal Implications 9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications. 10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issues are: -

• Local Centres Frontage Policy & Visual Amenity • Highway and Pedestrian Safety • Residents Amenities

Local Centres Frontage Policy & Visual Amenity

10.2 The proposal is in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policy SH10 'Protected Frontages', which requires non-retail uses in local centres not to exceed more than 30% of shop units in the centre concerned, more than 30% of the frontage length and more than three consecutive shops.

10.3 In addition, the policy further states that uses such as the café and restaurant

proposed can "complement shopping and help to provide the visit or with a complete range of shops and services in one location, minimising the need to travel" which is re-iterated in Policy SH8 'Local Centres'. The applicant has stated that the retail unit has been vacant in the excess of ten years.

10.4 Policy SH14 ‘Catering Outlets’ requires proposals not to cause significant harm to the

visual amenity of the area by proposed ventilation and/or fume extraction equipment incorporated in the proposal. Whilst the proposal shows an indicative external extraction flue, this is considered unacceptable due to its size and position. Notwithstanding the details of the extraction flue as submitted, the fitting of modern fume extraction systems can minimise their impact on visual amenities and subject to details to be submitted, this could be dealt with by a suitable condition on any consent.

10.5 As this proposal seeks to change the use of the property to a Class A3 (Cafe and

Restaurant) with opening hours from 0800hours to 1430hours seven days a week, the principle of development appears to be acceptable and in accordance with advice as set out in UDP Policy SH10 'Protected Frontages' and SH14 'Catering Outlets' subject to the control of the use on the impact of residents amenities and pedestrian and highway safety matters.

Highway and Pedestrian Safety

10.6 The premises are the end unit in a row of shops and restaurants/takeaways, all of which share a small front car parking/servicing area. All are situated opposite the busy road junction of Castlecroft Road and Bhylls Lane, in close proximity to a school. The shops are generally busy and particularly so at the school closing time, when pedestrian and vehicular traffic at the junction is especially heavy. There is a school crossing patrol operating between the site and the bridge.

10.7 UDP Policy SH14 'Catering Outlets' requires vehicular movements and parking

generated not to be harmful to highway safety or the free flow of traffic taking account of the available space for parking and servicing. UDP Policies AM12 'Parking and Servicing Provision' and AM15 'Road Safety and Personal Security' require developments to take into consideration road safety and personal security and the provision for parking.

42

10.8 The proposal differs from previous applications in that the parking has been reduced to provide one dedicated staff parking and one customer parking space. Whilst concerns remain with poor visibility at the access point, existing vehicle speeds on Castlecroft Road, the complex movements linking Bhylls Lane to the parade of shops as well as additional on-street parking on Castlecroft Road near to the site to the detriment of highway safety and the free flow of traffic, it is considered that subject to measures to reduce the potential for inappropriate parking the proposal would be acceptable in highway terms.

10.9 The current permitted use is an unrestricted Class A1 (Retail) shop. As a long

established use there are no conditions to control the use, such as hours of opening. If a retail shop was to open, it would also result in issues in respect of highway safety and the free flow of traffic. The proposed café use will potentially create some issues in respect of parking particularly in the mornings, however with its reduced hours it would cease trading at other peak hours i.e. school closing time and the evening period. Hence the proposed use may well have less impact than the established planning use. This is a transport conclusion and is known as “the fallback position”.

10.10 The applicant should be required by a suitable condition on any permission, to

introduce (at a cost to the applicant) parking restriction measures before the use commenced in the vicinity of the site, to improve highway safety and the free flow of traffic,. The introduction of this measure is considered essential to make the application acceptable in highway terms by minimising the impact on highway safety and the free flow of traffic, to a sufficient extent. The proposal would then be considered acceptable and in accordance with advice as set out in UDP Policies AM12 'Parking and Servicing Provision' and AM15 'Road Safety and Personal Security' and SH14 ‘Catering Outlets’.

Residential Amenities

10.11 The character of the area is predominantly residential in character with the exception of the parade of shops. Whilst previous proposals for hot food take-aways have been considered to have an impact on neighbouring amenities by virtue of noise or other disturbance becoming more intrusive into the late evening, this proposal seeks to change the use to a cafe with opening hours from 0800 to 1430hours.

10.12 UDP Policy SH14 'Catering Outlets' requires proposals for uses such as the one

proposed not to cause significant harm to the amenities of existing or proposed residential accommodation in the vicinity, either individually or cumulatively with other Class A3, A4 and A5 uses, including by reason of noise, smell, general disturbance or traffic impact. Policy EP1 'Pollution Control' requires developments which may result in pollution of air, ground or water or pollution through noise, smell, dust, vibration, light, heat or radiation to be only permitted where it can be shown that there would be no material adverse impact on: the immediate, medium or long term health, safety or amenity of users of the land or surrounding areas; or quality and enjoyment of the environment. Where appropriate, conditions or planning obligations will be used to reduce such impacts to acceptable levels.

10.13 Whilst the smells of food can be appetising to customers, they can be less so to nearby

residents who have to live with their prolonged presence. Local residents have cited smells as a concern and whilst the applicant has proposed an external flue, it is considered to be unacceptable due to its impact in visual terms. However, the fitting of modern fume extraction systems can minimise the effect on residents and businesses and it is considered that notwithstanding the details on the submitted drawings, a revised scheme in respect of the fume extraction system can both reduce the impact on visual amenities and control smells and odours.

10.14 Whilst residents concerns have been taken into consideration in respect of smells,

litter, noise and general disturbance, it is considered that on balance their amenities will not be adversely affected to an extent to justify refusing the application. Their

43

concerns will be further mitigated by the opening hours of 0800 to 1430 hours consistent with the opening hours of the parade of shops. This would also reduce the potential for youths to congregate outside the shops as it would close prior to the end of school. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with UDP Policies SH14 ‘Catering Outlets’ and EP1 ‘Pollution Control’.

11. Conclusion 11.1 Taking all the matters into consideration, the proposal seeks to use a vacant retail unit

for a use which is consistent with advice as set out in UDP Policies for a local centre. 11.2 The proposal for a Class A3 (Café and Restaurant) is considered to have some impact

on highway safety and the free flow of traffic. However this is not to an extent that could be justifiably refused, as the premises could open as a shop and with the restricted opening hours and the implementation of parking restrictions, the proposal in respect of highway terms would be acceptable.

11.3 Residents have raised concerns in respect of the parking. These would also arise

even if the premises were to open as a retail shop. In respect of noise, smells, odours and general disturbance, it is considered that as the premises would only be open during normal daytime hours and with the fitting of modern fume extraction, the use is considered as not to adversely affect neighbouring amenities to an extent to refuse the application.

11.4 The proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable and in accordance with advice

as set out in Unitary Development Plan Policies SH10 'Protected Frontages', SH14 'Catering Outlets', AM12 'Parking and Servicing Provision', AM15 'Road Safety and Personal Security' and EP1 ‘Pollution Control’.

12. Recommendation 12.1 That planning application 10/01134 be granted subject to any appropriate conditions

including:

• Notwithstanding the details submitted, details of a fume extraction system; • Details of noise attenuation scheme for any ventilation systems and chiller

units; • A scheme for the effective control of cooking odours; • Details of safe storage of refuse awaiting disposal; • Details of a grease trap to the drainage system; • No materials, products or waste to be stacked outside any building; • Shopfront windows not to be restricted; • Disabled access provision; • Opening hours between 0800 – 1430 only; • Implementation of parking restrictions before commencement of use; • Parking provision as shown; • Details of cycle storage.

Case Officer : Ragbir Sahota Telephone No : 01902 555616 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

44

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01134/FUL Location 130 Castlecroft Road, Castlecroft,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387717 297710 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 208m2

45


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located approximately 3.8 miles to the south-east of

Wolverhampton City Centre and within a predominately residential area. 1.2 The site includes part of the rear gardens of 1 and 3 Hinchliffe Avenue, adjacent to a

private garage court. The two proposed bungalows would front onto that garage court. Access would be from a private driveway off Biddings Lane.

1.3 The northern boundary of the site adjoins the rear gardens of housing along Biddings

Lane. The southern boundary adjoins the rear gardens of residential development along Hinchliffe Avenue.

2. Application details 2.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of two detached bungalows and

follows a similar application refused by Planning Committee at its meeting of 22 September 2009.

2.2 To facilitate the proposed development an existing garage that serves 3 Hinchliffe

Avenue would have to be demolished. 2.3 The proposed bungalow in the rear of 3 Hinchliffe Avenue would consist of brickwork

and the first floor would be in the roof space with small dormer projections attached at the front and rear.

2.4 The proposed bungalow in the rear of 1 Hinchliffe Avenue would also consist of

brickwork but all of the living accommodation would be provided at ground floor and no dormer projections are proposed.

2.5 Both of the proposed bungalows would have an in-curtilage parking space. The rear

gardens would be approximately 14m long.

APP NO: 10/01002/FUL WARD: Spring Vale


RECEIVED: 01.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: 1-3 Hinchliffe Avenue, Wolverhampton, WV14 9PQ PROPOSAL: Erection of two bungalows APPLICANT: Mr Charanjit Singh 1 & 3 Hinchcliffe Avenue Coseley WV149PQ

AGENT: Mr J Kumar Inglewood 65, Albert Road West Park Wolverhampton WV6 0AG

46

3. Planning History 3.1 08/00938/FUL - Erection of 2 bungalow dwellings. Refused, 02.09.2009, as it was

considered the two proposed bungalows would, by reason of their proximity to boundaries, compromise the existing more open and spacious character and appearance of the area and may have an adverse impact on the existing trees in the rear garden of 30 Biddings Lane.

4. Constraints 4.1 Authorised Processes

Landfill Gas Mining Sites and Monuments

5. Relevant policies The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

D1: Design Quality D3: Urban Structure D4: Urban Grain D5: Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6:Townscape and Landscape D7:Scale - Height D8:Scale - Massing D9:Appearance D10: Community Safety D11: Access for People with Disabilities D13: Sustainable Development Natural Energy EP1: Pollution Control EP5: Noise Pollution EP9: Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development N1: Promotion of Nature Conservation N7: The Urban Forest AM12: Parking and Servicing Provision AM15: Road Safety and Personal Security

5.2 Regional Spatial Strategy Other relevant policies 5.3 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS3: Housing 5.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents/Guidance:

SPG3: Residential Development 5.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and

Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) require that where certain proposals are likely

47

to have significant effects upon the environment, it is necessary to provide a formal "Environmental Impact Assessment" to accompany the planning application.


7. Neighbour notification and publicity 7.1 12 letters of objection have been received. The comments are summarised as follows:

(i) The access is from a secured private right of way and consent does not exist to allow for access to future development to the rear of 1 and 3 Hinchliffe Avenue;

(ii) The access is unsuitable for heavy goods vehicles; (iii) Access to the proposed houses for deliveries and refuse collection would have

to be from the private access; (iv) Unacceptable loss of security, privacy and overlooking of neighbouring

housing; (v) Recommend that access for the proposed dwellings be from Hinchliffe Avenue; (vi) Detrimental to the health of trees and wildlife; (vii) Inconvenience and disturbance to existing residents during construction phase; (viii) Result in pollution; (ix) Additional car parking would cause inconvenience for residents; (x) Subsidence due to building work being carried out within close proximity of a

mineshaft. 8. Internal consultees 8.1 Transportation – No objections. 8.2 Planning Policy – No objections. 8.3 Access Officer – No objections. 8.4 Trees – The adjacent trees are of amenity value. The proposed buildings would not

have a direct adverse impact on the adjoining trees. However, future residents of the dwellings may wish them to be pruned or removed to reduce potential conflict.

8.5 Environmental Services – No objections. 9. External consultees 9.1 Severn Trent Water – No objection. It has been requested that the Council impose a

condition on any planning permissions requiring the approval of foul and surface water drainage details.

9.2 Police – No objections. 9.3 Fire Service – Sprinkler system required.

48

10. Legal Implications 10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications [LC/17112010/X]. 11. Appraisal 11.1 The key issues to be considered when determining this application are:

• Principle of Development • Design • Access and Parking • Impact on Residential Amenity • Impact on Trees • Former mining

Principle of Development

11.2 The site is part of two unusually large rear gardens of a pair of existing houses set in uncharacteristically long plots. The site is suitable to reasonably accommodate the proposed two bungalows whilst retaining adequate private amenity and car parking space for the existing dwellings. The development would accord with government guidance contained within the revised Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing, as despite being garden land development it would make efficient use of land in a built up area, without harming the character and appearance of the area. Design

11.3 UDP policy H6 ‘Design of Housing’ states that a ‘high standard of design will be required of all housing developments’ and new developments should ‘respect and enhance local character, being informed by the townscape … of the immediate neighbouring buildings” and “protect the amenity of neighbouring residents”. Policy D4 aims to avoid poor or mediocre designs and to ensure that design solutions retain and build on the positive attributes of an area and improve or ameliorate the poor ones. Proposals are required to respond positively to the established context and pattern of streets and buildings, including plot sizes, spatial character and building lines.

11.4 Compared to the original scheme, the proposed dwellings have been moved away

from the boundary with the neighbouring properties at 30 and 31 Biddings Lane. There is now a gap of 1.73m between the dwellings and the boundary (previously 0.35m in the 2009 refused application).

11.5 By virtue of the increased gap between the dwellings and the neighbouring boundary, it

is considered that the proposals would respect local character and as such would not detract from it. There would be no adverse impact upon the existing distinctive nature of the established residential amenity. Garden sizes and parking spaces for the proposed and existing dwellings are acceptable and would meet the living requirements of existing and future residents. The proposals accord with policies H6 and D4.

11.6 UDP policies D7 ‘Scale – Height’ states that development proposals should be of a

height that achieves a strong sense of place and relates positively to its surroundings. It is considered that the proposed height of the dwellings, at 5m and 7m would be appropriate and not result in unacceptable overlooking and overshadowing of other buildings and land. This accords with policy D7.

11.7 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ require that new development makes a positive

contribution to the locality through good quality detailing and materials. The proposed dwellings would be constructed from acceptable materials and the external

49

architectural appearance would represent good design. The proposals would accord with policies D1 and D9.

11.8 UDP policy D13 ‘Sustainable Development’ states that new developments should

respect the principle of a sustainable environment and maximise the use of natural heat and light. It is considered that by virtue of siting, orientation, internal and external design, the proposed development would maximise the use of natural heat and light and thereby comply with Policy D13.

Access and Parking

11.9 Policy AM12 of the adopted UDP advises that proposals shall comply with parking demand and are required to meet their own transportation needs with no detriment to pedestrian safety and the safe and free flow of traffic. Policy AM15 states that all development proposals should be designed to contribute towards improving road safety and personal security.

11.10 The proposed vehicular access, via a private roadway which also serves a garage

court, is unusual in this locality, but is more common elsewhere and is acceptable. It is considered that there is sufficient parking provision to meet likely demand. The issue of whether or not the applicant has a legal right of access to the site is a private legal property issue and not a material planning consideration. This accords with policies AM12 and AM15.

Impact on Residential Amenity 11.11 UDP policy D8 ‘Massing’ states that the massing of development proposals should not

adversely affect people’s amenities in respect of immediate outlook, loss of sunlight/daylight and loss of privacy.

11.12 It is considered that the proposals will not be detrimental to neighbour amenity. The

size and massing of the proposed dwellings, and the length and size of rear gardens, would be appropriate and harmonise with the surrounding context. The proposed buildings would not unduly detract from neighbouring occupiers immediate outlook or result in a loss of sunlight and daylight.

11.13 One of the proposed dwellings would include a first floor window along its flank wall.

That window would serve an en-suite bathroom and would face onto the rear gardens of adjacent residential premises along Hinchliffe Avenue. As the first floor window would be obscurely glazed, and serve a non-habitable room, it is considered that there would not be an unacceptable loss of privacy to those occupiers living in the neighbouring premises. The proposals accord with policy D8.

Trees 11.14 UDP policy N7 ‘The Urban Forest’ states that the removal of mature, healthy trees will

be discouraged. There are existing large, mature trees in the rear garden of 30 Biddings Lane, immediately adjacent to the site. However, the proposals include a gap of 1.73m between the dwellings and the boundary shared with the neighbouring property at No.30.

11.15 The adjacent neighbouring trees are of amenity value. The Tree Officer advises that

the proposed buildings would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining trees. The proposals accord with policy N7.

Former mining 11.16 A neighbour concern relates to coal mining and the proximity of a known former coal

mining shaft within this site. Any intrusive activities which intersect, disturb or enter any coal seams, coal mine workings or coal mine entries (shafts and adits) require the prior written permission of the Coal Authority. Such activities could include site investigation boreholes, digging of foundations, piling activities, other ground works and any

50

subsequent treatment of coal mine workings and coal mine entries for ground stability purposes. The applicant will be made aware of these responsibilities through the inclusion of advice notes on any subsequent planning permission.

12. Conclusion 12.1 The proposals would respect local character and as such would not detract from it.

There would be no adverse impact upon the existing distinctive nature of the established residential amenity. The proposals accord with policies H6 and D4.

12.2 The proposed dwellings would be constructed from acceptable materials and the

external architectural appearance would represent good design. The proposals would accord with policies D1 and D9.

12.3 The orientation, internal and external design of the proposed development would

maximise the use of natural heat and light and thereby comply with Policy D13. In accordance with policy D7 the height of the dwellings, would be appropriate and not result in unacceptable overlooking and overshadowing of other buildings and land.

12.4 The proposed vehicular access is unusual but acceptable and there is sufficient

parking provision to meet likely demand. There would be no adverse impact to highway safety. This accords with policies AM12 and AM15.

12.5 Subject to any excavation work close to any trees being carried out with due care, it is

considered that the proposals would not result in detrimental impact to the adjacent trees. The proposals would accord with policy N7.

13. Recommendation 13.1 That planning application 10/01002/FUL be granted subject to any necessary

conditions including: • Materials, including hard surfaces; • Tree Protection Measures (including root assessment); • Boundary Treatments; • Obscure glazing for first floor windows along flank walls; • Domestic sprinklers; • Drainage details; • Operational hours during construction phase.

13.2. Standard notes for information:

• Recommended means of reducing noise and other pollution from construction

works on site; • The applicants to contact the Transport Strategy section of the City Council to

obtain a unique postal address for the properties/property; • Coal mining area.

Case Officer : Andrew Johnson Telephone No : 01902 551123 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

51

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01002/FUL Location 1-3 Hinchliffe Avenue, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV14 9PQ Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393854 294580 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 1698m2

52


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is located at the head of a cul-de-sac in Corfton Drive. The street scene is

made up of large modern detached properties with attached garages, providing an element of spatial separation at first floor between each property, which is a characteristic of the street scene. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

1.2 The property has an enclosed frontage, garden and large driveway leading to a double

garage. To the rear is a large enclosed rear garden area. 2. Application Details 2.1 The proposal incorporates two extensions as follows:

• Two storey rear extension comprising of a dining area at ground floor and bedroom with ensuite above, measuring 4.1m wide, by 4.3m deep.

• A first floor side extension above the existing garage comprising of a bedroom and ensuite, measuring 3.9 m wide by 6m deep.

The design incorporates a pitched roof with materials to match the existing property.

3. Planning History 3.1 10/00873/FUL for First floor extension over garage and two storey extension to rear of

property withdrawn dated 04.10.2010. 4. Constraints 4.1 Tree Preservation Order

APP NO: 10/01136/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick


RECEIVED: 06.10.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: 14 Corfton Drive, Wolverhampton, WV6 8NR PROPOSAL: First floor extension over garage and two storey extension to rear of property. APPLICANT: Mr & Mrs Hoc Choudry 14 Corfton Drive Wolverhampton WV6 8NR

AGENT: Miss Lindsey Phillips Turnbull Tweedale 61 Oaken Lanes Codsall Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV8 2AW

53


AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 – Appearance D12 – Nature Conservation and Natural Features N7 – The Urban Forest

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development 5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents

SPG4 - Extension to Houses 5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 5.5 The West Midlands Spatial Strategy. 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and


6.2 This development proposal is not included in the definition of Projects that require a “screening opinion” as to whether or not a formal Environmental Impact Assessment as defined by the above regulations is required.

7. Publicity 7.1 Five letters of representation (one request to speak at Planning Committee) have been

submitted objecting in respect of the following issues:

• Light • Privacy • Loss of space between properties • Loss of outlook • Insufficient parking • Out of character and appearance with street scene • Drainage

8. Internal Consultees 8.1 Tree Officers - No objections

54

9. Legal Implications 9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. [LC/17112010/SJ] 10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issues are: -

• Design • Parking • Neighbouring Amenities

Design

10.2 Policy D1 (Design Quality) of Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP), stipulates “all development proposals should demonstrate a high standard of design and contribute towards creating a strong sense of place”.

10.3 UDP policy D4 (Urban Grain) stipulates that “the relationship of proposed buildings to

the spaces around them, should not constitute overdevelopment leading to cramped layouts and/or obtrusiveness in relation to adjoining properties” and “Proposals should respond to existing context of buildings streets and spaces, ensuring that adjacent buildings relate positively to each other”.

10.4 UDP Policy D9 (Appearance) also states “Buildings, structures, boundary treatments

and landscape features should make a positive contribution to the locality”. 10.5 Corfton Drive consists of modern detached properties with attached garages, which

provides an element of spatial separation at first floor between each property. The only part of the street scene which is slightly different is the two properties at the head of the cul-de-sac which are side orientated properties, providing an element of extra space onto the street scene.

10.6 Because of the position of the application site, at the head of the cul-de-sac, on a tight

corner location, the opposite property at No. 15 is positioned slightly closer to its neighbouring property than other properties within the street scene. Therefore, it is considered that some form of first floor side extension would be feasible, as the spatial separation is not so apparent, at this part of Corfton Drive. Although the first floor extension would draw the properties closer together, the element of space left is now felt significant enough to not result in a cramped appearance between the application site and the neighbouring property at 12 Corfton Drive. The proposals are considered to be in keeping with other properties within Corfton Drive.

10.7 A previous application for a similar proposal was withdrawn because of concerns

about the width of the extension at 5m, and the ridge height. This amended proposal includes a reduction in the width of the extension down to 3.9m and has a reduced ridge height. These amendments address the previous concerns, providing an extension which would now be in keeping with the character and appearance of both the existing property and the surrounding street scene, which is made up of properties of a similar design and scale.

10.8 It is considered that the proposed extension would respond well to the existing context

of buildings streets and spaces, and is a suitable design compliant with UDP policies D1, D4 and D9.

Parking 10.10 UDP Policy AM12 (Parking and Servicing Provision) states that parking provision

should address safety and amenity issues.

55

10.11 The accommodation would increase from a four bedroom property to a large

five bedroom property. The parking (to both the garage and to the frontage) would appear of a sufficient size to support both the extension and its usage. The proposal is considered to be consistent with UDP Policy AM12.

Neighbouring Amenities 10.12 UDP Policy D8 (Scale-Massing) states “Proposals should make a positive contribution

to the appearance of an area by means of appropriate massing and orientation. The massing of a proposal should not adversely affect people’s amenities in respect of immediate outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and loss of privacy”.

10.13 There have been a number of neighbour objections to the proposal, some of which

refer to the extension being overbearing and reducing privacy. 10.14 The neighbouring property at number 12 does have side facing windows which would

be affected by the proposal. There are two first floor windows one being an ensuite window, the other being a secondary window to the bedroom area. Because one of the windows is to a bathroom and the other is of secondary status, and with an alternative means of light from a main window to the frontage, it is considered that the impact with regards to light would not be significant enough to warrant refusal.

10.15 With regards to outlook, the proposed extension would be slightly angled away form

the neighbouring property, and set at a distance between 5 and 6.5m between the proposed side elevation wall and the window. Although 12m is normally considered a suitable distance between habitable windows and blank walls, in this instance the window affected is a small secondary window, with the main outlook afforded out of a window to the front of the property. Therefore, it is considered that the detriment to outlook would be minimal, and would not be significant enough to warrant refusal.

10.16 The previous proposal would have also projected closer to the boundary with this

neighbouring property, with a proposal for two side facing windows, one being a ground floor dining room and the other being a first floor bedroom window. It was considered that views would be afforded directly across the neighbouring property, especially from the first floor bedroom window. The first floor bedroom window has now been omitted, therefore it is now considered that the issue with privacy, to both the neighbours’ conservatory and rear garden area has been satisfactorily addressed via this amendment.

10.17 A neighbouring property to the rear of the application site would also have an

additional window overlooking its side aspect. However, the window would not project any closer than existing bedroom windows orientated this way. Therefore, it is considered that the detriment to this neighbouring property would not be significant enough to warrant refusal.

10.18 Therefore, it is considered that the neighbouring amenities would not be adversely

affected. The proposal is compliant with UDP Policy D8.

56

11. Conclusion 11.1 This amended proposal is now considered acceptable, as it has satisfactorily

addressed previous concerns by reintroducing some spatial separation between the application site and the neighbouring property at No. 12 Corfton Drive, by reducing the width and dominance of the first floor structure, and lowering its ridge height. This has resulted in a structure which now contributes to the character and appearance of both the existing property and the surrounding street scene, and has significantly reduced the detriment to privacy to the neighbouring property, by the removal of a first floor side facing bedroom window. Therefore, the proposed extension is compliant with UDP Policies D1, D4, D7, D8, and D9.



• Matching materials • Removal of permitted development rights for side facing windows.

Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 01902 555641 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

57

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01136/FUL Location 14 Corfton Drive, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV6 8NR Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388233 299589 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 523m2

58


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 This is an established school site located approximately 2.7km north east of the City

Centre. Braybrook is a Pupil Referral Unit (PRU) which is a secondary school for pupils with mainly behavioural problems. Access is from the north of the site off Bellamy Lane.

1.2 The site is relatively level and is surrounded on three sides by residential development.

To the west is an area of Recreational Open Space called Bellamy Lane Playing Field. 1.3 The site is approximately 0.49 hectares and comprises the main school building, three

houses and garages, which are used as teaching support rooms and a small car park in the centre of the site. The main school building is single storey with part first floor and flat roof and constructed of red brick

1.4 There is a mature hedgerow on the east boundary adjoining the open space and a

small group of trees on the north boundary which are covered by a preservation order and a group of trees in the centre of the site adjacent the car park.

2. Application details 2.1 The annex building (three houses), part of the main building and prefabricated garage

in the centre of the site would be demolished to accommodate the proposal. 2.2 The existing building would be extended to provide a sports hall and fitness suite and

changing rooms which would extend northwards along the western boundary and a new external play area (Multi Use Games Area) would be created towards the north of the site and a new car park would be created on the north western boundary adjacent 17 Exmoor Green.

2.3 The new sports hall would be 9m in height and the link between the existing building

and the proposed extension would comprise a staircase and lift 5.7m in height.

