Schedule of Planning Applications

Agenda Item No: 6

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 7th September 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.

PLANNING COMMITTEE (7th September 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.

Retrospective Applications 1.3 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 1.4 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).

1.5 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 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.

1.6 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.

1.7 LPAs should, in making their decisions, focus their attention on development plan policies and other material considerations (including national policies on matters such

2 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 1.8 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.

1.9 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).

1.10 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).

1.11 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 1.12 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.

1.13 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.

2.2 Wolverhampton’s adopted development plan document is the saved policies of Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (June 2006).

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 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.

4 REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS WARD PAGE NO

10/00646/FUL Shoulder Of Mutton Public Tettenhall Page 8 House Wightwick Wood Road Wolverhampton WV6 8NF

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling

10/00599/FUL Land Situated Off Ettingshall Page 18 Ettingshall Road Ettingshall Wolverhampton WV2 2LQ

Application Type Smallscale Major General Industry

10/00452/FUL Low Level Station Site Heath Town Page 27 And Bounded By Sun Street 10/00736/VV Wednesfield Road Wolverhampton

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling

10/00002/OUT 78 Redhouse Road Tettenhall Regis Page 39 Wolverhampton WV6 8SP

Application Type Minor Dwellings

10/00642/REM Cricket Ground Bushbury North Page 45 Taunton Avenue Wolverhampton WV10 6PW

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling

5 10/00598/FUL Blakenhall Gardens Blakenhall Page 51 Dudley Road Wolverhampton

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling

09/01238/FUL St Peters Collegiate Church Of Park Page 64 England School Compton Park Wolverhampton WV3 9DU

Application Type Smallscale Major All Other Development

10/00180/FUL Middleton Business Park East Park Page 71 655 Willenhall Road Wolverhampton WV13 3LH

Application Type Smallscale Major Offices

10/00636/FUL Orchard House Nursing Home Graiseley Page 80 16-18 Riley Crescent Wolverhampton WV3 7DS

Application Type Minor All Other Development

10/00504/FUL Wentworth Lodge Residential Bushbury North Page 91 Home Wentworth Road Wolverhampton WV10 8EH

Application Type Minor All Other Development

10/00498/FUL St Michaels Mission Hall Bilston East Page 99 Wolverhampton Street Wolverhampton WV14 0LT

Application Type Minor All Other Development

10/00511/VV Aldi Blakenhall Page 108 Goldthorn Hill Wolverhampton WV2 3HP

Application Type Minor All Other Development

10/00764/VV Woodville House Tettenhall Page 113 10 Upper Green Wightwick Wolverhampton WV6 8QH

Application Type Change of use

10/00679/FUL Fallings Park Childrens Day Heath Town Page 118 Centre Helenny Close Wolverhampton WV11 1SN

Application Type Change of use

10/00680/FUL 2 Burncross Way Bushbury South Page 124 Wolverhampton And Low Hill WV10 9YH

Application Type Householder - Disabled

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00646/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 09-Jun-10 TARGET DATE: 08-Sep-10 RECEIVED: 09.06.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Shoulder Of Mutton Public House, Wood Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Demolition of pub and erection of eleven dwellings, new access and associated works (Revisions to scheme approved at Appeal under reference 08/01454/FUL).

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Paul McCann Banner Homes Midlands Ltd 5 Brooklands Moons Moat Drive Redditch Worcestershire B98 9DW

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is a large plot of land, approximately 0.45 ha. The site is currently occupied by the Shoulder of Mutton public house, its ancillary car park and a wooded area with protected trees beyond the car park in the north off the site. Vehicular access is from Wood Road, to the west side of the public house.

1.2 The south of the application site fronts Wood Road. To the north west of the site is a residential cul-de-sac, Tanfield Road. The access to the site is proposed from Wood Road. The southern half of the application site is located within Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area.

1.3 The site has been identified as having reasonable levels of accessibility to local public transport services according to the criteria set out in Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan. The site is in close proximity to the Tettenhall Wood Local Centre.

1.4 To the south of the application site the neighbouring properties are 19th Century houses and cottages which make an important contribution to the character of the conservation area:

• A row of properties Nos. 60- 54 Wood Road to the southeast (19th Century cottages). • Properties Nos. 70-82 Wood Road to the southwest. (19th Century houses).

1.5 To the north, the site is adjoined by numbers 1, 3 and 5 Tanfield Close, to the northeast, Nos. 66 and 68 Woodland Avenue and to the northwest Nos. 24 and properties Nos. 2 to 10 Tanfield Close.

1.6 The application site is bounded by a close boarded fence of approximately 1.6m to the north and west of the application site and a 2m hedge to the east.

1.7 As well as the protected trees in the far north of the site, there are five ‘Tettenhall Dick’ pear trees in the car park. This particular variety of pear tree is only found in this part of the country.

1.8 The general character of the area is mainly low density residential development with most of the properties characterised by large sized gardens.

1.9 At the time of visiting the site, it had been fenced off to prevent access.

2. Application details

2.1 This application follows one in 2008 for the redevelopment of the site for 11 houses (08/01454). That application was refused by the local authority on the 5th of March 2009 for the following reasons:

• The proposed development would result in the loss of a community facility without adequate justification. • The proposed scheme represents an overdevelopment of the site. In particular, the small private amenity areas do not respond positively to the established urban grain of the area which it forms a part being smaller than those existing houses which are of a similar size and thereby resulting in a cramped layout.

2.2 The decision to refuse the application was appealed and overturned, following an informal hearing, by the Planning Inspectorate on the 8th of September 2009. The decision of the Planning Inspector to grant planning permission is a material consideration in this case which carries significant weight.

2.3 This application is very similar to the previous scheme in proposing the demolition of the existing public house and its replacement with 11 houses at a density of 25 dwellings per hectare. Four of the properties would be three-bedroomed whilst the other seven would be four-bedroomed.

2.4 The site would be accessed via a small central cul-de-sac, with houses on both sides leading to a row of four properties which terminate the street.

2.5 The row of four houses (comprising plots 4-7) would occupy most of the width of the site, near the northern end. The proposed buildings would be two storeys in height with gabled roofs. The front elevation of these properties would face down the new access road back towards the site entrance, and onto the north elevations of the buildings at Plots 3 and 8.

2.6 In addition to plots 4-7 having a private amenity space to the rear (north) these houses would also have access to a private, communal amenity space which corresponds to the wooded area where the protected trees are located at present (approximately 300sqm).

2.7 All of the houses would have single in-curtilage garages and a short private driveway. Houses 1 and 11 are shown located on either side of the entrance to the new cul-de- sac, facing onto Wood Road. Both houses would be designed to have two ‘front’ elevations, one onto Wood Road and one onto the new access road. The pedestrian and vehicular access to both of the properties would be from the new access road.

9 3. Planning History

3.1 07/01403/FUL – Demolition of Public House and erection of 8 houses and 12 flats. Refused 6.12.2007.

3.2 07/01404/CAC - Demolition of existing public house to enable redevelopment of site for residential purposes. Refused 26.11.2007.

3.3 08/00457/FUL - Demolition of pub and erection of 11 dwellings. Refused 25.5.2008.

3.4 08/00458/CON - Demolition of existing public house to enable redevelopment of site for residential purposes. Refused 25.5.2008.

3.5 08/01454/FUL - Demolition of pub and erection of 11 dwellings, new access and associated works. Refused 5.3.2009. Allowed on appeal 8.9.2009.

3.6 08/01455/CON - Demolition of existing public house to enable redevelopment of site for residential purposes. Refused 5.3.2009. Allowed on appeal 8.9.2009.

4. Constraints

4.1 Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area Tree Preservation Order

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment

5.2 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 part D14 The Provision of Public Art C3 Community Meeting Places H1 Housing H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist HE3 Preservation and Enhance. of Con. Areas HE5 Control of Development in a Con. Area HE7 Underused Buildings Structures in CA HE8 Encouragement of Appropriate ReDev in CA AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians

10 AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security R7 Open Space Requirements for New Develop. N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N7 The Urban Forest

5.3 Other relevant policies

SPG3 Residential Development SPG16 Provision of Public Art 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 to have significant effects upon the environment, it is necessary to provide a formal "Environmental Impact Assessment" to accompany the planning application.

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 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 Eight letters of objection have been received. The concerns relate to the loss of the public house, the effect of the proposal on existing trees and the impact that the loss of car park would have on highway safety.

8. lnternal consultees

8.1 Historic Environment – No objections in principle to the proposed scheme. Plots 4-7 require front boundary treatment and samples of materials and drawings of architectural features should be submitted for approval.

8.2 Economic Development – No objections to the proposed development.

8.3 Transportation – The level of parking provision is considered acceptable; as are the dimensions of the driveways and garages.

8.4 In order to maintain visibility it is requested that the height of the boundary treatment along the Wood Road frontage is restricted to no more than 600mm in height.

8.5 The access road into the site is not designed to Wolverhampton City Council Adoption Standards and although the number of proposed dwellings served off the access road would normally mean that the road would be adopted by this authority; in this case the access road would remain private. Therefore a private management agreement would be required for future maintenance of the access road.

8.6 Environmental Services – All habitable rooms facing onto Wood Road should be fitted with standard thermal double glazing to offer protection from the road noise.

11 8.7 There are existing houses in close proximity to the site. In order to limit the potential for disturbance, operational hours for construction should be restricted to 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 Saturday and at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays.

8.8 Tree Officer – No objections to the proposed scheme.

8.9 Building Control – No planning implications. Details can be resolved through building regulation submissions.

8.10 Planning Policy & Neighbourhood Renewal – Comments awaited.

9 External consultees

9.1 Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements – Consider that the proposed landscaping proposals should incorporate the planting of Tettenhall Dick Pear Trees. Also, they consider that any S106 monies be expended only after local consultation.

9.2 Severn Trent Water - No objection to the proposed development providing that drainage details, including a hydrological and hydrogeological assessment are submitted to and approved by the local planning authority.

9.3 Centro – No objection to the proposal as none of their infrastructure is adversely affected.

9.4 Police – Raised concerns about the potential for overlooking of the car parking spaces. However, the plans have since been amended to introduce windows to provide passive surveillance of each parking space and there are no objections.

9.5 CAMRA – Comments awaited.

9.6 Wolverhampton History & Heritage Society - Comments awaited.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. (LD/18082010/E)

11. Appraisal

11.1 The following main issues are considered in determining this application:

• Loss of the Public house • Acceptability of Residential Use • Layout • Scale and Appearance • Residential Amenity • Car Parking and Access • Landscaping • S106 Obligations

Loss of the Public House

11.2 The application proposes the loss of a building which was used as a community meeting place, as defined under UDP policy C3 ‘Loss of Community Meeting Places’. In determining the previous planning appeal, the Inspector considered that, “there are

12 other reasonably accessible existing facilities which could accommodate the community activities displaced from the Shoulder of Mutton”. The Inspector was also satisfied on the basis of the evidence before her that, “the existing use is no longer financially viable”.

11.3 Subsequent to the Inspectors decision, the community facility has closed and the site fenced off to prevent access by members of the public.

11.4 Given these factors it is considered that, although the loss of public house is not desirable, an objection to the loss of the community facility cannot be reasonably justified. Therefore the proposal is acceptable with regard to UDP policy C3.

Acceptability of Residential Use

11.5 UDP Policy H6 requires residential development to be compatible with surrounding development. It is considered that the site is suitable for residential development as the character of the surrounding area is predominantly residential.

11.6 The proposed density of the scheme is 25 dwellings per hectare, whilst Policy H9 ‘Housing Density and Mix’ of the Wolverhampton UDP states that housing densities of less than 30 dwellings per hectare should be avoided. However, this policy has been superseded by an updated version of PPS3 which removes the requirement for developments to seek to achieve a minimum density of 30 dwellings per hectare.

11.7 Whilst it was considered that the previous scheme represented an over development of the site and that small private amenity areas did not respond positively to the established urban grain of the area, the Inspector considered that the, “sizes and house to plot ratios in the area are varied” and that the construction of 11 houses, “would not amount to an overdevelopment of the site”.

11.8 Taking into account the revised PPS3, the comments of the Inspector, the character of the area and the morphology of the site it is considered that the scheme represents an efficient use of the site, in accordance with UDP policies H6 and H9.

Layout

11.9 UDP policies D1, D4, D5, D6 and H6 require high quality, site specific design, which contributes towards creating a strong sense of place. The layout is very similar to that which was considered in the previous application and during the subsequent appeal, in which the Inspector considered that the layout was of, “high quality”. The main difference between that proposal and the current submission is that the plots, either side of the new access road, have been moved slightly closer to the back of the footpath, in order to create more private amenity space at the rear of the properties.

11.10 The proposed houses would be positioned around the perimeter of the site, to ensure that the vulnerable rear boundaries of existing properties are secured, whilst the street, which forms the focus of the development, benefits from a high level of natural surveillance. Furthermore, the layout also provides an active frontage onto Wood Road and a strong visual termination at the end of the proposed street.

11.11 Overall, it is considered that the layout is appropriate and complies with UDP policies D1, D4, D5, D6 and H6.

13 Scale & Appearance

11.12 UDP policies D1, D6, D7, D9, HE1 and H6 require residential development to be of an appropriate scale and a high quality appearance. In addition to the amendment to the proposed layout, the other difference from the previous scheme is with regard to the architectural appearance of the proposed houses.

11.13 The design has attempted to capture architectural features which are representative of the surrounding area and help to define its character. This includes the proposed use of local materials such as red brick and slate roof tiles.

11.14 It is still considered that the proposed development demonstrates a high standard of design which would contribute towards the creation of a strong sense of place which would preserve and enhance the character and appearance of the Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area.

11.15 The proposed houses would all be two storeys high, approximately four metres to the eaves and seven metres to the ridge, which is considered appropriate for its context.

11.16 It is considered that the scale and appearance of the proposed scheme is appropriate in this location and that the proposals accords with UDP policies D1, D6, D7, D9, HE1 and H6.

Residential Amenity

11.17 In considering the appeal, the Inspector felt that the proposed gardens were of an acceptable size. The current scheme is an improvement over the previous scheme with regard to this issue as the garden areas of the houses have been increased by moving the proposed houses closer to the street.

11.18 The positioning of the dwellings respects the privacy, daylight and outlook from adjacent dwellings as well as preserving the amenities of potential occupiers.

11.19 It is considered that the proposed scheme accords with the requirements of SPG3 and UDP policies D1, D4 and H6 which seek to protect existing residential amenity whilst providing good living conditions for new occupiers.

Car Parking and Access

11.20 The proposed parking and access proposals are acceptable in principle.

11.21 In order to maintain suitable levels of visibility, the height of boundary treatment adjacent to Wood Road should not exceed 600m. This can be controlled by way of a condition.

11.22 In addition, it is proposed that the road will remain unadopted, it will therefore be necessary for a private management company to be established to ensure the future maintenance of the access road. It is considered that this requirement can be controlled through a S106.

11.23 Whilst some concern has again been raised that the loss of the car park would cause highway safety problems, the car park is in private ownership and its long term retention cannot be ensured. This has been highlighted by the fact that access to the car park has now been prevented. Although the loss of the car park is not desirable, it is not possible to attach significant weight to its loss. This was reiterated by the Inspector during the appeal.

14 11.24 Overall, it is considered that the proposed scheme accords with the requirements of SPG3 and UDP policies D1, AM1, AM9, AM12 and AM15 in seeking to protect highway safety

Landscaping

11.25 There are a number of protected trees at the northern-end of the site. The majority of these trees would remain within a communal area of open space, although some of the smaller trees (with a diameter of less than 75mm) would be removed in order to ‘thin out’ the group which has become overgrown. This is considered appropriate.

11.26 There are five ‘Tettenhall Dick’ pear trees located to the rear of the public house. This particular variety of pear tree is only found in this part of the country. The applicant has submitted an amended landscaping plan to incorporate some replacement Tettenhall Dick pear trees within the new landscaping. The landscaping scheme is considered to be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies N1 and N7.

S106 Obligations

11.27 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. Upon receipt, the expenditure of this money will be determined following consultation with the local neighbourhood partnership.

11.28 In addition, for a development of this nature the agreement should ensure the provision of public art, targeted recruitment and training, a highway management agreement for the proposed street and the establishment of a management company for the area of communal woodland to the north of the site.

11.29 It is considered that these S106 obligations comply with Circular 5/2005 which require that they must be i) relevant to planning ii) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms iii) directly related to the proposed development iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development and v) reasonable in all other respects.

12. Conclusion

12.1 Although the loss of the community meeting place is not desirable, it is considered the decision of the Planning Inspectorate, coupled with the closure of the public house mean that the proposed use is one which is considered acceptable for this site and the scheme is one which will provide good quality family accommodation within the city.

12.2 It is considered that the proposed development demonstrates a high standard of design and would enhance the character and appearance of the Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area.

12.3 It is considered that the proposed scheme accords with UDP policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, HE1, H6, AM1, AM12 and AM15.

15 13. Recommendation

13.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant permission, subject to:

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees and any necessary minor amendments.

2. Negotiation and completion of a S106 agreement to secure public art and open space play contribution (BCIS indexed), targeted recruitment & training, a highway management agreement for the proposed street and a management company for the communal woodland.

3. Any necessary conditions to include:

• Submission of Materials • Architectural Details • Landscaping Scheme • Details of Boundary Treatment • Drainage • Car parking to be provided prior to occupation • Details of noise insultation • Garages retained for parking • External lighting • Details of cycle/motorcycle stores • Bin stores • Construction management plan • Parking Provision as shown • No gating of street • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. • Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation • No extensions, gates, fences, walls or other means of enclosure (other than those shown on the approved plans) shall be placed or erected nearer to any highway

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: 10/00646/FUL Location Shoulder Of Mutton Public House, Wood Road, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387909 299206 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00599/FUL WARD: Ettingshall DATE: 22-Jun-10 TARGET DATE: 21-Sep-10 RECEIVED: 28.05.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land Situated Off Ettingshall Road, Ettingshall, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Change of Use from Storage of Bearings to Scrap Metal Storage and Recovery with ancillary office, weighbridge and parking.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Anthony Watton Mr Graham Fergus J T Watton First City Limited 298 Birmingham Road 19 Waterloo Road Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV14 9PW WV1 4DY

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is located approximately 2.5 miles to the south-east of the City Centre. The site is within a Defined Business Area. It is an irregular shape and covers an area of approximately 0.16 hectares.

1.2 The West Coast Main line and embankment runs along the western boundary. The site is enclosed by industrial development to the north, south and east with access from Ettingshall Road.

1.3 The site is generally level but falls gradually from east to the west. The land includes an open yard and single storey building which is positioned approximately eighty metres back from Ettingshall Road with access from a private drive.