APP NO: 10/01096/FUL WARD: Wednesfield South


RECEIVED: 27.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: Braybrook Centre, Bellamy Lane, Wolverhampton, WV11 1NN PROPOSAL: Refurbishment and extension to existing school building with new associated

outdoor sports and recreational facilities, landscaping and car parking. APPLICANT: Inspiredspaces Wolverhampton Ltd C/o Agent

AGENT: Mr Graham Parkes Tweedale Ltd 265 Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton WV6 0DE

59

2.4 A number of trees and part of the hedgerow adjacent the open space would be removed to accommodate the proposal. A bund would be created to the west of the new MUGA which would be 1.3m in height

2.5 The new car park would provide 17 parking spaces which include one disabled parking

space, mini bus parking and cycle storage would also be provided. 2.6 The new building would be constructed of red brick with timber cladding on the ground

and first floor sections and powder coated aluminium fascias and parapet wall detail. 2.7 The application is submitted as part of the Building for Schools initiative (BSF) which is

a government scheme providing funding to rebuild and refurbish schools in England over a 10-15 year period. A Local Education Partnership (LEP) has been established with the developers, Inspired Spaces, which will take the BSF programme forward.

3. Constraints 3.1 Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00082/TPO

Recreational Open Space

4. Relevant policies The Development Plan 4.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security C1 Health, Education and Other Community Services C4 Education Facilities D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use) D14 The Provision of Public Art EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Protection of Ground Water, Watercourses, Canals EP7 Protection of Floodplains EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP16 Energy Conservation (Part 1) EP17 Renewable Energy N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N5 Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and

Landscape Features of Value for Wildlife and Geology N7 The Urban Forest

60

N9 Protection of Wildlife Species R1 Local Standards for Open Space, Sport R2 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Priority Areas R3 Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation R5 Sports Grounds R8 Dual-Use of Open Space, Sport and Recreation

4.2 Regional Spatial Strategy Other Relevant Policies 4.3 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 Transport PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

4.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents:

SPG1 Public Art SPD Sustainable Communities 4.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009) 5. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 5.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and

Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) require that where certain proposals are likely to have significant effects upon the environment, it is necessary to provide a formal "Environmental Impact Assessment" to accompany the planning application.


6. Publicity 6.1 No representations received. 7. Internal consultees 7.1 Landscape – The areas occupied by buildings and hard surfaces on the site is

increased and the submitted landscape proposals do not adequately compensate for the loss of habitat, landscaped area or trees.

7.2 Ecology - Recommendations made in the submitted reports are acceptable. These

are that prior to development a further bat survey is carried out, a nesting bird survey should be undertaken if vegetation removal coincides with the bird nesting season and bat brick and nest brick should be incorporated into the sports hall.

7.3 Planning Policy – The proposed retention and improvement of the existing pupil referral unit would comply with UDP policy C1 7.4 Building Control – appears satisfactory

61

7.5 Tree Officer – There appears to be some discrepancies between the tree retention and protection plan and the landscape Masterplan. Clarification is required in respect of the trees to be lost and retained.

7.6 Archaeology – No archaeological implications 7.7 Environmental Services – details of refuse storage should be provided and the

previous use of the land may have lead to unacceptable levels of contamination and a site investigation report should be submitted by condition. Comments from Air Quality are awaited.

7.8 Building Schools for the Future – Parking provision and access to the sports facility

appears to be limited if there is any at all. 7.9 Transportation Development – The proposal would not have a material impact on

the local highway network based upon the increase in on-site parking and additional minibus parking. The proposed car parking provision is appropriate.

7.10 Detailed design for cycle storage, motorcycle parking, details of phasing, hours of

construction and an updated Travel Plan should be submitted by condition. 7.11 It is unclear whether any changes are proposed to the servicing arrangements. If this

is the case, swept paths should be provided demonstrating that the largest anticipated vehicle is able to access and manoeuvre within the site.

7.12 Access Team, Parks & Green Spaces (Leisure), Property Services - Estates -

comments awaited. 8. External consultees 8.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd – no objections subject to a condition that details of drainage

are submitted. 8.2 Environment Agency – no comment 8.3 MADE – There needs to be a greater connection with the outdoor spaces and the

design should attempt to factor in opportunities for display/performance 8.4 Sport England (West Midlands) and Police – no objection 8.5 Natural England, Centro, Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements - comments

awaited. 9. Legal Implications 9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications.

Conservation of Species Protected by Law 9.2 In addition to the general implications set out at the beginning of the schedule of

planning applications, the planning authority is a competent authority for the purposes of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (“the Habitat Regulations”) and the planning authority is under a duty to have regard to the Habitats Directive (Council 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna) in the exercise of those functions. Planning authorities should give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site to reflect these

62

requirements in reaching planning decisions Regulation 40 of the Habitat Regulations defines European protected species. Bats are protected species and are in addition also protected under part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

9.3 It should be noted Paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological

Conservation - Statutory Obligation and their impact within the Planning System provides that It is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all the relevant material considerations may not have been addressed before making the decision. The need to carry out ecological surveys are carried out should only be left to planning conditions in exceptional circumstances. [LC/24112010/H]


• Principle of Development • Design Quality • Layout • Scale and massing • Architectural appearance • Access and parking • Landscaping • Ecology

Principle of Development 10.2 This is an established school site. Its redevelopment would therefore accord with UDP

Policies C1 ‘Health, Education and Other Community Services’ and C4 ‘Education Facilities’ which supports improvements to educational facilities in the City.

Design Quality 10.3 PPS1 states that, “good design is indivisible from good planning” and that

development should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making better places for people and that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted. This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ which encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”. The key elements of design: layout, scale and massing and architectural appearance are considered in the following paragraphs.

Layout

10.4 With selective demolition, the proposed design has utilised the limited space available within the site to provide primarily improved sports facilities and off-street parking.

10.5 UDP policy D5 ‘Public Realm’ states that frontages should not be dominated by

parking or servicing areas and policy D6 Townscape and Landscape states that “proposals should make positive use of topography, land form, changes in levels, landscape setting and natural features of the site and the surrounding area”.

10.6 UDP policy D6 “Townscape and Landscape” states that public spaces should relate to

the buildings around it and be designed with a specific purpose in mind. 10.7 The proposed layout is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D5 and

D6.

63

Scale and massing 10.8 UDP policy D7 “Scale – Height” states that developments should be of a height that

achieves a strong sense of place and relates positively to its surroundings.

10.9 UDP D8 “Scale – Massing” states that proposals should make a positive contribution to the appearance of an area by means of appropriate massing and orientation.

10.10 The height and massing of the building as proposed would be appropriate to its

location and would be in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8. Architectural Appearance 10.11 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ states that all buildings should make a positive

contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials.

10.12 The overall architectural character of the building is contemporary but uses traditional

materials, which are consistent with the housing surrounding the site to the north east and west and also more natural materials such as timber cladding which blend in with the open natural setting to the east which is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy D9.

Access and Parking 10.13 Policy AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ states that maximum levels of car

parking and minimum levels of disabled parking and cycle parking and motor cycle parking should be provided.

10.14 The proposed parking provision is sufficient to accommodate the likely staff and visitor

demand for parking during the school day and for out of hours community/sporting use.

10.15 Details of motor cycle parking and a swept path analysis are required for service

vehicles for the largest anticipated service vehicle and the proposal is considered acceptable and would accord with UDP policy AM12 and AM15 which requires that all development proposals are designed and implemented to contribute towards improving road safety.

Landscaping and Trees 10.16 UDP policy D6 ‘Townscape and Landscape’ states that proposals should preserve or

enhance qualities of townscape or landscape character. UDP policy N7 ‘The Urban Forest’ states that developments should seek to preserve, enhance or extend the urban forest.

10.17 The areas occupied by buildings and hard surfaces on the site would be increased and

the submitted landscape proposals do not adequately compensate for the loss of habitat, landscaped area or trees. UDP policy D6 sates that attractive landscaping, including hard surfaces and parking areas should form an integral part of the design of new development.

10.18 Further clarification is required in respect of the tree removal and retention and a more

robust landscaping scheme should be submitted which would provide a greater compensation for the loss of existing natural features. Subject to the receipt of revised tree information and amended landscape design the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policies N5, N7, D6 and D12.

64

Ecology 10.19 Circular 06/2005 to PPS9 states that “the presence of protected species is a material

consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat”. UDP policy N9 ‘Protection of Wildlife Species’ states that developments which could harm protected species would only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that measures to protect the species have been proposed.

10.20 The results of the submitted ecological survey show that the site has no potential for

the presence of Great Crested Newts and habitats on site offer little potential to support reptiles or amphibians. No bat roosts have been identified but the defunct hedgerow, some trees and the dual pitch buildings on site have the potential to support nesting birds.

10.21 To ensure the development would not harm protected species and as mitigation to

enhance the existing habitat the ecological report recommends that a further bat survey is carried out prior to development, bat bricks and bat boxes and bird bricks are installed in the Sports hall and a nesting bird check should be made prior to vegetation removal. These can be dealt with satisfactorily by planning condition. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

11. Conclusion 11.1 The principle of redevelopment of this existing school site would be acceptable and in

accordance with UDP policies C1 and C4. 11.2 The proposed layout is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D5 and

D6. 11.3 The height and massing of the building as proposed would be appropriate to its

location and would be in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8. 11.4 The architectural appearance of the development would be acceptable and in

accordance with UDP policy D9 11.5 Subject to receipt of satisfactory details of motor cycle parking and a swept path

analysis for the largest anticipated service vehicle, the parking and vehicle access arrangements would be acceptable and in accord with UDP policies AM12 and AM15.

11.6 In general terms the impact on trees is acceptable. Subject to amendments to the

landscaping and further clarification about the proposed trees for removal, the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy N7.

11.7 Subject to no objection from Natural England the protected species have been

considered and subject to a further bat survey prior to demolition, the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

65

12. Recommendation 12.1 That the Director for Regeneration and Environment be given delegated authority to

grant planning application 10/01096/FUL subject to no overriding objections from Natural England and subject to

1. Receipt of amended layout to include motor cycle parking, revised landscape

proposals, clarification on tree retention and loss, swept path analysis if service arrangements are to change.

2. Any appropriate conditions to include:

• Materials (including MUGA and hard surface materials) • Large scale architectural drawings • Refuse storage • Cycle storage • External lighting • Further bat survey • Nesting bird survey • Drainage details • Tree protection measures • Hours of construction • School Travel Plan • Landscaping (including street furniture) • Boundary Treatments • Contaminated land mitigation • Phasing and logistics plan (as submitted) • Targeted recruitment and training (as submitted) • Public art • Exterior of the building to be completed before occupation unless otherwise

agreed; • Any other appropriate conditions required as a result of outstanding

consultation responses. Case Officer : Jenny Davies Telephone No : 01902 555608 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

66

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01096/FUL Location Braybrook Centre, Bellamy Lane,Wolverhampton,WV11 1NN Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 394279 301057 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 4884m2

67


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 This is an established school site located 500m north east of Wednesfield Village

Centre. Wednesfield High School currently comprises two separate school buildings 180m apart. The 78 ha application site comprises the northern building, a small part of the southern building and the playing fields between the two buildings. The northern building has single storey, two storey and three storey elements.

1.2 Vehicular access to the site is from Lichfield Road and Lakefield Road on the western

boundary. 1.3 The site is relatively level and is surrounded to the north and east by residential

development. To the west, on the opposite side of Lakefield Road is the Jennie Lee Centre. To the east is an area of Recreational Open Space accessed from Yale Drive and Heather Close. To the south of the southern school building are more school playing fields.

1.4 There are several mature trees on the Lichfield Road and Lakefield Road frontages.

The eastern boundary with the housing area is defined by a hedgerow and sporadic trees. The Recreational Open Space to the east is separated by a substantial line of mature trees.

2. Application details 2.1 It is proposed to adapt the existing northern school building through extension, partial

demolition and internal and external alterations.

APP NO: 10/01105/FUL WARD: Wednesfield South

DATE: 05-Oct-10 TARGET DATE: 04-Jan-11

RECEIVED: 27.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: Wednesfield High School, Lichfield Road, Wednesfield, WV11 3ES PROPOSAL: Part demolition of existing school. Erection of new teaching blocks, sports

hall and associated facilities. Refurbishment of existing school facilities, provisions of associated outdoor sports and play facilities. Provision of car parking and landscaping works.

APPLICANT: Inspiredspaces Wolverhampton Ltd C/o Agent


68

2.2 The main areas of extension are: • A two storey element replacing the existing single storey wing on the frontage

to Lichfield Road. • A two storey element across the north-eastern end of the building. • A new sports hall at the south-eastern end of the building.

2.3 The completed building would have a gross internal floor area of 8956 square metres,

compared to 7243 square metres currently which is an increase of 1713 square metres.

2.4 The proposal would also provide a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), three tennis

courts, seven football pitches, a 400m grass athletics track, and a “habitat area”. 2.5 A car park for staff would be located towards the north of the site with access off

Lichfield Road. It would provide 92 parking spaces and eight disabled parking bays, a taxi drop-off and vehicle turning area. A parking area would also be created adjacent to the new sports hall with access from Lakefield Road, to provide for community use of the sports facilities. It would provide 11 parking spaces (including three disabled spaces). Servicing of the school would be from the rear of the site, accessed through the staff car park off Lichfield Road.

2.6 Three pedestrian entrances are shown for staff, visitors and pupils. Accommodation

for up to 94 bicycles has been shown as part of the proposal and would be located adjacent to the pupil and visitor entrance.

2.7 A combination of brick, timber cladding and various glazing systems is proposed. 2.8 The application is submitted as part of the Building Schools for the Future initiative

(BSF), which is a government scheme providing funding to rebuild and refurbish schools in England over a 10-15 year period. A Local Education Partnership (LEP) has been established with the developers, Inspired Spaces, which will take the BSF programme forward.

2.9 There would be a decrease in pupil numbers from 1316 to 900 but staff numbers will

remain the same. 3. Constraints

3.1 Millennium Urban Forest

Mining Areas Recreational Open Space


AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security C1 Health, Education and Other Community Services C4 Education Facilities D1 Design Quality

69

D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use) D14 The Provision of Public Art EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Protection of Ground Water, Watercourses, Canals EP7 Protection of Floodplains EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP16 Energy Conservation (Part 1) EP17 Renewable Energy N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N5 Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and

Landscape Features of Value for Wildlife and Geology N7 The Urban Forest N9 Protection of Wildlife Species R1 Local Standards for Open Space, Sport R2 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Priority Areas R3 Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation R5 Sports Grounds R8 Dual-Use of Open Space, Sport and Recreation

Other Relevant Policies 4.2 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 Transport PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

4.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents: SPG1 Public Art SPD Sustainable Communities 4.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009) 4.5 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands 5. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 5.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and


5.2 This application is considered to be a Schedule 2 Project as defined by the above Regulations. The “screening opinion” of the Local Planning Authority is that a formal Environmental Impact Assessment is not required in this instance as the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment as defined by the above Regulations and case law.

70

6. Publicity 6.1 One letter from residents has been received which does not object to the proposal but

raises concerns about the traffic implications of extra students. 7. Internal consultees 7.1 Transportation Development – The Transport Assessment indicates that the

proposed development will have no material impact on the highway network. The increase in parking provision to include 100 general spaces, 11 disabled spaces and two mini-bus parking bay is acceptable.

7.2 The Transport Assessment recommends off-site improvements or a contribution

towards the provision of a road awareness program for the school. 7.3 Motor cycle parking should be provided and included in the proposed layout and swept

path analysis for the largest service vehicle should be provided to demonstrate that these vehicles can manoeuvre satisfactorily within the site.

7.4 Planning Policy – The proposed improvement of the existing school is compliant with

UDP policy C1. 7.5 Tree Officer – No objections in general however four trees identified for removal

(three Maple and one London Plane) should be considered for retention as they are of good form and condition with a long life expectancy of 30 years plus.

7.6 Archaeology – The submitted Archaeological Assessment identifies the remains of a

former field system (ridge and furrow ploughing) on the playing fields. If affected by the proposals details a condition should require it to be recorded and details submitted.

7.7 Environmental Services - details of refuse storage should be provided and the


7.8 Wolverhampton BSF Team – A limited range of outdoor sporting provision is shown

and there is an opportunity to provide a replacement for the Synthetic Turf Pitch (STP) at the Jennie Lee Centre which is in a poor state of repair.

7.9 Building Control – no objections but make detailed comments relating to Building Regulations

7.10 Property Services (Estates), Landscape, Parks & Green Spaces (Leisure) –

comments awaited. 8. External consultees 8.1 Severn Trent Water – no objections subject to a condition that drainage details are

submitted. 8.2 Environment Agency – no objections subject to a condition that surface water

drainage details are submitted. 8.3 MADE – comment on the internal arrangement.

71

8.4 Natural England – no comment but recommend a further bat survey report is undertaken prior to demolition of the buildings.

8.5 Sport England (West Midlands), Centro, Police and

Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements – comments are awaited. 9. Legal Implications 9.1 The application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State if Sport England

object, under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. Where the application is referred the planning authority cannot determine the application until the expiration of 21 days after the requisite information has been provided to the Secretary of State or until the Secretary of State has confirmed he does not wish to "call in" the application, if earlier.[KR/24112010/H]


• Principle of Development • Design Quality • Layout • Scale • Architectural Appearance • Parking and access • Landscaping and Trees • Neighbour Comment

Principle of development

10.2 UDP Policy C1 ‘Health, Education and other Community Services’ which seeks to meet existing and future needs for community provision and UDP Policy C4 ‘Education Facilities’ supports improvements to educational facilities in the City. This is an established school site. Its redevelopment would therefore accord with UDP policies C1 and C4.


development should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making better places for people and that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted. This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ which encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”.

Layout 10.4 UDP policy D5 ‘Public Realm’ states that frontages should not be dominated by




D6.

72

Scale 10.7 UDP policy D7 “Scale – Height” states that developments should be of a height that




location and would be in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8. Architectural Appearance 10.10 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ states that all buildings should make a positive


10.11 The overall architectural character of the building is contemporary but uses traditional

materials, which are consistent with the housing surrounding the site to the north east and west and also more natural materials such as timber cladding which blend in with the open natural setting to the south which is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy D9.

Parking and access 10.12 Policy AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ states that maximum levels of car


10.13 The proposed parking provision is sufficient to accommodate the likely staff and visitor

demand for parking during the school day and for out of hours community/sporting use.

10.14 Details of motor cycle parking and a swept path analysis for the largest anticipated

service vehicle have been requested. Subject to receipt of satisfactory details the proposal is would be acceptable and accord with UDP policies AM12 and AM15.

Landscaping and trees 10.15 UDP policy N7 ‘The Urban Forest’ states that developments should seek to preserve,

enhance or extend the urban forest. There are four trees which have been identified for removal (three Maple and one

London Plane) which are of good form and condition with a long life expectancy of 30 years plus. The agent has been requested to reconsider the removal of these trees and if they have to be removed, provide further justification.

10.16 Subject to this matter being satisfactorily addressed, the proposal would be acceptable

and accord with UDP policy N7. Neighbour Comment 10.17 One letter has been received which does not object to the proposal but raises

concerns about the traffic implications of extra students. The submitted Transport Assessment indicates that the proposed development will have no material impact on the highway network. There will also be a decrease in pupil number of 416 pupils which would be more likely to reduce the impact of traffic rather then increase congestion.

73

11. Conclusion 11.1 The principle of redevelopment of this existing school site would be acceptable and in

accordance with UDP policies C1 and C4. 11.2 The proposed layout is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D5 and





11.6 In general terms the impact on trees is acceptable. Subject to further clarification

about the four trees of merit which are proposed for removal, the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy N7.


grant planning application 10/01105/FUL subject to no objection from outstanding consultees and subject to:

3. Receipt of amended plans to include motor cycle parking and clarification on tree

retention and swept path analysis drawings.


• Materials (including MUGA and hard surface materials) • Refuse storage • Cycle storage • External lighting details • Further bat survey prior to demolition • Drainage details • Tree protection measures • Hours of construction • School Travel Plan • Landscaping • Boundary Treatments • Contaminated land mitigation • Phasing and logistics plan implementation (as submitted) • Targeted recruitment and training (as submitted) • Public art • Exterior of the building to be completed before occupation unless otherwise

agreed; Case Officer : Jenny Davies Telephone No : 01902 555608 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

74

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01105/FUL Location Wednesfield High School, Lichfield Road,Wednesfield,WV11 3ES Plan Scale (approx) 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 395161 300364 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 74636m2

75


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 This is an established school site located approximately 3.5km north east of the City

Centre. The application site has an area of 7.9ha and is relatively level. Vehicular access is from Ecclestone Road at the northern end of the site, where the school building is located. Playing fields are located to the south.

1.2 The school currently shares its playing fields with Oak Meadow Primary School, to the

south west. The primary school is to be provided with a new school building with its own playing pitches.

1.3 The site is surrounded by mainly residential development. Its southern boundary is

defined by Lichfield Road. 1.4 The school currently comprises a mix of buildings of varying ages, styles and heights

built between the 1950s and 1970s. It is predominantly single storey but with a three storey element on the western side, where the main entrance is currently located. The detached former caretaker’s bungalow is now used for education purposes. The buildings are primarily constructed of pale brown brick with flat roofs. The Assembly Hall has a copper clad mansard roof.

1.5 There are several mature trees around the periphery of the site on the southern

boundary adjacent to Lichfield Road and within the northern section of the site. 2. Application details 2.1 The proposed development comprises a three storey, oval shaped extension on the

northern end of the building, facing onto the access from Ecclestone Road. This would provide a new main entrance and theatre. At the southern end, a new sports hall is proposed. The existing detached building to the east would be linked to the main

APP NO: 10/01106/FUL WARD: Wednesfield North


RECEIVED: 29.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: Coppice Performing Arts School, Ecclestone Road, Wolverhampton, WV11

2QE PROPOSAL: Improvements to existing school, comprising the erection of new teaching

facilities, Sports Hall and Theatre, refurbishment of existing school facilities, associated outdoor sports and play facilities, car parking and landscaping works.



76

building and the link would provide the community access to the sports facilities. An external courtyard would be created towards the south of the building

2.2 The proposed total gross internal floorspace would be 10586sq.m. compared with

7857sq.m. existing, an increase of 2729sq.m. The proposed extensions would range between 11m (the new theatre and new sports hall) and 4.2m (single storey link building) in height.

2.3 The proposal would retain the recently constructed Multi Use Games Area (MUGA)

and tennis courts and create three football pitches, a 400m grass athletics track, vegetable garden, new natural habitat area and football training grids.

2.4 A car park for staff would be located towards the north of the site with access off

Ecclestone Road. It would provide 111 vehicle parking spaces and eight disabled parking bays and a further eight spaces for visitors and vehicle turning area. Access to the deliveries area is shown off the south west corner of the new car park.

2.5 There are pedestrian links from the east corner of the site and Lichfield Road which

would be retained with the paths realigned. Cycle parking would be provided adjacent to the student entrance on the west side of the building.

2.6 A temporary access is proposed off Lichfield Road during construction. Oak Meadow

Primary School would also have a temporary access off Lichfield Road during construction.

2.7 A combination of brick, polycarbonate translucent sheets, through coloured render and

spandrel panels are proposed. 2.8 The existing boundary treatment around the perimeter of the site would be retained. 2.9 The application is submitted as part of the Building for Schools initiative (BSF) which is


3. Planning History 3.1 Land adjacent - 10/00537/FUL – Oak Meadow Primary School – New school building –

Granted 22 September 2010 4. Constraints 4.1 Millennium Urban Forest

Mining Area 5. Relevant policies The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

77

C1 Health, Education and Other Community Services C4 Education Facilities D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use) D14 The Provision of Public Art EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Protection of Ground Water, Watercourses, Canals EP7 Protection of Floodplains EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP16 Energy Conservation (Part 1) EP17 Renewable Energy N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N5 Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and


5.2 Regional Spatial Strategies Other relevant policies 5.3 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

PPG13 Transport PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

5.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG1 Public Art SPD Sustainable Communities 5.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 5.6 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and


6.2 This application is considered to be a Schedule 2 Project as defined by the above Regulations. The “screening opinion” of the Local Planning Authority is that a

78

formal Environmental Impact Assessment is not required in this instance as the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment as defined by the above Regulations and case law.

7. Publicity 7.1 One letter has been received from a local resident requesting a new entrance/drop off

point on Lichfield Road as the number of vehicles dropping off on Ecclestone Road causes traffic blockages.

8. Internal consultees 8.1 Transportation Development – The submitted Transport Statement has

demonstrated that the redevelopment would not have a material impact on the local highway network.

8.2 Swept path analysis for the largest service vehicle should be submitted to demonstrate

manoeuvrability within the site. A condition should restrict servicing to outside of school start and finish times in order to minimize potential conflict.

8.3 The proposed parking provision of 119 spaces and eight disabled spaces is

acceptable. Cycle storage is shown adjacent to the main entrance but should also be provided at the community entrance. Motor cycle parking should also be included.

8.4 Landscape – A detailed layout plan for the planting, details of the biomass fuel silo

and outdoor furniture will be required by condition. 8.5 Ecology – An ecology report, Great Crested Newt Survey, interim bat and reptile

survey have been submitted and no protected species have been identified on site. The interim bat survey detected bats flying on or close to the site but has not detected any roosts within the buildings and follow-up surveys for bats and reptiles will be required. The recommendations in the ecology report should be followed.

8.6 Planning Policy – Any loss of playing fields would be contrary to UDP policies R3 and

R5. The proposal would result in the loss of playing fields on an area to the west of the recently installed MUGA and an area to be used as a vegetable garden. These could be relocated to increase the area of playing fields.

8.7 Tree Officer – The arboricultural report needs to be extended to include trees within

the northern area of the site. 8.8 Archaeology- No archaeological implications. 8.9 Environmental Services - details of refuse storage should be provided and the


8.10 Wolverhampton BSF Team – the scheme should include more non-traditional sports activities/facilities.

8.11 Building Control - no objections but make detailed comments relating to Building

Regulations. 8.12 Property Services – Estates, Access Team, Parks & Green Spaces (Leisure) -

comments awaited.

79

9. External consultees 9.1 Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition requiring surface water

drainage details. 9.2 MADE – comment on the internal arrangement. 9.3 Severn Trent Water, Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements, Centro - Sport

England (West Midlands), Natural England, Police - comments awaited 10. Legal Implications 10.1 The application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State if Sport England

object, under the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009. Where the application is referred the planning authority cannot determine the application until the expiration of 21 days after the requisite information has been provided to the Secretary of State or until the Secretary of State has confirmed he does not wish to "call in" the application, if earlier.[KR/24112010/H]


• Principle of Development • Loss of Playing Field Provision • Design Quality • Layout • Scale • Architectural Appearance • Parking and access • Ecology • Trees • Neighbour objection


11.2 This is an established school site. Its redevelopment would therefore accord with UDP Policies C1 ‘Health, Education and other Community Services’ and C4 ‘Education Facilities’ which supports improvements to educational facilities in the City.

Loss of Playing Field Provision 11.3 Policies R3 “Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation” and R5 “Sports

Grounds” provide for the protection of existing playing fields and sports facilities. 11.4 The proposals would result in the loss of 1.2ha of playing fields. The Playing Pitch

Study for Wolverhampton states that there is no surplus of playing fields. 11.5 Policy R3 states that developments which would result in the loss of any part of such a

facility will not be permitted unless:- • It would be for recreational or community use in-keeping with the function of

the facility, or; • An exchange of land is secured to maintain the facility, or; • The facility is surplus to requirements.