1.4 The vehicle access is between a fish and chip shop with a flat above and Devonshire House which is used for business purposes. To the rear of the chip shop is a private garden.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application seeks permission to change the use of the site to allow for the storing and recovery of scrap metals including ferrous and non-ferrous materials (sui generis use).

2.2 The scrap metal would be stored and sorted within the northern part of the site. The height of external storage would be limited to five metres. A weighbridge, six parking bays and vehicle turning area would be provided towards the southern part of the site.

2.3 The existing single storey building which is positioned within the centre of the site would be retained for use as an ancillary office and vehicle store.

18 2.4 Opening hours are proposed to be 08.00 to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays, 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays and 08.30 to 13.00 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

2.5 It is anticipated that the proposals would create eight jobs.

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 C/1899/88 - Change of use to warehouse for storage of bearings. Granted 23.09.1988.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Mining Areas Sites and Monuments Entry Defined Business Area

5. Relevant Policies

The Development Plan 5.1 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 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 N7 The Urban Forest B1 Economic Prosperity B3 Business Development Allocations B4 Expansion of Existing Businesses B5 Design Standards for Employment Sites B6 Offices B9 Defined Business Areas B10 Redevelopment of Business Land and Premises B11 Ancillary Uses in Employment Areas and Premises B12 Access to Job Opportunities AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians

19 AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security IMR2 Planning Obligations

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPS10 Planning For Sustainable Waste Management PPG13 Transport PPG24 Planning and Noise

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

7. Publicity

7.1 Two letters of objection received and one letter stating no objections. Comments summarised as follows: • Raise concern about a private right of access. • Detrimental to the continued operation and commercial success of existing businesses. • Unacceptable impact on highway and pedestrian safety and traffic flows. • The development is likely to result in the fire service being needlessly called out. This is because heat sensitive fire alarms at adjacent commercial premises would be set off by burning material at the application site. • Unsatisfactory Design and Access Statement submitted in support of the application. • The vehicle access and service road is substandard. • The application does not include details of the electricity substation which is located along the access road. • The submitted traffic information including details of traffic generation is inaccurate.

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Planning Policy Section – No objection in principle subject to satisfactory design.

8.2 Transportation Development – No objection.

20 8.3 Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to the provision of an acoustic fence between the access road and the fish and chip shop/first floor flat, installation of an access barrier and restriction of hours of operation to between 08.00 to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Bank Holidays.

8.4 Nature Conservation – A habitat survey has been provided. However, the agent has been requested to carry out further work to assess the ecological value of the areas adjacent to the site.

8.5 Building Control – No objection subject to satisfactory access arrangements for fire vehicles. The Fire Service has been consulted and we are awaiting a response.

8.6 Economic Development – Comments awaited.

9. External Consultees

9.1 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.

9.2 Police – No objections.

9.3 Environment Agency – In respect of the licensing of the site they have reported no objections. From a drainage point of view they have assessed this application as having a low environmental risk.

9.4 Network Rail – No objection in principle subject to conditions relating to boundary treatments and drainage. They also make comments about the need to keep roads, paths or ways providing access to any part of the railway undertaker’s land open and these comments will be passed on to the applicants.

9.5 British Waterways and Fire Service – Comments awaited.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 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 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.

It should be noted that 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." [LD/18082010/O].

11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues for consideration in this particular case are:

• Principle of Development • Layout • Appearance • Environmental Issues • Access and Parking • Ecology • Other Matters

Principle of Development 11.2 The subject site is in an existing industrial area, which is a Defined Business Area identified under UDP Policy B9. The proposal is to use the site for storage and recovery of scrap metals with associated operational works including ancillary office and therefore Unitary Development Plan policies on waste and national guidance contained within PPS10 apply.

11.3 UDP Policy B9 ‘Defined Business Areas’ states that sui generis commercial uses may be appropriate where they have 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. The proposed scrap metal storage and recovery use would be in accordance with the criteria of Policy B9, subject to achieving a satisfactory design and layout.

11.4 UDP Policy EP14 ‘Waste Management Facilities’ states that proposals for the establishment of waste management facilities will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal represents the best practical environmental option and the risk to residential amenity is acceptable. The proposed scrap metal storage and recovery use represents a sustainable waste management option. Therefore, the proposals are in accordance with Policy EP14, subject to no adverse implications upon residential amenity.

11.5 UDP policy B6 ‘Offices’ states that Wolverhampton City Centre will be the primary location for major new office development proposals. Office development of an appropriate scale will also be encouraged in Bilston Town and Wednesfield Village Centres, District Centres and Local Centres and other specific locations. Elsewhere, office development will only be permitted where it is ancillary to an existing or proposed production or storage / distribution use or where a need has been identified and a sequential approach to site selection has shown that the proposed location is the sequentially preferred location.

11.6 The proposed office use would be ancillary to the principal use of the site and is therefore acceptable and compliant with UDP policy B6.

Layout 11.7 The location of the outdoor storage areas are suitably positioned to the north of the site and away from the office, vehicle parking and turning areas. This layout will enable vehicles to adequately access, turn and deposit their loads. The layout is good and in accordance with UDP policy D1 that seeks high quality design.

22 Appearance 11.8 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.

11.9 The proposed open storage yard would be visible from the adjacent railway which is a major gateway into the City. This element of the proposal could have the potential to detract from the appearance of the area.

11.10 Given the presence of trees next to the railway line, the established industrial character of the area and the ability to restrict the height and storage of waste material to those areas indicated on the submitted plans, the impact on visual amenity would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP Policies D1 and D9.

Environmental Issues 11.11 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.

11.12 The storage and recovery of waste materials such as scrap metal can often have a significant impact upon local amenity.

11.13 The proposed waste facility would be located within an existing commercial area and generally away from sensitive uses such as housing. However there is a single residential flat above the fish and chip shop.

11.14 The flat itself is positioned adjacent to the vehicle access and service road but is a significant distance away from the proposed scrap yard. Environmental Services confirm that subject to the provision of an acoustic fence along the site boundary with the fish and chip shop/flat and the hours of use being restricted to between 08.00 to 18.00 hours Mondays to Fridays and 08.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at no time Sundays or Bank Holidays, the impact on residential amenity would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy EP1.

11.15 The facility is 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 11.16 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.

11.17 The layout includes an adequate number of vehicle parking spaces, turning areas and satisfactory visibility splays. The proposals are in accordance with Policy AM1.

Ecology 11.18 UDP policy N1 ‘Promotion of Nature Conservation’ states that proposals should seek to secure the appropriate study, protection, management, enhancement and expansion of existing nature conservation resources, including the creation of new habitats and features of value for nature conservation.

11.19 The submitted habitat survey has shown that the site has limited ecological value. However, the survey does not take account of the land immediately surrounding the site and it is therefore not in accordance with UDP policy N1. The agent has been requested to submit an extended ecology survey to include surrounding land and the potential impact of the development.

Other Matters 11.20 An occupier of neighbouring premises has raised an issue about a private right of access to the service road. This is a private matter and cannot be a material planning consideration in the determination of this application.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The proposed scrap metal storage and recovery (sui generis use) use is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies B9 and EP14. The ancillary office use is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy B6.

12.2 The layout of development is appropriate and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D4 and D6.

12.3 The visual appearance of the development site would be acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D9 and B5 subject to conditions to limit the height and storage of waste to those areas indicated on the submitted plan.

12.4 The impact upon residential amenity is acceptable and the proposals comply with UDP policies D8 and EP1 subject to conditions to control the hours of use and the provision of an acoustic fence.

12.5 The parking and servicing arrangements are acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies AM1, AM12 and AM15.

12.6 The submitted habitat survey has shown that the site has limited ecological value. However, the survey does not take account of the land immediately surrounding the site and it is therefore not in accordance with UDP policy N1. The agent has been requested to submit an extended ecology survey to include an assessment of the ecological value of surrounding land.

12.7 Subject to no overriding objections from outstanding consultees and the resolution of the outstanding ecology matter, the proposed development scheme would be acceptable and in accordance with the requirements of the UDP.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant subject to:

1. No overriding objections from outstanding consultees; 2. Resolution to the satisfaction of the Director for Sustainable Communities of the outstanding ecology issue as stated at paragraph 12.6; 3. Any necessary conditions to include: • Materials • Large scale architectural details • Refuse storage • Landscaping scheme to include nature conservation enhancements • Drainage • Boundary treatments (to include access barrier) • Hard-surfacing • External lighting • Parking and turning areas to be provided in accordance with submitted details and retained thereafter • Building and site security

24 • Hours of operation • Acoustic fence • Limit height at which scrap waste is stored to five metres • Scrap metal to be stored and recovered only in those areas shown on the submitted plan • No flues, vents, meter boxes, aerials etc without prior approval.

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

Planning Application No: 10/00599/FUL Location Land Situated Off, Ettingshall Road, Ettingshall, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 392963 297172 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 2604m2

26 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10

APP NO: 10/00452/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 14-May-10 TARGET DATE: 13-Aug-10 RECEIVED: 20.04.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Low Level Station Site Bounded By Sun Street/Wednesfield Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Residential development for the erection of 109 apartments (alternative to the previously approved application 05/0494/FP/M).

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Lee Perry Mr Peter Wong Barratt Homes (West Midlands) Nicol Thomas Ltd 60 Whitehall Road Suite 108, 1st Floor Halesowen Fort Dunlop Birmingham Fort Parkway B63 3JS Birmingham B24 9FD

APP NO: 10/00736/VV WARD: Heath Town VALID DATE: 15-Jul-10 TARGET DATE: 14-Oct-10 DATE REC’D: 02.07.2010 APP TYPE: Vary of Condition(s) of Previous Approval

SITE: Low Level Station Site Bounded By Sun Street/Wednesfield Road, Wolverhampton, PROPOSAL: Material amendment to previous approval (05/0494/FP/M) for mixed use scheme including residential, hotel, pub/diner, car showroom and offices. The application is to amend block B of the residential element. Alterations include changes to external materials, balcony design and removal of metal pole pinnacle.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Lee Perry Mr Jeremy Turner Barratt Homes (West Midlands) Nicol Thomas Ltd Whitehall Road Unit 108 Halesowen First Floor Birmingham Fort Dunlop West Midlands Fort Parkway B63 3JS Birmingham B24 9FD

27 COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is bounded by Sun Street and Wednesfield Road. Broad Gauge Way extends into the site from Sun Street. The site is within the curtilage of a grade II listed building and part of the site is located in the Union Mill Conservation area

1.2 Permission was granted for a large mixed use scheme under application 05/0494/FP/M in 2006. This approval included a hotel, public house, car showroom, change of use of a grade II listed building and a residential development for 191, one and two bedroom apartments.

1.3 A parallel application for listed building consent granted permission for alterations and extensive restoration work to the former station building. These works have now been largely undertaken, and the building has recently been used as a temporary art gallery.

1.4 The hotel and public house are complete and have been operational since 2008. Development has not commenced on the proposed car showroom and this part of the site remains vacant.

1.5 The residential element of the permission forms two separate blocks, ‘A’ and ‘B’. Block ‘A’ is complete and many of the units are now occupied. The remaining part of the residential development has not progressed since the erection of the concrete frame which is to form the basis for Block ‘B’ of the development.

1.6 As part of the residential development the former track bed to the Low Level Station has been extensively landscaped and part of the public art has been installed.

1.7 By reason of its scale and location the residential buildings form a prominent feature on the landscape and are particularly visible from Wednesfield Road on the approach into the city.

2. Application details

2.1 Permission was granted for the residential development as part of application 05/00494. This consisted of 191 one and two bedroom apartments. Block ‘A’ of the development has been completed and is largely occupied but Block ‘B’ remains incomplete.

2.2 Application 05/00494 was supported by a Section 106 relating to the whole mixed use development. The residential requirements of this section 106 agreement were for the following; public art, travel plan, works to the public realm, a management company and affordable housing clawback arrangements.

2.3 The impact of the current financial position and the challenging market conditions has led developers to review this development and seek cost reductions. It is stated in the supporting statement that the proposals will assist the development by reducing construction costs enabling work to recommence. This has led to the submission of two applications. One is an alternative to the approved scheme with an extra five apartments and various small changes. The other is to vary the approved scheme with the same various small changes. The details of the two applications follow.

28 10/00452/FUL 2.4 The application has been made for the erection of 109 apartments as an alternative to the previously approved scheme. As part of application 05/00494 permission was granted for 104 apartments forming Block ‘B’. Block ‘A’ consists of 87 apartments. The overall total proposed would therefore be 196 apartments. The proposal also includes a number of material changes to the external appearance of the building.

2.5 The footprint of the building is to remain the same as previously approved. The scale of the building would generally remain unaltered, varying between three storey and six storey in height. The additional five apartments would be accommodated by providing an additional storey, at the corner where the track bed reaches Sun Street. These would increase the height of this corner element of the building from four storey to five storey.

2.6 The application also seeks to make the following alterations to the previously approved scheme under the new proposal:

(i) Change the cladding material to a feature staircase from aluminium to a render finish. A through colour render would be used to reflect the render finish used in the construction of the staircase cores within Block ‘A’; (ii) Replace the internal courtyard and track bed balconies with Juliette balconies; (iii) Replace the high level aluminium panelled rain screen cladding with blue brickwork to be treated with linseed oil to form reflective surface. The facing blue brick would have a recessed pistol joint every 4th course to create 300mm high banding at high level; (iv) Replace curtain walling with through colour render; (v) Remove metal pole pinnacle from the top of the staircase core; (vi) Replace artificial slate tiles with ‘matching’ concrete tiles; (vii) Re-design internal layout to replace glazed corner with brickwork to the internal courtyard; (viii) Low brick wall and railings along Broad Gauge Way to be replaced with full height railings.

2.7 The development would consist of 14 one-bedroom apartments and 95-two bedroom apartments.

2.8 A total of 36 parking spaces are proposed for the occupiers of Block ‘B’. The number of parking spaces proposed is the same as previously approved.

10/00736/VV 2.9 The application has been made under section 73 for a minor material amendment to planning approval 05/00494/FP/M to vary the approved plans.

2.10 The proposal seeks to make the following alterations to the previously approved scheme:

(i) Change the cladding material to a feature staircase from aluminium to a render finish. The proposed render would have a through colour finish and would reflect the render finish used in the construction of the staircase cores within Block ‘A’; (ii) Replace the internal courtyard and track bed balconies with Juliette balconies; (iii) Replace the high level aluminium panelled rainscreen cladding with blue brickwork to be treated with linseed oil to form reflective surface. The facing blue brick would have a recessed pistol joint every 4th course to create 300mm high banding at high level; (iv) Replace curtain walling with through colour render; (v) Remove metal pole pinnacle from the top of the staircase core; (vi) Replace artificial slate tiles with ‘matching’ concrete tiles;

29 (vii) Re-design internal layout to replace glazed corner with brickwork to the internal courtyard. (viii) Low brick wall and railings along Broad Gauge Way to be replace with full height railings.

2.11 In other words, the proposal involves the same various alterations to the approved scheme but not the five additional apartments.

3. Planning History

3.1 05/0494/FP/M - Mixed Use scheme including residential, hotel, car showroom, pub/diner, A1/A3 (retail/food and drink) and offices - Granted 22.03.2006.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Union Mill Conservation Area Grade II Listed Building

5. Relevant Policies

The Development Plan 5.1 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 part 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 EP9 - Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development H1 - Housing H4 - Housing Allocations H6 - Design of Housing Development H8 - Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 - Housing Density and mix H10 - Affordable Housing HE17 - Develop. Affecting the setting of a LB AM1 - Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 - Provision for Pedestrians AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security IMR2 - Planning Obligations

30 Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing PPS5 - Planning for the Historic Environment PPG13 - Transport

5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG3 - Residential Development SPG16 - Provision of Public Art

5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

6.2 The 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.

7. Publicity

7.1 No representations received.

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Building Control – No objections

8.2 Environmental Services – No objections subject to inclusion of conditions for acoustic glazing, whole house ventilation, land contamination and refuse storage design.

8.3 Transportation Development – The additional five apartments are unlikely to affect the overall demand for residential parking. The provision of a car park management strategy is essential for the long term management of parking for all of the residential units.

8.4 Additional cycle parking should be provided to accommodate the demand from the new residential units.

8.5 Archaeology - No objections.

8.6 Historic Environment and Urban Design – Completion of the scheme is desirable in the interest of the regeneration of the area and enhancing both the setting of the listed buildings and the appearance of the conservation area. There are elements of the proposed amendments that will not have a major impact on the overall appearance and may be considered acceptable.

31 8.7 No objections to the following:

• The five additional units; • The use of a through colour render finish in lieu of metal cladding; • The use of concrete roof tiles, sample to be agreed; • The deletion of the pinnacle.

8.8 The corners of Block B (views 10 & 11) occupy a prominent position within the development and are emphasised by the balconies in the approved application. The proposed amendment fails to provide the necessary emphasis and articulation. The approved balconies should be retained on the corners fronting Broad Gauge Way (view 11) or an acceptable alternative.

8.9 The proposed treatment of the blue brick frieze is unconvincing and lacks the quality of the approved material. The recessed joint will not have crisp lines of the metal sheet material previously proposed. The approved metal cladding should be retained or an acceptable alternative.

8.10 The proposed amendment to the boundary detail of the railings sat behind a kerb will create a poor detail. The proposed kerb should be removed and replaced by a low coping topped with railings, or an acceptable alternative.

9. External Consultees

9.1 Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements – No comments received at time of writing.

9.2 Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society - No comments received at time of writing

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications.

10.2 It will be necessary to ensure that any outstanding requirements of an existing section 106 agreement relating to the original development are appropriately dealt with by a deed of variation and/or within a new section 106 agreement (LD/23082010/X).

11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues are: • Scale and massing; • Design and appearance; • Access and parking; • Section 106 requirements.

Scale and massing 11.2 UDP policies D7 and D8 require that proposals should make a positive contribution to the appearance of an area and should be of a height that helps achieve a strong sense of place. Policy HE17 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.

32 11.3 The proposed Block B would continue the form of development along the former track bed to the Low Level Station. This design respects and enhances the original form and character of the listed building by maintaining the linear space of the original station track bed by being constructed parallel to the original station building. This design respects the special architectural and historic interest of the listed building.

11.4 The scale and massing of the development would correlate with the existing residential development. The scale of the proposal varies slightly from the original approval with the inclusion of an additional (fifth) storey to the south-west corner of the building. The impact of this additional storey does not adversely affect the scale or massing of the proposal, its setting in relation to the listed building or the character and appearance of the conservation area. The proposal therefore accords with policy D7, D8 and HE17 of the adopted UDP.

Design and appearance 11.5 UDP policies D1 and D9 set out that all development proposals should demonstrate a high standard of design and contribute to creating a strong sense of place whilst making a positive contribution to the locality through use of good quality detailing and materials. The five additional units proposed by creating an additional storey to the building would sit comfortably and not detract from the original design and appearance of the building. The additional storey would provide greater definition to the corner location without dominating the remainder of the development.

11.6 The applications include a number of alterations to the design and finish of the original planning approval. This includes the use of different materials and removal/amendments to certain architectural features. The design changes have been proposed to assist the developers in reducing the construction cost. The completion of the development is obviously desirable as it will enhance the character and appearance of the area and its setting in the curtilage of the listed building. However, whilst a completion to the development is important, the changes proposed must preserve and enhance the conservation area.

11.7 The proposed material amendments to the original planning approval shall be addressed individually in the following paragraphs.

(i) A through-colour render finish has been used for the construction of the staircase cores to Block A. The continued use of this material for the feature staircase on the corner of Sun Street and Broad Gauge Way would not detract from the architectural quality of the development.

(ii) The replacement of the internal courtyard and track bed balconies with Juliette balconies. In addition to providing small areas of external space, balconies also provide visual interest and depth to the design and appearance of the building they serve. The loss of a walk out balcony to the prominent internal courtyard elevations that face onto Broad Gauge Way would significantly detract from the buildings design and finish.

(iii) The balconies proposed for the track bed elevation have maintained the linear design but do not project out to the same degree. The original balconies, by reason of their design did not provide a useable external space, however proposed amendments have respected the original design and would not detract from the buildings architectural quality and relationship with the listed building.

33 (iv) The replacement of the high level aluminium panelled rain screen cladding with blue brickwork is unconvincing and lacks the quality of the approved material. The recessed joint would not have the crisp lines of the metal sheet material previously proposed. This finish would detract significantly from the originally approved scheme by not providing a similar high quality finish.

(v) The use of through colour render, similar to the proposal for the staircase on the corner of Sun Street and Broad Gauge Way could be satisfactorily used without detracting from the original design quality of the development.

(vi) The removal of the metal pole pinnacle from the top of the Sun Street staircase core would not detract from the overall finish to the buildings appearance.

(vii) The proposed amendment to the boundary detail of the railings sat behind a kerb will create a poor detail. The proposed kerb should be removed and replaced by a low coping topped with railings, or an acceptable alternative.

Access and parking 11.8 UDP policies H6, AM12 and AM15 require that proposals provide satisfactory vehicular access and parking, and improve road safety and personal security. A parking ratio below 100% was permitted for the whole residential development as part of planning application 05/0494 due to the proximity of the site to the city centre and its excellent links to public transport. The additional five apartments are unlikely to significantly affect the demand for parking overall. On this basis the proposed parking arrangements are acceptable, however a car park management strategy is essential for the long term management of parking for all residential units. The proposed access arrangements remain as previously approved.

11.9 The applicants have been requested to submit a car park management strategy for prior approval.

Section 106 requirements – 10/00452/FUL 11.10 The planning application is for an alternative development to that previously approved, for the erection of 109 apartments. In accordance with UDP policies there is a requirement for:

(i) 20% of affordable housing, in accordance with UDP policy H10; (ii) A financial contribution towards the off-site provision or enhancement of recreational open space and play facilities in accordance with UDP policy H8; (iii) Submission of details of a piece of work or works of public art in accordance with UDP policy D14.

11.11 The applicants have stated that the impact of the current financial position and the challenging market conditions faced by the housing industry has led to construction on site ceasing and a need to review the development and seek cost reductions.

11.12 UDP policy IMR2 ‘Planning Obligations’ stated that the Council will seek to negotiate with developers to enable development to proceed and/or secure the proper planning of the development and of the area. It then states that in determining the scale of benefits, regard will be had to, amongst other things, the economic viability of the scheme.

34 11.13 The Affordable Housing SPD states that the Council will consider relaxing normal S106 requirements if an applicant puts a compelling case on financial viability grounds. However, a clawback obligation will then be incorporated within the S106 agreement to ensure that, if the housing development proves to be viable and profitable when completed and sold, an appropriate proportion of these profits will then be secured for affordable housing provision.

11.14 This flexibility is reflected in the draft SPD on Open Space Sport and Recreation which states that levels of contributions may be reduced or waived altogether if it is proven that the proposed development is unviable and where early commencement and completion of the scheme is secured.

11.15 On the 11th of November 2009, Cabinet endorsed a recommendation that a flexible and pro-active approach to planning obligations is taken, in response to the economic downturn. Therefore, it is considered that the approach set out in the draft SPD on Open Space could also be applied to affordable housing in this case. That is, the requirement for affordable housing clawback would be waived providing that early commencement and completion of the development is secured, if this approach is justified on financial viability grounds.

11.16 In order to justify the reduction or waiving of the normal S106 requirements the applicant has been requested to submit a financial viability appraisal (FVA). Upon receipt this will be considered by the District Valuer (DV). In addition, it is also necessary that the applicant agrees that the proposed development will be completed within a reasonable timeframe. It is considered that an appropriate period would be within three years of this Committee meeting.

11.17 However, should the scheme not be provided in accordance with the specified timeframe, then the landowner would be liable to make the contributions. At that time the developers could submit an updated financial viability appraisal, in order that the scheme can be reassessed and to determine whether any of those obligations outlined in paragraph 11.9, or a part thereof, can be reasonably required.

11.18 A scheme of targeted recruitment and training for the construction of the development would also need to be included in the S106 agreement.

11.19 Circular 5/2005 provides that planning obligations must be

(i) Relevant to planning (ii) Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms (iii) Directly related to the proposed development (iv) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and (v) Reasonable in all other respects.

11.20 It is considered that the requirement to provide for the matters referred to above complies with the provisions of the circular.

Section 106 requirements – 10/00736/VV 11.21 The application will require a Deed of Variation to the S106 for application 05/00494/FP/M to link the provisions of this agreement to the current application.

35 12. Conclusion

12.1 The principle of residential development is appropriate to this location. The application (10/00452/FUL) seeks a variation to the previously approved residential development by introducing five additional apartments and making minor amendments to the design and appearance of the development. The principle of the works proposed is accepted.

12.2 The proposed scale and massing of the development does not vary significantly from the originally approved scheme. The introduction of an additional five apartments has been appropriately designed to respect the scale and massing of the development. The additional five apartments do not adversely affect the setting of the listed building. The development is therefore satisfactory in terms of policies D7, D8 and HE17 of the adopted UDP.

12.3 Access and parking arrangements would generally accord with policies AM12, AM15 and H6 subject to the receipt of a satisfactory car park management strategy.

12.4 Subject to the receipt and confirmation by the District Valuer that a relaxation of the normal S106 requirements is justified on financial viability grounds, the requirement for 20% affordable housing, public open space and play contribution and public art shall be waived or relaxed, subject to agreement that the development is completed within three years from the date of this Committee meeting. If the development is not completed within the specified period normal S106 requirements will apply, as set out in paragraph 11.16.

12.5 Both applications propose a number of alterations, in terms of materials, balcony design and boundary treatments. The proposed amendments are generally acceptable, however the following elements would significantly detract from the overall quality of the development and would not satisfy policies D1 and D9 of the adopted UDP:

(i) The introduction of Juliette balconies fronting onto Broad Gauge Way; (ii) The proposed use of treated blue brick banding at high level to replace lightweight metal cladding; (iii) The use of railings set behind a kerb facing onto Broad Gauge Way.

12.6 The design and appearance of the proposal would be acceptable subject to the omission of these matters and replacement with the originally approved details or acceptable alternatives.

13. Recommendation

13.1 10/00452/FUL - Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant subject to:

1. Resolution of outstanding matters stated in paragraphs 12.5 & 12.6.

2. Negotiation and completion of a S106 agreement to include (subject to receipt of a financial statement and confirmation from the District Valuer that the proposed scheme is not financially viable):

(i) Affordable housing – none if the development is completed within three years of the date of this Committee meeting, full provision of affordable housing if not; (ii) Off-site public open space and play contribution – none if the development is completed within three years of the date of Committee, full provision if not;

36 (iii) Public art – none if the proposal is completed within three years of the date of Committee, full provision if not. (iv) A scheme of targeted recruitment and training for the construction of the scheme.

3. Any necessary conditions to include:

• Submission of materials; • Sample panel on-site; • Refuse storage; • Cycle storage; • Car park management strategy; • Boundary treatments; • Landscaping; • Drainage; • External lighting; • Parking to be provided and retained; • Exterior of buildings to be completed in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation; • Noise assessment and acoustic insulation measures; • No flues, vents meter boxes, aerials etc without prior approval; • Land contamination remedial measures.

13.2 10/00736/VV – Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant subject to:

1. Resolution of outstanding matters stated in paragraphs 12.5 & 12.6.

2. A Deed of Variation to the S106 for application 05/00494/FP/M linking the provision of this agreement the 10/00736/VV application.

3. Conditions to be the same as 05/00494/FP/M permission and to include the following additional conditions:

• Submission of roofing material; • Sample panel on-site; • Car park management strategy; • Parking to be provided and retained; • Exterior of buildings to be completed in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation; • Noise assessment and acoustic insulation measures; • No flues, vents meter boxes, aerials etc without prior approval.

Case Officer : Mark Elliot Telephone No : 01902 555648 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 10/00452/FUL & 10/00736/VV Location Low Level Station Site Bounded By Sun Street/Wednesfield Road, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 392074 298910 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 3885m2

APP NO: 10/00002/OUT WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 20-Jul-10 TARGET DATE: 14-Sep-10 RECEIVED: 04.01.2010 APP TYPE: Outline Application

SITE: 78 Redhouse Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Two bedroom bungalow at the rear of No. 78 Redhouse Road

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Pask Mr Stan Ceney 78 Redhouse Road P.D. House Design Ltd Wolverhampton 27 Cannon Road WV6 8SP Wombourne South Staffordshire WV5 9HR

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The area is predominantly residential in character, comprising of large detached houses and bungalows. The application site consists of a large detached house located on the northern side of Redhouse Road. The property includes a spacious rear garden and frontage. The rear garden appears to have been divided up into two distinct parts. The rear part of the garden can be accessed from an existing driveway at the side of the site.

1.2 The area includes a mixture of architectural styles and a number of the properties have been extended. Directly at the rear of the site is a modern housing development of six houses.

2. Application details

2.1 The application seeks planning permission to sub-divide this plot and erect a two bedroom detached bungalow. The building is of a simple pitched roof design and would be accessed using a partially existing hard surfaced area at the side of the existing dwelling house (between 76 and 78).

3. Planning History

3.1 None recorded.

4. Constraints

4.1 None relevant.

5. Relevant policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP): D1: Design Quality D4: Urban Grain 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 H1: Housing H6: Design of Housing Development EP1: Pollution Control EP5: Noise Pollution

Other relevant policies 5.2 Planning Policy Statement (PPS) 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3: Housing

5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents/Guidance: SPG3: Residential Development

5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

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. Neighbour notification and publicity

7.1 Two representations received and a petition containing 12 signatures. A summary of the issues raised follows: • Loss of privacy, • Loss of light, • Disturbance, in particular due to vehicle movements and the ‘dividing up’ of the rear garden, • Increase in traffic (in particular at peak times), • Incongruous, out of character and not in keeping with neighbouring properties, • Loss of privacy, • Loss of property values, • Creation of precedent for other development, • Concerned that property would not be used by family member and would be rented.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Transportation – no objection, however, it is considered preferable for the two properties’ driveways to be separated. This would be likely to prevent blocking and conflict between vehicles.

8.2 Refuse collection will only be carried out within 25m of the public highway, therefore, a bin store within 25m of the highway would be required.

9. External consultees

9.1 Fire Officer – Unsatisfactory for fire service access. There should be vehicle access to within 45m of all points within the dwellings. Access roads should be a minimum of 3.7m between kerbs and a minimum carrying capacity of 15 tonnes. There should be a suitable splay at the entrance to the new access road to allow emergency vehicles to turn in.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications (LD/18082010/A).

11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues are: • Principle of development • Layout and Design • Fire safety

Principle of development 11.2 The revised PPS3 gives strong encouragement to housing on “previously developed” (Brownfield) land. That strong encouragement no longer applies to private residential gardens. This does not mean that residential development on land which is not “previously developed” land such as this site is absolutely ruled out. The PPS3 makes it clear that Councils should reject planning applications for development that harms the character of an area, or is otherwise unacceptable in planning terms.

Layout and Design 11. 3 The proposed development would involve the erection of a detached two bedroom bungalow at the rear of the site. The proposals would result in a tandem layout for No.78. The new property would be accessed using the partially existing access located between 76 and 78 Redhouse Road.

11.4 UDP Policy D1 requires that all development proposals should demonstrate a high standard of design and contribute towards creating a strong sense of place and should evolve from an understanding of local distinctiveness and the historic context. Policy D4 ‘Urban Grain’ requires that 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. Guidance in Wolverhampton’s SPG3 states that small infill or backland development needs to be compatible with the established form, pattern and character of the vicinity, including garden sizes, position of houses on their plots and relation to roads and footpaths.

11.5 Policy D9 seeks to ensure that all development is of a high quality and benefits its surrounding area. Development is also required to be of a high quality design, as a result of good architecture, which makes a positive contribution to the locality. Policies D7 and D8 require development to be of a suitable scale and design. The size and massing of a building should be appropriate and harmonise with context/surroundings.

11.6 It is considered that the introduction of the dwelling would represent an overdevelopment of the site and would appear cramped in the more spacious setting of the existing dwellings adjacent to the site along Redhouse Road.

11.7 Whilst smaller gardens exist elsewhere in the vicinity, i.e. the modern houses at the rear of the site and the somewhat truncated gardens of the properties to the west, it is considered that the sub-division of this site, and the erection of a detached dwelling (and the associated general tandem layout), would not respect the established character and form of development of the original properties in Redhouse Road. The proposals would be contrary to UDP Policies D1, D4, D6 and H6, the principles of PPS3 as well as guidance provided in SPG3.

11.8 The proposed dwelling is of a very bland appearance. It does not demonstrate a high standard of design or an understanding of local context and character. The proposal fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character of the area and is considered contrary to UDP policies D1, D7, D8, D9 and SPG3.

Neighbouring Amenities 11.9 The guidance in SPG3 stipulates that development should not prejudice the amenities of neighbouring properties. Development that adversely affects amenity, including overbearing impact and reduction in light/outlook, should be resisted. This view is reinforced by UDP policy D7 and D8 of the adopted UDP, which requires development to be of appropriate, scale, height and massing.

11.10 Although single storey, it is considered that the proposed development would be likely to have an adverse effect on the current feeling of spaciousness from the rear gardens of properties in 76 and 80 Redhouse Road. However the immediate impact would not be so overbearing to justify a reason for refusal on the basis of harm to neighbours’ amenity.

11.11 A neighbour concern relates to a perceived loss of privacy, however, the dwellinghouse would be single storey only. In addition, both neighbouring properties at 76 and 80 Redhouse Road include foliage on their shared boundaries with the application site. The foliage is located on the neighbours side of the boundary treatment and, to a certain extent, would provide a buffer/screen between the proposed development and neighbouring gardens.

11.12 It is therefore considered that, by virtue of the single storey nature of the proposal, and the presence of screening foliage, privacy would not be harmed to an extent that would justify the refusal of planning permission in this instance.

11.13 Vehicular access would be located adjacent to the neighbouring property at 76 Redhouse Road. However, the access is predominantly existing and, whilst there may be a degree of impact, it is considered that the area already provides vehicular access for the rear of this site. Moreover, the use of the area to access a single dwelling house would be materially similar to the use of the land to provide off street parking for 78 Redhouse Road (albeit this arrangement does not currently occur).

11.14 The proposals would not result in serious adverse impact to neighbour amenity and would, therefore, be consistent with Policies D7, D8, H6 and SPG3 of the adopted UDP.

Fire safety 11.15 The Fire Safety Officer is of the view that the proposals would be unsatisfactory if a fire service vehicle needed to access the site. However, fire safety could be achieved by means of a sprinkler system or similar.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The proposed development would represent an overdevelopment of the site, appearing cramped and not respecting the established more spacious character of the existing development in Redhouse Road, contrary to UDP Policies D1, D4, H6 and SPG3.

12.2 The design of the proposed dwelling house is bland. The development has failed to take into account local character and distinctiveness in its overall design approach. The proposals would be contrary to UDP Policies D1, D7, D8, D9 and SPG3.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

1. The proposed detached bungalow would result in a form of over-development of this site, leading to a development less spacious and out of character in this setting with consequent adverse effect on existing residential amenity. The introduction of the building would not be in keeping with the existing density, form and layout of the established pattern of development in the street/locality. The proposals would therefore dilute local distinctiveness contrary to UDP polices: D1, D4, D8, D9, H6 & SPG3.

2. The design of the dwelling house is bland and indistinct. The development has failed to take into account local character and distinctiveness in its overall design approach. The proposal fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character of the area. The proposals are considered contrary to UDP polices: D1, D6, D7, D8, D9 and SPG3.

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

Planning Application No: 10/00002/OUT Location 78 Redhouse Road, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387528 300193 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 862m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00642/REM WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 21-Jun-10 TARGET DATE: 20-Sep-10 RECEIVED: 08.06.2010 APP TYPE: Approval of Reserved Matters

SITE: Cricket Ground, Taunton Avenue, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Submission of reserved matters 'Appearance' and 'Landscaping' pursuant to outline planning permission 08/01081/OUT for residential development (49 new dwellings and refurbishment of Springfield Cottage) including public open space.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Bellway Homes Limited (West Midlands) Mr Andy Williams Bellway House Advance Land and Planning Limited Relay Point 6 Stafford Place Relay Drive Shifnal Tamworth Shropshire Staffordshire TF11 9BH B77 5PA

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 This is a reserved matters application for the redevelopment of the former Fordhouses Cricket Club, Taunton Avenue. This application follows the grant of outline planning permission (08/01081/OUT), which allowed for the erection of 49 houses along with the restoration of Springfield Cottage, the creation of on-site public open space and associated highway work.

1.2 In total the site covers an area of approximately two hectares. Half a hectare of this comprises Springfield Cottage and its associated outbuildings and grounds. The remainder of the site is the former ground of Fordhouses Cricket Club.

2. Application details

2.1 This application seeks to approve the reserved matters ‘appearance’ and ‘landscaping’ only. Reserved matters ‘access’, ‘layout’ and ‘scale’ were considered during the determination of the outline application (08/01081/OUT) and are therefore not for consideration during the determination of this submission. This means that only issues relating to the appearance of the buildings and the landscaping of the site are relevant to this application.