If such development is permitted, policy R3 requires compensatory provision.

80

11.6 None of the criteria in policy R3 are met and so this proposal is contrary to that policy. 11.7 Policy R5 states that development which would result in the loss of all or part of its

sports ground will not be permitted unless: • It is ancillary to the principle use of the site and will not adversely affect use of

playing pitches, or; • It is for a sports facility, or • The sports ground is no longer required. Except where the sports ground is

surplus to requirements, compensatory provision is required. 11.8 None of the criteria in R5 are met and so the proposal is contrary to that policy. 11.9 In accordance with Section 38 (b) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004,

the local planning authority must determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the loss of playing fields, contrary to policies R3 and R5, is justified by the benefits which would accrue from improved school facilities and by the fact that there is no alternative location for the new building.

11.10 The proposed layout would result in a large area of hard/artificial surface play areas.

The balance of playing field and hard surface area could be improved if part of the hard surfaced area is converted to provide tennis courts and the remainder is converted to grass. Revisions to the submitted layout to include the above would reduce the loss of playing fields and may even result in no loss of playing fields overall. Subject to no loss of playing fields the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policies R3 and R5.


development should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making better places for people and that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted. This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ which encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”.

11.12 The key elements of design: layout, scale and architectural appearance are considered

in the following paragraphs. Layout 11.13 UDP policy D5 ‘Public Realm’ states that frontages should not be dominated by




D6.

Scale 11.16 UDP policy D7 “Scale – Height” states that developments should be of a height that



81

11.18 The height and massing of the building as proposed would be appropriate to its location and would be in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8.

Architectural appearance 11.19 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ states that all buildings should make a positive


11.20 The architectural design and choice of materials are acceptable and in accordance

with UDP policy D9.

Parking and access 11.21 UDP Policy AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ states that maximum levels of car


11.22 UDP Policy AM15 “Road Safety and Personal Security” requires that all development

should contribute towards improving road safety and personal security. 11.23 The proposed parking provision is sufficient to accommodate the likely staff and visitor

demand for parking during the school day and for out of hours community use of sports facilities.

11.24 Details of motorcycle parking and a swept path analysis for the largest anticipated

service vehicles have been requested. Details of the design of cycle parking and an updated Travel Plan can be required by condition.

11.25 Subject to receipt of satisfactory motorcycle parking and swept path details the

proposal would be acceptable and would accord with UDP policies AM12 and AM15. Ecology 11.26 Circular 06/2005 to PPS9 states that “the presence of protected species is a material

consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat”. UDP policy N9 requires that where there is a strong indication that a site is used by protected species an application must be accompanied by an ecological survey and impact assessment, details of how the development will accommodate the needs of those protected species and how harm will be mitigated.

11.27 The results of the submitted ecological survey show that there are no Great Crested

Newts present on or adjacent to the site. The habitats around the periphery of the site have the potential to support nesting birds and common amphibian and reptile species.

11.28 To conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the site, a new wetland habitat is

proposed, to benefit a range of amphibian and invertebrate species. 11.29 To ensure the development would not harm protected species the Ecological Report

recommends that prior to demolition of the buildings and removal of vegetation, further surveys should be undertaken for the presence of bats, reptiles and amphibians. Subject to this being required by a condition the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

Trees 11.30 UDP policy N7 ‘The Urban Forest’ states that developments should seek to preserve,

enhance or extend the urban forest.

82

11.31 The information submitted in relation to trees is incomplete and further information is required to demonstrate that there will be no damage to, or unnecessary removal of, trees.

11.32 Subject to satisfactory details being provided the development would be acceptable

and accord with UDP policy N7 Neighbour Objection 11.33 One letter has been received which does not object to the proposal but requests an

additional drop-off point on Lichfield Road to relieve congestion on Ecclestone Road (A4124). However, an additional vehicular access here would conflict with the two temporary construction accesses in the short term (for Coppice and Oak Meadow Schools) and the creation of a drop-off point on this strategic highway would be seriously detrimental to highway safety.

12. Conclusion 12.1 The site is an established school site and the general principle of redevelopment is

acceptable and would accord with UDP policies C1 and C4. 12.2 Currently the proposal would result in the loss of playing fields, contrary to policies R3

and R5. However, this is justified by the benefits which would accrue from improved school facilities and by the fact that there is no alternative location for the new building.

12.3 The proposed layout is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D5 and





12.7 The submitted ecological information is satisfactory. Further bat, reptile and

amphibian surveys can be required by condition. On that basis the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

12.8 Subject to satisfactory details being provided the development regarding trees to be

removed, the development would be acceptable and accord with UDP policy N7.

83


grant planning application 10/01106/FUL subject to:

1. Receipt of satisfactory details of motor cycle parking, swept path analysis, and tree retention.

2. No overriding objection from Natural England. 3. The Secretary of State not calling in the application if a referral is necessary

because of an objection from Sport England. 4. Any appropriate conditions to include:

• Materials • Refuse storage • Cycle storage • External lighting details • Further bat, amphibian and reptile surveys • Drainage details • Tree protection measures • Hours of construction • School Travel Plan • Landscaping • Contaminated land mitigation • Phasing and logistics plan implementation (as submitted) • Targeted recruitment and training (as submitted) • Public art • Limit use deliveries to outside school start and finish times • Temporary access, footway re-instated following completion • Exterior of the building to be completed before occupation unless otherwise

agreed • Details of biomass fuel silo

Case Officer : Jenny Davies Telephone No : 01902 555608 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

84

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01106/FUL Location Coppice Performing Arts School, Ecclestone Road,Wolverhampton,WV11 2QE Plan Scale (approx) 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 396436 301529 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 80683m2

85


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is located immediately to the south of Bilston Town Centre and has an area of

5.7 hectares. It is occupied by a range of school buildings. The main building is located at the north of the site and was formerly Stonefield Primary School. It is a locally listed building, constructed of orange-red brick with decorative window and string detailing in terracotta and slate roof in 1905-06 with later additions to the building between 1924 and 1937. The playing fields and modern detached structures including a sports hall and former science block are located towards the south.

1.2 The land falls gently from north to south and dips in the centre of the site from east to

west with a steep incline on either side. Part of the playing fields is located within a flood zone and there are a large number of mineshafts across the site.

1.3 To the north is Prosser Street, which provides vehicular access to the existing school

off the Black Country Route. Also, there are 12 houses in Linton Croft whose rear garden boundaries directly adjoin the application site. To the east of the site is Bilston Leisure Centre which is currently under construction and a new traffic island at the junction with Dudley Street.

1.4 To the south and west is vacant land, which is allocated in the UDP (policy S1) as the

Bilston Urban Village Strategic Regeneration Area. A public footpath (Rope Walk) leads southward from Prosser Street, adjacent to the western site boundary.

2. Application details 2.1 The application proposes the demolition of the existing buildings and erection of a new

four storey school building on the east of the site on part of the existing playing fields and disused tennis courts. The building would be to the south of the new Bilston Leisure Centre.

APP NO: 10/01108/FUL WARD: Bilston East


RECEIVED: 29.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: South Wolverhampton And Bilston Academy, Prosser Street/Dudley Street,

Bilston, WV14 0QD PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing school and associated buildings and the erection of

new educational facilities, provision of associated outdoor sports and play facilities, provision of car parking, landscaping and ancillary works.



86

2.2 The new building would have a gross internal floor area of 11,580sq.m. and would provide teaching and learning space, dining areas, a lecture theatre and main hall. The building would also provide accommodation for the Bilston East and Ettingshall Multi-Agency Support Team (MAST) which would provide co-ordinated services for children, young people, families and schools.

2.4 The staff car park would be located to the north of the new building with access from

Prosser Street via a new road at the back of the Leisure Centre. The car park would provide 100 staff parking spaces and a service delivery area.

2.5 Additional staff and community parking (40 spaces) is located in the north-west corner

of the site, accessed from Prosser Street. 2.6 The main entrance to the building would be in the east elevation. A drop-off area, four

disabled parking spaces and eight visitor parking spaces would be located to the south of the main entrance, accessed off Dudley Street. Cycle parking would be provided adjacent to the main entrance.

2.5 The development would provide outdoor sports facilities, including a floodlit all weather

pitch, a Multi Use Games Area (MUGA), two “under 16s” football pitches, a cricket pitch, a 400m grass athletics track and a 500m running track. Also proposed are a habitat area, learning gardens and vegetable gardens, courtyards and outdoor dining area on the south and west side of the building.

2.7 Because of the changing levels across the site, the four storeys would only be

apparent from the south and west and partly from the north. The east elevation and part of the north elevation would present three storeys. External materials would be predominantly vertical timber cladding with areas of brick walling.

2.8 The application is submitted as part of the Building for Schools initiative (BSF) which is


3. Planning History 3.1 10/00315/DWF for Site preparation/enabling works and mineworkings stabilisation

works in preparation for the main construction of Bilston Academy development, granted 11.06.2010.


Flood Zone 2/3 Locally Listed Building Landfill Gas Zone Mining Area

87


AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM6 Transport Assessments AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security C1 Health, Education and Other Community Services C4 Education Facilities D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use) D14 The Provision of Public Art EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Protection of Ground Water, Watercourses, Canals EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP16 Energy Conservation (Part 1) EP17 Renewable Energy HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness (Part 1) HE20 Demolition of a Local List Building or Site N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N5 Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and


5.2 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands Other relevant policies 5.3 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation

PPG13 Transport PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

5.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG1 Public Art SPD Sustainable Communities 5.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

88




7. Publicity 7.1 One letter of objection has been received and is signed by occupiers of three houses

in Linton Croft. The main concerns are the impact of noise and lighting from the all weather pitch particularly in the evenings and at weekends, traffic noise adjacent to the rear garden boundary from staff and delivery vehicles and overlooking from the new building.

8. Internal Consultees 8.1 Transportation Development - The proposed parking provision is appropriate to

accommodate the likely demand generated. The eight visitor spaces should be removed to discourage parent drop off and pick up where pupils will be boarding and alighting buses. Cycle storage is provided adjacent to the main entrance. Motor cycle parking should also be included in the proposed layout. A continuous footway link from Prosser Street into the development should be provided along the vehicle access.

8.2 The Transport Assessment demonstrates that access for all site traffic via Prosser

Street would have a significant impact on the local junctions and recommends mitigation in the form of junction improvements in the local area to ensure that all development trips can be accommodated without detriment to the highway network.

8.3 There is a concern about the impact of the proposed access to the main car park,

which is also the service entrance to the Leisure Centre, on the operation of the leisure centre. Further clarification is required.

8.4 Swept path analysis for the largest service vehicles (ie tankers) should be provided to

include the whole route from the adopted highway at Prosser Street and should include manoeuvring within the service delivery courtyard.

8.5 Swept path analysis demonstrating that buses are able to manoeuvre into and out of

the proposed lay-by are required and movements and parking within the lay-by should be restricted to buses and disabled access and therefore Traffic Regulation Orders are necessary along Dudley Street.

8.6 Landscape – A detailed layout plan for the planting, hard landscaping proposals, all

fencing details and steps to the ecology/habitat area and street furniture will be required by condition.

8.7 Ecology – a phase one habitat survey, great crested newt, and badger, bat and reptile

survey has been undertaken. Great Crested newts are not present on or adjacent to

89

the site but populations of smooth newts have been found. No bat roosts have been identified but the habitats on site support foraging and commuting bats. Badger setts have been identified on the school site and immediately adjacent to it. The hedgerows, trees and buildings on site have the potential to support nesting birds. The recommendations in the ecology reports should be followed.

8.8 Planning Policy – The option of retaining the locally listed building has been

considered in the submitted options appraisal in accordance with UDP policy HE20. It is evident that the improved sports provision to be provided on the site will benefit the community as a whole. There are no policy objections to the demolition of the existing school building.

8.9 The scheme envisages the loss of 0.31 ha of playing fields which would be offset by

the gain of 0.44ha of hard court area. There are no objections to this under UDP policy R3 subject to no objections from Sport England.

8.10 Archaeology – The archaeological assessment has established three areas of

archaeological potential; • Woolley’s Iron Works/Bilston Brook/Bilston Mill; • Woolley’s House/Stonefield House • A 19th Century development off Dudley Street.

8.11 These and the former line of Bilston Brook will need a programme of archaeological

work which can be secured though a planning condition. There are some remains of a former field system (ridge and furrow ploughing) on the playing fields. If affected by the development proposals the recording of these should be secured by condition.

8.12 Parks & Green Spaces (Leisure) – The proposal involves the loss of 0.39ha of

playing fields and three tennis courts but a net gain of 0.45ha in hard surfaced courts which is acceptable in quantitative terms. Justification is required for the need in this particular location of an Artificial Turf Pitch (ATP) or any evidence of local demand for hockey.

8.13 Wolverhampton BSF Team – The area has some of the poorest health demographics

in the City, therefore could a more innovative range of activities /facilities be considered to engage young people and the wider community. Also a rationale for hockey pitches should be submitted.

8.14 Environmental Services - details of refuse storage and a scheme for noise and odour

control should be provided. Hours of delivery and refuse collection should be conditioned. The previous use of the land may have led to unacceptable levels of contamination and a site investigation report should be required by condition.

8.15 The recommendations of the submitted noise report are acceptable and conditions are

necessary that a construction environmental management plan and details of sound insulation for plant and machinery are submitted and that noise emissions are restricted between 2300hrs and 0700hrs. The proposed chimney stack height for the proposed biomass plant of 20m may not be sufficient and should be increased to 23m.

8.16 Historic Environment – The loss of the locally listed building is regrettable but an

Options Appraisal Report has been submitted which demonstrates that retention is not a viable option and so the first part of UDP policy HE20 has been fulfilled.

8.17 Provided an appropriate level of survey and recording is undertaken, that the

replacement building is of comparable quality and that special architectural features are retained on site, policy HE20 will have been met. The submission does not include details of salvage and reuse of materials and further information is required. It is also

90

desirable to include some interpretation of the history of the site within the development and details should be provided by condition.

8.18 Tree Officer – No objections subject to tree protection measures being in place prior to commencement of development.

8.19 Access Team, Building Control, Property Services (Estates) – comments awaited. 9. External consultees 9.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd – No objection subject to a condition that drainage details are

submitted. 9.2 Environment Agency – Objects. The submitted Flood Risk Assessment fails to

adequately assess the flood risk due to fluvial flooding and overland flow to the site and provide a sufficient drainage strategy for the site

9.3 Police - No objections. However there are a number of concerns that the staff car

park is located distant from the building and should be enclosed with security fencing and be well lit. The public footpath along the western boundary has not been included in the site boundary and is an area for unsocial behaviour. The ground floor of the building should be clad in brick or non-combustible materials.

9.4 MADE – concerns about the openness of the front of the building. It is a busy school

community and there is an opportunity to reflect this by allowing people to see the activities inside the school. Need to ensure that there is not a blank brick wall facing out onto the sports centre.

9.5 Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society, Centro, Sport England (West

Midlands), Natural England, Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements – comments awaited.


applications. 10.2 In addition to the general implications set out at the beginning of the schedule of

planning applications, the planning authority is a competent authority for the purposes of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (“the Habitat Regulations”) and the planning authority is under a duty to have regard to the Habitats Directive (Council 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild flora and fauna) in the exercise of those functions. Planning authorities should give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site to reflect these requirements in reaching planning decisions Regulation 40 of the Habitat Regulations defines European protected species. Bats and badgers are protected species and are in addition also protected under part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

10.3 Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Disturbing a badger

sett, adversely affecting foraging territory or links between them or significantly increasing the risk of road or rail casualties are capable of being material considerations.

10.4 The Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 requires

proposes major development in a flood risk area to which the Environment Agency objects to be referred to the Secretary of State to consider whether he wishes to call it

91

in for his own determination. As these circumstances apply in this case, unless the EA objection is withdrawn, the application will need to be referred. The planning authority will then not be able to determine the application until the expiration of 21 days after the requisite information has been provided to the Secretary of State or until the Secretary of State has confirmed he does not wish to "call in" the application, if earlier. [LC/25112010/F] In addition if Sport England object and the local planning authority wish to grant the application then the matter will also need to be referred to the Secretary of State and allow 21 days for the Secretary of State to consider whether he wishes to call the application in for his own determination.


• Principle of Development • Loss of Playing Field Provision • Loss of locally listed building • Flood risk • Design quality • Layout • Scale, massing and architectural appearance • Parking and access • Residential amenity • Ecology


11.2 This is an established school site. Its redevelopment would therefore accord with UDP policies C1 ‘Health, Education and other Community Services’ and C4 ‘Education Facilities’ which support improvements to educational facilities in the City.

Loss of playing field provision 11.3 Policies R3 and R5 provide for the protection of existing playing fields and sports

facilities. The proposals would result in the loss of 0.31ha of playing fields but would be compensated for by the net gain of 0.44ha of hard surfaced courts. UDP policies R3 and R5 state that the loss of playing fields will not be permitted unless the indoor or outdoor facility would be of sufficient benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the loss. Further details are required in respect of the Artificial Turf Pitch (ATP) located in the north western corner and identified as hockey pitches. Subject to further clarification or justification for this type of sports provision the proposal would be acceptable and in accordance with policies R3 and R5.

Loss of locally listed building 11.5 UDP policy HE20 ‘Demolition of a Local List Building or Site’, requires the submission

of an options appraisal report which assesses all options for the site but concludes that to retain the locally listed building would not be viable. Such an appraisal has been submitted and its conclusion, that the existing building is inadequate to support the learning and teaching aspirations of the new academy in terms of space requirements, is accepted.

11.6 In such cases policy HE20 states that if the case for demolition has been made, there

are certain requirements prior to demolition and these include:

• An appropriate level of survey and recording which may involve archaeological excavations;

• Provision of replacement buildings of comparable quality and design especially in respect of buildings of landmark value;

92

• Where possible the salvage of special features or elements for re-use in the replacement development scheme;

• The use of road or building names in any new development which reflect the historic origins of the area maintaining a link with the past.

11.7 An appropriate level of survey and recording can be required by condition. The new

building would not be located in the same position as the demolished building. However, the replacement building is of comparable quality and design and would be positioned within the site to have a more interactive and positive relationship within its context. Clarification is being sought in respect of the retention and re-use of special features, which include terracotta detailing and commemorative plaques, bell/clock turrets, foundation stones and boundary walls and railings. It is also desirable to include some interpretation of the history of the site within the development and details can be required by condition. Subject to conditions and clarification of features to be retained the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy HE20.

Flood Risk

11.8 Parts of the site are within flood risk zones 2 and 3. A Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) submitted with the application is considered inadequate by the Environment Agency (EA). The applicant has been asked to amend the FRA to satisfy the EA. If the EA does not remove its objection the application will be referred to the Secretary of State, who will decide whether to ‘call-in’ the application.


development should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making better places for people and that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted. This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ which encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”. The key elements of design are considered below.

Layout

11.10 UDP policy D5 ‘Public Realm’ states that frontages should not be dominated by parking or servicing areas and policy D6 Townscape and Landscape states that “proposals should make positive use of topography, land form, changes in levels, landscape setting and natural features of the site and the surrounding area”.



D6. Scale, massing and architectural appearance 11.13 UDP policy D7 “Scale – Height” states that developments should be of a height that




location and would be in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8. Parking and access 11.16 Policy AM1 ‘Access, Mobility and New Development’ requires that developments new

development contributes towards improvements on access and mobility and policy AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ states that maximum levels of car parking and

93

minimum levels of disabled parking and cycle parking and motor cycle parking should be provided. Subject to the removal of eight visitor parking spaces to the south of the main entrance, the parking provision would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies AM1 and AM12.

11.17 AM6 ‘Transport Assessments’ requires that a transport assessment is submitted with

all applications that have significant transport implications. The Transport Assessment demonstrates that access for all site traffic via Prosser Street would have a significant impact on the local junctions and recommends mitigation in the form of junction improvements in the local area to ensure that all development trips can be accommodated without detriment to the highway network. This can be dealt with by a condition and would be in accordance with UDP policy AM6.

11.18 Swept path analysis for large vehicles and buses are required. Further information is

required in respect of the potential impact on the operations of leisure centre from the sharing of the access to the main car park. Subject to receipt of satisfactory details the application would be in accordance with UDP policy AM15

Residential amenity 11.19 UDP policy D8 states that proposals should not adversely affect people’s amenities in

respect of immediate outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight or privacy. UDP policy EP4 ‘Light pollution’ requires that developments which include external lighting should minimise light spillage and not result in glare on residential and commercial areas or areas of a sensitive nature. UDP policy EP5 states that developments which give rise to unacceptable levels of noise pollution will not be permitted, unless measures can be taken to or reduce noise emissions or intrusion.

11.20 Neighbouring residents have expressed concerns about the impact of noise and

lighting from the all weather pitch, traffic noise from staff and delivery vehicles and overlooking from the new school building.

11.21 The new access road would be parallel with the rear boundaries of houses in Linton

Croft and within 6m to 10m, behind a landscaping area. Currently there are external play areas adjacent to the neighbours’ boundary and so they experience some associated noise. Traffic movements would be mainly during the daytime and this and the degree of separation would mean that the impact on neighbours’ amenity would not be unacceptable and so would be in accordance with UDP policy EP5.

11.22 Drawings submitted which indicate the light spread from the all weather pitch would

not adversely impact on neighbours and would therefore be in accordance with UDP policy EP4.

11.23 The new school building would be located further away from the houses than the

existing school building and therefore there would not be an unacceptable loss of privacy to neighbouring residents and the proposal is in accordance with UDP policy D8.

Ecology 11.24 Circular 06/2005 and PPS9 states that “the presence of protected species is a material

consideration when a planning authority is considering a development proposal that, if carried out, would be likely to result in harm to the species or its habitat”. UDP policy N9 requires that where there is a strong indication that a site is used by protected species an application must be accompanied by an ecological survey and impact assessment, details of how the development will accommodate the needs of those protected species and how harm will be mitigated.

94

11.25 The results of the submitted ecological survey show that there are no Great Crested Newts present on or adjacent to the site. Badger setts have been identified on the school site and immediately adjacent to it. The existing habitats on site have the potential to support foraging and commuting bats and some of the buildings, hedgerows and trees on site have the potential to support nesting birds.

11.26 To ensure the development would not harm protected species the Ecological Report

recommends that prior to demolition of the buildings and removal of vegetation, further surveys should be undertaken for the presence of bats, great crested newts and monitoring of badger setts. Subject to this being required by a condition the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

11.27 To conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the site, a new habitat area is proposed,

to benefit a range of amphibian and invertebrate species and would be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

12. Conclusion 12.1 The site is an established school site and the general principle of redevelopment is

acceptable and would accord with UDP policies C1 and C4. 12.2 The current proposals would result in the loss of playing fields but a net gain in hard

surfaced courts. Subject to further clarification in respect of the proposed hockey pitches the facilities will be improved significantly and therefore the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policies R3 and R5.

12.3 The proposal would result in the demolition of a locally listed building. Subject to

historic and archaeological recordings, a high quality replacement building and retention of historic features the development would be in accordance with UDP policy HE20.

12.4 Subject to the receipt of an amended flood risk assessment the proposal would be in

accordance with UDP policy EP6. If the Environment Agency maintains its objection and Committee are minded to grant planning permission, the application would have to be referred to the Secretary of State as detailed in paragraph 10.4.

12.5 The proposed layout is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D5 and



accordance with UDP policy D9. 12.7 Subject to receipt of satisfactory details of motor cycle parking and a swept path


12.9 The proposal would not result in any adverse affect on residential amenity and would

be in accordance with UDP policies D8, EP4 and EP5. 12.10 The submitted ecological information is satisfactory. Further badger, bat, surveys can

be required by condition. To conserve and enhance the biodiversity of the site, a new habitat area is proposed, to benefit a range of amphibian and invertebrate species. On that basis the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

95


grant planning application 10/01108/FUL subject to the matter not being referred if necessary to the Secretary of State as detailed in 10.4 and it not being called in and:

1. Resolution of outstanding matters, including,

• Removal of Environment Agency objection • No overriding objection from Natural England or Sport England • Clarification in respect of historic features to be retained • Swept path analysis for large service vehicles • Amendments to the layout to include motor cycle parking and remove visitor

parking.

2. Any necessary conditions to include:

• Non- combustible external materials at ground floor • Noise/odour attenuation • Refuse storage • Hours of deliveries • Chimney details to be agreed • Contaminated land • Cycle storage • Junction improvements • Parking restrictions on Dudley Street • School Travel Plan • Landscaping • Public art • Drainage details • Further badger, bat and great crested newt surveys • Archaeological work • Retention of boundary features • Details of retention of historic features • Tree protection measures • Exterior of the building to be completed before occupation unless otherwise

agreed Case Officer : Jenny Davies Telephone No : 01902 555608 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

96

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01108/FUL Location South Wolverhampton And Bilston Academy, Prosser Street/Dudley Street,Bilston,WV14 0QD Plan Scale (approx) 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 394639 296083 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 56812m2

97


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The site is located approximately 2km to the east of the City Centre. The site is

irregular in shape and has an area of approximately 0.83 hectares. 1.2 The land forms part of a larger housing renewal development of an estate of pre-

fabricated bungalows which have now mostly been demolished. In 2007, planning permission for 111 bungalows was granted and the majority of these have now been built.

1.3 The new bungalows are surrounded by two storey houses and maisonettes to the west

and south. There are also four pre-fabricated bungalows which are excluded from redevelopment because the owners wish to keep them.

1.4 There are two capped mineshafts within the site and several street trees covered by a

preservation order on the periphery. 2. Application details 2.1 This application proposes the third phase of the housing renewal project and

comprises six houses and 18 bungalows. The proposal differs from the 2007 planning permission in that six two storey houses would be substituted for the same number of bungalows, fronting Woodstock Road. The 18 bungalows at the rear of these houses would have a slightly different position to those previously approved.

2.2 The applicant states that with the completion of the first and second phases demand

for bungalows has reduced. Research by Bromford Housing and the City Council has determined the revised mix of affordable and private housing types in terms of size and location. Nine of the dwellings would be for outright sale and 15 would be for affordable rent and shared ownership.

APP NO: 10/01022/FUL WARD: East Park

DATE: 23-Sep-10 TARGET DATE: 23-Dec-10

RECEIVED: 06.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: Land At Selbourne Crescent, Wolverhampton, WV1 2EB PROPOSAL: Erection of 18 bungalows and six two-storey houses (Phase 3) APPLICANT: Bromford Housing Group 1 Exchange Court Brabourne Avenue Wolverhampton Business Park Wolverhampton WV10 6AU

AGENT: Mr Steve Smith HLN Architects Ltd The Oaks Clews Road Redditch Worcestershire B98 7ST

98

2.3 The proposed boundary treatment would be 1.2m high brick wall and railings on frontages, and 1.2m high close boarded fencing with concrete posts on the returns, and 1.8m high close boarded fences between rear gardens.