3. Planning History

3.1 08/01081/OUT Outline application. Residential redevelopment of cricket ground including area of public open space (49 new dwellings and refurbishment of Springfield Cottage). Granted 1st of April 2010.

4. Constraints

4.1 Mining Areas Tree Preservation Order

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing

5.2 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

D1 Design Quality D6 Townscape and Landscape D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist R7 Open Space Requirements for New Develop. N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N7 Urban Forest H1 Housing H6 Design of Housing Development

Other relevant policies

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance 3 – Residential Development. Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

7. Publicity

7.1 Eight letters of objection have been received with regard to this application. Some of the issues raised relate to the principle of the redevelopment of the site which has already been established. Other issues raised are in regard to the loss of protected trees, the positioning of lampposts, the future maintenance of shared boundaries and drainage.

46 8. Internal consultees

8.1 Transportation Development - There is some concern that the parking bays for plots 26-29 & 36 appear to be only 2.4 x 4.8m. Whilst this is acceptable within a shared parking area it should not be allowed on house frontages. Larger vehicles could overhang the footway and it would be difficult to load/unload bulky objects, wash or maintain vehicles in these bays. The width of the bays also restricts visibility when exiting the parking spaces.

8.2 Tree Officers – The submitted landscape design is in the main satisfactory. However, whilst it is accepted that a number of trees will be lost as a result of the development, no case has been made to justify the loss of those trees in the south-east corner of the site (T28, T29, T30 and part of G08).

9. Legal Implications

9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. [LD/23082010/1]

10. Appraisal

10.1 The main issues are:

• Appearance • Landscaping (including Boundary Treatments and Drainage)

Appearance

10.2 UDP Policy D9 ‘Appearance’ encourages the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials. This is supported by policies D1 ‘Design Quality’, D6 ‘Townscape and Landscape’, HE1 ‘Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness and H6 ‘Housing Development’, which require developments to be of good quality and to have evolved from an understanding of local character and therefore assist in creating a sense of place.

10.3 The architectural form of the proposed houses is traditional (two storeys with pitched roofs and gables) and the architectural detail is more contemporary. The appearance of the proposed houses responds satisfactorily to those of houses which are characteristic of the area.

10.4 The palette of materials chosen for the main elevations has been limited to the use of brick and render. The materials and finishes are intended to give a crisp, contemporary appearance that will clearly distinguish development from its surroundings, whilst at the same time making a contribution to distinctiveness of this locality.

10.5 The proposal is considered to be in accordance with UDP policies D1, D6, D9, HE1 and H6.

Landscaping

10.6 UDP Policy D1 (Design Quality) states that ‘proposals should demonstrate a high standard of design and contribute towards creating a strong sense of place’. This is supported by policies D9 ‘Appearance’ HE1 ‘Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness and H6 ‘Housing Development’, which require the use of good quality materials and for proposals to create a distinctive identity whilst respected and enhancing local character.

10.7 The quality of the landscaping proposal is integral to the success of this scheme. As part of this scheme there are three main areas of landscaping to consider; that which relates to the front gardens of the proposed houses, the central area of open space and the communal garden area in the south-east corner of the site.

10.8 The landscaping proposals for the front gardens are considered to be generally acceptable. However, only some of the proposed driveways are illustrated as being block paved, the others would be tarmac. A higher quality material than tarmac is required. As stated in paragraph 8.1 the width of the drives should be increased. The applicants have been asked to submit amended details.

10.9 Regarding the central area of open space discussions regarding the precise detail of the design are ongoing.

10.10 The third main area of landscaping relates to a communal garden in the south-east of the site. Within this space are a number of protected trees. The submitted landscaping plan shows a number of the trees in this area to be removed. This is despite the submitted tree survey and report suggesting that these trees are in good condition. The reason why the trees are proposed to be removed relates to the proposed drainage arrangements for the site.

10.11 The affect of the drains on the trees is a material consideration in the determination of the landscaping scheme. The applicants have been asked to explain why an alternative drainage provision, which would not harm the trees, is not possible. Without this justification, it is not considered that the removal of the trees is acceptable.

10.12 Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans, reinstating those protected trees in the south-east corner of the site. Or provision of satisfactory justification that it is necessary that those trees are removed; the landscaping proposals are acceptable in accordance with UDP Policies D1, D9, HE1 and H6.

Drainage

10.13 Condition 10 of the outline permission requires details of drainage (within the application site) to be submitted for approval to the Council. The applicants have provided drainage plans pursuant to that condition. The submitted plan has been considered by Severn Trent and the Environment Agency who both consider the arrangements to be acceptable.

10.14 For information, the submitted sewer plans show a proposed sewer continuing through the garden of 55 Milldale Crescent. This is outside of the application site. If the drainage were to be installed by a statutory undertaker, it would constitute permitted development. Alternatively, if the developer chooses to install the drainage, then a planning application would be required.

Boundary Treatments

10.15 A plan illustrating the proposed boundary treatments of the proposed scheme has also been submitted. Clarification is being sought from the applicants regarding the proposed arrangements for the boundaries which are intended to divide the rear gardens of the existing and proposed houses.

48 10.16 In addition, the submitted boundary treatment plan does not propose any definition of the front gardens. It is considered that a clear definition between the public and private realms is necessary and that this cannot be satisfactorily achieved through landscaping alone. It is therefore considered that dwarf walls and railings are necessary for this purpose and also to define ownership, provide defensible space, a sense of enclosure and also a sense of street architecture to help unify the appearance of the scheme. The applicants have been made aware of this issue and an amended plan is awaited.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Whilst the appearance of the proposed houses is largely considered appropriate, the landscaping proposals are not currently considered acceptable. In particular, there is insufficient justification for the loss of the protected trees located in the south-east corner of the site. This contrary to UDP policies, D1, D5, D6, D9, D12 N7.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant permission subject to:

1. Submission of satisfactory amended plans to address those points above including: • Reinstatement of those protected trees in the south-east corner of the site. Or provision of satisfactory justification that it is necessary that those trees are removed; • Definition of front boundary treatment and surfacing of driveways; • Design of central area of open space; • Clarification of ‘shared’ boundary treatment with existing houses; • Enlargement of parking bays for plots 26-29 & 36.

2. Any necessary additional conditions in addition to those attached to outlined permission 08/01081.

Case Officer : Richard Pitt Telephone No : 01902 551674 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 10/00642/REM Location Cricket Ground, Taunton Avenue, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 391830 303666 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 22252m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00598/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 21-May-10 TARGET DATE: 20-Aug-10 RECEIVED: 21.05.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Blakenhall Gardens, Dudley Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing retail units and the erection of 102 dwellings to include 100 houses and two flats and ten commercial retail units.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Ian Hoad Mr James Boulter Keepmoat Homes BM3 Architecture The Waterfront 28 Pickford Street Lakeside Boulevard Digbeth Doncaster Birmingham South Yorkshire B5 5QH DN4 5PL

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is located in Blakenhall approximately 1.5km south of the city centre. It is bounded by Dudley Road to the east, Bromley Street to the north and Chapel Street to the south. To the west is the recently constructed St Luke’s Primary School.

1.2 The site is approximately 3.43 ha in size and roughly rectangular in shape.

1.3 The north east corner of the site is currently utilised and allocated in the UDP as an area of public open space. This area is also covered by mature trees.

1.4 The south east corner of the site is currently occupied by retail units fronting Dudley Road. The remainder of the site is vacant.

1.5 A high rise block of flats, Phoenix Rise, to the west of the site is currently being demolished.

1.6 The primary access to the site is from Bromley Street and Chapel Street, off Dudley Road, with restricted access also available from Haggar Street.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposed scheme would be a residential-led mixed use development, consist of 102 dwellings (100 houses and two flats) and ten commercial units. Nine of the commercial units would have an A1 (shop) use (including a new supermarket of 990.5 square metres) and one unit would have an A5 (hot food take-away) use. Apart from the supermarket, the other nine units would range from 103 to 454 square metres of floor area. The proposed commercial units are intended to accommodate some of the existing businesses which would be displaced by the development.

51 2.2 Of the 100 houses, 46 would have two bedrooms, 42 would have three bedrooms and 12 would have four bedrooms. The two flats would have two bedrooms. 31 of the 102 dwellings (30%) would be affordable, available for rent through Bromford Housing Association.

2.3 The development is proposed in the form of four residential perimeter blocks (Areas A to D) and two retail blocks (Areas E and F). The residential blocks have private rear gardens and rear parking courts within the centre of the blocks. The two flats would have no private outside amenity space. The commercial blocks front onto Dudley Road.

2.4 An area of public open space of 0.32ha would be provided on the western side of the site adjacent to the boundary with St Luke’s school.

2.5 A new road layout would be constructed to serve the new development and link Bromley Street in the north and Chapel Street in the south. There would be no new vehicular access points onto Dudley Road. An 11 metre wide pedestrian area is proposed between the new supermarket and commercial units.

2.6 The proposal includes 73 car parking spaces to service the commercial units and 169 spaces for dwellings, in parking courts or within the curtilage of the houses.

2.7 The commercial units would be between 6.5m and 8.5m in height with a Terracotta rain screen cladding system, aluminium powder coated brise soleil (sun screens) and large glazed openings at ground floor. The dwellings would be constructed of red brick with white render and timber cladding with grey roof tiles.

2.8 Existing mature trees on the Bromley Street side of the site would be removed to accommodate the proposal. A landscaping plan has been submitted which identifies new areas of tree planting.

2.9 Brick walls and railings are proposed around the commercial parking areas and brick walls with piers and feather edge fencing panels between exposed areas of the layout adjacent the public highway. Close boarded fencing at 1.8m high is proposed on the rear boundaries with the parking courts. A 900mm high post and rail fence is proposed to divide the rear garden boundaries.

3. Planning History

3.1 07/01140/FUL - Mixed development comprising erection of 144 new dwellings and 9 commercial units – Withdrawn.

4. Constraints

4.1 Sites and Monuments record entry for Blakenhall Gardens indicating a possibility of archaeology.

5. Relevant policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists

52 AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM14 Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Communities 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 EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP12 Reclamation of Derelict Land H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for new housing H9 Housing Density and Mix H10 Affordable housing N7 The Urban Forest R7 Open Space Requirements for New Development SH4 Integration of Development into Centres SH8 Local Centres

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG13 Transport

5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG3 Residential Development SPG16 Provision of Public Art SPD Affordable Housing

5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

7. Publicity

7.1 No representations received.

53 8. Internal consultees

8.1 Landscape – The proposed fencing in the commercial parking areas is too close to the parking bays; the quality of the replacement landscaping and amenity space should be very high to justify the loss of the large area of open space, the replacement trees in the public realm should be semi mature; the post and rail fence between the gardens is insufficient and tree planting should be included on the Dudley Road frontage and on the pedestrian link between Dudley Road and the internal estate road.

8.2 Planning Policy and Parks & Green Spaces - The proposal falls within a housing renewal site and Policy H10 requires that 30% of the new housing is affordable. The loss of open space would require a financial contribution as compensation in accordance with Policy H8. The size of the proposed open space precludes the accommodation of a play area within the development however, the recently installed play facility on Bromley Street reduces the need for an additional play facility but a financial contribution should be made to improve facilities elsewhere.

8.3 Nature Conservation – The submitted ecological assessment should be updated to include a further bat survey which should be assessed prior to the determination of the application. The development proposals from a nature conservation perspective are poor. An arboriculture report and landscaping details for the open space should be submitted.

8.4 Economic Development – The loss of the existing open space is unfortunate however, the mix of residential and commercial uses is likely to encourage the use of the new units and the proposal is supported.

8.5 Transportation Development – The submitted Transport Assessment contains some inaccuracies which should be amended and resubmitted. Funding will be required from the developer towards a residential travel plan and traffic regulation orders to restrict on street parking during particular hours.

8.6 Visibility splays at main junctions should be provided if front boundary treatments are included and all new roads within the development designed such that a 20mph limit is self policing.

8.7 Parking provision overall for the residential element is slightly more than the recommendation of Policy AM12 however, there are parking pressures in this location from St Luke’s School, the Temple off Baggott Street and the nearby local retail centre which justifies this level of parking. The parking provision for the retail element is marginal and further justification is necessary from the applicant that the level of parking provision for the retail element is acceptable.

8.8 Details of cycle provision and motorcycle parking have been provided. However, the cycle storage for customers should be located closer to the main retail entrance. Funding for the provision of a signed cycle route, linking the development to an existing cycle route on Birmingham New Road, should be provided.

8.9 Swept path analysis is required for fire service vehicles for Road 4.

8.10 The phasing of the scheme suggests that not all of Road 1 would be built in the first phase. This is a concern because if the development is not completed, the majority of traffic would otherwise have to divert past the public open space and round Block D (on a 5m wide road) to reach Chapel Street. Information should be provided how access can be maintained during construction.

54 8.11 A section of Chapel Street opposite plots 46 and 47 should be redesigned, the design of the paved area between Units 4 and 5 and the design of the pedestrian route into the Area F car park should be amended.

8.12 Environmental Services – Further site investigation work should be undertaken paying particular attention to those areas where existing buildings have prevented any intrusive investigations thus far.

8.13 A full scheme of ventilation and where relevant odour control system is required for commercial food units.

8.14 A noise assessment should be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development due to the proximity of residential dwellings to the commercial units. Preliminary traffic noise measurements indicate the Dudley Road frontage is likely to fall within category C of PPG24. Therefore conditions will be required to ensure appropriate noise mitigation measures are provided in the development.

8.15 To prevent disturbance to residents, the times of construction should be limited, there should be restrictions on the hours for delivery and collection and opening hours and operation of plant and machinery.

8.16 Neighbourhood Renewal – Affordable housing is to be provided and discussions are taking place with the developer in respect of the proposed tenure as part of the 30% affordable housing provision. The mix of tenure will be agreed through a Section 106 Agreement.

8.17 Property Services (Estates) and Planning Policy (Retail) – comments awaited.

9. External consultees

9.1 Police – There are concerns about the distance of vehicles parked from dwellings, lack of surveillance to some parking areas, the post and rail fences between the rear gardens and boundary treatments adjacent the public realm should be solid brick walls. Parking areas should be adequately lit with security measures for gates.

9.2 Severn Trent Water Ltd – No objections subject to a condition that drainage details are submitted and approved prior to commencement of the development.

9.3 Centro – More sustainable forms of transport should be promoted as part of this large scale development to include cycle routes and well lit, safe and secure pedestrian routes linking with the public transport network. Centro welcomes the inclusion of a Travel Plan.

9.4 Environment Agency, ABCD - New Deal for Communities and Local Neighbourhood Partnership – comments awaited.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications.

55 10.2 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 92/42/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.

10.3 It should be noted that 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. [LD/23082010/F]

11. Appraisal

11.1 The main issues in respect of the proposed development are:

• Principle of development; • Layout; • Scale; • External Appearance; • Access and Parking; • Landscaping and Trees; • Ecology; • Environmental Protection and Amenity; • Section 106 Agreement and Financial Viability.

Principle of development 11.2 Planning Policy Statement No.3 (PPS3) ‘Housing’ sets the standards for achieving high quality housing. It provides insight into the key characteristics of mixed communities, emphasising the Government’s commitment to providing high quality, affordable, housing and calls for effective re-use of previously developed land.

11.3 UDP policy H9 states that, “the density target for most housing developments will be within the range of 30-50 dwelling per hectare’. Policy H9 ‘housing density and mix’ also requires the provision of a mix of dwelling types on large housing sites sufficient to create a balanced community within the site.

11.4 The Dudley Road/Blackenhall Local Shopping Centre is split into two parts. The proposed development would bring together the current, fragmented parts of the local centre and is considered to be the type of mixed use community encouraged by PPS3 and the UDP. Detailed comments regarding the retail impact of the proposal is awaited from planning policy.

Layout 11.5 Both PPS3 and Planning Policy Statement No.1 (PPS1) – Delivering Sustainable Development, encourage the creation of developments which demonstrate a high quality of design. In particular, PPS1 states that developments should create or reinforce local distinctiveness and that, ‘good design is indivisible from good planning’. In addition, it 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. The creation

56 of high quality, inclusive and sustainable designs is also encouraged by the UDP, particularly policies D1-D14.

11.6 A significant amount of time has been spent prior to and following the submission of the current application to ensure that the quality of the proposal is of a high level.

11.7 UDP policies D4 ‘Urban Grain’ states that, “proposals should respond positively to the established pattern of streets and buildings”. UDP 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”. The general principles of the design, including street and open space network and hierarchy is acceptable. The creation of perimeter blocks not only provides a more efficient use of space, but also a clearer definition of public and private realms, helping to ensure that active frontages are provided to the street and also adjacent to the open space, with private gardens being secured by other private gardens. Houses in corner locations have been designed specifically to provide dual aspect dwellings, whilst ‘focal’ buildings have been used in appropriate locations to terminate vistas and enhance legibility. This is in accordance with UDP policies D4, D5 and D6.

11.8 In order to achieve the proposed layout there are some plots (approximately 20% of the total) which have an overall garden size of below 55 square metres, which is considered to be an appropriate garden size for a small family home (SPG 3). In order to achieve other urban design objectives listed above, it is considered that this is broadly acceptable.

11.9 Five of the houses proposed with below standard garden sizes, would also result in overlooking and loss of privacy to some occupiers. The applicants have therefore been asked to amend the layout to improve the outlook for the future occupiers of these properties.

11.10 The two proposed flats are located above the vehicular accesses to the rear parking courts and would have no outdoor amenity space. This is not normally considered appropriate. However, the site is located on the edge of a local centre with good links to public transport, public open space is proposed on site and there are others nearby, and the creation of these two flats would also allow for the continuation of the built form and utilise the space between two buildings, which are considered to be benefits in urban design terms. Therefore, in this case, the proposed flats are acceptable in accordance with UDP Design policies.

Scale 11.11 The surrounding area is predominantly characterised by two storey buildings and this is reflected in the proposed development where the proposed houses would be two storeys.

11.12 In addition, the commercial units fronting Dudley Road would have the appearance of being two storeys high, although there is no first floor. This is acceptable and would be in accordance with the height and scale of dwellings in the area generally in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8.

External Appearance 11.13 UDP policy D9 which requires that buildings should make a positive contribution through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials. The proposed commercial units would have an external finish of Terracotta rain screen cladding, aluminium powder coated brise soleil (sun screens) and large glazed openings at ground floor. The architectural design is contemporary but using traditional materials which is considered acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy D9. The residential dwellings would have a more traditional appearance and be

57 constructed of red brick with white render/timber cladding with grey roof tiles. This palette of materials is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy D9.

11.14 A post and rail fence is proposed between gardens of the houses. This is unacceptable in terms of achieving appropriate levels of security and privacy and should be 1.8m high close boarded fencing in accordance with SPG3 ‘Residential Development’. The brick piers with fence panels is not robust enough adjacent to the public realm and should be solid brick. There should be a clear distinction between the private and public realm which is reinforced by front boundary treatments but this has not been provided. Details of the front boundary treatment, of those eight houses which front Dudley Road, is considered necessary in order to ensure there is no parking on the frontage which is characteristic of this location. Clarification is also required for boundary treatments in respect of the public open space. The architect has been asked to amend the submitted boundary treatments accordingly and subject to satisfactory amended plans the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy D5.

Access and Parking 11.15 The proposed parking provision for the residential development is slightly above the requirements of UDP policy AM12 however, there are parking pressures in this location from St Luke’s School, the Temple off Baggott Street and the nearby local retail centre which justifies this level of parking. The parking provision for the retail element is marginal and additional supporting information has been requested from the applicant to demonstrate that the level of parking provision is acceptable.

11.16 Traffic Regulation Orders will be required to control the peak time parking and to limit speed to no more than 20mph. This is essential to the acceptability of the development in transportation terms and should be funded by the developer through a Section 106 Agreement.

11.17 The submitted Travel Plan would benefit from a thorough review rather than being updated. The applicant has been asked to revise the submitted travel plan. The commitment in the Travel Plan to financially contribute towards travel plan monitoring, appointment of a travel plan co-ordinator and travel passes/bike purchase/ car club is welcome however these elements may have to be waived if the development is considered not to be financially viable. The Travel Plan can be secured through the Section 106 Agreement.

11.18 UDP policy AM9 which requires that all new development should provide attractive, direct, safe and convenient routes for pedestrians. There would be a potential conflict of interest between pedestrians using the pedestrian walkway between retail units 4 and 5 and vehicles parking in Area G. The layout could be amended to ensure there is a clear distinction between pedestrian areas and part of the area where vehicles may be reversing. This can be satisfactorily achieved by relocating the bollards and the use of different surface materials to separate the two areas and the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy. This can be required as part of the submission of landscaping proposals for the scheme.

11.19 Motorcycle parking has now been provided and cycle parking for customers will be relocated closer to the retail entrances. Staff cycle parking can be located within the rear of the buildings, adjacent to the bin store and accessed from the rear parking and servicing area. Amended plans are awaited and, if considered satisfactory, would be in accordance with UDP planning policy AM10.

58 11.20 Other revisions required to the layout include an increase in the reversing aisle to 6m for the rear parking court on Area D. The footway adjacent to retail unit 10 should be revised to encourage pedestrian use and link to the rear parking area of Area F. Trees in the rear parking areas for the retail units should not interfere with the movement of vehicles within the parking area. A front boundary treatment is necessary for the proposed houses on Dudley Road to prevent access and parking on front gardens. A swept path analysis should be submitted for a fire service vehicle for New Road 4.

11.21 The architect has been asked to amend the proposed layout to accommodate the requests above. Subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans, the proposal would accord with UDP policies AM9, AM10 and AM12.

Landscaping and Trees 11.22 UDP policy N7 seeks to preserve, enhance and extend the urban forest. The proposal would involve the removal of a significant number of trees although an arboriculture report has not been submitted. An aboricultural report is considered necessary in order to assess the quality of those trees which are being lost and to inform what scope there is to plant replacement trees within the proposed landscaping proposals. Subject to satisfactory amended plans and the submission of an aboricultural report, the proposal is considered to be broadly in accordance with UDP policies N5, N7, D6 and D12

Ecology 11.23 Circular 06/2005 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 an 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. The submitted ecological survey is out of date and further bat information and re-inspection of the site, buildings and trees is required before planning permission can be granted.

11.24 The applicant has been asked to provide a dawn and dusk bat survey and re-inspect the existing buildings and trees and provide a relevant current appraisal of the likely impact of the development on protected species. The results are expected in due course. Following the submission of the survey information and satisfactory details of any appropriate mitigation measures the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy N9.

Environmental Protection and Amenity 11.25 An acoustic survey and mitigation measures for dwellings fronting Dudley Road will be required because of noise from road traffic. This can be required by condition.

11.26 A site investigation report and mitigation measures can be required by condition.

11.27 The proposal has the potential for noise and disturbance to residents and therefore hours of operation during construction should be restricted and also hours of deliveries and collections should be restricted through planning condition. The proposed hot food takeaway (A5) should also have restricted hours of opening to ensure the protection of residents from noise and disturbance from vehicles into the evening.

Section 106 Agreement and Financial Viability 11.28 In accordance with UDP Policy this development should require the provision of:

(i) 30% of housing to be affordable; (ii) A financial contribution towards the off-site provision or enhancement of recreational open space and play facilities;

59 (iii) A commuted sum for maintenance of on-site recreational open space; (iv) Any necessary highway works; (v) A travel plan; (vi) Targeted recruitment and training; (vii) Submission of details of a piece of work, or works of public art, in accordance with the SPG on public art; (viii) Establishment of a management company for maintenance of communal and public areas which are not adopted by the local authority. (ix) Funding of a cycle link between the development and existing cycle route on Birmingham Road.

11.29 These requirements would comply with the provisions of Circular 5/2005, Planning Obligations. The applicants have stated that the impact of the financial position and challenging market conditions have led to a need to seek to reduce costs. They are therefore seeking the waiving of S106 contributions. They are not seeking any reduction in the 30% affordable housing contribution.

11.30 UDP policy IMR2 ‘planning obligations’ states that the council will seek to negotiate with developers to enable development to proceed and/or secure the proper planning of the development and of the area. It then states that in determining the scale of benefits, regard will be had to, amongst other things, the economic viability of the scheme and any exceptional costs associated with the development.

11.31 In addition, on the 11th of November 2009, Cabinet endorsed a recommendation that a flexible and pro-active approach to planning obligations is taken, in response to the economic downturn.

11.32 In order to justify the reduction or waiving of the normal S106 requirements the applicants have submitted a financial viability appraisal (FVA) which is currently being considered by the District Valuer (DV). Should the proposed scheme be financially unviable, then it considered that a flexible approach can be agreed, but that this should be restricted to three years from the date of this Committee. Following that time period, it will be expected that those obligations outlined in paragraph 11.27, will be required, unless a further relaxation can be justified on financial viability grounds at that time.

11.33 In order to ensure that the scheme remains acceptable in planning terms, the planning agreement for this site should, as a minimum, ensure the following works which are considered to be absolutely essential:

• 30% affordable housing; • Necessary highway works (including traffic regulation orders); • Management company for the maintenance of communal and public areas which are not adopted by the local authority; • Travel plan; • Targeted recruitment and training.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The proposal would represent a vital part of the regeneration of Blakenhall Gardens, providing a mix of housing to cater for local needs and retail development to bring together the parts of the existing local centre and contribute towards its vitality and viability as a local centre.

60 12.2 The general principles and layout of the proposal are considered appropriate. The proposal would help provide enclosure, defensible space, definition of public and private realms and a layout with secure private amenity space. The residential amenities of existing residents, in terms of outlook, privacy and daylight, are preserved. It is considered that the amenity of the future occupiers of the scheme will be acceptable.

12.3 It is considered that the relaxation of some of the normal S106 requirements is justified in order to bring forward the early development of the site. On that basis it is considered that the recommendation would be in accordance with UDP policy IMR2, which states that in determining the nature and scale of benefits, regard may be had to the economic viability of the proposed development.

12.4 Overall, subject to the resolution of outstanding matters, none of which are particularly significant or difficult to resolve, it is considered that the proposed scheme would be a good use of previously developed land and would create a place with a distinct, positive identity and an attractive public realm. The proposal is also one which would create jobs during and after construction.

12.5 For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the provisions of the development plan, in particular UDP policies D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D7, D8, D9, D10, D11, AM1, AM9, AM10, AM12, N7, H9, H10 and SH8.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Delegated authority to the Director of Regeneration and Environment to grant, subject to:

1. Receipt of satisfactory amended layout plan and resolution of outstanding matters. Including: • Aboricultural report; • Addendum to the Transport Assessment; • Revised ecological report; • Consultation response from Environment Agency; • Revisions to Layout to include: o Transport revisions; o Revise layout for Site B and plots 69, 70, 78, 79 and plot 91 to increase garden size and prevent overlooking; o Layout of POS showing entrances and pedestrian linkages; o Boundary Treatments.

2. Negotiation and completion of a S106 to include (subject to confirmation from the District Valuer that the proposed scheme is, in the current market, considered to be unviable): (i) 30% affordable housing in accordance with a phasing plan and within an agreed timeframe; (ii) Necessary highway works (including traffic regulation orders) (iii) Management company for the maintenance of communal and public areas which are not adopted by the local authority, (iv) Travel Plan (v) A requirement that following three years from the date of this committee those obligations, outlined in paragraph 11.27 are required unless a further relaxation can be justified on financial viability grounds at that time.

61 3. Any necessary conditions to include: • Boundary treatments; • Lighting scheme; • Details of security gates; • Drainage details; • Further site investigation measures; • Acoustic survey and mitigation; • Submission of materials; • Large scale architectural details; • Hours of operation for delivery; • Hours of operation during construction; • Exterior to be completed prior to occupation; • Landscaping; • Ventilation details; • Tree protection measures during construction; • Hours of opening for A5 use; • Travel Plan; • No flues, vents, meter boxes etc.; • No external shutters or blocking of shop windows; • Phasing plan; • Details of levels.

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

Planning Application No: 10/00598/FUL Location Blakenhall Gardens, Dudley Road, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 391563 297084 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 34362m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 09/01238/FUL WARD: Park DATE: 17-Dec-09 TARGET DATE: 18-Mar-10 RECEIVED: 17.12.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: St Peters Collegiate Church Of England School, Compton Park, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of a temporary classroom building.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Mike Cook Mr Mark Hankinson St Peters Collegiate Church Of England Anglo Holt Construction Ltd School 150 Birmingham Road Compton Park West Bromwich Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9DU B70 6QT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 St Peters Collegiate Church of England School is situated approximately two miles to the south-west of the City Centre.

1.2 The site is an irregular shape and covers an area of approximately one hectare.

1.3 Housing is adjacent to the northern boundary of the site, Wolverhampton Girls High School is to the east, the City of Wolverhampton College is to the south and Wolverhampton Wanderers Football Club Training Ground and St Edmunds Roman Catholic School is to the west.

1.4 The Unitary Development Plan (UDP) identifies the school as a Major Developed Site (MDS) within the Green Belt.

1.5 The site includes a large complex of buildings and playing fields, with vehicular access off a shared access road which runs north from Compton Road. It has a landscaped frontage onto the access road. The main buildings are predominately two and three storeys and constructed from brick and glazing.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application seeks permission to retain the single storey prefabricated modular building for a temporary period of three years.

2.2 The building is sited on the schools landscaped frontage adjacent to the access road that runs north of Compton Road.

64 2.3 The building forms a rectangular shape and has a flat roof. The walls and roof are constructed from grey coated steel. It is 18 metres long, 12 metres wide and three metres high.

2.4 There are two study rooms and three offices, comprising 220 square metres of floor space and a large communal room currently occupied by the sixth form.

2.5 The building was erected without permission approximately one year ago.

2.6 In seeking to justify the retention of the building the applicant states that the school has a need for the development and that it would only be in situ for a temporary period of time after which it would be removed and replaced by a permanent facility as part of the Building Schools for the Future Programme (BSF).

2.7 The applicant states that the need for the development has arisen because the space formerly used by the sixth form was converted for use as an Arts facility. They say that the only suitable space at the school site that is able to accommodate the sixth form is the modular building.

2.8 The applicants consider that the position of the building adjacent to an unclassified road means that it does not pose an unsightly aspect to neighbours. They state that there is no other available land at the school site upon which the modular building could be sited and that the cost of moving it from its current position would be prohibitive in terms of cost and amenity.

2.9 The applicants also state that the school is admitting an additional ten students with ‘special educational needs’ in September 2010. Without the modular building they will not have the space to accommodate the additional students.

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 09/00130/FUL – Proposed installation of a mezzanine floor within existing sports hall and the erection of a first floor link corridor and two access ramps. Granted 04.06.2009.

4. Constraints

4.1 Green Belt

5. Relevant Policies

65 EP1 Pollution Control EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N7 The Urban Forest HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area G1 Protection of the Green Belt G2 Control of Development in the Green Belt G3 Control of Development Conspicuous from the Green Belt G4 Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt G5 Access to the Green Belt C4 Education 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 IMR2 Planning Obligations

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green Belts PPS5 Planning for the Historic Environment PPS10 Planning For Sustainable Waste Management PPG13 Transport PPG24 Planning and Noise

5.3 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

7. Publicity

7.1 No representations received.

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Planning Policy has objected for the reason that the building is not in keeping with the purposes of the Green Belt and its openness, and results in material harm to its character and appearance, contrary to PPG 2.

8.2 Transportation, Environmental Services, Building Schools for the Future, Trees, Access and Historic Environment – No objection.

66 8.3 Children and Young People – Comments awaited.

9. External Consultees

9.1 Police have no objections.

9.2 Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society – Comments awaited.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. [LD/23082010/C].

11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues for consideration in this particular case are:

• Green Belt Policy; • Education Use; • Layout; • Architectural Appearance; • Other Matters.

Green Belt Policy 11.2 The site is located within the Green Belt. Government Planning Policy Guidance note no.2 – “Green Belts” (PPG2) sets out a general presumption against “inappropriate development” in the Green Belt. Such development should not be approved, except in “very special circumstances”.

11.3 The construction of new buildings inside a Green Belt is “inappropriate development” as defined by PPG2 unless it is for the following purposes:

(i) Agriculture and forestry; (ii) Essential facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, for cemeteries, and for other uses of land which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it; (iii) Limited extension, alteration or replacement of existing dwellings; (iv) Limited infilling in existing villages, and limited affordable housing for local community needs under development plan policies according with PPG3; or (v) Limited infilling or redevelopment of major existing developed sites.

11.4 The site is located within a Major Developed Site (MDS) as identified by the UDP. As such limited infilling or redevelopment is, in principle, permissible, subject to meeting the following criteria:

(i) Have no greater impact than the existing development on the openness of the Green Belt and the purposes of including land in it, and where possible have less; (ii) Contribute to the achievement of the objectives for the use of land in Green Belts; (iii) Not exceed the height of the existing buildings; and (iv) Not occupy a larger area of the site than the existing buildings (unless it would achieve a reduction in height which would benefit visual amenity).

11.5 The proposed development is located within the MDS and does not exceed the height of the existing buildings or significantly increase the footprint of built development at the school site.

11.6 However, the new building is prominently sited on the landscaped and open school frontage, set forward of the existing buildings and adjacent to the street. It would therefore have a greater impact than existing development and detrimentally affect the openness of the Green Belt and conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt. The retention of the building in its current location would therefore be contrary to PPG2, and would only be in accordance with PPG 2 if “very special circumstances” are demonstrated.

11.7 The applicant has submitted information that they consider constitutes “very special circumstances” to allow for the temporary retention of the modular building at this location. These are as follows:

(i) There is a need for the development; (ii) The building would only be provided on a temporary three year period after which it would be removed; and (iii) The BSF programme includes proposals for the provision of a permanent sixth form facility.

11.8 There is no reason to doubt the need for the development or that it would benefit the school. However, guidance as to what constitutes “very special circumstances” has been established over many years by planning case law. In summary, the presumption is strongly against development that affects, even incrementally, the openness of the Green Belt and “very special circumstances” are those cases which are exceptional. “Very special circumstances” should not routinely be applied to all schools in the Green Belt. In this case, the modular building is sited in a prominent position at the front of the site. The retention of the building in its current location would therefore be contrary to PPG2 and the policies of the UDP, including G1, G2, G3 and G4.

Education Use 11.9 UDP policy C4 ‘Education Facilities’ states that development which would lead to the improvement of education facilities in the City will be supported. The retention of this building for use as teaching accommodation would be in accordance with UDP policy C4.

Layout 11.10 UDP policy D4 ‘Urban Grain’ states that all development proposals should respond positively to the established pattern of streets, buildings, plot sizes, spatial character and building lines of which they form a part.

11.11 The building is positioned forward of the main buildings and on the spacious and landscaped school frontage. In this context, the building appears visually obtrusive and does not integrate positively with the existing buildings and spaces of which it forms a part, contrary to UDP policies D1 and D4.

Architectural Appearance 11.12 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.

11.13 In its prominent position, the building elevations lack visual interest and the grey steel walls are inappropriate. Overall the development appears bland and visually obtrusive in the street scene, contrary to UDP policies D1 and D9.

68 Other Matters 11.14 The applicant has referred to a single storey prefabricated building at St Edmunds Roman Catholic School. That building was granted a temporary permission which expires in 2014. The applicants state that it sets a precedent for allowing the retention of the modular building at the application site. However, it is clear that it does not set a precedent. All cases are assessed on their individual merits. The building at St Edmunds School is materially very different as it is set well back from the street, between the main hall and the sports hall, in a far less visually sensitive position than that building at the application site. As such it is considered that it does not unacceptably result in material harm to the character and appearance of the area. As such it would meet the criteria of an appropriate development within a Major Developed Site in the Green Belt.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The retention of the development would benefit the school and the development plan supports the improvement of educational facilities. However, the proposed development is not in keeping with the purposes of the Green Belt and its openness, and results in material harm to its character and appearance, contrary to PPG2 and UDP policies G1, G2, G3 and G4.

12.2 The design and appearance of the modular building is inappropriate and the development does not take the opportunities for improving the character and appearance of the area and the way that it functions. It is therefore contrary to UDP policies D1, D6, D7, D8 and D9.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Refuse for the following reasons:

1. The position and appearance of the development is detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt, contrary to PPG2 and UDP policies G1 ‘Protection of the Green Belt’ and G2 ‘Control of Development in the Green Belt’.

2. The visual appearance and architecture of the modular building does not demonstrate a high standard of design, is detrimental to the character and appearance of the surrounding locality and does not take the opportunities for improving and enhancing the character and appearance of the area, contrary to guidance contained within PPS1 and UDP policies D1 ‘Design Quality’, D6 ‘Townscape and Landscape’ and D9 ‘Appearance’.

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

Planning Application No: 09/01238/FUL Location St Peters Collegiate Church Of England School, Compton Park, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 389394 299329 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 34058m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00180/FUL WARD: East Park DATE: 04-Jun-10 TARGET DATE: 03-Sep-10 RECEIVED: 15.02.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Middleton Business Park, 655 Willenhall Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of four storey office building, external alterations to existing commercial building and reconfiguration of parking and servicing areas.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Middleton Food Products Ltd And Middleton Mr M J Meeson Paper Company Ltd mjmriba Middleton Business Park Craig-Y-Don West 655 Willenhall Road Station Road Wolverhampton Aberdovey WV13 3LH Gwynedd Wales LL35 0NR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 Middleton Trading Estate is located approximately 3 miles to the east of the City Centre.