3. Planning History 3.1 07/01096/FUL – 111 bungalows – Granted 19.11.2007 3.2 06/01302/FUL – 112 bungalows – Granted 22.12.2006 4. Constraints 4.1 Mining Area

Tree Preservation Order 5. Relevant policies The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D14 The Provision of Public Art H1 Housing (Part 1) H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for new Housing

Development H9 Housing Density and Mix H10 Affordable Housing

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development 5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Planning Guidance 3 – Residential Development 5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 5.5 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and

Wales) Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/293) require that where certain proposals are likely

99

to have significant effects upon the environment, it is necessary to provide a formal "Environmental Impact Assessment" to accompany the planning application.


7. Publicity 7.1 No representations received. 8. Internal consultees 8.1 Transportation Development – No objection. 8.2 Access Team – No comments 8.3 Environmental Services – Contaminated land - the recommendations outlined in the

Jacobs report (submitted in connection with 07/01096/FUL) should be fully implemented.

8.4 In order to limit noise disturbance to residents the hours of construction should be

limited. 8.5 Tree Officer, Property Services, Building Control, Neighbourhood Renewal – No

objections. 8.6 Parks & Green Spaces (Leisure) - comments awaited. 9. External consultees 9.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd, Centro and Police – no objection. 9.2 Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements – comments awaited. 10. Legal Implications 10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications. [LC/24112010/G] 11. Appraisal 11.1 The key issues are: -

• Principle of development • Layout • Appearance • Neighbours amenity • Trees • Section 106 Agreement (affordable housing and public open space contribution,

public art)

100


11.2 This is the third phase of a housing renewal project. There is an extant planning permission for the residential development of the site, as part of the wider housing renewal project. The principle of residential development is therefore acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy H1 to ‘improve the condition and use of the existing housing stock’.

Layout 11.3 The proposed dwellings fronting Woodstock Road would be set back 5.5m from the

road. Parking would be accommodated within the frontage but would not appear dominant or overbearing and would be in accordance with UDP policy D5 ‘Public Realm’ which states that parking arrangement should be catered for in ways which do not detract from the effectiveness of the built up frontage in defining public areas.

11.4 UDP policy H6 states that new residential development should protect the amenity of

adjoining residents. Separation distances between dwellings would be sufficient to avoid unacceptable overlooking and gardens would be adequate and useable and in accordance with UDP policies D6 and H6.

11.5 UDP policy AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ states that maximum levels of car

parking and minimum levels of disabled parking and cycle parking and motor cycle parking should be provided. Parking provision is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy AM12.

Appearance

11.6 UDP policy D6 ‘Townscape and Landscape’ states that boundary treatments should provide definition and a sense of enclosure for streets and UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ states that buildings and boundary treatments should make a positive contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality materials.

11.7 The development would provide a mix of bungalow, dormer bungalow and two storey

houses. The dwellings would be constructed of brick with rendered sections and grey tiled roofs. The dwellings would have feature gables and projecting porches. Their appearance would reflect that of the bungalows in the earlier phases of the housing renewal project and so would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy D9.

11.8 The proposed brick wall and railings on the frontage are acceptable. However, the

close boarded fencing and concrete posts on the return to divide the front garden would be visually unacceptable. The brick wall should continue to define the side boundaries to front gardens, to provide a consistent visual appearance and be of a robust and quality material in the public domain in accordance with UDP policies D6 and D9.

Neighbours Amenity 11.9 UDP policy D8 requires that development should not adversely affect people’s

amenity. 11.10 Plot one would be a two storey house and would be positioned 6m from the side

elevation of 1 Woodstock Road which is one of the retained bungalows on the site and which has side facing windows which serve a kitchen and bedroom. There would be a loss of outlook from these windows. However, as the rooms have other windows which would not be affected, the overall impact on the neighbours’ amenity would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy D8.

101

Trees 11.11 The development would result in the loss of a protected Hawthorn on Mayfield Road.

Its replacement can be required by condition. Section 106 Agreement 11.12 Twenty four dwellings are proposed. The agents state that nine of the total number

would be for outright sale and the remaining 15 (62%) would be for affordable rent or shared ownership.

11.13 UDP policy H10 ‘Affordable Housing’ states that for a development of more than 15

dwellings, 30% of the units on a housing renewal site should be affordable. Providing that the 30% affordable housing is secured through a S106 Agreement the development would in accordance with UDP policy H10.

11.14 The land is Council owned and a Development Agreement has been signed. Legal

Services advise that the Council cannot enter into a S106 Agreement both as landowner and local planning authority. This problem could be overcome by appending the S106 Agreement to a variation to the Development Agreement, in which the developer covenants to enter into a Section 106 agreement as appended to the variation to the Development Agreement. On completion of the land transfer, between the grant of planning permission and the completion of the Section 106 agreement under the terms of the Development Agreement the developer will comply with the terms of the Section 106 agreement as if it were in force, the developer would enter into the S106 agreement as the new landowner.

11.15 In accordance with UDP policy H8, a development of ten or more dwellings requires

either the provision of on-site public open space or an off-site contribution, to create and/or enhance open space elsewhere. However, there is already a planning permission for the residential development of the area, including the current application site, and a payment for off-site open space has been made in connection with the previous permission. As the current application does not propose an increase in the number of dwellings no further payment is required.

11.16 Similarly, in accordance with UDP policy D14 ‘Public Art’ a major application is

required to provide a contribution to public art which represents 1% of the construction costs of the development. However, public art is to be provided in connection with the extant permission and a further requirement is therefore not necessary.

12. Conclusion 12.1 The proposal is consistent with UDP policies in providing improvements to existing

housing stock and an affordable mix of housing. The details of the proposal are broadly acceptable and the level of parking provision is appropriate. The detail of front garden boundary treatment can be controlled by a condition. Affordable housing can be secured through a Section 106 Agreement in conjunction with a Supplementary Development Agreement.

12.2 The proposal is in accordance with UDP policies D1, D3 D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, H6,

H8, H9 and H10.

102


grant planning application 10/01022/FUL subject to the compliance of variation to the Development Agreement (Securing S106 Agreement) and conditions to include:

• Materials • Revised boundary treatment • Landscaping • Surface treatments • Tree replacement • Hours of construction


103

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01022/FUL Location Land At Selbourne Crescent, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV1 2EB Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 393744 298213 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 8108m2

104


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is occupied by the Lidl foodstore which is located in a prominent

position at the junction of Finchfield Hill, Oak Hill and Finchfield Road West, opposite Finchfield local centre. On the southern boundary lies the former St Thomas’s Church (a locally listed building currently vacant) and behind this newly constructed detached housing. On the northern boundary is a house, 42 Finchfield Hill, that is also owned by Lidl and is currently empty and boarded up. To the west of the site are the gardens of houses in The Terrace and White Oak Drive.

2. Application Details 2.1 Condition 22 of planning permission 08/01364/FUL states: “Hours of opening and access for deliveries and collection of goods and refuse shall

be limited to 08.00am to 08.00pm Monday to Saturday and 10.00am to 4.00pm Sundays and Bank Holiday Mondays.”

2.2 The application proposes to vary condition 22 to extend the hours of access for

deliveries and collection of goods and refuse on Mondays to Fridays from 08.00am to 08.00pm to 07.00am to 08.00pm, thereby allowing deliveries and collections to start an hour earlier.

2.3 The application does not propose to change the existing hours of access for deliveries

and collection of goods and refuse on Saturdays, Sundays and Bank Holiday Mondays.

2.4 The application does not propose to change the hours of opening of the store itself, as

specified in condition 22.

APP NO: 10/01079/VV WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick


RECEIVED: 21.09.2010 APP TYPE: Vary of Condition(s) of PreviousApproval SITE: Lidl, Finchfield Hill, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 22 of planning permission 08/01364/FUL to change

hours of access for deliveries and collection of goods and refuse on Monday to Friday from 08.00 hours - 20.00 hours to 07.00 hours 20.00.

APPLICANT: Miss Charlotte Davies Lidl Uk Gmbh Suit 2 Parkside House Oldbury Road Rowley Regis B65 0LG

AGENT:

105

2.5 Lidl state that the extra hour of access for deliveries and collections on a weekday

morning is needed to allow fresh food to be available for sale to shoppers when the store opens for trading at 8am. They argue that this is currently not possible as deliveries are only permitted from when the store opens at 8am.

3. Relevant Planning History 3.1 09/00267/VV – Variation of condition 22 of previously approved application

08/01364/FUL to change opening times from 8.00am - 8.00pm Monday to Saturday and 10.00am - 4.00pm on Bank Holidays to Monday to Saturday and Bank Holidays 8.00am - 9.00pm. Refused. Appeal dismissed 30th November 2009.

3.2 08/01364/FUL - Neighbourhood food store and car parking. [revised application to

retain the development as constructed, 830mm higher at the front and 650mm at the rear than approved under application 08/00371/FUL]. Granted 25.03.2009.

3.3 08/00371/FUL - Neighbourhood food store and car parking. Granted 15.08.2008. 4. Relevant Policies 4.1 National Guidance

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG13 Transport PPG24 Planning and Noise

4.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies D1 Design Quality EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution B5 Design Standards for Employment Sites SH3 Need and the Sequential Approach SH4 Integration of Development into Centres SH8 Local Centres SH9 Local Shops and Centre Uses AM1 Wolverhampton – The Accessible City AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

4.3 Other Relevant Policy Documents Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands 5. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 5.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and



106

6. Publicity 6.1 Ten letters of objection have been received. Objections raised are as follows:

• The store has continually breached this planning condition with deliveries taking place outside of the permitted hours.

• Detriment to neighbour amenity. • Increase in air, noise pollution and light pollution. • Traffic congestion; particularly adjacent to traffic junction and schools. • Detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety.

7. Internal Consultees 7.1 Environmental Services – Object - due to the close proximity of the site to houses. 7.2 Transportation – No objection. 8. External consultees 8.1 Local Neighbourhood Partnership and Ward Councillors – Comments awaited. 9. Legal Implications 9.1 The application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

and is therefore an application “for planning permission for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted”. If the proposed condition is acceptable, permission should be granted with the new condition, any conditions on the original permission which remain relevant and any other conditions required that would make the proposals acceptable. The new permission would be an alternative to the original, which would remain extant.

9.2 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. 10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issues is the potential impact on neighbours’ amenity. 10.2 Policy EP1 ‘Pollution Control’ states that development which may result in pollution of

air, ground or water or pollution through noise, smell, dust, vibration, light or heat will only be permitted where it can be shown that there will be no material adverse impact on the immediate, medium or long term health, safety or amenity of land or surrounding areas; or quality and enjoyment of the environment.

10.3 UDP policy EP5 ‘Noise Pollution’ states that developments which are likely to give rise

to unacceptable levels of noise pollution will not be permitted. 10.4 When application 08/01364/FUL was considered, condition 22 was imposed to help

mitigate the impact of the supermarket on neighbouring residents. In the determination of this application Lidl’s need to cater for its customers must be balanced against the requirement to protect the living conditions of nearby residents.

10.5 Allowing deliveries and collections of goods and refuse an hour earlier on weekday

mornings would be likely to result in disturbance to neighbours an hour earlier, from

107

the noise of the starting of engines, the manoeuvring of vehicles, the closing of vehicle doors, refrigeration units, radios, the moving of goods and refuse and people talking.

10.6 Because of the close proximity of neighbouring houses to the delivery bay, bringing

forward such disturbances to 07.00am would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on the living conditions of residents, in conflict with UDP policies EP1 ‘Pollution Control’ and EP5 ‘Noise Pollution’.

11. Conclusion 11.1 The proposal would be likely to result in disturbance to neighbours an hour earlier in

the morning, to the detriment of their residential amenity contrary to UDP policies EP1 ‘Pollution Control’ and EP5 ‘Noise Pollution’.

12. Recommendation 12.1 That planning application be refused 10/01079/VV for the following reason:

1. The proposed extension of the hours of access for deliveries would be likely to result in disturbance to the occupiers of neighbouring houses an hour earlier in the morning, to the detriment of their residential amenity, contrary to Unitary Development Plan policies EP1 ‘Pollution Control’ and EP5 ‘Noise Pollution’.


108

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01079/VV Location Lidl, Finchfield Hill,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388408 298132 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 4826m2

109


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site has an area of 0.9ha and is located approximately 1.5 miles to the

east of the City Centre, within a Defined Business Area. 1.2 The site comprises two areas of land which are separated by an access road which

serves a neighbouring business. The larger parcel of land has planning permission as a refuse vehicle depot and is currently in this use. It comprises a warehouse building and an open yard. The smaller area of land is currently unused.

1.3 The site is accessed from Hickman Avenue, to the east, and is surrounded by

commercial development. 2. Application Details 2.1 The application proposes the use of the site as a refuse vehicle depot and a waste

management facility for the storage and distribution of food waste, associated with the Council’s proposed kerbside food waste collection service, which will commence in January.

2.2 Waste would be stored in two sealed metal containers which would be 2.5 metres

wide, seven metres long and two metres high. The containers would be positioned within the centre of the larger area of land.

2.3 Waste would be stored on site for twenty four hours before being transported to an off-

site recycling centre. There would be 14 to 28 deliveries of food waste per day but these would be by lorries that are returning to the depot at the end of the day. Therefore, there would be only four additional lorry movements per day - the lorries delivering empty food waste containers and taking the full containers away.

2.4 The parking and manoeuvring areas within the larger area of land would be

unchanged.

APP NO: 10/01128/DWF WARD: East Park

DATE: 19-Oct-10 TARGET DATE: 18-Jan-11

RECEIVED: 01.10.2010 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC) SITE: Waste And Recycling Service, Hickman Avenue, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Food waste recycling centre APPLICANT: Mr Steve Boyes Wolverhampton City Council Regeneration And Environment Civic Centre St Peter's Square Wolverhampton WV1 1SH

AGENT: Mr Les Brazier Waste and Recycling Service Hickman Avenue Chillington Fields Wolverhampton WV1 2BY

110

2.5 The smaller area of the land would be used for vehicle parking. 2.6 There would be no change in the numbers of staff employed at the site. 3. Planning History 3.1 01/1295/DW. Change of use to allow the storage of refuse vehicles. Granted.

28.12.2001. 4. Constraints 4.1 Authorised Processes

Mining Areas Sites and Monuments Entry Defined Business Area


D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm (Public Space / Private Space) D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale-Height D8 Scale-Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety (Part l) D11 Access for People with Disabilities (Part l) D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP13 Waste and Development EP14 Waste Management Facilities B1 Economic Prosperity B5 Design Standards for Employment Sites B9 Defines Business Areas B12 Access to Job Opportunities AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security IMR2 Access to Job Opportunities

5.2 Regional Spatial Strategy for the west Midlands

111

Other relevant policies 5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents

SPG 1 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Development 5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and



7. Publicity 7.1 No representations received. 8. Internal Consultees 8.1 Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions to ensure that the waste

storage containers are designed such that spillage and odour are minimised. 8.2 Planning Policy Section and Transportation Development – No objection. 8.3 Property Services - Estates – Comments awaited. 9. External Consultees 9.1 None. 10. Legal Implications 10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications [LC/25112010/C]. 11. Appraisal 11.1 The key issues for consideration in this particular case are:

• Principle of development • Appearance • Environmental issues • Access and parking


11.2 The site is within a Defined Business Area. UDP Policy B9 ‘Defined Business Areas’ states that sui generis commercial uses, which are not covered by a ‘Use Class’ of their own, such as the proposed use, may be appropriate where they have

112

characteristics comparable with uses within Classes B1, B2 or B8, or where they create job opportunities, assist with the regeneration of the economic area or accommodate uses that cannot be located in defined centres or residential areas.

11.3 The proposed use is similar to the existing lawful use of the larger area of land. The

difference is that a relatively small amount of waste would be stored on the site. The storage of food waste is not a use that could be located in a defined centre or residential area. The use of the smaller area of land for parking would enable the existing depot to continue to function, in conjunction with the proposed waste storage. The proposed use would therefore be in accordance with UDP policy B9.

11.4 UDP Policy EP14 ‘Waste Management Facilities’ applies. The aim of the policy is to

ensure that proposals for waste management facilities are in accordance with the Council's Waste Management Strategy, that any adverse impact is minimised and mitigated and that locational requirements are met. The proposal is in accordance with Policy EP14.

Appearance

11.5 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ requires that all development proposals make a positive contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials.

11.6 There would be no change to the appearance of the depot other than that the two

waste containers would be positioned in the centre of the site, where they would not be prominently visible. The proposal is therefore acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D9.

Environmental Issues

11.7 UDP policy EP1 ‘Pollution Control’ states that development which may result in pollution will only be permitted where it can be shown that there would be no material impact on the immediate, medium or long-term health, safety or amenity of users of the land or surrounding areas; or the quality and enjoyment of the environment.

11.8 The waste would be stored in sealed containers, away from residential uses. The

proposal is therefore acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy EP1. 11.9 The facility would be governed by the licensing conditions of the Environment Agency

and these include restrictions on the amount of waste processed at the site. Access and Parking

11.10 UDP policy AM1 ‘Access, Mobility and New Development’ states that all new development proposals will be expected to contribute towards improvements in access and mobility. Proposals should be designed to minimise the adverse effects of any traffic on neighbouring residential areas or other sensitive uses. Policy AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ requires appropriate provision of parking and servicing.

11.11 The layout includes adequate vehicle turning areas and acceptable visibility splays.

There are satisfactory parking arrangements. The number of vehicular trips associated with the proposed use would not have a detrimental impact on traffic flows and highway safety. The proposals are in accordance with UDP policies AM1 and AM12.

12. Conclusion 12.1 The proposed use of the site as a waste management facility is acceptable and in

accordance with UDP policies B9 and EP14. 12.2 Visual appearance would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy D9.

113

12.3 The waste would be stored in sealed containers, away from residential uses. The

proposal is therefore acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy EP1. 12.4 The proposed parking and servicing arrangements are acceptable and in accordance

with UDP policies AM1 and AM12. 13. Recommendation 13.1 That planning application 10/01128/DWF be granted subject to any appropriate


• Detailed design of the waste containers Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 01902 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

114

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01128/DWF Location Waste And Recycling Service, Hickman Avenue,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 392914 298231 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 8384m2

115


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Introduction 1.1 This application was deferred from the Planning Committee meeting on 2nd November

2010 to allow the applicant to meet with local residents. 2. Site Description 2.1 The application site is located approximately 1.5 miles to the south-east of the City

Centre. It is a roughly rectangular shape and has an area of approximately 1.47 hectares.

2.2 The land is vacant and forms a part of the former GKN site which has been partly

redeveloped for mixed use housing and commercial development. 2.3 A landscape buffer runs along the northern boundary of the site, beyond which is

housing. There is vacant land and industrial development to the south and south-west. To the east is recreational open space which is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and an open watercourse known as The Bilston Brook.

2.4 The site is part of a larger area identified in the Unitary Development Plan for a mix of

uses including housing. 3. Application Details 3.1 The application seeks outline permission with access and layout to be approved at this

stage. The proposal is to construct a conference and banqueting facility to cater for up to 1000 guests with associated parking, coach parking and service areas.

3.2 The building would provide 3600 square metres of floor space over three floors and

have a footprint of 2780 square metres. It would range in height from 4 metres to 12 metres.

APP NO: 10/00814/OUT WARD: Spring Vale

DATE: 15-Jul-10 TARGET DATE: 14-Oct-10

RECEIVED: 15.07.2010 APP TYPE: Outline Application SITE: Land Adjacent To Unit E5 Hilton Trading Estate, Hilton Road,

Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Proposed banqueting suite and conference facility - outline with access and

layout APPLICANT: J & R Investments Ltd C/o Agent

AGENT: Tweedale Ltd 265 Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton WV6 0DE

116

3.3 The building would be positioned within the southern part of the site with car parking

towards the north and servicing areas behind the building adjacent to the southern site boundary. There would be 186 car parking spaces, including 8 disabled parking spaces, six coach parking spaces, cycle storage and a taxi pick up/drop off point. Provision for ten staff parking spaces has been made within the rear servicing area.

3.4 A gated access is proposed from Inverclyde Drive which is off Birmingham New Road. 3.5 An indicative design for the exterior of the building has been submitted which shows

full height glazing and feature cladding, with similar materials to the adjacent Fortress Interlocks site.

3.6 The steep incline on the northern boundary down towards Bilston Brook would be re-

profiled to create an attractive landscaped frontage adjacent to the public open space. 3.7 The agents state that the proposal would create ten full time posts and 39 part time

posts which equates to a total full time equivalent of 29.5 jobs. 3.8 The premises would be open Monday to Sunday and on Bank Holidays. On Monday

to Friday the premises would be open 09:00 to 18:00 for conferences. There would be occasional auctions and dinners from 18:00 to 23:00 on Monday to Thursday. On Friday nights and Saturdays and Sundays there would be wedding functions. The applicant has confirmed verbally that these would end by midnight, with amplified music ceasing by 23:30. Written confirmation is expected.

4. Relevant Planning History 4.1 03/0156/OP housing, very sheltered housing, B1, B2 & B8 Use (Business, General

Industry and Storage/Distribution, open space and infrastructure provision – Granted 05.10.2004

4.2 09/00342/OUT for Proposed banqueting suite and conference facility - Withdrawn

12.11.2009 4.3 Adjacent site to the north - 10/00806/FUL - Development to provide four units for B1

use (Business/Light Industrial) – Granted 15.10.2010 4.4 Former GKN Office Building, Birmingham New Road – Change of Use from offices to

community centre including religious assembly hall and function hall. Delegated authority from Planning Committee on 22.07.2008 to Grant subject to resolution of transportation and noise issues.


Landfill Gas Zones Mining Areas Millennium Urban Forest - Taylor Road Open Space Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC)

117


D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm (Public Space / Private Space) D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale-Height D8 Scale-Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy D14 The Provision of Public Art EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP7 Protection of Floodplains EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N5 Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation N7 The Urban Forest SH3 Need and the Sequential Approach B1 Economic Prosperity B3 Business Development Allocations B9 Defined Business Areas B10 Redevelopment of Employment Land and Premises B12 Access to Job Opportunities B13 Business Tourism, Hotel and Conference Facilities AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

6.2 Regional Spatial Strategies Other relevant policies 6.3 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG13 Transport PPG24 Planning and Noise

6.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents:

SPG 1 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Development GKN Development Brief 6.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

118



7.2 This application is considered to be a Schedule 2 Project as defined by the above

Regulations. The ‘screening opinion’ of the Local Planning Authority is that a formal Environmental Impact Assessment is not required in this instance as the development is unlikely to have a significant effect on the environment as defined by the above Regulations and case law.

8. Publicity 8.1 A petition containing 220 signatures and seven letters of objection including a letter

from Councillor Michael Heap have been received. The main reasons for the objection are summarised below:-

• Noise and disturbance to residents late at night and weekends; • Increase in traffic, pollution, congestion and on street parking; • Impact on nature conservation; • Scale and height of building out of character; • Inappropriate planning use not meeting original intentions for the land and the

objective to create jobs; • Unsustainable location; • Proliferation of existing banqueting suites.

9. Internal Consultees 9.1 Planning Policy – The application provides a ‘sequential test addendum’ to address

the centres issues of PPS4. It identifies a wide range of sites that could potentially accommodate the proposed development. It concludes there are no sequentially superior sites available to meet the need identified by the applicant. The information is satisfactory to comply with the purposes of PPS4.

9.2 There are concerns about the impact of the development on the supply of available

employment land within the City. The Unitary Development Plan anticipates that land allocated for Class B development by Policy B3 will be safeguarded for such uses over the Plan period and will only be released in exceptional circumstances. Proposals involving the redevelopment of employment land should also be considered against UDP planning policies B9 and B10. Planning permission 10/00806/FUL was recently granted on the adjacent site for Class B1 (light industry, research and development) use In accordance with policies B9 and B10. Further information is sought in respect of the likely impact of that permission on the attractiveness of the application site subject to this report, for B Class employment use. Planning permission should not be granted until this information has been provided.

9.3 Nature Conservation – The site has been surveyed for Great Crested Newts and

none have been found however, a smooth newt population has been discovered. Therefore a translocation programme must be undertaken for amphibians.

9.4 The existing badger sett should be retained. If this is not possible details of a

replacement badger sett must be provided before planning permission can be granted.

119

9.5 Further information is required in respect of the re-levelling and construction of the plateau to ensure erosion on the steep slopes by rainwater and how potential pollution of Bilston Brook will be prevented.

9.6 It is noted Japanese Knotweed is present on the land and as such it must be

eradicated and/or managed appropriately prior to development. A condition that a management plan is submitted should be included.

9.7 The submitted surveys are acceptable however a further reptile survey is required prior

to commencement. The submitted habitat management plan is broadly acceptable but should be revised to include the badger habitat and a replacement pond and a translocation programme for reptiles. This can be dealt with by condition.

9.8 Transportation Development – While the site is not highly accessible by public

transport, (the bus stops are more than 300m walking distance from the site) there is a high frequency bus service running along Birmingham New Road which should be taken into account.

9.9 The submitted Transport Statement suggests that guests at events would leave over a

period of time rather than leaving all at once, which would minimize any disruption on the highway or queues of traffic backing up from the signalized junction with Birmingham New Road.

9.10 A Workplace Travel Plan would not be required however, the applicant is requested to

submit a strategy of proposed measures that they would use to influence the travel behaviour of staff and guests so as to minimise private car use.

9.11 The provision of 186 parking spaces would be inadequate based on 1000 persons.

The proposal would result in a demand for 212 spaces however overspill parking options offered in the Transport Statement may be appropriate. The proposals should include separate motorcycle parking for staff and visitors.

9.12 Access Team – No objections. 9.13 Environmental Services – the movement of people and vehicles associated with this

type of use could cause disturbance to residents particularly late at night. The submitted noise report which considers night time noise until midnight concludes there would be no adverse impact on neighbours and the measures in the report are acceptable. Amplified music should cease at 23:30hrs.

9.14 Conditions would be appropriate in relation to noise and vibration control for plant and

machinery, acoustic glazing, external lighting, no tannoys and hours of operation during construction.

9.15 The recommendations in the submitted site investigation reports in respect of

contaminated land should be implemented. These shall include gas protection measures and removal of contaminants detected in Trial Pit 27.

9.16 Adequate provision must be made for the removal and storage of food/waste and other

refuse. 9.17 Tree Officers – No objections

9.18 Property Services - Estates – comments awaited

120

10. External consultees 10.1 Fire Service – satisfactory 10.2 Police - No objections 10.3 Environment Agency – No objections 10.4 Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements and Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and

the Black Country – comments awaited

11. Appraisal 11.1 The key issues for consideration in this particular case are:

• Principle of Development • Access and Parking • Design Quality • Neighbour Amenity • Ecology


Employment Land 11.2 The site forms one of two remaining undeveloped plots which are within the area

granted outline planning permission in 2004 (03/0156/OP). The site also falls within UDP Business Development Allocation MU4, identified as providing 3.2ha of employment land of ‘good local quality’.