1.2 The Trading Estate is a roughly rectangular shape and covers an area of 0.45 hectares. It is occupied by Middleton Food Products Ltd and Middleton Paper Company Ltd.

1.3 A rail line runs along the northern boundary of the Trading Estate, the A454 Willenhall Road is to the south and Noose Lane is to the west. A service road is to the east and the applicants refer to this as Cedar Road, but historically it was known as Primrose Street.

1.4 The area to the north of Willenhall Road is predominately light industrial but to the south residential properties predominate. Most of the light industrial units are single storey, creating a relatively open character. The landscaped central reservation along Willenhall Road, together with the nearby trees, softens the utilitarian appearance of the commercial units.

1.5 The Trading Estate itself is characterised by a mixture of small to medium light industrial buildings set either side of a service road which runs through the centre of the site. Vehicular access is from Noose Lane and Willenhall Road. The buildings are of little architectural quality but the majority are functional and appropriate for their use. The exception being a building to the south of the site which has been partly demolished following a fire.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application seeks permission for the erection of a four storey office building and a single storey extension to an existing light industrial building, including the reconfiguration of vehicle parking and servicing areas.

2.2 The new development would be used in association with the existing paper and food production businesses at the site.

2.3 The office building would replace a part of an existing light industrial building that was damaged in a fire. That part of the building that remains fit for purpose is to be retained and extended.

2.4 The office building would be attached to the extended light industrial building and positioned such that it would turn the street corner between Willenhall Road and Noose Lane.

2.5 It would be a contemporary design, predominately constructed from glazed panels and metal cladding.

2.6 Staff facilities, including a canteen and WC, would be at ground floor and the offices would be on the upper floors.

2.7 The single storey extension would have a barrel shaped roof and be constructed from brickwork and steel panels. A plastic membrane would be used for the roof.

2.8 The re-configured parking and servicing areas would include increased parking provision. There would be 104 car parking spaces, thirteen HGV spaces, four motorcycle spaces and four disabled parking spaces. Cycle parking is also proposed. The vehicular access and internal road layout would be unchanged.

2.9 It is anticipated that the development will create eleven additional jobs at the Trading Estate.

3. Recent Relevant Planning History

3.1 None

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Landfill Gas Zones Mining Areas Flood Risk

5. Relevant policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm (Public Space / Private Space)

72 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 N7 The Urban Forest B4 Expansion of Existing Businesses B5 Design Standards for Employment Sites B6 Offices B10 Redevelopment of Business Land and Premises B11 Ancillary Uses in Employment Areas and Premises 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 Planning Obligations

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS4 Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG13 Transport PPS24 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and Noise PPS25 Development and Flood Risk

5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG 1 Business, Industrial and Warehousing Development SPG16 The Provision of Public Art

5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

7. Publicity

7.2 One letter of support has been received welcoming the demolition of the existing buildings which are described as an eyesore.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions relating to cycle parking and the production of a Travel Plan.

8.2 Environmental Services – No objection subject to conditions relating to contaminated land remediation, external lighting and hours of construction.

8.3 Economic Development – No objection.

8.4 Access Team – Make detailed Building Regulation comments, in relation to the internal layout of the building.

8.5 Property Services (Estates) – No objection.

8.6 Building Control – No objection.

8.7 Landscape – Comments awaited.

9. External consultees

9.1 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.

9.2 National Grid Plc – No objection but request that the applicant contact National Grid should they intend to proceed with the works due to the proximity of a National Grid installation.

9.3 Police – No objection.

9.4 Fire Service – No objection.

9.5 Walsall MBC and Environment Agency – Comments awaited.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications.

10.2 Particular legal implications text will be added by legal. [LD/18082010/O].

74 11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues for consideration in this particular case are:

• Principle of Development • Design Quality • Layout • Scale and Massing • Architectural Appearance • Boundary Treatments • Access and Parking • Impact on Residential Amenity • Flood Risk

Principle of Development 11.2 UDP policy B6 ‘Offices’ states that Wolverhampton City Centre will be the primary location for major new office development proposals. Office development of an appropriate scale will also be encouraged in Bilston Town and Wednesfield Village Centres, District Centres and Local Centres and other specific locations. Elsewhere, office development will only be permitted where it is ancillary to an existing or proposed production or storage / distribution use or where a need has been identified and a sequential approach to site selection has shown that the proposed location is the sequentially preferred location.

11.3 The proposed office use would be ancillary to the existing production and distribution uses at the Trading Estate and therefore the principle of the office use is acceptable and complies with UDP policy B6.

Design Quality 11.4 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.

11.5 This is supported by UDP policy D1 ‘Design Quality’ of the adopted UDP which encourages all new development to be of a high quality design which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place”.

11.6 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 11.7 The layout of the development scheme, from an urban design perspective is good and in accordance with UDP policy D1.

11.8 The parallel alignment of the new built development to the street frontages and the location of the parking and servicing areas to the rear is appropriate in urban design terms. This layout would be in keeping with the spatial pattern and visual appearance of existing development and be in accordance with UDP policy D1.

Scale and Massing 11.9 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.

75 11.10 The four storey office building and single storey extension would relate positively to the heights and massing of surrounding development. The building heights would satisfactorily emphasise the prominence and importance of the street frontage and corner positions, and be in accordance with UDP policies D7 and D8.

Architectural Appearance 11.11 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.

11.12 The composition, proportion and articulation of the architectural elements is generally of a high standard of design and would result in a development that will make a positive contribution to the locality and be in accordance with UDP policy D9.

11.13 However, the ground floor windows of the office building are too small. The roof material for the extension is a plastic membrane and without batten profiles this would appear unattractive. The agent has been requested to submit amended details that address these matters.

Boundary Treatments 11.14 UDP policies D9 ‘Appearance’ and D10 ‘Community Safety’ require the provision of attractive and robust fencing, walls, railings and other treatments to reinforce boundaries and deter intruders. The proposed walls and railings are acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies D9 and D10.

Access and Parking 11.15 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.

11.16 The layout includes an adequate number of vehicle parking spaces, disabled parking bays and satisfactory visibility splays. The cycle parking provision is acceptable subject to the detailed design which can be conditioned. The proposals are in accordance with UDP policy AM1.

Impact on Residential Amenity 11.17 UDP policy D8 ‘Scale-Massing’ states that the massing of a development proposal should not adversely affect peoples’ amenities in respect of immediate outlook, loss of sunlight/daylight and privacy.

11.18 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 safety or amenity of users of the land or surrounding areas; or quality and enjoyment of the environment.

11.19 The impact of the proposed development on the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby dwellings would be acceptable. The size and massing of the new development would relate positively to the surrounding context and there would be no loss of immediate outlook, loss of sunlight/daylight or privacy. The nearest residential properties, on the opposite side of Willenhall Road, are approximately 20 metres from the application site. Those houses would be separated from the site by the dual carriageway and the landscaped central reservation. There would be no material effect on noise, dust, smell or vibration levels presently experienced by residents of those houses. The proposals are therefore in accordance with UDP policies D8 and EP1.

76 Flood Risk 11.20 A part of the application site is located within Flood Risk Zone 3, the highest level of risk. The application is not supported by a Flood Risk Assessment. The Environment Agency has been consulted and a response is awaited.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The proposed office use is acceptable and in accordance with UDP policy B6.

12.2 The layout of development and the scale and massing of the buildings are appropriate and in accordance with UDP policies D1, D4, D6, D7, D8.

12.3 The development generally demonstrates a high standard of architectural design and is in accordance with UDP policy D9. However, there are outstanding matters relating to the unacceptable size of the ground floor windows and the roof design.

12.4 The impact upon residential amenity is acceptable and the proposal complies with UDP policies D8 and EP1.

12.5 The parking and servicing arrangements are acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies AM1, AM12 and AM15.

12.6 Taking all matters into account, the development scheme is broadly acceptable and in accordance with UDP policies. However, there remain outstanding matters relating to: (i) Size of ground floor windows; (ii) Roof design; (iii) Flood Risk.

12.7 Subject to no overriding objections from outstanding consultees, the resolution of outstanding matters as stated at paragraph 12.6, the proposed development would, when completed, create a place with a distinct and positive identity, allow for the expansion of existing businesses on the site, would create jobs and would be in accordance with the Development Plan.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant subject to:

1. No overriding objections from outstanding consultees; 2. Resolution of outstanding matters as stated at paragraph 12.6; 3. Any necessary conditions to include: • Materials • Large scale architectural details • Refuse storage • Cycle parking and motorcycle parking • Landscaping scheme • Drainage • Boundary treatments • Hard-surfacing • External lighting • Parking to be provided and retained • Building and site security • Exterior of buildings to be completed in accordance with the approved plans and details prior to occupation • Contaminated land remediation

77 • Hours of construction • Levels • No flues, vents, meter boxes, aerials etc without prior approval.

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

Planning Application No: 10/00180/FUL Location Middleton Business Park, 655 Willenhall Road, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 395164 298455 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 19260m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00636/FUL WARD: Graiseley DATE: 07-Jun-10 TARGET DATE: 02-Aug-10 RECEIVED: 07.06.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Orchard House Nursing Home, 16-18 Riley Crescent, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Demolition of 18a Riley Crescent and proposed extensions of a one/two/three storey to form 25 bed spaces and communal facilities.

APPLICANT: AGENT: First Care Services Mr A Hope 16-18 Riley Crescent Anthony Hope MCIAT Wolverhampton 33 Dark Lane WV3 7DS Kinver Staffordshire DY7 6JB

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is located in Penn Fields Conservation Area and consists of an existing residential care home, which occupies 16-18 Riley Crescent, and 18a which is a large 1930s detached dwelling located adjacent to the care home to the north-west.

1.2 The site is accessed via Riley Crescent, a predominantly residential road with sharp bends that forms a loop off Coalway Road.

1.3 The main entrance to the building is gained through a small side extension to the south-east elevation. The entrance faces on to the existing car park which serves approximately seven vehicles. There is a secondary access to a loading/refuse area to the south-west of the site and an adjacent drive to 18a Riley Crescent, which is separated from this loading area by an existing fence.

1.4 There are five trees protected by tree preservation orders located at the far end of the existing car park.

1.5 To the north-west of the application site is 20 Riley Crescent, a detached two storey dwelling, which is a locally listed building.

1.6 To the east of the application site is the Sisters of Mercy Convent set in large gardens. Immediately adjacent to the south-east elevation of the application building is 5 Poplar Road. This is a single-aspect dwelling that, historically, appears to have been formed part of 16 Riley Crescent. It is now a stand-alone dwelling that is accessed via a long driveway from Poplar Road.

1.7 To the west are detached residential dwellings of differing styles and designs.

80 1.8 Historically, the dwellings at both 16 and 18 Riley Crescent were separate and situated forward of the dwelling at 18a. No. 18 has a long, narrow rear extension. The dwelling at 16 has previously been extended to its north-west elevation to sit adjacent to 18a Riley Crescent.

1.9 Planning permission was granted at 16-18 Riley Crescent for a residential nursing home for the elderly in 1986, with an extension to include the adjacent building in 1988.

1.10 The ground levels within the application site slope down slightly towards the north- west. Outside the application site, the levels rise towards the north-east.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is for full planning consent for one, two and three storey extensions to the existing buildings to the side and the rear.

2.2 The dwelling at 18a Riley Crescent would be demolished, which would not require planning permission. However, as the volume of this dwelling is likely to be more than 115m3 then conservation area consent would be required. The agent has been made aware of this.

2.3 It is proposed that the existing dwelling at 18a Riley Crescent would be replaced by a three storey extension to the nursing home at 16-18. There would also be a single storey rear projection to provide a lounge and dining area. At the existing nursing home (16-18) there would be a long, narrow two storey extension in place of the existing single storey rear projection.

2.4 Presently there are 38 residents. The proposal would provide an additional 12 spaces for residents at the care home, as a number of the existing double-occupancy rooms would become single-occupancy, the majority with en-suite facilities. This would make a total of 50 residents.

2.5 There are currently 35 full time employees and four part time. This would increase to 44 full time and six part time staff.

2.6 There are currently seven car parking spaces in the on-site car park, this would increase to a total of 14 spaces. Two of these would be located on an existing grassed area at the south of the application site. There would be two disabled bays as well as motorcycle and cycle parking included in this area. Bin storage would also be located behind this parking area.

2.7 The main site entrance would be relocated approximately 7m south of the existing on Riley Crescent to facilitate extra parking provision. The existing informal loading/refuse area would be made in to a more formal pull-in area for ambulances, with a hatched ‘no parking’ area demarcated.

2.8 Residents would be accommodated in single private rooms, the majority of which would have en-suite facilities.

2.9 To the rear of the residential area is a proposed outdoor amenity area comprising both a grassed area and more formal landscaped courtyard.

81 3. Planning History

3.1 09/00448/FUL - one/two/three storey extensions to form 27 additional bed spaces and communal facilities - refused 21.07.2009.

4. Constraints

4.1 Penn Fields Conservation Area: Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Penn & Goldthorn Park Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00335/TPO Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00334/TPO

5. Relevant Policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D3 - Urban Structure D4 - Urban Grain D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance AM1 - Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 - Provision for Pedestrians AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security H1 – Housing H6 – Housing Development H12 - Residential Care Homes 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 HE6 – Demolition of Building Structures in a Conservation Area HE19- Development Affecting a local listed Buildings N1 - Promotion of Nature Conservation N7 - The Urban Forest

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 – Housing (June 2010) PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment

5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG3 - Residential Development

5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

82 6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

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 objections have been received, objecting on the following grounds:

(i) Overdevelopment; (ii) Out of keeping with the residential nature of the area; (iii) Loss of privacy; (iv) Increase in traffic; (v) Undermine Conservation Area by increasing amount of housing; (vi) Reduction in green open space. (vii)

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Environmental Services – no objections subject to a condition to limit operational hours for deliveries and waste collection, and a condition to require details of a ventilation and odour control system.

8.2 FAO Access Team - the disabled person’s parking bays need the national disability logo’s on the ground and 1.2m access strips at the rear as well as at the side of the bays. There should also be signs off the ground to each bay. Access comments also include comments on the internal layout of the building.

8.3 Building Control – no objections.

8.4 Adults and Communities – comments awaited.

8.5 Tree Officers – no objections subject to condition requiring car parking spaces adjacent to protected trees to be constructed from the proposed block paving via a suitable no dig construction.

8.6 Transportation Development – no objections subject to conditions relating to new access position to be agreed prior to construction, visibility splays, suitable cycle storage (that proposed is unsatisfactory), bollards to separate ‘pull in point’ from pedestrian walkway and direct pedestrian route from main entrance to road.

8.7 Historic Environment Team – no objections subject to a condition requiring submission of materials for agreement.

9. External Consultees

Wolverhampton History And Heritage Society – no comments received.

83 10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications [10/23082010/M]

11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues to consider are:

• Design Quality • Layout • Scale • Architectural Appearance • Access and Parking • Impact on Neighbours’ Amenities • Boundary Treatments • Impact on TPO trees

Design Quality 11.2 Local Distinctiveness is a key aspect of Sustainable Development. The Government has adopted the CABE document ‘By Design’ as having the status of Planning Policy Guidance, to be followed in the preparation and determination of planning applications. The document requires new development to be designed with its context in mind and to respect or enhance the local distinctiveness of the area. It defines ‘Local Distinctiveness’ as, “the positive features of a place and its communities which contribute to its special character and sense of place”.

11.3 Planning Policy Statement No.1 ‘Delivering Sustainable Development’ states 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.

11.4 This is supported by Wolverhampton City Council’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) policy D1 – ‘Design Quality’ which encourages all new development to be of a high quality, contributing to “creating a strong sense of place”. It states that “poor and mediocre design will be unacceptable”.

11.5 More specifically in relation to the proposed extension of the existing residential 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’.

11.6 In order to determine whether the proposal has achieved a sufficient high-quality design, which preserves and enhances its conservation area setting and respects its surroundings, the adjacent locally listed building and local distinctiveness, it is necessary to consider its layout, scale and architectural appearance. These are considered in the following paragraphs.

Layout 11.7 UDP policies D6 and HE5 require proposals to reinforce local character within the conservation area. Policies D1 and D4 state that proposals should demonstrate a high standard of design, evolved from an understanding of local distinctiveness and respond positively to the established pattern of streets and buildings, including, spatial character and building lines.

11.8 The proposed extension to the north-west would replace an existing two storey dwelling with a three storey extension to the existing building - although it would be hipped back with the two-storey element located adjacent to the dwelling at 20 Riley Crescent. At the front the extension would be sited approximately 2.3m forward of the building it is to replace, although this would be approximately 5.1m behind the building line of 16-18. The proposed building line is acceptable in this respect.

11.9 The private amenity area proposed is approximately 647m2. The space would be a usable shape, with a hard landscaped area located between the proposed lounge and the existing rear projection along the north-east elevation. To the north-east of this would be a grassed area. Both of these areas are a regular shape and it is considered that the amenity space would be of a sufficient shape and size to be of meaningful use to the residents. Therefore, it is considered that the amenity provision would be acceptable, in compliance with Supplementary Planning Guidance 3 ‘Residential Development’.

11.10 UDP policy D13 – Sustainable Development (natural resources & energy use) states that ‘all proposals should respect the principles of a sustainable environment in terms of their use of resource and energy’. The private bedrooms would be a mix of single and dual-aspect and vary in size. This includes the provision of en-suite facilities within most rooms. Whilst a number of the proposed new rooms would have a northerly orientation, the residents would also have access to a number of communal areas with improved orientation. In this case this is considered acceptable given the existing layout constraints of the site and existing building and the acceptable orientation of the communal area. Therefore, the proposal would be in accordance with UDP policy D13.

11.11 Overall, the proposed layout would comply with UDP policies D1, D4, D6 and HE5.

Scale

11.12 UDP policy HE5 – Control of Development in a Conservation Area states that proposals should preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area, the proportions of the development should be in scale, including the positioning and mass.

11.13 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 HE19 seeks to ensure that the setting of a locally listed building (in this case No. 20 Riley Crescent adjacent to the application site) is not adversely affected by new development.

11.14 The proposal is for an extension to the existing buildings that would be one, two and three storeys in height. The proposed new building covering the existing site of 18a Riley Crescent would measure approximately 6.4m in height on the nearest point of the elevation adjacent to the existing dwelling located 4m away at 20 Riley Crescent.