11.3 UDP Policy B3 ‘Business Development Allocations’ states that such sites are primarily

safeguarded for Class B employment uses. However, it adds that other employment generating uses will be permitted when all of five criteria are met. The proposed development would not fall within a B Use Class and the criteria are not met. Therefore, the proposal is contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy B3.

11.4 UDP policy B9 ‘Defined business Areas’ lists uses that would be appropriate on

allocated sites. The proposed use would fall within Use Class D2 ‘Assembly and Leisure’. D2 uses are not included in the list of appropriate uses in policy B9.

11.5 Policy B9 also states that sui generis uses (uses that are not within a use class) may

be appropriate where they would have characteristics comparable to Class B1 (Business), B2 (General Industry) and B8 (Storage and Distribution) uses or where they create job opportunities, assist the regeneration of an Employment Area or accommodate uses which cannot be located in defined centres or residential areas. Policy D9 also states that uses other than those listed will not be permitted unless the requirements of Policy B10 can be satisfied.

11.6 The proposed use is not a sui generis use (it would fall within Class D2) and would

provide far fewer jobs than would the development of the site for a B Class use. Therefore the proposal is contrary to UDP policy B9 unless the requirements of UDP policy B10 can be satisfied.

11.7 Proposals involving the redevelopment of employment land should be considered

against Policy B10. This sets out four criteria, one of which must be met if planning permission is to be granted. The four criteria are:

1) the loss of employment use and its replacement by the proposal would be in

accordance with another policy or proposal in the UDP; or

121

2) the existing use and/or traffic generated by that use has unacceptable impacts on the amenity of surrounding land uses and/or on the highway network and the proposed use would remove those unacceptable impacts; or

3) the site is unsuitable for continued employment use, due to its location and/or standard of accommodation and/or condition of the land and the need for and costs of remediation works; and it has been shown that there is no market demand for continued employment use; or

4) it has been demonstrated that the loss of the site from employment use would not prejudice the required supply of a balanced portfolio and geographical spread of land for employment purposes over the UDP period.

11.8 As well as meeting one of the criteria above, Policy B10 also requires that in all cases

it is demonstrated that the introduction of the alternative uses proposed would not inhibit or prejudice the operations of any nearby occupiers or businesses.

11.9 The applicant has submitted information to comply with the third criterion, detailing the marketing of the site and the site’s shortcomings in being able to attract B Class development. However, a recent planning application has been granted (10/00806/FUL- Planning Committee 5th October 2010) on the adjacent plot (Plot B) for Class B1 development and this in itself may help to attract B Class investment to the site subject to this planning application.

11.10 To satisfy the requirements of Policy B10, the applicant has been advised to submit a

statement in respect of the likely impact on the desirability of this site for B Class development, in light of the recent planning permission on the adjacent Plot B, in order to address Policy B10. The applicant has responded to this and considers that the application site does not lie within a Defined Business Area or contain any individual or small groups of employment premises. The application site, historically, never contained any form of ‘business premises’ as it was previously an ancillary parcel of land to the former GKN development and was utilised for the occasional testing of vehicles. Further, the outline planning permission for the redevelopment of the former GKN site granted under application No.03/0156/OP, formally lapsed in 2007. Planning Policy has responded and do not agree with the reasoning offered by the applicant and therefore the information is still necessary.

Centres Policy 11.11 PPS4 confirms leisure and entertainment facilities as being main town centre uses.

Policy EC17.1 in PPS4 requires applicants to demonstrate compliance with the sequential test and to show that there is no significant adverse impact as defined in policies EC10.1 and EC16.1.

11.12 UDP Policy B13 ‘Business Tourism, Hotel and Conference Facilities’ supports such

developments on sites within centres. On sites outside centres they are only permitted if a sequential approach to site selection has shown that no other alternative site is available within the relevant centre.

11.13 Policy SH3 ‘Need and the Sequential Approach’ requires that proposals for the

development of centre uses outside defined centres which are not in accordance with the development plan will be permitted provided that:

• There is a need for the proposed development; • A sequential approach to site selection has been adopted; and • The proposed development is of a scale and nature appropriate to the location

concerned. 11.14 For the purposes of assessing a planning application, developments are no longer

required to demonstrate need (see 11.16).

122

11.15 The submitted ‘sequential test addendum’ identifies a wide range of sites that could potentially accommodate the proposed development. However, it concludes that there is no sequentially superior site available to meet the need identified by the applicant. Therefore, the proposal would be in accordance with PPS4 and UDP policies SH3 and B13.

Assessment against PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth 11.16 For the purposes of assessing planning applications, there is no longer a need to

demonstrate ‘need’ for new economic developments in PPS4 ‘Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth’. Residents have stated that there is no need for an additional banqueting suite as there is an application for this use at the nearby former GKN office block. PPS4 does not require applicants to demonstrate need. Therefore need is not a material consideration.

11.17 PPS4 states that planning permission should be refused where applicants have not

demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach, or where there is clear evidence that the proposal is likely to lead to significant adverse impacts. The proposals have been assessed and are considered acceptable in both these respects and therefore the development would be in accordance with PPS4.

Access and Parking 11.18 UDP policy AM1 ‘Access, Mobility and New Development’ states that all new

development proposals should contribute towards improvements in access and mobility.

11.19 UDP policy AM12 ‘Parking and Service Provision’ requires that new development

provides maximum levels of parking and the Council will be flexible in the application of parking standards. The layout would provide 186 car parking spaces but 212 spaces are required for 1000 guests, which is the maximum number proposed. To make up the shortfall the applicant proposes that 30 additional guest parking spaces are accommodated in the service area.

11.20 The service area would be available for guest parking because servicing would take

place at times when there would be no guests on the premises. The Fire Service has no objections to the parking in the service area. The proposed number of guest parking spaces, including those in the service area, would be acceptable.

11.21 The proposal needs to include separate motorcycle parking for visitors and staff.

Revised drawings are awaited. Subject to receipt of satisfactory details the development would be in accordance with UDP policy AM12.

11.22 A Workplace Travel Plan would not be required however, the applicant is requested to

submit a strategy of proposed measures that they would use to influence the travel behaviour of staff and guests so as to minimise private car use. This can be required by condition.

Design Quality 11.23 The scale of the building would be very much greater than the nearest houses in

Greenock Crescent. However these would be a minimum of 180 metres away, to the north-west. The bulk and height would be comparable to the adjacent Fortress Interlocks building which is 11m in height. The proposed new building would be 12metres in height but would be set back behind the adjacent site with planning permission for B1 industrial. That permission is for a building with a maximum height of 8.6 metres. Therefore the proposed height and scale would be acceptable within its context and would not appear out of character and would be in accordance with UDP policies D1, D7 and D8.

123

11.24 UDP policy D5 requires that frontages should not be dominated by parking or service areas. The proposed car park would be at the front of the site with the building behind. However, the parking would also be behind the adjacent site which has recently been granted planning permission for B1 development. If this building is not constructed the location of the distance of the site from the public realm would negate any adverse effects on visual amenity and so the layout would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D5 and D6.

11.25 The detailed appearance of the building is a matter reserved for subsequent approval.

The illustrative elevations indicate a modern design which is broadly acceptable and in-keeping with the adjacent Fortress Interlocks building.

Neighbours Amenity 11.26 The building would be 180m from the nearest dwellings. The applicant has clarified

verbally that the building will not be open beyond midnight on any night. Therefore, subject to conditions to mitigate noise disturbance, the impact on residents’ amenity from noise from the building would be acceptable and the development would be in accordance with UDP policy EP5.

11.27 Because of distance to the nearest dwellings the proposed development would not

result in any loss of light or outlook for residents and therefore the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8.

Ecology 11.28 The site is adjacent to a site of local importance for nature conservation. There is a

badger sett on the site which should be retained. However, the development proposals would not allow for the retention of the badgers sett and therefore details of a replacement badger sett is required. Further information is required before planning permission can be granted.

11.29 The re-levelling and construction of the plateau has the potential to lead to erosion of

the steep slopes by rainwater and the subsequent pollution of Bilston Brook. Further information is required to demonstrate that this will not happen.

11.30 A revised habitat survey will need to be submitted before work commences to include

the details of the badger habitat and its management and further reptile surveys. Details of a replacement pond and translocation programme are also necessary prior to commencement of development. These matters can be dealt with by condition.


applications. 12.2 In addition to the general implications set out at the beginning of the schedule of

planning applications, the Planning Authority is a competent authority for the purposes of The Conservation of Habitats and Species regulations 2010 (“the Habitat Regulations”) and the Planning Authority is under a duty to have regard to the Habitats Directive (Council 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora) in the exercise of its function so far as any requirements of the Habitats Directive may be affected by the exercise of those functions. Planning authorities should give due weight to the presence of protected species on a development site to reflect these requirements in reaching planning decisions. Regulation 40 of the Habitats Regulations defines European Protected Species. Badgers, bats and great crested newts are protected species and are in addition also protected under part 1 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

124

12.3 It should be noted Paragraph 99 of Circular 06/2005 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation – Statutory Obligation and their impact within the Planning System provides that it is essential that the presence or otherwise of protected species and the extent that they may be affected by the proposed development is established before the planning permission is granted otherwise all the relevant material considerations may not have been addressed before making the decision. The need to carry out ecological surveys should only be left to planning conditions in exceptional circumstances.

12.4 Badgers are protected under the Protection of Badgers Act 1992. Disturbing a badger

set, adversely affecting foraging territory or links between them or significantly increasing the risk of road or rail casualties are capable of being material planning considerations. [LC/24112010/H]

13. Conclusion 13.1 The proposal would accord with the centres policy of PPS4 and UDP policies B13 and

SH3. However, it has not been satisfactorily demonstrated that the loss of employment land is acceptable. Further information is required in accordance with UDP policies B3, B9 and B10

13.2 Subject to the provision of a separate motor cycle parking the parking and servicing

would be in accordance with UDP policy AM12 and the layout would be in accordance with UDP policies D1, D4, D5, D6, D7 and D8.

13.3 Subject to conditions the impact on residents’ amenity from noise would not be

unacceptable and therefore the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy EP5.

13.4 Further information is required in respect of the retention of the existing badger’s sett

or replacement sett and with regard to preventing erosion and pollution of Bilston Brook. Subject to satisfactory receipt of these details and to conditions relating to revised habitat management plan, bat survey before trees removed, further reptile survey and Japanese Knotweed Plan, the development would be in accordance with UDP policy N1.

125


grant planning application 10/00814/OUT subject to: 1. Receipt of satisfactory amended layout plan and resolution of outstanding

matters, including:

• Statement of impact on the desirability of the proposed site for B Class development;

• Details of replacement/retention of existing badger sett; • Details of how erosion and pollution of Bilston brook will be avoided; • Separate Motorcycle Storage for staff and visitors;


• Refuse Storage. • Targeted Recruitment and Training – construction and operation. • Cycle Storage. • Gas protection measures. • Removal of contaminants. • External lighting. • Noise and vibration control for plant and machinery. • Hours of Use (to close at midnight). • Travelwise Plan. • Drainage details. • Prior to commencement revised habitat management plan. • Prior to commencement further reptile survey. • Prior to commencement replacement pond for reptiles. • Prior to commencement survey of trees for roosting bats. • Japanese Knotweed Management Plan. • Acoustic attenuation. • No external tannoys or public address systems. • Hours of amplified music to cease at 23:30hrs. • Opening hours 08:00 to 23:00 Monday to Thursday and 08:00 to midnight

Friday, Saturday and Sunday. • Hours of construction restricted to 0800hrs to 1800hrs Mondays to

Fridays, and 0800hrs to 1300hrs Saturdays, and no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

• Building to be constructed in accordance with approved details prior to occupation>


126

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00814/OUT Location Land Adjacent To Unit E5 Hilton Trading Estate, Hilton Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 392791 296056 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area m2

127


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The Molineux Stadium is located on the northern side of the City Centre. The western

edge of the site is defined by the Waterloo Road. Molineux Street runs along the east side and Jack Hayward Way to the north.

1.2 In total, the site covers an area of approximately 5.3 hectares and accommodates the

Molineux football stadium with a relatively large amount of surface level parking, predominantly located to the north but with limited areas of parking elsewhere.

1.3 The site levels rise up from north to south by approximately 11 metres. There is also a

noticeable, but less significant, rise in levels from east to west. 1.4 Vehicular access to the main car park and those parking areas to the east of the

stadium is from Jack Hayward Way. A further access from Whitmore Hill provides access to limited parking to the rear of the south stand whilst an access from Waterloo Road provides a limited parking area adjacent to the West stand and the main stadium entrance and reception.

1.5 The character of the area is diverse. To the north of Jack Hayward Way is a large

Asda supermarket. On the opposite side of Molineux Street are a number of teaching blocks related to the University whilst to the south is the Grade II* listed Molineux Hotel which sits on a higher plateau of land. To the west of Waterloo Road the area is mainly residential with some small offices.

APP NO: 10/01053/OUT WARD: St Peters


RECEIVED: 15.09.2010 APP TYPE: Outline Application SITE: Molineux Stadium, Waterloo Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Phased redevelopment of existing football stadium to provide additional

spectator areas, relocated club shop, new club museum, spectator concourse, dining and other ancillary supporting facilities. Hybrid application comprising: Full application for the redevelopment of north stand and north east quadrant (part), temporary buildings, alterations to car park and ancillary works (phase 1); Outline application for redevelopment of east and south stands (phases 2 and 3).

APPLICANT: Wolverhampton Wanderers Properties Limited Wolverhampton Wanderers F.C. The Molineux Waterloo Road Wolverhampton WV1 4QR

AGENT: Signet Planning Ltd Strelley Hall Main Street Strelley Nottingham NG8 6PE

128

2. Application details 2.1 The submission is a ‘hybrid’ application comprising full details for the redevelopment of

the North Stand and part of the North-East quadrant, temporary buildings, car park alterations and ancillary works. This is described as ‘Phase I’ of the redevelopment and is discussed in greater details below.

2.2 Outline details, with all matters reserved, have also been submitted for the

development of the East and South stands. These will respectively form phases II and III of the redevelopment. The current stadium capacity is 29,408 which will rise to approximately 37,000 upon completion of the development.

2.3 Vehicles will continue to access the site from Jack Hayward Way. Existing access

points onto Waterloo Road will remain unchanged although the most northerly Waterloo Road access will require realignment within the site to accommodate the enlarged north stand. This would involve the loss of a small number of trees.

Phase I

2.4 This involves the demolition of the existing north stand and the creation of a new North Stand together with the infilling of part of the current ‘gap’ between the North and East stands. The stand would be approximately 11m deeper than the existing stand and would extend six metres into the existing north car park.

2.5 Architecturally, the stand would largely be of steel construction with the elevation to the

existing car park being a combination of buff and black brick, to reflect the club colours, with polycarbonate panels at high levels.

2.6 Two steel masts, at either end of the north elevation, would anchor off the plant deck

and be cable-connected to the outer edge of the roof. The top of the stand would be approximately 30m above existing ground level and the maximum height to the top of the masts approximately 46 metres. The roof would incorporate a steel structure with metal standing seam roofing sheet.

2.7 The stand would accommodate two terraces of seating, museum, shop, kiosks, bars,

dining rooms, plant rooms and other ancillary rooms. 2.8 Several temporary buildings are also required as part of the first phase of works.

These would incorporate a workshop, groundsman’s building, pump room and photographers room. These would be located within the northern car park.

Phase II

2.9 The existing east stand would be demolished. The new stand would be the same height as the North Stand and would contain a number of corporate hospitality facilities including executive boxes and a hospitality suite.

Phase III

2.10 An additional tier would be constructed over the existing South Stand which will involve the loss of a small number of rows of seats at the rear of the existing tier. The South Stand would be constructed to the same height as the North and East Stands.

3. Planning History 3.1 A related application for the creation of 180 car parking spaces is being considered for

the site of the former Peal House site, Waterloo Road (10/01164/FUL).

129

4. Constraints 4.1 Sites and Monuments Entry 5. Relevant policies The Development Plan

5.1 D1 Design Quality

D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness HE17 Development affecting the setting of a listed building B1 Economic Prosperity B4 Expansion of Existing Businesses B12 Access to Job Opportunities B13 Business Tourism, Hotel and Conference SH1 Centres Strategy SH5 Wolverhampton City Centre R1 Local Standards for Open Space, Sport and Recreation facilities R5 Sports Grounds AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM6 Transport Assessments AM7 Travel Plans AM8 Public Transport AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13 Transport PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and noise PPS25 Development and flood risk

5.3 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 5.4 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands

130




7. Publicity 7.1 One local resident has objected on the grounds that increased stadium capacity would

result in noise disturbance and extra litter. 8. Internal consultees 8.1 Tree Officers – Object to the removal of a mature Sweet Chesnut and an Oak Tree

adjacent to the north-west access road off Waterloo Road, which the submitted aboricultural reports recognises as being of high amenity value. The proposed removal of other trees which are mostly young and of low amenity value can be replaced with new stock. Information will be required for approval as the species of tree, size and planting method.

8.2 Historic Environment – Comments awaited following the submission of a Heritage

Assessment Statement. 8.3 Transportation Development - There are no in principle transportation objections.

However, the proposal would result in significantly more vehicle trips to the network unless this can be mitigated by the Travel Plan. The currently submitted Travel Plan is not satisfactory with regard to this aim. A successful Travel Plan is important to prevent any of the surrounding highway junctions being pushed over capacity during match days. Other outstanding issues are: • A plan should be submitted to indicate how non-match parking differs from match

day parking. • The number of parking bays for disabled use has dropped from 46 to 12. the

numbers should be increased or justified. • The location, design and lack of future expansion space for cycle parking is a

concern. • Motorcycle parking is absent from the layout despite a predicated increase in the

number of supporters arriving by this means of transport. • Large scale plans should be submitted for the pedestrian ‘circulation space’ to the

north of the north stand. 8.4 Building Control - No objection to the proposal, the detail will be studied as part of

the Building Regulations process. 8.5 Archaeology - There are no archaeological implications relating to the proposal.

131

8.6 Environmental Services - The key issues are: • Noise during construction on nearby residences and businesses. • Noise during use. • Light pollution from flood-lighting systems. • Reduced air quality during construction and from increase in vehicular traffic upon

completion. Noise during construction on nearby residences and businesses

8.7 Should the application be permitted then operational hours for demolition and certain construction activities should be restricted.

Noise during use

8.8 The application proposes a significant increase in ground capacity. There is therefore significant potential for an increase in noise levels from football fans and public address systems.

8.9 Little environmental information has been submitted with the application. Discussions

have taken place with the applicants and an assessment of noise impact from spectators and public address systems is expected to be submitted. Whilst it will be possible to mitigate the impact of some activities by the imposition of planning conditions, without further information relating to existing baseline or projected future noise levels it is difficult to determine the content and value of the conditions necessary to mitigate any increased noise at this time. It remains however that the applicant should be required to carry out an acoustics survey, submit a scheme of noise mitigation, and implement any necessary works which the survey identifies, in order to reduce noise breakout.

Light pollution from flood-lighting systems

8.10 Artificial light spillage is a particular issue given the proposed ‘bowl’ configuration which is open at the north-west and south-west corners. There are numerous residents along Waterloo road with dense housing along Dunkley Street and Sherwood Street beyond. Some properties will have direct line of sight through the open north-west corner and into the stadium.

8.11 No lighting plan or spillage assessment has been provided with the application.

However, it is considered that this is can be controlled through planning condition.

Reduced air quality during construction and from increase in traffic on completion.

8.12 There will be a net loss of car parking spaces at the stadium. A detailed air quality assessment for Waterloo Road is not necessary as part of the application however a low emissions strategy should be submitted. In this case, the strategy can be incorporated as part of the proposed Travel Plan.

9. External consultees 9.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd - No objection to the proposal subject to a condition requiring

the submission of a drainage plan prior to the commencement of development. 9.2 Environment Agency - Currently object to the application as they consider the

submitted Flood Risk Assessment to be unsatisfactory as it does not comply with the requirements set out in Annex E, paragraph E3 of Planning Policy Statement 25. The applicants have been made aware of this and an amended Flood Risk Assessment is awaited.

132

9.3 Sport England (West Midlands) - No objection to the proposal as the proposal would not affect the established playing area.

9.4 Police - Consider that there are opportunities with this application to introduce design

features which could increase safety however they current have concerns about the proposal. In particular they have concerns about CCTV arrangements, the location of custody suites within the ground, the provision of away fan coach parking at Faulkland Street. The applicant has been made aware of these issues and a meeting is due to be held to address them.

9.5 Fire Service - No objection to the proposal. 9.6 English Heritage – Consider it unfortunate that the submitted design and access

statement does not consider the potential heritage impacts of the new stands, particularly on the Grade II* listed Molineux Hotel. In these circumstances English Heritage say they are unable to offer a final comment on the proposals. They request that the applicants be asked to submit a heritage appraisal assessing the likely impact of the new stand on the listed building and its setting.

9.7 Centro - Comments awaited. 10. Legal Implications 10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications. 10.2 S66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Area) Act 1990 requires that

where we are considering to grant planning permission for development that affects a listed building or its setting the local planning authority shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural; or historic interest which it possesses."


• Acceptability of proposed use • Design Quality • Layout • Scale and massing • Architectural appearance • Impact on historic environment • Impact on residential amenity • Transportation • Other matters

Acceptability of proposed use

11.2 The site falls within the City Centre inset map of the UDP, adjacent to both the Waterloo Road/Darlington Street and University Quarters. The development plan, in particular SH1 ‘Centres Strategy’ and SH5 ‘Wolverhampton City Centre’ seek to maintain the role of the City Centre as the principal location for employment and leisure activities.

11.3 The site is specifically allocated as a ‘private sports ground’ within the UDP. UDP

policies R1 ‘Local Standards for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities’ encourages the improvement in quality and accessibility of existing facilities.

133

11.4 In addition to improving the quality of the leisure provision, the proposal also seeks to enhance the ability of the club to generate additional income from new revenue streams on both match days and non-match days through the creation of improved banqueting and conference facilities.

11.5 UDP policy B1 ‘Economic Prosperity’ states that the Council will, “seek to improve

Wolverhampton’s prosperity by granted planning permissions for inward investment…and the expansion…of existing business on existing…sites/buildings within the City.” This is supported by Policy B4 ‘Expansion of Existing Businesses’ which states that, “the extension or expansion of existing businesses will be permitted providing that the proposal can be satisfactorily accommodated within the existing site….subject to other UDP policies”. More specifically, Policy B13, ‘Business Tourism, Hotel and Conference Facilities’, encourages such development within, or immediately adjacent to, defined centres.

11.6 The proposal will improve the quality of the leisure facility and will create additional

investment and jobs within Wolverhampton and more specifically, the City Centre. The proposal accords with UDP policies SH1, SH5, B1, B4 and B13.

Design Quality

11.7 Planning Policy Statement No.1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, states that, ‘good design is indivisible from good planning’ and that developments should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted.

11.8 This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ of the UDP which encourages all

new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”.

11.9 In order to determine whether the proposal has achieved a sufficient high quality

design, it is necessary to consider its layout, scale, massing and architectural appearance. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Layout

11.10 UDP Policy D3 ‘Urban Structure’ encourages developments to retain and improve all, “useful, safe and appropriate vehicular and pedestrian routes” whilst UDP policy D4 ‘Urban Grain’ states that proposals should, “respond positively to the established pattern of streets and buildings”.

11.11 The fundamental urban structure of the Molineux site remains unaltered. The

constraints of the site provide little opportunity for development and enhancement beyond the footprint. Therefore, the layout of the stadium largely reflects the configuration of the existing stadium, with the exception that it is now proposed to ‘infill’ the north-east and south-east corner in order to create a ‘stadium bowl’. This has the advantage of utilising some of the currently underutilised corner areas which are poorly overlooked and therefore a security concern, but also areas for the collection of litter.

11.12 In addition, there are significant areas of ‘run-off’ around the pitch, this distance would

be more than halved in the proposed design to approximately 6-6.5m. This effectively means that the North Stand would be around 10m closer to the South Stand once complete.

11.13 UDP policies D5 ‘Public Realm’ and D10 ‘Community Safety’ promote active street

frontages as a means of enclosing the public realm and encourage developments to clearly differentiate between private areas and public spaces. It also encourages main

134

entrances to open onto the public realm and discourages blank walls or inactive facades on frontages.

11.14 The North stand is very prominent, as proposed; the ground floor the North stand

would incorporate a large amount of glazing, particularly to both the Museum and Megastore. There is also a large entrance into the proposed hospitality suite which is situated on the first floor. In addition, there are also several entrances for fans into the stadium along this elevation. It is considered that this will help create a sense of activity and enliven the space.

11.15 For phases II and III, ‘layout’ is reserved for subsequent approval; therefore the layout

provided is illustrative only. The ground floor of the East stand would again provide a number of entrances into public bars and banqueting suites which is considered acceptable and a significant improvement on the existing ground floor of that stand.

11.16 However, the South stand, due its location adjacent to the retaining wall of the

Molineux Hotel, would be largely inactive at ground floor. Entrances would instead be in the south-east and south-west corners of the stadium. This is similar to the existing arrangements and is considered acceptable given the constraints of the site.

11.17 Overall, it is considered that the layout of the building will assist in the enhancement of

the vitality of the area and accords with UDP policies D1, D3, D4, D5 and D6.

Scale and massing 11.18 Policy D6 ‘Townscape and Landscape’ states that, ‘distinctive features should be

provided to define and emphasise landmarks, corner sites junctions, vistas, street scenes and public spaces’. Policy D7: Scale-Height states that, ‘Buildings should be of a height which helps achieves a strong sense of place, relates positively to its surroundings and the local topography and does not detract from important views and landmarks’. Policy D8 ‘Scale-Massing’ states that, ‘buildings should be in scale and compatible with their surroundings’.

11.19 By their nature football stadia are large buildings and the proposal would result in a

building of significant scale and mass. The height of the proposed North stand will be approximately 14m above that of the existing roof.

11.20 The site has a high profile, close to the Ring Road and a gateway to the City Centre.

The building is also a major attraction within the city and focus of activity. It is therefore considered legitimate that the building should be of significant scale and mass.

11.21 The proposed increase in height can be accommodated without adversely affecting

any vistas or neighbouring amenity. 11.22 For phases II and III ‘scale’ is reserved for subsequent approval; therefore the ‘scale’

provided is illustrative only. The proposed height of these stands would be these same as that of the North stand in order to create the ‘stadium bowl’.

11.23 It is considered that the scale is appropriate in this location and that the proposals

accords with UDP policies D6, D7 and D8.

Architectural appearance 11.24 Policy D1 states that, ‘all development proposals should demonstrate a high standard

of design and contribute towards creating a strong sense of place’, whilst policy D9 ‘appearance’ states that buildings should use good quality materials.

135

11.25 Architecturally the design has evolved over many months of negotiation. In terms of the appearance of the building, it is of a high quality, contemporary, bespoke design. It is intended that the proposed building will be a striking building, located close to a key gateway into the city centre. Given its prominent location and proposed use, the need for a high quality design and the use of good quality materials has been essential to achieve the desired impact.