11.15 The massing of the proposed development has also been effectively visually broken down to complement its setting within the conservation area. There is also a suitable mix of vertical and horizontal rhythms which help produce an overall sense of harmony and reduce the impact of the building. In addition, there are also significant amounts of glazing along the elevations which help reduce the impression of the building’s mass.

85 11.16 The roofscape has been designed in such a way that the scale is reduced in a stepped fashion and visual interest is introduced. No part of the extensions would project above the existing roofline to allow the existing building to remain the dominant visual element. The existing roofline at the south elevation has a small gable frontage with the main element being hipped. At the existing set back area the roof would have a steep pitch. Adjacent to this at the side of the proposed side extension, the proposed slate roof would also have a steep pitch with two dormer windows. This element of the extension would be attached to the existing building by a vertical glazed section. Overall, it is considered that the form helps contain and manage a relatively large building in a sensitive manner. The scale and massing of the proposal is acceptable, would protect the setting of the locally listed building, and would preserve and enhance the conservation area, in accordance with UDP policies D7, D8 and HE5.

Architectural Appearance 11.17 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.

11.18 The proposed scheme has been specifically designed for this site, with a contemporary design to complement the existing historic element of the building, rather than attempt to emulate its original architectural features.

11.19 The proposed three storey side extension facing on to Riley Crescent features an area of glazing approximately 1m in width that measures the height of the elevation and would join the new and old elements of the building, whilst still preserving a degree of visual separation. This glazing provides continuity between the extension and the existing buildings whilst acknowledging that this area is an extension to the original.

11.20 The use of render on this extension complements the existing render and provides a further visual link between the existing and proposed buildings. The proposal also includes windows situated at the same height as those on the existing building and helps to provide visual cohesion between the new and old buildings.

11.21 The south-east elevation, visible from the main car park, would remove the existing unattractive porch-style main entrance from the building. This would be an improvement on the existing appearance of the elevation as it would be returned to its original state.

11.22 The remaining elevations (north-east and two north-west) would only be visible from inside the application site. Each of these would also feature extensive glazing, timber cladding and render in order to add architectural interest.

11.23 Large scale architectural details for the scheme have been submitted, including proposals for windows, doors and joinery. These are acceptable, as it is felt that the design would complement that of both the existing and proposed buildings.

11.24 Subject to the submission of satisfactory materials, it is considered that the new building creates an appropriately contextual appearance which would be of high design quality and allows it to visually link with adjacent buildings and sits harmoniously in its surroundings within the conservation area. Therefore it would comply with UDP Policies D1, D9 and HE5.

Access and Parking 11.25 UDP policy AM1 – Access, Mobility and New Development states that ‘all new development will be expected to contribute towards improvement in access and mobility’. Proposals should be designed to minimise the adverse effects of any traffic on neighbouring residential areas or other sensitive uses.

86 11.26 There is an existing access to the site car park from Riley Crescent and an adjacent ‘pull in’ area. The car park entrance should be relocated, with its exact positioning being dealt with by way of a condition requiring approval before construction. Visibility splays can be secured by condition.

11.27 The proposal would formalise the existing ‘pull in’ point, hatching the hard-standing area to prevent car parking in this area. A condition requiring bollards to be erected to separate the ‘pull in’ area from the pedestrian walkway and the creation of a direct walkway from the main entrance to the road would increase pedestrian safety in this area and encourage people to visit the site on foot.

11.28 The scheme would include a staff and visitor cycle shelter located within the main car park area. The location of the cycle parking provision is acceptable; however the detailed design submitted is unsuitable as it is not covered, enclosed and secure. Amended plans have been requested.

11.29 The scheme shows an adequate number of car parking spaces (14) for the proposed increase in bedrooms. Whilst the proposal increases the number of bedrooms by 25, this will provide room for 13 existing residents currently sharing rooms. It will allow for an increase of 12 residents to a total of 50 residents. It is not anticipated that this proposal would lead to an unacceptable increase in traffic movements in Riley Crescent. The increase in car parking by seven spaces would be sufficient for the related increase in both visitors and staff.

11.30 Overall the proposal would be acceptable, in compliance with UDP policies AM1 and AM12.

Impact on neighbours’ amenities 11.31 UDP policy D8 Scale (Massing) states that the massing of a development proposal should not adversely effect people’s amenities in respect of immediate outlook, loss of sunlight/daylight and privacy.

11.32 The proposed development would be an increase of approximately 1.7m in height at the tallest point (compared to the height of the existing house to be demolished at 18a) and project forward of the existing footprint of the dwelling at 18a Riley Crescent by approximately 2.3m. This would be in line with the adjacent dwelling at 20 Riley Crescent. At the nearest point, the proposed extension would be located approximately 4m from this dwelling. At first floor level the proposal would project forward of this dwelling’s rear elevation by approximately 3m in length. At ground floor level the extension would project approximately 20.4m past the rear elevation of the adjacent dwelling at 20 Riley Crescent, although this would be set back from the boundary by approximately 2.2m. The roof of the proposed third storey element located adjacent to the boundary with this adjacent dwelling would be hipped away with no glazing in this facing elevation.

11.33 The impact of the proposed extension on the dwelling at 20 Riley Crescent would be minimised by the existence of a number of large, mature trees situated immediately adjacent to its boundary. In order to further protect amenities, a condition requiring the small secondary bedroom window on this north-west elevation to be obscure glazed and fixed un-opening can be attached. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the sunlight/daylight, immediate outlook or privacy enjoyed by the occupiers of this dwelling. Therefore, this element of the proposal would comply with UDP policy D8.

87 11.34 There is an existing dwelling located at 5 Poplar Road which is located immediately adjacent to the rear of the existing residential care home. The proposed third storey extension would be located to the rear of this dwelling. The first floor extension to the existing single storey rear projection, which is parallel to this dwelling would not have an unacceptable impact on the rear of 5 Poplar Road as there is not a private rear garden at this site. This element of the scheme would comply with UDP policy D8.

11.35 To the south-east is an existing convent building. This building is located parallel with the existing rearward projection of the application site. There is a rearward projection from this building towards the application site. The proposed first floor extension would be located approximately 10m from the nearest point of the gable end of the rearward projection at the convent. The height of the proposed extension to the boundary would not be increased, only the length of the projection. This is despite the addition of an extra floor of bedrooms as the scheme would have a hidden ‘flat’ roof element in its design, as opposed to the existing full single pitch. Therefore, there would not be an unacceptable impact on the existing amenity of the residents of the convent, in compliance with UDP policy D8.

11.36 The front elevation facing on to Riley Crescent would project forward of the existing front elevation of 18a Riley Crescent by approximately 2.3m. This would not have an overbearing or unacceptable impact on the dwellings facing the application site on the opposite side of the road, due to the distance separation of approximately 31m from the nearest point of the proposed extension. Therefore, this element of the scheme would comply with UDP policy D8.

Boundary Treatments 11.37 UDP policy D9 ‘Appearance’ and D10 ‘Community Safety’ require the provision of attractive fencing, walls, railings and other treatments to reinforce boundaries and intruders. In this case, the detailed design of the proposed boundary treatments can be conditioned, to ensure compliance with UDP policies D1 and D9.

Impact on Trees 11.38 UDP policy N7 ‘The Urban Forest’ states that the removal of mature and healthy trees will be discouraged. Within the site curtilage area there are a number of trees which are protected by tree preservation orders. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on these trees, subject to the new car parking spaces located in the existing grassed area to the south-east of the site being constructed with the proposed block paving as part of a no-dig construction scheme. This element of the proposal would therefore comply with UDP policy N7.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The proposed side extension element fronting on to Riley Crescent would be located in place of the existing detached residential dwelling at No. 18a. This site has previously been used as a residential site and its replacement building is of an acceptable height and bulk. The amount of private amenity space shown is acceptable for the scale and specialist nature of the use. There would be no objection to the principle of extending the care home on to this site. Therefore this would comply with UDP policy H6.

12.2 The extensions demonstrate a high standard of architectural design and are in scale and character with the surrounding buildings and the conservation area in which it is set. This is in accordance with UDP policies D1, D7, D8, D9 and HE5.

12.3 The scheme has been purposely designed so that it would not have a detrimental impact on the amenities of any of the neighbouring dwellings. Therefore it would comply with UDP policy D8.

88 12.4 The scale and massing of the proposed extensions are in keeping with the existing building at the application site and those surrounding the site. Therefore it would comply with UDP policies D1, D7, D8, D9 and HE5.

12.5 There is sufficient extra parking provision on site to meet the extra demand from the proposed increase in bed spaces. Access to the site is acceptable and would not have a detrimental impact on pedestrian or vehicular safety, subject to conditions securing the location of the access point. Conditions would also be required to secure the installation of bollards to separate the existing ‘pull in’ area from the pedestrian walkway from the car park to the building and create a main walkway from the entrance to the highway. Cycle storage and refuse facility design can also be secured by condition. This would comply with UDP policy AM12.

12.6 There would not be an unacceptable impact on protected trees within the site, subject to the new car parking spaces in the existing grassed area being formed with the proposed block paving via a no-dig construction. This would comply with UDP policy N7.

12.7 Details of boundary treatments and landscaping can be conditioned to ensure compliance with UDP policies D1, D9, D10 and N7.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Grant subject to any necessary conditions to include:

• Conditions to include: • Materials, including hard surfacing • Cycle storage details • Disabled parking bays being suitably marked with sufficient space to side and rear • Landscaping scheme • Boundary treatments • Car parking spaces in existing grassed area to be constructed via the proposed block paving no dig construction • Hours of construction • External lighting • Ventilation and odour system including flue • Hours for deliveries and waste collection • Access position to be agreed by Highways • Bollards to separate pull in point from pedestrian walkway • Direct pedestrian route from main entrance to highway • Visibility splays • Parking provision as shown • Amenity space provided as shown • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval • Bin storage • First floor window of north-west elevation to be obscure glazed and fixed closed • Signage for the disabled bays

Case Officer : Ann Wheeldon Telephone No : 01902 550348 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 10/00636/FUL Location Orchard House Nursing Home, 16-18 Riley Crescent, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390066 296957 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00504/FUL WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 25-May-10 TARGET DATE: 20-Jul-10 RECEIVED: 05.05.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Wentworth Lodge Residential Home, Wentworth Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Two storey side extension creating four additional residential bedrooms.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mrs Sandra Dell Mr N. Massey Wentworth Lodge Residential Care Home 4 Rushall Manor Road Wentworth Road Walsall Wolverhampton WS4 2HA WV10 8EH

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The property concerned is a residential home, located on a prominent corner location, within a residential street scene, mainly consisting of two storey semi detached houses, within an area which is predominantly residential.

1.2 The premises has a large area of hard surfacing surrounding the property to both Wentworth Road and Pendrill Road, and an enclosed landscaped garden along the southern/western boundary of the site.

2. Application details

2.1 Two storey side extension creating four additional residential bedrooms. The proposed extension measures 5.4m wide, 8.85m deep, remaining flush with the existing rear elevation and set back from the existing front gable feature by 0.75m.

3. Planning History

3.1 Planning Application 10/00118/FUL for two storey side and first floor rear extensions, creating ten additional residential bedrooms and erection of a conservatory to side elevation, was refused on 31 March 2010. This was due to the proposal resulting in an overdeveloped site, with unacceptable layout, especially in relation to disabled access, shared private amenity area, parking layout, including car and cycle/motorcycle parking, reserved ambulance area, and bin storage. The proposal would have resulted in a detrimental impact on the street scene from both Wentworth Road, and Denstone Gardens, with a dominating structure appearing overbearing and projecting forward of established building lines, detrimentally affecting the character and appearance of the surrounding street scene/locality. The proposed first floor rear extension would have also resulted in a detrimental impact to neighbouring amenities, in respect of outlook, sunlight, and privacy. Therefore, the proposal was considered to be unacceptable and contrary to UDP Policies D1, D4, D7, D8, D9, D11, AM7, AM12, AM10 and AM12

3.2 99/1156/FP - Extension to existing residential care home, comprising of 13 no. bedrooms and associated living rooms, dining rooms and bathrooms.(Phases 3), Refused 16.02.2000.

3.3 97/0229/FP - Change of use from public house to residential home for the elderly. Granted 30.05.1997.

3.4 98/0514/FP - Extension to residential home to provide a further 16 bedrooms, kitchen, dining room, managers overnight accommodation, amended parking layout. Refused 26.08.1998.

3.5 98/0884/FP - Extension to Residential Home for the Elderly (Amended Application). Granted 06.11.1998.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zones Mining Areas Sites and Monuments Entry Source Protection Zones: 1

5. Relevant Policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security H12 - Residential Care Homes 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 D13 - Sustainable Development EP15 - Landfill Activities EP18 - Mineral Extraction

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

7. Publicity

7.1 One representation received, with six names and addresses accompanying the objection but no signatures. Objections raised in the letter refer to loss of privacy, overdevelopment, appearance which would be unsightly, overbearing building and insufficient parking.

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Environmental Services - Note for applicant regarding the responsibility for the implementation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007).

8.2 Access Disabled – Concern raised that the internal layout will not comply with Part M of the Building Regulations.

8.3 Transportation Development - Amended plans show an acceptable parking layout. Location of the cycle parking to be conditioned.

8.4 Adults and Communities - No objections; will need to meet the Care Quality Commission Standards on quality and safety.

9. External Consultees

9.1 Fire Service - No response at time of writing.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications.

11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues are: -

• Design • Street Scene • Layout • Transportation (car parking) • Neighbouring Amenity

Design

11.2 Planning Policy D1 “Design Quality “of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan, stipulates “all development proposals should demonstrate a high standard of design and contribute towards creating a strong sense of place”.

11.3 Planning Policy H12 “Residential Care Homes” stipulates “Proposals for the development of residential care homes for the elderly will be assessed against the following criteria:

1. The suitability of the site or building; 2. The character of the surrounding area; 3. Compatibility with adjacent land uses; 4. Proximity to public transport and other local facilities;

11.4 It is considered that the design of the two storey side extension is consistent with UDP Policies D1 and H12 as it is in keeping with the existing design of the premises and those surrounding, with a pitched roof design and materials to match.

Street Scene

11.5 Along with Planning Policy H12 “Residential Care Homes” as quoted in paragraph 11.3, Planning Policy D4 “Urban Grain” stipulates that 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”.

11.6 It is considered that the location of the two storey side extension is compliant with Planning Policy H12 and D4 as it is in keeping with the setting of the surrounding area, such as building lines to both Wentworth Road, and Pendrill Road, maintaining an element of spatial quality to this prominent corner location with parking and landscaping between the development and the public highway, which reduces the dominance of the structure. It is considered that the appearance complements the property and the surrounding area, achieving a suitable design which maintains the existing character and appearance of the surrounding locality.

Layout

11.7 Planning Policy H12 “Residential Care Homes” stipulates “Proposals for the development of residential care homes for the elderly will be assessed against criteria including the provision of satisfactory vehicular access and car parking, and the provision of adequate useable garden space”.

11.8 Planning 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”.

11.9 Planning Policy D5 “Public Realm” stipulates “Proposal should promote active street frontages as a means of enclosing the public realm. Developments should clearly differentiate between private areas and public spaces”.

11.10 Planning Policy D11 “Access for People with Disabilities” stipulates “All highway and development proposals should be designed to provide safe and convenient access for people with Disabilities”.

11.11 Planning Policy D13 “Sustainable Development” stipulates “All proposals should respect the principles of a sustainable environment in terms of their use of resources and energy”.

11.12 All windows have an eastern or western aspect, resulting in a suitable orientation, internal and external design of building and use of landscaping.

11.13 A ramped access has been shown to be provided. However, further detail is required and is recommended as a condition of consent. The need for the internal layout to meet the requirements of “Part M” of Buildings Regulations, has been drawn to the attention of the applicant.

11.14 The area of outside shared amenity space covering approximately 263.5sqm and conservatory to the south/west corner of the site, would be of a suitable size to support the proposed additional four bedrooms. The location of the structure would erode an element of hard standing to this prominent corner location, however, the level and location of the parking area is considered to be of a suitable size to support the proposal. Therefore, the proposed development would not result in a layout which would appear overdeveloped, or of a cramped in appearance, but one which complements the spacious appearance and character of the area.

11.15 It is considered that the proposal is compliant with UDP Planning Policies H12, D4, D5, D11 and D13 providing a suitable layout, in relation to orientation, shared private amenity, parking, landscaping and disabled access, subject to conditions.

Car Parking Layout

11.16 Planning Policy AM12 “Parking and Servicing Provision” stipulates “Provision of maximum levels of car parking, minimum levels of disabled car parking and of cycle parking, motorcycle parking and servicing for new development would be provided in accordance the details of this Policy “.

95 11.17 Planning Policy AM15 “Road Safety and Personal Security” states “ All developments proposals should be designed and implemented to contribute towards improving road safety and personal security, in accordance with the West Midlands Local Transport Plan objectives and the Road Safety Plan for Wolverhampton”.

11.18 Planning Policy AM10 “Provision for Cyclists” states “Developers will be required to provide secure, covered parking facilities for bicycles”.

11.19 It is considered that the proposal meets the requirements of Planning Policies AM12 & AM15, as it provides a suitable level/layout of parking, and acceptable visibility for the proposed development. The Cycle parking should however, be located in a position which has natural surveillance from the building. Therefore, for the proposal to meet the requirements of Planning Policy AM10 the decision should be suitably conditioned for the final location of the cycle store and design to be agreed in writing prior to development.

Neighbouring Amenity

11.20 Unitary Development Plan Policy D7 “Scale-Height” states” All development should be of a height that helps achieve a strong sense of place, relates positively to its surrounding and the local topography, and does not detract from important views and landmarks”.

11.21 Unitary Development Plan 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 to immediate outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and loss of privacy”.

11.22 The extension remains flush with the existing rear elevation, which is located approximately 12m away from the boundary with the neighbouring property at No. 12 Pendrill Road and approximately 16.5m from the proposed bedroom window to the side facing wall of 12 Pendrill Road, these are considered to be suitable distances between the surrounding boundaries and the proposed development especially in relation to outlook, light, sunlight and privacy, and although clearly evident, it is considered that the extension would not appear obtrusive, or overbearing due to its location to the side of 12 Pendrill Road, and would be in proportion and scale, and compatible with its surroundings.

11.23 The proposed two storey side extension is considered to be satisfactory in relation to neighbouring properties and compliant with UDP Policies D7 and D8.