11.26 The prominent external material is brick. Although red brick is the traditional and local

material, it is considered that there is a legitimate argument in this case to combine buff and black brick to assist in the distinctiveness of the development and reflect the club colours. In addition to the use of brick, the stands will be finished in black rain screen cladding.

11.27 For phases II and III ‘appearance’ is reserved for subsequent approval; therefore the

appearance provided is illustrative only. The proposals seek to continue the appearance of the proposed North stand which is considered acceptable in principle.

11.28 The ‘bowl’ design provides continuity, activity and interesting elevations on all sides

whereas the existing stadium comprises four individual stands and no corner identity and continuity.

11.29 It is considered that the appearance of proposed scheme accords with UDP policies

D1 and D9.

Impact on historic environment 11.30 UDP policy HE1 ‘Preservation of Local character and Distinctiveness’ requires all

development proposals to, “take account of the character of the area in which they are to be sited, including its historic character”. Policy HE17 ‘Development Affecting the Setting of a Listed Building’ states that development affecting the setting of a listed building will only be permitted if, “it respects and enhances the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building…”

11.31 PPS5 requires the submission of an assessment of the impact on the heritage asset.

This has recently been submitted and is being considered by colleagues in Historic Environment. The preliminary view of officers is as follows.

11.32 The former Molineux Hotel (Grade II*) is located approximately 50m to the south of the

existing South stand. The setting of Molineux Hotel has already been compromised by the development and redevelopment of Molineux Stadium over a period of many years. The current proposals are a progression of this historical development.

11.33 The south stand is the closest to Molineux Hotel. The proposed stand (which

represents the 3rd phase of the proposals and which is submitted in outline at this stage) would be approximately 13 metres higher than the current construction.

11.34 It is fully acknowledged that the increased height and bulk of the stadium will impact on

the wider settings and views of Molineux Hotel and the existing scale or relationship between the two will change. However, these views are changed by different and differing perspectives as one moves around the area and the historic building and its contemporary extension are such distinctive structures that they will still be readily apparent to public view. Whilst the proposed stadium will change the setting it would not obscure any public views of Molineux Hotel which would still remain highly visible from the ring road, and the surrounding pedestrian networks

11.35 In summary, whilst the setting of the Molineux Hotel will be harmed from certain

viewpoints, it is not considered that this would constitute substantial harm and that the proposed scheme accords with UDP policies HE1 and HE17 subject to consideration by Historic Environment.

136

Impact on residential amenity

11.36 UDP policies EP1, EP3, EP4 and EP5 state that development which may result in pollution (air, light or noise) will only permitted where it can be shown that there would be no material adverse impact on amenity.

11.37 As highlighted in the response from Environmental Services (paragraphs 8.6 – 8.12)

the proposal will have an increased impact on amenity of nearby residents but this is not considered unacceptable in principle. The impact particularly relates to light and noise pollution and will be largely confined to match days when the ground is operating at near capacity.

11.38 It will be possible to mitigate the impact of some activities by the imposition of planning

conditions, but it is necessary that further information relating to existing baseline or projected future noise levels is submitted in order to determine the content and value of the conditions necessary to mitigate any increased impact.

11.39 Subject to the submission of additional plans and information relating to the lighting

proposals and noise pollution, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with UDP policies EP1, EP3, EP4 and EP5.

Transportation

11.40 UDP policies AM1 to AM15 encourages all new development to contribute towards improvements in access, mobility, road safety and personal security by ensuring that people have a wide choice of mode of transport to access the site.

11.41 Due to high frequency of buses on Waterloo Road and Stafford Street and the

proximity to the City Centre, the stadium is classed as highly accessible. There are also a number of publicly available car parks in the local area, and good pedestrian links to the site from the City Centre, transportation services and the surrounding out of centre areas.

11.42 The issues regarding the submission have been covered in some depth by the

Transportation Officers, see ‘internal consultations’ section (paragraph 8.3). Whilst there are no objections to the proposals in principal, there are some issues which should be addressed prior to determination of the application.

11.43 A Travel Plan was submitted with the application. There is concern that the current

Travel Plan would not deliver the necessary mitigation identified in the submitted Transportation Assessment. A meeting has been held between colleagues in Transportation and the applicant’s highway consultants and an amended Travel Plan is anticipated.

11.44 Even if the Travel Plan achieves its objectives and vehicle trips are held close to

current levels, as predicted for Saturday afternoons, there would still be a significant increase in the number of pedestrian movements to the stadium along Waterloo Road which can in turn affect vehicle movements.

11.45 Traffic congestion in the vicinity of the stadium, whether caused by vehicle numbers,

traffic incidents or pedestrians affecting traffic flow, can quickly affect vehicles attempting to leave the ring road at Waterloo Road and Stafford Street junctions. These vehicles can be match day traffic or simply drivers who are not aware that a major event is in progress.

11.46 Existing CCTV cameras are sited at ring road/Waterloo Road, ring road/Stafford

Street, Five Ways Island and on top of the University building. Therefore the majority of Waterloo Road and especially the junctions with Jack Hayward Way and Staveley Road cannot currently be monitored. Therefore, any traffic incidents or congestion at

137

this location tend to go unnoticed by Urban Traffic Control (UTC) until traffic backs up to the point that it is visible on CCTV.

11.47 For these reasons a CCTV camera on, or near the junction of Waterloo Road and the

provision of additional Variable Message Signs (VMS) on Ring road St Andrews and St Peters are considered necessary.

11.48 If traffic problems can be monitored then action can be taken immediately to mitigate

the problem e.g. adjust traffic signal phasing at ring road/Waterloo Road junction or display warnings on VMS network.

11.49 VMS at the suggested locations would use numerous message formats to encourage

drivers to take more appropriate routes. In the case of non match day traffic the aim would be to keep them away from the stadium and thus reduce background traffic flows. This is especially relevant for midweek games when many drivers are still commuting and are not aware why congestion is affecting their usual route. VMS would also be used to assist supporters e.g. by providing information on available parking spaces. The provision of the CCTV camera and VMS can be required through the use of a condition.

11.50 As part the application a proposal was submitted for a part-time traffic light system on

Stafford Street to enable departing coaches to exist north from the Maltings onto Stafford Street. There would also be, at the same location or closer to the ring road, a signalised pedestrian crossing to enable away supporters to cross Stafford Street which is three lanes in each direction.

11.51 Transportation Officers consider that these measures are not necessary to make the

proposed development acceptable and they have concerns regarding their acceptability. Because the measures are not necessary to make the application acceptable, discussions can continue between Transportation Officers and the applicant outside of the planning process.

11.52 For phases II and III ‘access’ is reserved for subsequent approval; therefore the

access provided is illustrative only, but is considered to be acceptable. 11.53 Provided that the necessary amendments to the Travel Plan are made and that the

provision of a CCTV camera and VMS are required, it is considered that the proposed scheme is acceptable and accords with UDP policies D1, AM1, AM12 and AM15.

Other matters

11.54 As a result of the proposals a number of trees would be removed. Whilst there is no objection to the loss of the majority of these, there are two which are of high amenity value and should be retained if possible. Details are awaited to see whether the proposed northern access from Waterloo Road can be realigned.

11.55 The submitted masterplan and artists impression indicate a significantly improve public

realm around the base of the stadium with a reduction the amount of car parking and enlarged circulation space. However, no detailed landscaping plans have been submitted. It is considered that this is necessary, particularly for the area to the north of north stand which forms part of the full submission. This information has been requested from the applicants and is awaited.

11.56 As highlighted in paragraph 9.2, the Environment Agency currently object to the

proposal as they consider the submitted Flood Risk Assessment to be unsatisfactory. If the Environment Agency objection is not resolved then, it is not necessary to refer the decision to the Secretary of State as the site is not within a Flood Risk Zone 2, 3 or 1 with critical drainage problems.

138

12. Conclusion 12.1 Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club is a major stakeholder in the growth,

promotion and economy of the city. A redeveloped stadium provides an opportunity to demonstrate confidence in the city and to drive forward the local economy.

12.2 The proposal is consistent with the adopted Development Plan for the site and should

be supported. It will deliver a modern and high profile development to a gateway location within the City Centre and also act as a catalyst for the continued regeneration of city.

12.3 Having taken into account all the planning issues, including those raised by

consultees, it is considered that the positive planning benefits of the development outweigh any negative planning impacts; on balance the proposal is considered to be acceptable, subject to no overriding objections from outstanding consultees and the resolution of any outstanding matters.

12.4 This proposal is an important piece in the regeneration of Wolverhampton and is in

accordance with UDP policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, AM12 and AM15.


grant Planning Application 10/01053/OUT subject to:

1. Resolution of outstanding matters including: • Submission of satisfactory Travel Plan; • Realignment of northern access from Waterloo Road to see if trees of high

amenity value can be retained; • Submission of landscaping plan for Phase I. • Submission of a satisfactory noise report • No overriding concerns following consideration of the submitted Heritage

Impact Assessment 2. No overriding concerns from outstanding consultees.

3. Conditions to include:

Outline conditions

• Submission of reserved matters prior to commencement of Phases II and III;

Full conditions • Implement development of Phase I within five years. • Limit temporary buildings to five years.

Conditions covering whole site • Materials • Architectural details • Landscaping • Compliance with travel plan • Servicing details

139

• Site Investigation • Drainage • Lighting plan • Provision and retention of parking spaces prior to use • Construction management plan • Provision of CCTV traffic camera and Variable Message Signs (if not

secured through a S106) • Details of PA system • Lighting details • Public Art • Targeted recruitment


140

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01053/OUT Location Molineux Stadium, Waterloo Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391258 299175 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area m2

141


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located 700m south of Bilston Town Centre. It comprises three

main areas of land. On either side of the Bradley Arm of the Birmingham Canal are areas identified for housing. To the south of Greenway Road is a smaller area identified for light industrial use. Glasshouse Bridge provides a pedestrian link across the canal.

1.2 The site has been cleared of buildings in preparation for development. 1.3 On the northern side of the canal, adjacent to the towpath, is the remnant abutment of

a former bridge across the canal. The abutment is constructed of brick and blast furnace slag.

2. Application details 2.1 Outline planning permission 07/00458/OUT was granted on 16th January 2008 for a

mix of residential and light industrial development. Condition 35 of that permission requires:

“The brick and furnace slag bridge abutment on the north side of the canal shall be

retained and consolidated in accordance with a specification of works to be submitted for the prior approval and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the local planning authority and interpreted in any subsequent detailed scheme for development.”

2.2 This application seeks to carry out the development without complying with condition

35.

APP NO: 10/00998/RC WARD: Bilston East


RECEIVED: 25.08.2010 APP TYPE: Removing Condition frm Previous Approval SITE: Bankfield Works, Greenway Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Section 73 application for the removal of condition 35 which requires the

retention and consolidation of the bridge abutment on the North side of the canal of application 07/00458/OUT for mixed use development comprising residential and light industry.

APPLICANT: Redrow Homes Midlands C/O Agent

AGENT: Mr Mark Alcock Halcrow Group Ltd 62 Lyndon House Hagley Road Edgbaston Birmingham B16 8PE

142

2.3 In support of the application the agents state that the bridge was constructed between 1848 and 1887 and had been mostly demolished by the early 20th century. It was not built as part of the canal but to provide localised, short-term access for the adjacent iron works. The remains of the bridge are fragmentary and add nothing to the setting or history of the area. Furthermore, the abutment would disrupt the continuous built frontage to the canal approved as reserved matter “layout”.

2.4 An assessment of buildings on the site, which was carried out in 2007 by Mercian

Archaeology and Historic Buildings, has been submitted with the application. The report recommends a basic photographic record of the abutment as mitigation for its removal.

3. Planning History 3.1 07/00458/OUT for Mixed use development comprising residential development,

erection of light industrial units and associated infrastructure, landscaping, parking, creation of public open space and retention of existing car park. (Outline Application). Granted 16.01.2008.

3.2 10/00625/REM for Approval of Reserved Matters - Appearance, layout, scale and

landscaping, relating to residential element of outline planning application 07/00458/OUT for mixed use development, erection of light industrial units and associated infrastructure, landscaping, parking, creation of public open space and retention of existing car park. Granted 22.10.2010.


Deep Coal Landfill Gas Zone Mining Areas Sites and Monuments Entry Protected Trees


D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D10 Community Safety D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy D14 The Provision of Public Art EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP6 Protection of Ground Water, Watercourses, Canals EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP11 Development on Contaminated or Unstable Land EP13 Waste and Development HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness

143

HE22 Protection and Enhancement of the Canal Network N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N2 Access to Natural Green Space N7 The Urban Forest N9 Protection of Wildlife Species B5 Design Standards for Employment Sites B9 Defined Business Areas B10 Redevelopment of Employment Land and Premises R1 Local Standards for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities R7 Open Space Requirements for New Development R9 New Open Space, Sport and recreation Facilities H1 Housing H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 Housing Density and mix H10 Affordable Housing AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS3 Housing PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13 Transport PPG14 Development on unstable land PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPG24 Planning and noise PPS25 Development and flood risk

5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents

SPG3 Residential Development 5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 5.5 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and



7. Publicity 7.1 No representations received.

144

8. Internal Consultees 8.1 Historic Environment - No objection. The abutment has been recorded and the record

has been included in the Sites and Monuments Record. 9. External Consultees 9.1 British Waterways – If the abutment is to be demolished a full survey should be

undertaken and interpretation signage should be provided to explain the previous industrial uses in the area and the purpose of the abutment. If the abutment is retained it should be maintained so that it does not become a liability to British Waterways.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of the planning applications.

10.2 The application is made under Section 73 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990

and is therefore an application “for planning permission for the development of land without complying with conditions subject to which a previous planning permission was granted”. If the proposed condition is acceptable, permission should be granted with the new condition, any conditions on the original permission which remain relevant and any other conditions required that would make the proposal acceptable. A deed of variation to tie the new permission into the existing s106 agreement would also be necessary. The new permission would be an alternative to the original, which would remain extant.

10.3 It should be noted that since April 2010 in lawfully taking into account planning

obligations in considering the grant of planning permission the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 require that the planning obligations are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development [LC/15112010/E}.

11. Appraisal 11.1 The bridge abutment is a remnant of the industrial history of the area. However, it is a

rather unattractive lump of masonry, it would disrupt the built up frontage to the canal that has recently been approved (10/00625/REM) and, in the light of information submitted, its historic significance is not so great as to require its retention. The Council’s Historic Environment Officers do not object to the removal of the abutment. The proposal complies with UDP policies HE1 and HE22.

11.2 British Waterways request, as a condition of permission, the provision of interpretation

signage, to explain the previous industrial uses in the area and the purpose of the abutment. This is not considered to be something that is either necessary or reasonable to require as a condition.

145


grant planning application 10/00998/RC subject to: • The completion of a deed of variation to tie the new permission to the existing

Section 106 Agreement. • Recording of the abutment prior to demolition. • Relevant conditions from the outline permission.


146

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00998/RC Location Bankfield Works, Greenway Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 395366 295764 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 57754m2

147


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Introduction 1.1 This application was deferred by Planning Committee on the 2nd of November for a site

visit. 2. Site Description 2.1 Autherley Junction is situated approximately 3.5km north of the City and marks the

location where the Shropshire Union canal joins the Staffordshire & Worcestershire Canal.

2.2 The application site comprises the a section of the Shropshire Union Canal, the

Napton Narrowboats boat hire depot and some adjacent land and premises, all owned by British Waterways.

2.3 Both the canal and the boat yard form part of the Staffordshire & Worcester and

Shropshire Union Canal Conservation Area. Within the application site, the Toll House, and lock are statutorily listed (Grade II) as is the adjacent canal bridge. Also within the site, the two storey house and bungalow (numbers 1 and 3 Autherley Junction respectively), the former stable blocks and a small building on the other side of the canal are locally listed.

2.4 The site is located within the Green Belt. On the northern side of the Shropshire Union

and eastern side of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire canal are large areas of public open space. To the rear of the boat yard is a sewage works which is designated as a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt.

2.5 National Cycle Route 81, which connects Aberystwyth and Birmingham, runs along the

towpath, through the application site.

APP NO: 10/00928/FUL WARD: Oxley


RECEIVED: 11.08.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: Autherley Junction, Oxley Moor Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of security fencing and gates. APPLICANT: Napton Narrowboats Oxley Moor Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV9 5HW

AGENT: RPS Planning And Development Salisbury House 2A Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton WV1 4SG

148

3. Application details 3.1 The applicant proposes the erection of a 1.8m high gate across the canal towpath,

close to the listed canal bridge. On the opposite side of the canal 2m high fencing is proposed, from the bridge to the existing 2m high chainlink fence. Both the gate and fence would be constructed of round steel bars.

3.2 The applicant states that the gate would be unlocked during the day but would be

locked by the management of the boatyard during, “the hours of darkness”. 3.3 The Design and Access Statement justifies the proposal on the grounds that “the site

is currently unsecured and has been subject, due to its isolated and unprotected position, to vandalism and antisocial activities”.

4. Planning History 4.1 In 2007, planning permission for a similar proposal was applied for and subsequently

granted on the 29th of June 2007 but has now expired (07/00371/FUL). 5. Constraints 5.1 Conservation Area - : Staffordshire & Worcestershire and Shropshire Union Canal

Conservation Area Listed Building Curtilage Sites and Monuments Entry Green Belt

6. Relevant policies 6.1 National Guidance

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13 Transport PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

6.2 Unitary Development Plan

D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness HE3 Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 Control of Development in a Conservation Area HE8 Encouragement of Appropriate Redevelopment in Conservation Area HE13 Development Affecting a Listed Building HE17 Develop. Affecting the setting of a Listed Building HE18 Preservation & Enhancement of Local List Buildings HE19 Development Affecting a Local List Buildings HE22 Protection and Enhancement of Canal Network G1 Protection of the Green Belt G2 Control of Development in the Green Belt

149

AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists

6.3 Other relevant policies Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009) Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands 7. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 7.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and



8. Publicity 8.1 No representations received. 9. Internal consultees 9.1 Transportation Development - Object to the proposal which would effectively close

the towpath of the Shropshire Union canal during the hours of darkness which are not defined.

9.2 This towpath is currently part of National Cycle Route 81 Birmingham to Aberystwyth.

The main concern is that the towpath could be blocked during commuting hours in the winter thus reducing accessibility for pedestrians and cyclists to the Dovecotes Estate and parts of Oxley.

9.3 Whilst it is appreciated that out of hours vandalism could be a problem for the

company, it is not considered that this is justification for the closure of the route. 9.4 Historic Environment – The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the

character and appearance of the conservation area and be harmful to listed and locally listed buildings. The gate would be particularly harmful when across the towpath.

10. External consultees 10.1 British Waterways - Whilst British Waterways invite public access and use of canal

towpaths, they are not formal public rights of way. Therefore, British Waterways has the capacity to close the towpath and prevent public access at any time.

10.2 The towpath is also a Sustrans route and British Waterways would not want to

condone a blockage of that route unless Sustrans were fully consulted and were satisfied that an alternative route on the off-side of the canal were a viable alternative.

150

10.3 Notwithstanding this, there have been discussions about this issue over a long time and subject to an appropriate condition to control the hours of access, British Waterways have no objection to the proposal.

10.4 British Waterways mention that their bin store was set on fire. It is located outside the

area that would be gated. They are considering re-positioning it. 10.5 Police - No objections to the application. Over the last 12 months the following

crimes/incidents were reported:

• One attempt burglary at an empty cottage on the site. • One theft from Motor vehicle parked on the site. • Two incidents of youths throwing bottles and stones at the canal boats. • One incident of youths throwing bottles at cars from the canal bridge.

10.6 Sustrans (Charity which supports sustainable transport and established the National

Cycle Network) - The application proposes to prevent access to a National Cycle Network. This is not acceptable, even if the closure is limited to the hours of darkness.


applications. 11.2 Under section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990

in considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting the Council shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses.

11.3 With regard to exercising planning functions in a conservation area, the Planning

(Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires that special attention shall be paid to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character of appearance of that area. [LC/18112010/S].

12. Appraisal 12.1 The key considerations in determining this application are:

• Is the proposal ‘appropriate development’ within the Green Belt? • Do very special circumstances exist to justify the development? • Access to the canal towpath • Impact on the historic environment • Other issues

Is the proposal ‘appropriate development’ within the Green Belt?

12.2 Paragraph 3.2 of PPG2 ‘Green Belt’ states that within the Green Belt there is a general

presumption against “inappropriate development”. 12.3 Paragraph 3.12 of PPG2 states that the carrying out of operations are considered,

“inappropriate development, unless they maintain openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land in the Green Belt”.

151

12.4 The proposal to erect security fencing and a gate would dilute, albeit in a small way, the openness of Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The proposal would therefore be “inappropriate development”.

12.5 To justify inappropriate development in the Green Belt, PPG2 states that there must be

circumstances which can reasonably be described not merely as special but as very special, and that these circumstances will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt, by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations. This is reiterated in UDP policy G1.

Do very special circumstances exist to justify the development?

12.6 The Courts and appeal decisions have indicated that material considerations can

cover a wide range of matters and that, even if the material considerations do not carry significant weight individually they can, when taken together, be capable of amounting to very special circumstances.

12.7 The sole justification for the proposal relates to the applicants concerns regarding

security and vandalism at the site. UDP policy D10 ‘Community Safety’ states that proposals should, “take full account of the need to prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime and promote community safety throughout the design process.” In the determination of the previous application, this issue was felt to be an overriding consideration.

12.8 The applicants concerns about this issue are appreciated and taken very seriously,

however the evidence provided to date does not establish a persistent security and vandalism problem.

12.9 The response from the Police highlights a number of incidents which have taken place

over the last twelve months at the site. Even with the introduction of the proposed gates and fence, it is unlikely, given the nature of the incidents that they would have been prevented by the proposed security measures. Also, the gate would not prevent access to determined criminals or active vandals, who in any case could enter the site along the towpath from the north.

12.10 The site does have a reasonable level of natural surveillance, with three dwellings and

an occupied canal boat within the site, in addition to surveillance provided by legitimate users of the towpath and canal.

12.11 In the summer the hours of daylight are long and the public would have access to the

towpath from early in the morning until late at night. On the longest day twilight starts at 03:54 and ends at 22:26, making the site potentially vulnerable to crime and antisocial behaviour for most of day.

12.12 In addition, if there is a serious and persistent crime and vandalism problem then it is

questionable why the applicants failed to implement the previous permission in the three years that the permission was extant. Furthermore, there would appear to be scope for improving the security of the site boundaries and the buildings in ways that would be acceptable in planning terms.

12.13 For these reasons it is not considered that this argument represents very special

circumstances.

Impact on the Historic Environment 12.14 The application site forms part of the Staffordshire & Worcester and Shropshire Union

Canal Conservation Area. There are listed buildings and locally listed buildings within and adjacent to the site.

152

12.15 UDP policy HE22 ‘Protection and Enhancement of Canal Network’ recognises the

historical, recreational and nature conservation value of the canal network. It expects new developments alongside canals to, amongst other things, demonstrate high quality of design, including boundary treatments, and protect and enhance public access to the corridors.

12.16 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ states that, “buildings, structures, boundary treatments

and landscape features should make a positive contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials”. Whilst UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ states that, “poor and mediocre designs will be unacceptable”.

12.17 The gate, particularly when across the towpath preventing access, would impact

negatively on the setting of the listed and locally listed buildings. It would also have a detrimental effect on the character and appearance of the conservation area, particularly on its character as a linear transport corridor.

12.18 For these reasons the proposed development would be contrary to UDP policies D1,

D9, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE8, HE13, HE18, HE19 and HE22.

Access to the canal towpath 12.19 The towpath is not only an important local route for pedestrians and cyclists to the

Dovecotes Estate and parts of Oxley, but also as a national one, forming part of National Cycle Route 81 (Birmingham to Aberystwyth).

12.20 National planning guidance, in particular PPG13 and PPG17, encourages the use of

canal towpaths as sustainable transport routes and also as a recreational amenity in promoting health and well-being.

12.21 This is reiterated in UDP policies particularly HE22 ‘Protection and Enhancement of

the Canal Network’, which states that new developments will be expected to protect and enhance public access to the corridors.

12.22 UDP policy G5 ‘Access to the Green Belt’ states that, “existing public access to,

through and within the green belt will be protected…… giving reasonable access for all sections of the community to the amenities provided by the green belt”.

12.23 In addition, UDP policy AM1 ‘Access, Mobility and New Development’ states that, “all

new development will be expected to contribute towards improvements in access and mobility, by ensuring that people have a wide choice of mode of transport to access the site, including……cycling and walking” whilst UDP policy D3 ‘Urban Structure’ states that, “proposals should retain and improve all useful, safe and appropriate vehicular and pedestrian routes.”

12.24 There is strong policy support for the retention of access to the towpath and serious

concern that the proposal to close the towpath during ‘the hours of darkness’ would mean that during the winter months in particular, the towpath could be blocked during commuting hours. On the shortest day twilight starts at 07:36 and ends at 16:38.

12.25 On the shortest day, in order to comply with the applicant’s suggested opening hours

the gates would have to be unlocked at 03:54 and locked at 22:26. There would be a likelihood that opening times would not be adhered to and enforcement could be problematic.

12.25 The applicant has suggested that an alternative route for the national cycle route could

be provided on the opposite side of the canal, through the public open space. However, the applicant has not discussed this with the Council as owner of the open

153

space and there are concerns about wayfinding and the suitability of the route in its current state. The route through the public open space is narrow, muddy and meandering in parts and passes through some thick areas of trees and bushes which, during the hours of darkness in particular, would feel unwelcoming. It would also make it difficult for users of the national cycle route to find the “alternative” route.

12.26 It is only proposed to put one gate across the canal. Users of the towpath approaching

from the north, finding the gate locked would have to backtrack 500m to find a way off the towpath (a round trip of 1km) and 700m to cross the canal to access the “alternative” route ( a round trip of 1.4km).

12.26 For these reasons the proposal is contrary to UDP policies D1, D3, HE22, G5, AM1,

AM9, AM10. 13 Conclusion 13.1 The proposed fencing and gates would be inappropriate development in the Green

Belt which is not justified by very special circumstances. 13.2 The gate would be detrimental to the setting of the listed and locally listed buildings

and the character and appearance of the conservation area. 13.3 There is also strong national and local policy support for the retention of public access

to the canal towpaths as part of the sustainable transport and health and well being agendas. Closing the towpath during the hours of darkness could significantly inconvenience legitimate towpath users.

13.4 The evidence provided does not substantiate a history of sustained criminal or

antisocial behaviour. There is no evidence that gating the towpath would have prevented the few incidences that the Police report. The gate would be unlikely to prevent access to determined criminals or active vandals, who in any case could enter the site from the north.

13.5 For these reasons the proposal is contrary to UDP policies D1, D9, HE1, HE3, HE4,

HE5, HE8, HE13, HE17, HE18, HE19, HE22, G1, G2, G5, AM1, AM9 and AM10. 14. Recommendation 14.1 That planning application 10/00928/FUL be refused for the following reasons:

1. Very special circumstances have not been demonstrated to outweigh the harm caused by the development, by reason of inappropriateness, to the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to UDP policies G1, G2, G5 and PPG2.

2. The proposed gate would fail to preserve or enhance the character and

appearance of the Staffordshire & Worcestershire and Shropshire Union Canal Conservation Area and would be detrimental to the setting of both listed and locally listed buildings. The proposal is therefore contrary to D1, D9, HE1, HE3, HE4, HE5, HE8, HE13, HE17, HE 18, HE19 and HE22.

3. The proposal would prevent access to the canal towpath which is a nationally and

locally important transport corridor and recreational amenity. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies D1, D3, HE22, G5, AM1, AM9, AM10.

154

Case Officer : Richard Pitt Telephone No : 01902 551674 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00928/FUL Location Autherley Junction, Oxley Moor Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 390094 302086 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 10386m2

155


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located approximately three miles to the north-west of

Wolverhampton City Centre on the northern side Sandy Lane. It is occupied by new housing and the locally listed St Joseph’s Convent House.

1.3 There are allotments to the west, public open space to the east and interwar semi-

detached housing in Burland Avenue to the north. 1.4 There are two footpath links within the site:

• to the east, to Sandy Lane Public Open Space, • to the west, to the long established footpath that leads from Sandy Lane,

across the allotments to Burland Avenue. 2. Application Details 2.1 The housing development, including the footpath links, was built pursuant to planning

permission 05/0901/FP/M. Condition 14 of that permission states:

“Prior to occupation or use of the development hereby permitted, the footpath links within the site leading to Burland Avenue and to Sandy Lane Public Open Space shall be completed in accordance with details to be first agreed in writing by the local planning authority and shall remain so throughout the life of the development unless the local planning authority agrees to any variation”.

2.2 The application proposes the removal of the requirement to retain the pedestrian link

leading to Burland Avenue. The new path would be closed off by a 1.83m high brick wall close to the point where it meets the Sandy Lane/Burland Avenue path.

APP NO: 10/00685/VV WARD: Tettenhall Regis


RECEIVED: 18.06.2010 APP TYPE: Vary of Condition(s) of PreviousApproval SITE: Alameda Gardens, Aldersley, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Variation of Condition 14 (Pedestrian Links) of planning permission

05/0901/FP/M. Alterations to existing convent and creation of new residential development. Proposal to close the footpath leading from Alameda Gardens to Burland Avenue and Sandy Lane Public Open Space.

APPLICANT: Dr Abir Doger Residents of Alameda Gardens Alameda Gardens Tettenhall Wolverhampton WV6 9EX

AGENT:

156

2.3 The application includes a letter which states that the application is submitted on behalf of the residents of Alameda Gardens. It also states that they are seeking to vary the condition because of concerns of crime and anti-social behaviour.

2.4 It is stated that since the footpath was opened the crime rate in the area has increased

greatly, including thefts from sheds on the allotments with criminals using this footpath as an easy exit route. There have also been alleged instances of people loitering, taking drugs and intruders entering premises and stealing, including at 8 Alameda Gardens. This has resulted in a needless waste of police time and public money. Residents also perceive that the footpath allows for the possibility of child abductions. It is pointed out that there are no shops or commercial premises in the vicinity of the site that would be adversely affected by the proposals.

3. Relevant Planning History 3.1 05/0901/FP/M. Residential Development. St Joseph’s School and Convent, Sandy

Lane. Granted 19th June 2006. 4. Constraints 4.1 Local List Building – St Joseph’s Convent House

Sandy Lane Allotments Recreational Open Space (Sandy Lane) Landfill Gas


D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm (Public Space / Private Space) D6 Townscape and Landscape D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety (Part l) D11 Access for People with Disabilities (Part l) H1 Housing H6 Design of Housing Development AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

Other relevant Policy Documents 5.2 Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing

PPG13 Transport 5.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG 2 Access and Facilities for Disabled People

SPG 3 Residential Development

157

5.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and



7. Publicity 7.1 Two letters of objection have been received. They object on the grounds that this is a

well used footpath which provides a direct, level, safe and well lit connection to Sandy Lane and local services, including the health centre. Alternative footpaths between Burland Avenue and Sandy Lane are uneven and poorly lit and are not safe during the winter months.

8. Internal consultees 8.1 Transportation Development – Object. The footpath currently provides an attractive

direct, safe and convenient route for pedestrians. It integrates with existing pedestrian thoroughfares. If it is closed there would be no direct pedestrian route between Burland Avenue and Sandy Lane Public Open Space and the only direct route for pedestrians between Sandy Lane and Burland Avenue would be via the public footpath across the allotments to the east. This is narrow, un-surfaced and poorly lit and would therefore be a less desirable substitute and not in accordance with UDP policies.

8.2 Parks & Green Spaces (Leisure) – Object. The proposals would result in the

unacceptable loss of a well lit, safe and good quality access to Sandy Lane Public Open Space.

9. External consultees 9.1 Police – There have been no reported crimes at this location in the previous 12

months. 9.2 Local Neighbourhood Partnership and Ward Councillors – Comments awaited. 10. Legal Implications 10.1 This is a Section 73 application, a new planning permission is sought with a different

condition to that on the previous permission. In considering the application regard can only be had to the question of the conditions. If the proposed amended condition is acceptable, the permission should be granted with the new condition and conditions on the original permission that remain relevant and such other conditions required to

158

make the proposal acceptable. If a new permission is granted, it would be an alternative to the original permission.

10.2 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications [LC/17112010/W]. 11. Appraisal 11.1 The key issues to be considered when determining this application are:

• Accessibility • Security

Accessibility

11.2 UDP policy AM1 ‘Access, Mobility and New Development’ states that “the success of a new development depends on how well it is connected to the wider road network, neighbouring streets, public transport routes, cycle routes and footpaths”.

11.3 UDP Policy AM9 ‘Provision for Pedestrians’ states that “all new developments will be

required to provide attractive, direct, safe and convenient routes for pedestrians that integrate with existing pedestrian thoroughfares” and “people prefer to walk along streets where they are overlooked and can be seen by drivers, residents and other pedestrians”.

11.4 UDP policy D3 ‘Urban Structure’ states that, “proposals should retain and improve all

useful, safe and appropriate vehicular and pedestrian routes.” 11.5 There is strong policy support for the retention of this pedestrian access and serious

concern that the proposal to close the footpath would result in the loss of an attractive, direct, safe and convenient route for pedestrians leading between Burland Avenue and Sandy Lane via Alameda Gardens. The path provides a shortcut for residents of the area to a number of local facilities including:

• Claregate Primary School • The shops on Pendeford Avenue • The Claregate Public House • The Aldersley Road Medical Centre • Sandy Lane public open space

11.6 For these reasons the proposal is contrary to UDP policies AM1, AM9 and D3.

Security 11.7 The justification for the proposal relates to concerns regarding security. UDP policy

D10 ‘Community Safety’ states that proposals should, “take full account of the need to prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime and promote community safety throughout the design process.”

11.8 The applicants concerns about the issues of security are appreciated and taken very seriously, however the evidence provided to date does not establish a security or vandalism problem and therefore there is no justification for allowing the closure of this very useful route.

11.9 The closure of the path could encourage more use of the footpath across the allotments site. This path is poorly lit and not overlooked, which renders users vulnerable to crime.

159

12. Conclusion 12.1 There is strong national and local policy support for the retention of this footpath as

part of the sustainable transport and health and well being agendas. 12.2 The proposals would result in the unacceptable loss of this attractive, direct, safe and

convenient pedestrian route. 12.3 There is no evidence of a problem of crime associated with the footpath. 12.4 The proposal is contrary to UDP policies D1, D3, AM1, AM9 and AM10. 13. Recommendation 13.1 That planning application 10/00685/VV be refused for the following reason:

1. The proposal would result in the loss of an attractive, direct, safe and convenient pedestrian route, contrary to UDP policies D3, AM1 and AM9.


160

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00685/VV Location Alameda Gardens, Aldersley,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 389466 300731 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 10761m2

161


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The area is mixed in character and whilst the predominant land use is residential, the

area also includes a number of retail uses and a place of worship. The application site consists of a currently vacant, flat roof, former car repair garage, and vacant plot of land, located adjacent to a Council owned car park and at the rear of the 59/61 Crowther Street. The site can be accessed using Crowther Street, or the Cannock Road car park, and is currently in a poor condition.

2. Application details 2.1 The application seeks planning permission to re-build, extend and alter the existing car

repair workshop to create a new retail unit (Use Class A1) with associated parking located north of the site on a separate plot of land.

3. Planning History 3.1 A/C/0469/84 - Proposed conversion to two flats, Refused , 26.06.1984 3.2 A/C/3236/83 - Conversion to 2 flats with extensions at the rear. Refused, 15.12.1983 4. Constraints 4.1 Adjacent Council owned land

APP NO: 10/01066/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill


RECEIVED: 17.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: Site At The Rear Of , 61 Crowther Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Extension and alterations to existing car repair workshop to create a retail

unit (Use Class A1) with associated parking APPLICANT: Mr Sukhraj Kandola 46 Crowther Street Wolverhampton WV10 9AG

AGENT: Mr Peter Tyler Seven Design Build 20 Bridgnorth Road Wombourne Wolverhampton Staffordshire WV5 0AA

162

5. Relevant policies The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP):

D1: Design Quality D4: Urban Grain D5: Public Realm D7: Scale - Height D8: Scale - Massing D9: Appearance D10: Community Safety D13: Sustainable Development AM12: Parking and Servicing Provision AM15: Road Safety and Personal Security EP1: Pollution Control EP5: Noise Pollution SH1: Centres Strategy SH9: Local Shops and Centre Uses SH10: Protected Frontages B1: Economic Prosperity B2: Balanced Portfolio of Employment Land B10: Redevelopment of Business Land and Premises

5.2 Regional Spatial Strategy Other relevant policies 5.3 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS23: Planning and Pollution Control PPG24: Planning and Noise

5.4 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents/Guidance (SPD/G):

SPG5: Shopfront Design Guide 5.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and



7. Neighbour notification and publicity 7.1 A petition opposing the proposals, containing 12 signatures, has been submitted. A

summary of the issues raised follows:

(i) Noise pollution, including patrons using the alleyway and delivery vehicles; (ii) Increase in anti-social behaviour, in particular youths using the area; (iii) Increase in litter; (iv) No need for premises as the area is already served by similar uses.

163

7.2 A petition in support of the proposals, containing 46 signatures, has been submitted. The reasons for support follow:

(i) Reduce pollution; (ii) Reduce crime; (iii) Reduce risk to personal safety.

8. Internal consultees 8.1 Transportation – The site is located in an area classed as highly accessible by public

transport and it is considered that there is sufficient parking provided by the applicant and on the council owned parking along Cannock Road to cope with likely demand. Visibility is acceptable. No objections.

8.2 A suitable lighting scheme should be provided between the Crowther Street car park to

the rear of the site and the front entrance to the proposed unit. 8.3 Planning Policy – Policy SH9 of the UDP states that new centre uses which are

located outside the defined boundaries of local centres will only be permitted if it can be shown that the policy criteria can be met:

(i) There is a demonstrated local need which cannot be met by existing provision in

the area, or by development on an available site in a local centre; (ii) The proposal is commensurate in scale with the local need that has been

identified; (iii) The proposal will reduce the need to travel, especially by car; (iv) There will be no significant impact upon a defined centre; (v) There will be no adverse impact on highway safety; (vi) The site of the proposal is adjacent to an existing cluster or parade of shops.

8.4 The applicant has stated in the Design & Access Statement that:

(i) The shop will specialise in supplying specific products to the culturally diverse community which are otherwise unavailable to them;

(ii) The shop will also stock everyday necessities; (iii) The applicant does not believe that the proposed store would have a detrimental

effect on local businesses; and, (iv) That the site would adequately cater for customer parking and is located near to

public transport. 8.5 The Policy Officer is of the view that the applicant has not supplied adequate evidence

of a sequential approach to locating this site within a defined local centre. 8.6 It is considered that the loss of this site’s current use would not prejudice the supply of

employment land in the city given its characteristics and small nature. 8.7 Access Officer – No objections. 8.8 Environmental Services - The proposed plans show a ‘bin store’ in the yard area,

there are no objections to this. 8.9 The proposed opening hours are 0800 to 2200 hours every day, including Sundays

and Bank Holidays. These appear to be similar to other businesses in the surrounding area.

164

8.10 Potential noise nuisance to residents living near the proposed development may arise from delivery/refuse collection activities at the premises. Therefore, due to the close proximity of residential accommodation, no deliveries/collections should be made before 0800 or after 1800 on Mondays to Fridays or before 0800 or after 1300 on Saturdays. There shall be no deliveries or collections made on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

8.11 In order to limit the potential for complaint during construction phase operational hours,

including commercial vehicle movements to or from the site should be restricted to 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 Saturday, and at no time on Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays.

8.12 The previous use of the land may have lead to unacceptable levels of contamination,

which could affect the redevelopment strategy of the site. Measures may need to be taken to remediate the site. A note for information should be inserted onto any planning permission.

8.13 Property Services – No observations. 9. Legal Implications 9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications [LC18122010/0]. 10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issues are:

• Planning policy • Design • Neighbour amenity • Parking & highway safety

Planning policy 10.2 Where appropriate, the Council encourages the retention of employment uses. The

last use of this site was for an employment generating use. The site is not located within a defined business area, however, policy B2 advises that the council aim to provide a balanced portfolio and geographical spread of employment land. Policy B10 advises that proposals at individual employment premises, for uses other than the uses set out in Policy B9, including Use Class B1, B2, B8 (and ancillary needs uses), will only be permitted where: (i) the existing use and/or the traffic generated by that use has unacceptable impacts

on the amenity of surrounding land uses and/or on the highway network, and the proposed use would remove those unacceptable impacts; or

(ii) the site or premises are unsuitable for continued employment use, whether by reuse of existing buildings or by redevelopment, due to their location and/or the standard of accommodation and/or the condition of the land and the need for and costs of remediation works; and it has been shown that there is no market demand for continued employment use; or

(iii) it has been demonstrated that the loss of the site or premises from employment use would not prejudice the required supply of a balanced portfolio and geographical spread of land for employment purposes over the UDP period in accordance with Policy B2.

165

10.3 Policy B10 advises that in all cases it will also be necessary to demonstrate that the introduction of the alternative uses proposed will not inhibit or prejudice the operations of any nearby occupiers or businesses.

10.4 In a supporting statement, the agent advises that the building has been vacant for

approximately five years and attempts to market the site have been unsuccessful. The previous use was an automotive repair workshop. It is considered that, by reason of its close proximity to near by residential uses, the previous use would have been likely to have the potential to create disturbance (including noise, smell, fumes and vibration). This was confirmed by neighbours during discussions.

10.5 The agent contends that the building would be unsuitable for re-use due to its poor

construction and insulation, and that the extension and semi-replacement building would improve these aspects.

10.6 It is considered that the building/site is likely to be unsuitable for re-use in an industrial

employment use due to potential conflicts with neighbouring uses and the current unsuitability of the building.

10.7 The building is of a relatively small scale and its loss would not prejudice the required

supply of a balanced portfolio of land for employment purposes in Wolverhampton. Therefore, subject to compatibility with the nearby residential uses and highway safety, the proposals would accord with policies B2 and B10.

10.8 Adopted Planning Policies SH1 and SH2 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP)

stipulate that Wolverhampton City Centre, Bilston and Wednesfield Town Centres, and the District/Local Centres, are the prime sources for the City’s retail resources. On the basis that proposals would not result in material harm to these centres, new retail development of limited ‘local’ nature is permitted outside these centres. The site is located outside a defined centre.

10.9 In terms of new shopping development outside identified centres, Policy SH9 advises

that the acceptable scale for new local shopping provision will depend on local circumstances including the nature of the retailing envisaged, the characteristics of the site and the relationship to existing shopping facilities. The Council would also consider any impacts to highway safety and residential amenity.

10.10 In a written statement the agent advises that the premises would provide a needed

supply of specialist products to serve the local ethnic community and that the goods to be sold are currently unavailable elsewhere locally. However, there is little evidence suggesting that a sequential approach has been undertaken to locate the premises within a local centre.

10.11 Notwithstanding this, the locality already includes a number of shops, the development

is of a limited scale (163m2 of retail floor space) and would be sited only approximately 600m away from the nearest local centre, Heathtown. The previous industrial use had potential to cause disturbance to neighbouring properties. The proposed use would benefit the community and remove a previously harmful use.

10.12 As a material planning consideration, policy B1 advises that the Council will seek to

improve the prosperity of the City by granting planning permission for inward investment, including the establishment of new small and medium sized enterprises. The proposals are considered an opportunity to bring an employment site that has been vacant for five years, back into use. The development would create six new jobs and involve a welcome investment in redeveloping this site.

166

10.13 Therefore, whilst the proposals would not accord with the sequential approach outlined in policy SH9, taking this case on balance, it is considered that the proposals would offer benefits to the community (including the removal of an industrial use), provide investment and jobs, and would outweigh this consideration in this instance. It is also considered that, by virtue of the small size of the unit, and the intervening distance between the nearest centre, there is likely to be little or no harm to the vitality and viability of the centre.

10.14 The proposed retail use would reduce the need for residents (in particular to the north

of the site) to travel by car to their nearest local centre. Subject to compatibility with the near by residential uses, and highway safety, the proposals would accord with policies B1, SH1, SH2, SH9 and SH10.

Design 10.15 The policies of the Design Chapter of the UDP aim to ensure that all developments are

well designed. 10.16 The site is located immediately adjacent to the rear gardens of the residential

properties located on Crowther Street and Prosser Street. However, the layout and location of this site does not relate to the immediate Victorian era residential context and appears isolated. Historically the site does not appear to have been part of a larger industrial development.

10.17 The proposals would improve security in this poorly overlooked location and although

the development would appear somewhat isolated in terms of immediate context and spatial layout, it is considered that the redevelopment of this site would not detract from local character or harm visual amenity in this instance.

10.18 The site is currently in a state of disrepair and the current building does little to

enhance this part of the Cannock Road streetscene. However, the building is located approximately 30m from the back edge of the highway, and screened by mature planting, therefore visual impact is limited.

10.19 The proposal would seek to improve the appearance of this site, opening the Cannock

Road façade onto the existing Council owned/controlled parking area and footpath to the east. The form, proportion and materials are considered appropriate for this site, and the building would appear in scale and character with this setting. The proposed shopfront is of a simple, modern, design and appears in scale and character with this setting.

10.20 A neighbour concern relates to fear of antisocial behaviour. The building includes

active frontages onto Cannock Road and the footpath at the side of the site. Therefore, whilst there may be issues with anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the site, it is considered that the applicant has taken an opportunity to improve surveillance for this poorly overlooked area and increase vitality and security.

10.21 The proposals have properly considered measures to assist in preventing crime/anti-

social behaviour. 10.22 The proposal is considered to be well designed in accordance with UDP policies D1,

D4, D7, D8, D9 and D10. Neighbour amenity 10.23 Policies D7 and D8 require development to be of appropriate, scale, height and

massing. Proposals which adversely affect neighbouring amenity, including overbearing impact and reduction in light/outlook, will be resisted.

167

10.24 The building and associated parking area would be located directly adjacent to the gardens for the residential properties at 59 and 61 Crowther Street and 17 and 19 Prosser Street. The height of the building would be slightly higher than the existing building and the footprint would also increase. It is considered that the proposed building would not materially affect amenity for the neighbouring properties. There would be sufficient intervening distances between the residential dwellinghouses and the proposed building.

10.25 There would be an increase in impact to the garden of No.61. However, it is

considered that the increase in footprint would be of an acceptable scale and the height would be similar to the existing boundary treatment. Therefore, the proposals would not detrimentally affect amenity to an extent that would justify the refusal of planning permission in this instance. The proposals would accord with policies D7 and D8.

10.26 Policies EP1 and EP5 of the adopted UDP seek to protect neighbour amenity and

living conditions. 10.27 Neighbours have confirmed that the previous general industrial use created noise and

nuisance for nearby residents. It is a material consideration that a similar use could re-commence from this premises without need for planning permission. Due to the age of the building, such a use would be unlikely to be subject to restrictive conditions (including hours of operation and extraction equipment). Therefore, whilst the new use would create a degree of noise and disturbance to nearby residential units, the impact is not considered as severe as potentially from a general industrial use.

10.28 It is considered that subject to the installation of appropriate conditions agreeing

suitable plant equipment (including the noise emitted from any cooling or extraction units) and opening/delivery hours, neighbour amenity would not be adversely harmed to an extent that would justify the refusal of planning permission. The proposals accord with policies EP1 and EP5.

Parking & highway safety 10.29 Policy AM12 of the adopted UDP advises that proposals shall comply with parking

demand and are required to meet their own transportation needs with no detriment to pedestrian safety and the safe and free flow of traffic. Policy AM15 states that all development proposals should be designed to contribute towards improving road safety and personal security.

10.31 The proposals include three parking spaces located to the north of the site, two visitor

spaces (including one disabled), one staff and a space for delivery vehicles. Cycle parking is located within the rear curtilage of the site.

10.32 The use of the council owned car park at the front of the site is considered acceptable,

though the land may be redeveloped in the future and therefore may not necessarily remain open for use. The on site parking and access arrangements are considered suitable and there would be no material adverse impact to highway safety. The proposals accord with policies AM12 and AM15.

11. Conclusion 11.1 In accordance with policy B1, the proposals are considered an opportunity to bring an

employment site that has been vacant for five years, back into use. Whilst the site is not located within a local centre, and the proposals do not fully accord with the sequential approach outlined in policy SH9, the proposed benefits to the community (including the removal of an industrial use, the investment in this site and the creation of six jobs) would outweigh this consideration in this instance.

168

11.2 In accordance with policies SH1, SH2 and SH9 the re-use of this site in a retail

capacity would not prejudice the function of the nearest centre. The proposals are of limited scale and would assist in improving vitality for this poorly overlooked area. The use of the site in a retail capacity would remove a potentially harmful use from the site.

11.3 The building and site are unsuitable for re-use as industrial employment use, due to

potential conflicts with neighbouring uses and the unsuitability of the unit. The building is of a relatively small scale and its loss would not prejudice the required supply of a balanced portfolio of land for employment purposes in Wolverhampton. The proposals would accord with policies B1, B2 and B10.

11.4 The form, proportion and materials are considered appropriate for this site, and the

building would appear in scale and character with this setting. The proposals would not detract from local character or harm visual amenity in this instance.

11.5 The proposed shopfront design appears in scale and character with this setting. The

building includes active frontages onto Cannock Road and the footpath at the side of the site. This should improve surveillance and opportunities to prevent crime/anti-social behaviour. The design of the proposal is acceptable in accordance with policies D1, D4, D7, D8, D9 and D10.

11.6 There would be sufficient intervening distances between the residential dwellinghouses

and the proposed building. The marginal increase in height of the building (and footprint) is negligible and would not detrimentally affect amenity to an extent that would justify the refusal of planning permission in this instance. The proposals would accord with policies D7 and D8.

11.7 Subject to the installation of appropriate conditions agreeing suitable plant equipment

(including any noise emitted from cooling or extraction units), opening and delivery hours, the proposals would accord with policies EP1 and EP5.

11.8 The parking and access arrangements are considered suitable for this site and there

would be no material adverse impact to highway safety. The proposals accord with policies AM12 and AM15.



• External materials • No shutters or window coverings permitted without consent • Refuse store • Opening hours to be 0800 to 2200 hours every day • Restrict deliveries/collections hours. There shall be none before 0800 or

after 1800 on Mondays to Fridays; or before 0800 or after 1300 on Saturdays; and, there shall be no deliveries or collections made on Sundays or Bank Holidays

• Operation hours during construction shall be restricted to between 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday; 0800 to 1300 Saturday; and, at no time on Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays

• Agree chillers, plant and any other ancillary external equipment • CCTV scheme to be agreed if to be installed • Street lighting scheme for footpath • Details of access for disabled into the shop

169

12.2. Notes for information to include:

• Potential ground contamination note Case Officer : Andrew Johnson Telephone No : 01902 551123 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

170

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01066/FUL Location Site At The Rear Of , 61 Crowther Street,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392364 299928 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 359m2

171


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Introduction 1.1 This application was deferred by Planning Committee on the 2nd of November for a site

visit. 2. Site Description 2.1 Moseley Hall Farm is located approximately 5km north of the City Centre on the

outskirts of the City. The structures sit in the former grounds of Moseley Hall. 2.2 The site is accessed from Moseley Road, adjacent to Moseley Hall Farm House. The

site and the surrounding area have a strong rural character, although the M54 motorway is only 500m away to the north.

2.3 The focus of this application is a complex of four historic barns. Blocks B-D are ‘C-

shaped’ (Block D to the north, C to the west and B to the south). A fourth block, Block A, is situated to the east of Blocks B-D. During the twentieth century, the courtyard has been infilled with utilitarian, steel framed, livestock sheds.

2.4 To the west of the site is part of the garden belong to Moseley Hall. To the south lies

Moseley Hall with its associated outbuildings. To the east of Block A are more agricultural buildings and silos.

APP NO: 10/00972/FUL WARD: Bushbury North


RECEIVED: 23.08.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application PROPOSAL: Conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to twelve new dwellings. & APP NO: 10/00973/LBC WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 23-Aug-10 TARGET DATE: 18-Oct-10 RECEIVED: 23.08.2010 APP TYPE: Listed Building Consent PROPOSAL: Removal of Twentieth century steel frame agricultural sheds and silos, limited

removal of some internal walls including removal of brickwork to introduce glazed doors on eastern range.

SITE: Moseley Hall Farm House, Moseley Road, Bushbury, Wolverhampton APPLICANT: Mr David Guest And Mr D M Billings Trustees of Moseley Hall Estate BPE Solicitors 33 Bennetts Hill Birmingham B2 5SN

AGENT: Mikki Karekar Brownhill Hayward Brown Georgian House 24 Bird Street Lichfield Staffordshire WS13 6PT

172

2.5 The barn complex is curtilage listed as a result of its association with Moseley Hall, a grade II* building. The barns themselves are in a relatively poor state of repair and are therefore rarely used for agricultural use. A large part of the roof of the northern block has collapsed. Some of the stables are still used intermittently whilst the sheds are occasionally used for storage.

3. Application Details 3.1 Two applications have been submitted, one for full planning permission, the other for

listed building consent.

10/00972/FUL 3.2 The application proposes the conversion of redundant agricultural buildings to twelve

dwellings comprising:-

• two-bedroomed houses • three-bedroomed houses • one-bedroomed apartments.

3.3 The area to the north of Block D would be utilised for parking (eleven spaces). A

further eleven spaces are proposed to the east of Block A. 3.4 The scheme seeks to convert the historic structure only, there are no new build

elements apart from the parking barn (which itself is on the footprint of an existing shelter) and the bin store

3.5 The existing access would be amended, moving approximately 13m to the west. The

existing access would be reclaimed as green space. 10/00973/LBC 3.6 The application proposes the removal of twentieth century steel framed agricultural

sheds and silos, limited removal of some internal walls including removal of brickwork to introduce glazed doors on the eastern range.

3.7 The courtyard would be cleared of the twentieth century livestock shed and reinstated

as a shared courtyard for the new dwellings. The silos and sheds to the east will also be removed to create rear private amenity space and a parking area.

4. Planning History 4.1 10/00331/FUL - Conversion and change of use of redundant Agricultural buildings to

fourteen new residential units. Withdrawn 25th June 2010. 4.2 10/00332/LBC - Removal of Twentieth century steel frame agricultural sheds and silos,

removal of some internal walls including removal of brickwork to introduce bi-fold doors on eastern range. Withdrawn 25th June 2010

5. Constraints 5.1 Listed Building - : Moseley Hall (Grade II*)

Mining Areas Sites and Monuments Entry

173

6. Relevant policies 6.1 National Guidance

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green belts PPS3 Housing PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas PPG13 Transport

6.2 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist HE2 Historic Resources and Enabling Dev. HE13 Development Affecting a Listed Building HE17 Develop. Affecting the setting of a LB G1 Protection of the Green Belt G2 Control of Development in the Green Belt R7 Open Space Requirements for New Develop. H1 Housing H6 Design of Housing Development H7 Conversion of Buildings from Non-Res to Res H8 Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 Housing Density and mix AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM8 Public Transport AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

Other relevant policies 6.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents 6.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

174




8. Publicity 8.1 One letter of objection has been received. The objection relates to the increase in the

amount of traffic, specifically the potential impact of traffic on trees and hedgerows, the road surface and general amenity of the area.

9. Internal consultees 9.1 Tree Officers – There are no trees of merit on, or adjacent to, the site which are

affected by the proposal. 9.2 Historic Environment Team – The scheme is acceptable subject to the approval of

appropriate detailing and materials. 9.3 Transportation Development - The site is directly off Moseley Road which is a

narrow semi-rural lane which links Northycote Lane to Cannock Road. Accessibility to public transport is poor because of the walking distance to the nearest bus stops on Northycote Lane. Walking and cycling are possible but are unlikely to be a popular choice for commuting due to road widths, traffic speed and lack of street lighting in the vicinity of the development. This suggests that any residential development at this location would be highly dependant on private vehicles.

Site Access/Visibility

9.4 The proposed access, 13m to the west of the existing access would be acceptable. 9.5 As the national speed limit applies to Moseley Road, visibility splays of 2.4 x 90m to

the west and 120m to the east have been indicated on the submitted plans. The indicated splay to the west appears to cut through some dense undergrowth outside the site, but the applicant has stated that this area is in their control and the growth can be trimmed. The splay to the east still has a serious blind zone that could hide the approach of a motorcycle even though the boundary wall has been repositioned.

9.6 The edge of the carriageway should be defined with a white line physically marked on

site.

Parking 9.7 The scheme would be expected to generate approximately 26 or 27 spaces compared

to the 22 proposed. 9.8 The current site plan does not include any bays suitable for the disabled. At least one

would be required to comply with policy AM12.

175

9.9 Motorcycle bays are indicated but poorly laid out. At least two suitable spaces should be provided.

9.10 Two cycle stores are now indicated, but no further details are provided. They should

provide covered, enclosed and secure provision for at least 9 cycles. 9.11 The following issues should be addressed or conditioned:

• Provision and maintenance of visibility splays, in both directions, onto Moseley Road

• Details of access to be agreed, including limit of highway adoption and physically marked

• Provision of at least one bay suitable for the disabled • Details of parking bay allocation • Revised layout for motorcycle bays • Reversing distances within site

9.12 Environmental Services – The previous use of the land may have led to

unacceptable levels of contamination. A site investigation should therefore by undertaken and submitted to the local planning authority. Any remedial measures considered necessary should be undertaken prior to the commencement of development.

9.13 Planning Policy Section and Nature Conservation – Comments awaited. 10. External consultees 10.1 Police - No objections to the proposal. 10.2 Severn Trent Water Ltd - No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission

of a sustainable drainage strategy. 10.3 English Heritage - Do not wish to offer any comments on this occasion and consider

that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance.

10.4 Fire Service – Although there is unsatisfactory access for the fire service to some of the units, provided that a domestic sprinkler system is installed in all areas where fire service access cannot be achieved, then there are no objections to the proposal. This matter would be covered by Building Regulations.

10.5 South Staffordshire District Council, Centro and Wolverhampton History and

Heritage Society – No comments received. 11. Legal Implications 11.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning

applications. 11.2 Under Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Building and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 in

considering whether to grant planning permission for development which affects a listed building or its setting the Council shall have special regard to the desirability of preserving the building or its setting or any features of special architectural interest which it possesses [LC/16112010/Y].

176

12. Appraisal 12.1 The key considerations in determining this application are:

• Is the proposal appropriate development within the Green Belt? • Acceptability of residential use • Impact on the historic environment • Design Quality • Layout • Scale, massing and architectural appearance • Residential amenity • Transportation • S106 obligations

Is the proposal appropriate development within the Green Belt?

12.2 PPG2 ‘Green Belts’ gives strong support to the principle of re-using existing buildings within the Green Belt. Paragraph 3.7 of PPG2 states that, “with suitable safeguards, the re-use of buildings should not prejudice the openness of Green Belts, since the buildings are already there” and that, “the alternative to re-use may be a building is left vacant and prone to vandalism and dereliction”.

12.3 Annex C (paragraph C11) of PPG2 also states that, “suitable re-use is to be preferred

to redevelopment where the buildings are of architectural or historic interest”. 12.4 Paragraph 3.8 of PPG2 states that the re-use of buildings inside a Green Belt is not

inappropriate development providing:

(a) it does not have a materially greater impact than the present use on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it;

(b) strict control is exercised over the extension of re-used buildings, and over any associated uses of land surrounding the building which might conflict with the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it;

(c) the buildings are of permanent and substantial construction, and are capable of conversion without major or complete reconstruction; and

(d) the form, bulk and general design of the buildings are in keeping with their surroundings.

12.5 The proposed scheme accords with these criteria. In specific relation to criteria (c),

although the buildings are deteriorating and in need of some significant repair work, it is not considered that major, or complete reconstruction is necessary. This is supported by a structural survey submitted with the application.

12.6 UDP policy G2 ‘Control of Development in the Green Belt’ states that in addition to the

criteria defined in PPG2, appropriate development will, “only be permitted where the siting, scale, materials and design of the proposed development…. will be in keeping with the purposes of the Green Belt and its openness”.

12.7 The proposal does not represent inappropriate development and is supported in

principle by PPG2 and UDP policy G2, subject to high quality design.

Acceptability of residential use 12.8 Paragraph 17 of PPS7 ‘Sustainable Development in Rural Areas’ states that the re-use

of appropriately located and suitably constructed existing buildings in the countryside is supported and whilst re-use for economic development purposes will usually be preferable, residential conversions may be more appropriate in some locations, and for some types of building.

177

12.9 UDP policy H7 ‘Conversion of Buildings from Non-Residential to Residential use’ states that proposals for the conversion of non-residential buildings to residential use will be encouraged subject to compliance with the following criteria:

• Compatibility with other UDP policies; • Compatibility with adjacent land uses; • The creation of satisfactory living accommodation and an appropriate residential

environment, including adequate private garden space; and • Proximity to public transport and other local facilities

12.10 These objectives are also supported by UDP policies H1 ‘Housing’ and H3 ‘Housing

Site Assessment Criteria’. Although the application site is not in close proximity to public transport and other local facilities, the development would maximise the use of previously developed land and would also be compatible with the adjacent land uses, which includes Moseley Hall and Moseley Hall Farm which are already in residential use.

12.12 The proposal would also comply with other Plan policies, specifically HE1

‘Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness’, HE12 ‘Preservation and Active Use of Listed Building’, HE13 ‘Development Affecting a Listed Building’ and HE14 ‘Alterations and Extensions to a Listed Building’ which encourage the retention of historic buildings which are considered to be of importance.

12.13 Therefore, subject to high quality design and the creation of an appropriate residential

environment, the conversion of the barns for residential use is considered appropriate and in accordance with UDP policies, H1, H3 and H7.

Impact on the historic environment

12.14 The UDP, particularly policies HE1 ‘Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness’, HE12 ‘Preservation and Active Use of Listed Buildings’, HE13 ‘Development Affecting a Listed Building’, HE14 ‘Alterations and Extensions to a Listed Building’, HE16 ‘Demolition of a Listed Building and HE17 ‘Development Affecting the setting of a Listed Building’ all encourage the preservation of listed buildings and curtilage listed buildings, their settings and features of special architectural and historic interest.

12.15 The complex of barns are curtilage listed as a result of their relationship with Moseley

Hall, which itself is a Grade II* listed building. In principle, the conversion of the complex to residential use is to be welcomed, as a means of bringing the historic buildings into use and to prevent their eventual loss.

12.16 The previous application was withdrawn primarily due to concerns that proposal was

not sensitive to the fabric of the historic buildings and their setting. Since the withdrawal of the application a number of discussions have taken place with the applicant about the proposed design.

12.17 Those issues previously raised concerning the loss of historic fabric, insertion of new

openings and the subdivision and layout of the units have now been resolved and it is considered that the revised scheme is acceptable subject to appropriate detailing and materials.

12.18 The twentieth century livestock sheds are considered to be of very limited historic

value and their demolition and removal is supported in enhancing the setting and reinstating the courtyard space at the heart of the barn complex.

12.19 The proposal would preserve the listed building and curtilage listed buildings, their

setting and features of special architectural and historic interest. The scheme is in accordance with UDP policies HE1, HE12, HE13, HE14, HE16 and HE17.

178

Design Quality

12.20 Planning Policy Statement No.1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’, states that, ‘good design is indivisible from good planning’ and that developments should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and that design which fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted.

12.21 This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ of the adopted UDP which

encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”.

12.22 In order to determine whether the proposal has achieved a sufficient high quality

design, it is necessary to consider its layout, scale, massing and architectural appearance. These are discussed in the following paragraphs.

Layout

12.23 No extensions to the barns are proposed. The courtyard arrangement of the complex has inherent qualities in defining the public and private realms which is required by UDP policy D5 ‘Public Realm’, D10 ‘Community Safety’ and SPG3 ‘Residential Development’

12.24 The area to the north of Block D would be utilised for parking (eleven spaces) a bin

store and some cycle storage. Whilst this would be prominently visible from Moseley Road, subject to the use of high quality materials, the proposal would make good use of a currently underutilised space between the barns and Moseley Road. In addition, some of the car and parking spaces as well as the bin store would be incorporated within a timber framed and clad structure which would reduce the visual impact of the proposals in this location.

12.25 A further eleven car parking spaces, some motorcycle spaces and two smaller bin

stores are proposed to the east of Block A. This area of the site is not prominently visible.

12.26 The other significant change to the existing layout is the relocation of the existing

access, further west, away Moseley Hall farmhouse. The existing access would be grassed over. In design terms this would be acceptable

12.27 Overall, the proposed layout is in accordance with UDP policies D1, D5, D6, D10, H6

and SPG3.

Scale, massing and architectural appearance 12.28 UDP policies D1 ‘Design Quality’, D9 ‘Appearance’, HE1 ’Preservation of Local

character and Distinctiveness’, HE13 ‘Development affecting a Listed Building’, HE14 ‘Alterations and extensions to a Listed Building’, HE17 ‘Development Affecting the setting of a Listed Building’, H6 ‘Design of housing development’ and SPG3 ‘Residential Development’ encourage high quality design, particularly where the proposed development impacts on buildings of historic interest.

12.29 There is no increase in the scale of the existing barns as no extensions are proposed. 12.30 The proposed new structures (car barn and bin corrals) are single storey and have

been designed in an agricultural style referencing the historic activity of the site and complementing the barns. This is considered appropriate.

12.31 Given that the majority of the proposal constitutes conversion, there is little impact on

the existing appearance of the structures.

179

12.32 Repairs and restoration would be on a like-for-like basis, in materials sourced to match

or reclaimed from the existing site. Traditional mortar will be employed and pigmented to match as necessary.

12.33 New openings have been minimised. Forty roof lights are proposed, but these would

be set into the roof plan rather than sitting proud. 12.34 Similarly, where new glazed elements are proposed, they would be of a simple,

minimalist, style. Where possible the frames would sit behind the original columns and be set back from the frontages so not to detract from the historic fabric of the buildings.

12.35 A number of detailed drawings have already been submitted illustrating how the

historic fabric will be incorporated. However, further detailed drawings are required regarding such issues as joinery details, inserted floor structures and internal roof, wall and floor treatments.

12.36 Subject to necessary conditions, the scheme is accordance with UDP policies D1, D9,

HE1, HE13, HE14, HE17, H6 and SPG3.

Residential amenity 12.37 An objective of UDP policies D1 ‘Design Quality’, H6 ‘Design of Housing Development’

and SPG3 ‘Residential Development’ is to encourage high quality designs which create suitable residential environments and protects the amenity of existing residents.

12.38 The proposed development respects the privacy, daylight and outlook from adjacent

dwellings (Moseley Hall and Moseley Farm House) as well as preserving the amenities of potential occupiers.

12.39 Three of the dwellings (Block A) would have private gardens. Each would be

approximately 140 square metres in size which is accordance with the requirements of SPG3 and is therefore acceptable.

12.40 However, the layout of the site means that it is not possible for private gardens to be

provided for the remaining dwellings. Instead, they would each have access to the communal courtyard with an area of approximately 780 square metres. Although the courtyard would not be totally private, the layout of the blocks means that it would be relatively secluded and would provide a meaningful and useful amenity space.

12.41 Unfortunately, the layout of the site has also meant that some of the dwellings are

single-aspect. Single-aspect dwellings are not normally encouraged however, in this instance, it is an inevitable consequence of the conversion of the buildings into residential use. The relatively large size of the original windows, combined with the insertion of new rooflights would ensure that a good level of natural daylight can be enjoyed by future occupants.

12.42 The proposal is therefore acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, H6 and

SPG3.

Transportation 12.43 The objective of UDP policies AM1, AM9, AM10, AM12 and AM15 is to ensure that

new development contribute towards an improvement in access and mobility whilst ensuring highway safety.

12.44 The transportation issues are detailed in paragraphs 8.3-8.11. There are no objections

in principle to the proposal. However, it is necessary that the following issues are addressed before permission is granted or failing this, by conditions:

180

• Details of access to be agreed, including limit of highway adoption and physically marked

• Provision of at least one bay for suitable for the disabled • Details of parking bay allocation • Revised layout for motorcycle bays • Reversing distances within site

12.45 The applicants have been made aware of these issues and amended plans are

awaited. 12.46 Whilst it is agreed that the site has relatively poor accessibility to public transport and

that therefore it is likely that future residents would be highly dependant on private vehicles, it is considered that the twenty-two car parking spaces, in addition to the motorcycle and cycles spaces which are proposed, is sufficient.

12.47 Paragraph 51 (2) of PPG13 ‘Transport’ states that local authorities should, “not require

developers to provide more spaces than they themselves wish, other than in exceptional circumstances”. In this case it is not considered that there are exceptional circumstances for requesting additional spaces or that there will be significant implications for road safety.

12.48 In addition, the proposed parking areas already take up a significant proportion of the

development site. The provision of additional areas of hardstanding would begin to have a significant impact on the visual appearance of this rural location within the Green Belt and on the setting of the listed building and curtilage listed buildings.

12.49 For these reasons, the proposal is in accordance with UDP policies D1, AM1, AM9,

AM10, AM12, AM15 and SPG3 subject to the resolution of those outstanding issues.

S106 obligations 12.50 In accordance with UDP Policy H8, the building of ten or more dwellings requires the

securing of an off-site contribution to create and/or enhance open space in order to offset the increased need for public open space in this area as a result of additional residents.

12.51 In this instance, for the size of development proposed, an off-site open space

contribution of £50,180.97 is required to improve and enhance public open space in the vicinity of the application site.

12.52 In addition, for a development of this nature the agreement should ensure the

provision of public art and targeted recruitment and training. 12.53 It is considered that these accord with requirement of Circular 5/2005 and that it is

necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and thus compliant with the requirements of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.

13. Conclusion 13.1 The proposed development is considered to be appropriate development within the

Green Belt and the use of the site for residential purposes is acceptable. 13.2 With regard to the design of the proposed scheme, the submitted proposal reflects

considerable pre-application discussions with the applicant. The proposal would, subject to high quality detailing and materials, preserve the listed building and curtilage listed buildings, their setting and features of special architectural and historic interest.

181

13.3 The development would provide a good level of amenity to the potential occupiers

whilst potentially improving the amenity of neighbouring residents by restoring buildings which are currently in a poor state of repair.

13.4 In relation to highway matters, it is considered that on balance the scheme is

acceptable. 13.5 For all these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the

development plan and therefore acceptable, subject to the resolution of outstanding matters and the negotiation of a S106 agreement.

13.6 It is considered that the proposed scheme accords with UDP policies D1, D3, D4, D5,

D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, EP1, EP3, EP4, EP5, EP9, HE1, HE12, HE13, HE14, HE16, HE17, G1, G2, R7, H1, H3, G6, H7, H8, H9, AM1, AM9, AM10, AM12, AM15 and SPG3.

13.7 The work proposed as part of the Listed Building Consent application would, subject to

high quality detailing and materials, preserve the listed building and curtilage listed buildings, their setting and features of special architectural and historic interest and accords with UDP policies D1, D6, HE1, HE12, HE13, HE14, HE16 and HE17.

14. Recommendation 14.1 10/00972/FUL - Delegated authority to the Director for Regeneration and Environment

to grant subject to: (i) Negotiation and completion of a S106 to secure a contribution towards off-site

public open space, public art and targeted recruitment & training. (ii) Any necessary conditions to include:

• Sample panel of materials – including roof tiles, bricks, mortar • Architectural Details – Roof lights, Joinery, windows, doors etc • Landscaping Scheme • Details of Boundary Treatment • Drainage • Car parking to be provided prior to occupation • No external lighting without prior approval • Details of cycle/motorcycle stores • Bin stores • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc

without written approval. • No extensions, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure (other

than those shown on the approved plans) • Maintain visibility splay • Details of TV aerials and satellite dishes to be approved • Permitted development rights removed for extensions, outbuildings etc

13.4 10/00973/LBC - Grant subject to:

• Sample panel of materials – including roof tiles, bricks, mortar • Architectural Details – Roof lights, Joinery, windows, doors, glazed screen walling,

inserted floor structure, internal roof, wall and floor treatment, secondary glazing to existing windows etc

182

Case Officer : Richard Pitt Telephone No : 01902 551674 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

183

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00972/FUL & 10/00973/LBC Location Moseley Hall Farm House, Moseley Road,Bushbury,Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 393122 304064 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 4367m2

184


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application premises is a detached bay fronted property situated in a street scene

of similar properties. The area is predominantly residential in character. 1.2 The existing property has an integral garage which has been extended with the

addition of a single storey flat roof element. A conservatory has also been added to the rear of the dwelling.

1.3 To the rear and side, the property has 1.8 metre high boundary fencing and to the front

the area comprises a lawn and hard standing with no boundary treatments, a characteristic of the street scene.

2. Application details 2.1 The application is for the erection of a first floor side extension and single storey rear

extension. 2.2 The proposed first floor side extension would extend the full length of the property and

the single storey rear extension would project 3.9 metres to the rear of the property. 2.3 The application was reported to Planning Committee at its meeting on 2 November

2010 where it was deferred for a site visit. 3. Planning History 3.1 C/1018/92 for Second storey extension above garage

Granted dated 23.10.1992.

APP NO: 10/00931/FUL WARD: Bilston North

DATE: 12-Aug-10 TARGET DATE: 07-Oct-10

RECEIVED: 12.08.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application SITE: 5 Rollesby Drive, Wolverhampton, WV13 3JG, PROPOSAL: First floor side extension and single storey rear extension. APPLICANT: Mr Gurdial S Sidhu 5 Rollesby Drive Wolverhampton WV13 3JG

AGENT: Mr J K Kalsi Building Designs & Technical Services 2 Coalway Road Penn Wolverhampton WV3 7LR

185

4. Constraints 4.1 Landfill Gas Zones

Mining Areas


D1 - Design Quality D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 – Appearance

5.2 West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy

Other relevant policies 5.3 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents 5.4 SPG4 - Extension to Houses 5.5 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009). 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations 6.1 The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and


6.2 This development proposal is not included in the definition of Projects that requires a

“screening opinion” as to whether or not a formal Environmental Impact Assessment as defined by the above regulations is required.

7. Publicity 7.1 Three letters of objection received. The main reasons for objecting cite impact on

outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight, out of scale, character, overshadowing and although not a material planning consideration, concerns in respect of re-sale value and devaluation of properties.

8. Internal Consultees 8.1 Environmental Services -

No observations. 9. Legal Implications 9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. (LC/181120/X)

186

10. Appraisal 10.1 The key issue is neighbour amenities.

Neighbour Amenities 10.2 The Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Note No.4 "Extension to

Houses" states at 3.9 that extensions should not harm neighbours' amenities due to an overbearing impact, adverse outlook, and loss of light or privacy.

10.3 Revisions to the General Permitted Development Order came into force on 1 October

2008. The Amended Order permits single storey rear extensions to detached houses four metres beyond the rear wall of the original house. This is an important material consideration, as it reflects the Government's view of the length of extension that will generally be acceptable. In addition UDP Policy D8 ‘Scale – Massing’ requires the massing of a proposal to not adversely affect peoples amenities in respect of immediate outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and loss of privacy.

10.4 Whilst the proposed rear extension projects approximately 3.9 metres, planning

permission is required as a result of part of the extension projects beyond a wall which is not the original house.

10.5 The neighbouring occupier has raised concern as to the impact of the proposal in

respect of their outlook and to the loss of light. It is considered that this neighbour will be affected to some extent in respect of the concerns raised, however the single storey extension to the rear of the original house could be constructed without the need for planning permission. Also as the neighbouring property is set off the boundary with the application site and the nearest habitable window to the neighbouring property is a good distance away, the single storey rear extension is considered as not to adversely affect the neighbour amenities at No.3 Rollesby Drive or any other neighbour to an extent to refuse planning permission.

10.6 The guidance in the SPG advises that in respect of two storey side extensions, and in

order to protect neighbouring amenities including outlook, loss of light and overbearing impact, a proposal with a blank gable wall should be sited at least 12metres from a neighbouring property with directly facing habitable windows. Whilst neighbouring properties have objected to this part of the proposal as a result of the extension affecting their outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and result in overbearing, the distance from the properties at No.14 and 16 Rollesby Drive is at least 12metres in accordance with the advice as set out in the SPG. The proposed first floor side extension is considered not to adversely affect neighbour amenities to an extent to refuse planning permission. The proposal is therefore in accordance with UDP Policy D8.

11. Conclusion 11.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in respect of its design, impact on

neighbouring amenities and adequate private rear amenity, in accordance with advice as set out in UDP Policies D1 ‘Design Quality’, D8 ‘Scale – Height’ and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No.4 – Extension to Houses.

187



• Matching materials • Permitted Development rights restricting windows to the side elevation of the

proposed first floor side extension

Case Officer : Ragbir Sahota Telephone No : 01902 555616 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

188

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/00931/FUL Location 5 Rollesby Drive, Wolverhampton,WV13 3JG, Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 395760 297758 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area 271m2

189


COMMITTEE REPORT: 1. Site Description 1.1 The application site is located adjacent to the road junction between Bushbury Lane

and Showell Road. To the south of the site is Showell Road Industrial Estate and to the south-west is the Wolverhampton Science Park.

1.2 The site is currently used as a car park for park and ride schemes and serves as

overflow parking for the Science Park. The car park has a capacity for 189 cars, 13 of which are allocated for parking by disabled badge holders.

2. Application Details 2.1 The application seeks consent for the continued use of the site as a park and ride car

park. 3. Planning History 3.1 Application reference 02/0690/DW – Temporary planning permission was granted for a

three year period for use as a park and ride facility. 3.2 Application reference 05/0594/DW – Temporary planning permission was granted for a

three year period for the continued use as a park and ride facility. 3.3 Application reference 08/00765/DWF- Temporary planning permission was granted for

a twelve month period for the continued use as a park and ride facility. 3.4 Application reference 09/00639/DWF Temporary planning permission was granted for

a twelve month period for the continued use as a park and ride facility.

APP NO: 10/01018/DWF WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill

DATE: 02-Sep-10 TARGET DATE: 28-Oct-10

RECEIVED: 02.09.2010 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC) SITE: Park And Ride, Showell Road, Wolverhampton, WV10 9LD PROPOSAL: Renewal of existing planning permission for a park and ride car park. APPLICANT: Mr Steve Boyes Wolverhampton City Council Civic Centre St Peters Square Wolverhampton WV1 1RP

AGENT: Mr Bryn Heywood Wolverhampton City Council Heantun House Salop Street Wolverhampton WV3 0SG

190

4. Relevant Policies 4.1 National Policies PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development 4.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies

D1 - Design Quality D9 - Appearance AM8 – Public Transport AM11 - Park and Ride AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision B3 - Business Development Allocations B9 - Defined Business Areas

4.3 Other relevant policies Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

West Midland Regional Spatial Strategy




6. Publicity 6.1 No representations received. 7. Internal Consultees 7.1 FAO Access Team - No observations. 7.2 Property Services - Estates – No comments. 7.3 Environmental Services - No observations 7.4 Transportation Development - No objections to the proposal 7.5 Planning Policy Section – No objection to a temporary planning permission, but a full

planning permission is not possible until the future of the adjoining industrial land becomes clear.

8. Legal Implications 8.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. [LC/15112010/M]

191

9. Appraisal 9.1 The key issues to be considered when determining this application are: -

• Principle of the proposed use • Design and layout Principle of Proposed Use

9.2 UDP Policy AM8 – Public Transport sets out the Councils commitment to the provision of a high quality, comprehensive and integrated public transport network. One of the points stated in the policy is the importance of providing park and ride sites to serve the City and the wider sub-region. Policy AM11 – Park and Ride clarifies the required standards for park and ride facilities. These include the need to be sited close to major radial routes and provide a high quality environment.

9.3 The site is located close to the Stafford Road a main arterial route into the City Centre

and is well serviced, therefore complies with the advice contained within Policy AM11 of the UDP regarding park and ride sites.

9.3 Part of the land is in the development site known as “Area North of the Science Park”

and has been identified within Policy B3 of the UDP for future development. Although no timescale for redevelopment has yet been identified, it would be prudent to only grant a further temporary permission for the continued use at this time.

Design and Layout 9.7 The proposed layout will not differ from the existing set up and is considered

acceptable. 10. Conclusion 10.1 It is considered the continued use of the site as a Park and Ride facility is acceptable

for a further twelve month period. 11. Recommendation 11.1 Grant, Subject to the following Condition:

Temporary permission for 12 months

Case Officer : Colin Noakes Telephone No : 01902 551132 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

192

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Planning Application No: 10/01018/DWF Location Park And Ride, Showell Road,Wolverhampton,WV10 9LD Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391441 300747 Plan Printed 23.11.2010 Application Site Area m2