12. Conclusion

12.1 It is considered that the proposal has been suitably downscaled, in relation to the previously refused planning application, and is now compatible with the confinements of the site. The proposed layout would be satisfactory in relation to sustainable development, disabled access, shared private amenity area, and parking/landscaping, and no detrimental impact to neighbouring amenities. The proposal has also been suitably designed in relation to both the existing property and surrounding street scene, in keeping with established building lines to both Wentworth Road, and Pendrill Road, with a structure which would not dominate the prominent corner location, maintaining an element of spatial separation between the development and the public highway, complementing the character and appearance of the surrounding street scene/locality. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be acceptable and consistent with UDP Policies H12, D1, D4, D7, D8, D9, D11, D13, AM10, AM12 and AM15.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Grant, Subject to standard conditions, including:

• Materials • Appropriate cycle parking • Disabled Access • Landfill gas design details

Notes for information; Coal Mining area; need for internal layout to comply with the Building Regulations Note for applicant regarding the responsibility for the implementation of the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (CDM 2007).

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

Planning Application No: 10/00504/FUL Location Wentworth Lodge Residential Home, Wentworth Road, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392570 303180 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00498/FUL WARD: Bilston East DATE: 20-May-10 TARGET DATE: 15-Jul-10 RECEIVED: 05.05.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: St Michaels Mission Hall, Wolverhampton Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Single storey and two storey extensions to enlarge church and provide classrooms, reception, entrance hall, library and office (Amended description).

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Simon Bhardwaj Mr Robert Robinson St Michaels Mission Hall AEC Consultants Wolverhampton Street 59 Pave Lane Wolverhampton Chetwynd Aston WV14 0LT Newport Shropshire TF10 9LQ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site concerned is a church mission hall which is currently being used for teaching, computer literacy classes and by the church congregation. The location of the church is set well back from the highway, with a landscaped area and hard standing between the church and Wolverhampton Street. The Mission Hall is accessed via a shared driveway from Wolverhampton Street. The parking area is located to both the side and rear of the hall.

1.2 The surrounding area comprises a mixture of residential and commercial properties. To the north-west is the Bilston C of E Nursery Unit, with residential properties north- east of the site. Coseley Island, which leads traffic in and out of Bilston Town Centre, is to the south-east, and a mixture of industrial and retail units are to the south-west of the site.

1.3 The Mission Hall hosts the Bilston Resource Centre which has been actively involved with the local community since 1994 with a project which helps disadvantaged people in the surrounding area into paid employment.

2. Application details

2.1 The applicant states the extension is required to expand the services the Mission Hall can provide, which is severely limited at present due to lack of space. The proposed extension consists of a single storey and two storey extension providing an entrance hall, reception, classrooms, library and office area, and will provide space for 85 persons to be accommodated, for various functions during the week.

99 2.2 The single storey element would be sited at the front of the church facing north/west towards Bilston Nursery, providing a disabled w.c., store, and lobby area, measuring 3.4m deep and 7.5m wide with a gable frontage design with pitched roof.

2.3 The other part single storey and part two storey extension is located north-east of the site, along the side, between the church and those residential properties within Tadmore Close. The extension provides an office, lobby, conference room, classroom, toilets and kitchen facilities to ground floor and a classroom and store to first floor. The design incorporates a pitched roof, with the eaves being set slightly higher on the north-west elevation, having a depth of 11.9m and a width of 13.6m.

2.4 The proposal also incorporates an archive library in the roof area of the existing church hall. This would result in an increase in roof height by approximately 750mm.

2.5 The external layout to the premises would also change with a reconfiguration of the car parking, which includes further parking to the side of the property, fronting Wolverhampton Street, cycle parking, and motorcycle parking.

3. Planning History

3.1 10/00051/FUL - Single storey and two storey extensions to enlarge church and provide classrooms, crèche, reception, entrance hall, library and office. Refused 30.03.2010.

3.2 05/0879/FP/C - Single storey and two storey extensions to enlarge church and provide classrooms, crèche, reception, entrance hall, library and office. Granted 19.09.2005.

3.3 A/C/2851/84 - Erection of mission hall - amended siting, Granted 22.01.1985.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Mining Areas Road Improvement Line

5. Relevant Policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security AM10 - Provision for Cyclists C2 – Location of New Community Services 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 EP10 - Notifiable Installations EP18 - Mineral Extraction

100 Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

5.3 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

7. Publicity

7.1 A petition comprising of 12 signatures objecting on the following grounds:

• Privacy; • Noise and disruption; • Parking; • Inappropriate use next to a nursery.

7.2 Representations received in support of the proposal:

• Letter from a representative of the surrounding flats. • Petition comprising of 7 signatures. • Petition comprising of 139 signatures.

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Tree Officers - This proposal is likely to require the removal of an Alrus tree in adjacent property. However there is a Silver Birch tree within 2m of this tree so this loss would have a minimal impact on amenity.

8.2 Property Services - Estates - No objections.

8.3 Environmental Services - Refuse storage areas should be adequate for the number of proposed occupants, and have sufficient access for removal of waste. Demolition and construction hours, including commercial vehicle movements to or from the site, should be restricted to 0800 to 1800 hrs Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1300 hrs Saturdays and at no time on Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays.

8.4 Access Team - Recommend adding another disabled persons parking bay by putting the side access strip in the middle of two bays. There should also be 1.2m access strips at the rear of each disabled bay. The bays should have the national disability logo on the ground and also have signs off the ground. Recommend that double entrance and lobby doors have 1000mm clear effective widths to make them more inclusive for everyone. Set out requirements in respect of the internal layout required under the Building Regulations.

8.5 Planning Policy Section – No comments.

101

8.6 Transportation Development - The site is located in an area not classed as being highly accessible by public transport and is not located within Bilston Town Centre. However, it is located within 160m of the car park by the Lidl Superstore by Colseley Island and 300m from the public car park by Bilston Markets. The site is an existing site which has appropriate visibility splays and access already in situ. The application states that the site could accommodate 85 persons at anyone time, although this is unlikely to occur, but has reduced the parking provision from 18 to 12 spaces, a reduction of 6 spaces, even though the site is expanding considerably. The site is located close to Bilston Town Centre and there are installed traffic regulations Orders along Wolverhampton Street. Overall, the parking demand generated by the proposals will be accommodated safely in the local area.

8.7 Children and Young People – No response.

9. External Consultees

9.1 Police - No objections.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. [10123082010/C]

11. Appraisal

11.1 The key issues are: -

• Principle of Development • Design • Street Scene • Layout • Appearance • Car parking and access • Neighbouring Amenities • Trees

Principle of Development 11.2 The use of the site for teaching, computer literacy, as well as the existing use as a church congregation and conference venue for weddings and funerals at this location is considered to be of acceptable, and compliant with Planning Policy C2.

Design 11.3 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”.

11.4 The key elements of design to be considered are the impact of the proposed building on the street scene, the proposed layout, and the proposed appearance. These elements are considered in the following paragraphs.

Street Scene 11.5 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

102 respond to existing context of building, streets and spaces, ensuring that adjacent buildings relate positively to each other”.

11.6 UDP Policy D6 (Townscape and Landscape) states “Proposals should create or reinforce local distinctiveness by comprising site-specific design solutions that respond explicitly to the site and its context”.

11.7 It is considered that the location of the proposed extension is in keeping with the setting of the surrounding area, such as building lines to both Wolverhampton Street, and Tadmore Close, maintaining the spatial quality to the setting of the hall as viewed from Wolverhampton Street, being set well back from the highway. The extension has been suitably designed for the site in keeping with key features of the existing property, complementing the hall, fitting in well with the surrounding area, achieving a suitable design which maintains the existing character and appearance of the surrounding locality. Parking and vehicle manoeuvring space is considered adequate.

11.8 It is considered that the proposed extension meets the requirements of Planning Policy D4 and D6.

Layout 11.9 UDP Policy D5 (Public Realm) stipulates “Proposal should promote active street frontages as a means of enclosing the public realm. Developments should clearly differentiate between private areas and public spaces”, and “Frontages should not be dominated by parking or servicing areas, and should be catered for in ways that do not detract from the effectiveness of the built up frontage in defining public areas”.

11.10 There is a large area of land to the side of the church fronting Wolverhampton Street. The proposed parking layout would erode an element of this landscaping, however, the area of land left and the level of car parking proposed would not result in a layout which would appear overdeveloped, or of a cramped appearance, but one which complements the character of the area.

11.11 The layout does not display any existing or proposed refuse storage, or clear access to the refuse facilities, this has been raised with the agent, and further detail has been requested. However, this could be conditioned as part of the planning decision.

11.12 UDP Policy D11 (Access for People with Disabilities) stipulates “All highway and development proposals should be designed to provide safe and convenient access for people with Disabilities”.

11.13 A level threshold has been shown to be provided. The Access Officer has also recommended that the double entrance and lobby doors have 1000mm clear effective width, this can be conditioned as part of the consent. The need for the internal layout to meet the requirements of “Part M” of Buildings Regulations has been drawn to the attention of the applicant.

11.14 UDP Policy D13 (Sustainable Development) stipulates “All proposals should respect the principles of a sustainable environment in terms of their use of resources and energy”.

11.15 All windows in the proposed development have a northern aspect. A southern or eastern aspect would have provided the best means of light, however the constraints of the site have restricted the position of windows, and high level roof lights have been proposed in the eastern aspect to provide additional light into the building.

103 11.16 The proposal is compliant with UDP Policies D4, D5, D11 and D13 providing a suitable layout, especially in relation to confinements of the site, in relation to orientation, parking, landscaping and disabled access, and waste storage/disposal subject to conditions.

Appearance 11.17 UDP Policy D9 (Appearance) states “Buildings, structures, boundary treatments and landscape features should make a positive contribution to the locality”.

11.18 The design of the two storey and single storey extension is in keeping with the existing design of the premises, and those surrounding, with a pitched roof design and materials to match, which complements both the mission hall and the surrounding mix used area

11.19 Therefore, it is considered that the appearance is in accordance with UDP Policy D9.

Car Parking Layout 11.20 UDP Policy AM12 (Parking and Servicing Provision) stipulates “Provision of maximum levels of car parking, minimum levels of disabled car parking and of cycle parking, motorcycle parking and servicing for new development should be provided in accordance the details of this Policy“.

11.21 UDP Policy AM15 (Road Safety and Personal Security) states “ All developments proposals should be designed and implemented to contribute towards improving road safety and personal security, in accordance with the West Midlands Local Transport Plan objectives and the Road Safety Plan for Wolverhampton”.

11.22 The existing access to the proposed development is considered to be appropriate. The level of parking provided is below what would normally be required for new development of this scale and nature. However, the site is situated in a location where it would be able to accommodate the extra demand, such as various car parks within Bilston Town Centre, which also provides alternative modes of transport, without creating a detrimental impact on highway or pedestrian safety.

11.23 UDP Policy D11 (Access for People with Disabilities) stipulates “All highway and development proposals should be designed to provide safe and convenient access for people with disabilities”.

11.24 The Access officer makes detailed comments suggesting changes to the car park layout. The details of an acceptable car park layout could be conditioned as part of the decision.

11.25 UDP Policy AM10 (Provision for Cyclists) states “Developers will be required to provide secure, covered parking facilities for bicycles”.

11.26 The cycle parking is suitably located, but should be covered and secured, further detail via condition would be necessary.

11.27 Overall, the parking layout is acceptable, meeting the requirements of UDP policies AM12, AM15, AM10, and D11, subject to conditions regarding the car parking layout and the design of the proposed cycle store.

Neighbouring Amenity 11.28 UDP Policy D8 (Scale-Massing) states “The massing of a proposal should not adversely affect people’s amenities in respect to immediate outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and loss of privacy”.

104 11.29 The single storey front extension projects out closer to the neighbouring nursery school, and although the proposal would be seen from the nursery it is considered that the structure would not appear overbearing or restrict any outlook, light, or sunlight.

11.30 The two storey element is located within close proximity to neighbouring residential properties in Tadmore Close. The neighbouring property at No. 33 is a bungalow, which is part of a communal block of bungalows 31-37 Tadmore Close. The bungalow has a drive and landscaped area directly to the side of the structure. The existing outlook from the frontage of this property is onto the side wall of the church and the boundary wall running right along the northern aspect. The first floor element would be clearly evident from the front and side of the property. The structure would block out some early morning light to the side parking area of the bungalow, and two small windows which are to a kitchen/living room and bathroom. However, the impact would not be considered significant enough to warrant refusal, as there is a large bay window to the front of the property, providing an alternative means of outlook and access for light. The structure would not appear overly dominant from any internal or external habitable area of the property. One tree within the grounds here may be adversely affected by the proposed extension, but its possible loss is not considered to be a reason for refusal.

11.31 The neighbouring properties along the eastern boundary (nos 19 – 29) are two storey maisonettes. The proposed two storey element of the extension will remain flush with the existing front elevation of the neighbouring property, and would be slightly set back from the rear elevation. The single storey element would project out past the rear elevation by 2.890m, and would be set in 1m from the boundary, and 4.5m from the neighbouring properties.

11.32 There are no habitable side facing windows to the neighbouring property, and the height and projection of the single storey element would not impede on the outlook, light, or sunlight to both the neighbouring properties and the rear garden area. Initially there were side facing windows proposed at first floor, although obscurely glazed, these would have resulted in the perception of loss of privacy to the neighbouring gardens. The windows have now been removed, to protect privacy, and sky lights inserted instead for light infiltration into the building. The ground floor windows, although screened by the boundary fencing should also be obscurely glazed to protect privacy.

11.33 It is considered that the proposed two storey/single storey side extension is satisfactory, with no detrimental impact to neighbouring amenities significant enough to warrant refusal of planning permission, therefore, the proposal is compliant with UDP Policies D7 and D8, subject to a condition for obscure glazing on the ground floor windows along the eastern side elevation.

Trees

11.34 UDP Policy D12 (Nature Conservation and Natural Features) states all proposals should demonstrate a consideration of Woodland, Trees, and Hedgerows etc. UDP Policy N7 (The Urban Forest) states “The Council will, in partnership with others, seek to preserve, enhance and extend the urban forest within Wolverhampton”.

11.35 There are two trees within the garden area to the neighbouring property at No. 37 Tadmore Close. The location of the two storey side extension may require the removal of an Alrus Tree; this would not be detrimental to the amenity of the area, as there is a Silver Birch tree within 2m of this tree. Therefore, the proposal is considered to be compliant with UDP Policies D12 and N7.

105 11.36 However, if the proposal does result in the loss of the Alrus tree, the tree officer has recommended that a smaller tree could be planted in a small planting bed adjacent if required by neighbouring property. As the tree is located outside the boundary of the application site, with no significant detriment to the amenity of the area, a condition for this requirement is not considered necessary.

12. Conclusion

12.1 The proposed development would enhance an existing community facility. The extensions have been suitably downscaled, in relation to the previously refused planning application, and are now compatible with the confinements of the site. The proposal has also been suitably designed for the site in relation to both the existing church hall and surrounding street scene, in keeping with established building lines to both Wolverhampton Street and Tadmore Close, with a structure which would not dominate the street scene, maintaining an element of spatial separation between the development and the public highway, complementing the character and appearance of the surrounding street scene/locality. The proposed layout would be satisfactory in relation to sustainable development, disabled access, parking/landscaping, and have no significant detriment to neighbouring amenities. The proposal is considered to be acceptable and consistent with UDP Policies C2, D1, D4, D5, D7, D8, D11, D12, D13, N7, AM10, AM12 and AM15, subject to conditions.

13. Recommendation

13.1 Grant, subject to any necessary conditions including:

• Landscaping • Materials • Obscure glazing • Parking layout • Cycle parking design • Refuse storage/removal • Disabled access and disabled parking signage • Demolition and construction hours of operation • Signage for disabled parking

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

106

Planning Application No: 10/00498/FUL Location St Michaels Mission Hall, Wolverhampton Street, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 394454 296293 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area m2

107

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00511/VV WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 06-May-10 TARGET DATE: 01-Jul-10 RECEIVED: 06.05.2010 APP TYPE: Vary of Condition(s) of PreviousApproval

SITE: Aldi, Goldthorn Hill, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Variation of condition 6 of previously approved application C/0151/93 to allow deliveries on Sunday between 09.00 hours and 13.00 hours.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Aldi Stores Limited Mr Scott Bryden Holly Lane Dalkin Scotton Partnership Atherstone 305 Fort Dunlop CV9 2SQ Fort Parkway Birmingham West Midlands B24 9FD

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is located at the corner of Goldthorn Hill and Wolverhampton Road East. The supermarket is located within the western quarter of the site, well set back from Goldthorn Hill.

1.2 The existing retail store is constructed of brick materials along with a pitched tiled roof and vertical gable cladding. Vehicular and pedestrian access into the site is located along the northern portion of the site along Goldthorn Hill.

1.3 The site adjoins residential properties to the west, east and south. The property at 313 Wolverhampton Road is a semi detached residential dwelling with several trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. To the north of the site are predominantly commercial uses.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is for the variation of condition 6 of a previously approved application C/0151/93. The applicant applied to allow deliveries on Sunday’s between 0900hours and 1300hours. The applicant has amended the proposal and permission is now sought to allow deliveries on Sunday’s between 0900hours and 1200hours (noon).

2.2 A condition was imposed on the original consent preventing any deliveries on Sunday’s in order to minimise the possibilities of conflict between customers vehicles and the movement of delivery or refuse collection vehicles on the site, and to minimise the disturbance to adjoining residents.

2.3 The application has been submitted to vary this condition to allow for deliveries on a Sunday between 0900hours and 1200hours but these would be restricted to fresh produce only.

108

3. Planning History

3.1 C/0151/93 - Single storey food retail store with associated car park, demolition of all existing buildings on site. Granted 13 Aug1993

3.2 99/0659/VV - Variation of condition 6 on planning approval C/0151/93 changing the times of deliveries and waste removal from between 07.00 hours and 11.00 hours or between 17.00 hours and 21.00 hours to between 06.00 hours to 12.00 hours and 16.00 hours to 22.00 hours (both Mondays to Saturdays, excluding Sundays). Refused 08 Sept 1999.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zone Mining Area

5. Relevant policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan EP1 - Pollution Control EP5 - Noise Pollution AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

5.3 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

7. Publicity

7.1 One letter received from the neighbour nearest to the reversing point at which lorries begin their manoeuvring to the ramp to the unloading bay at the rear of the store. Objects on the grounds of noise disturbance from delivery vehicles, continued running of engines and refrigeration units, late night workings when upgrading premises and light pollution.

109 8. Internal consultees

8.1 Environmental Services - No objection in principle however 0900hrs must be the earliest time.

8.2 Transportation Development - There were concerns with regard to the hours to allow deliveries on Sunday between 0900hours and 1300hours (the hours proposed initially in this application) in respect of the latter part of the requested time period when significant customer movements take place in the car park.

8.3 The applicant has not submitted any Sunday trading or car park accumulation figures to support the application.

8.4 Discount retail stores can be busy by lunch time on Sundays and it was therefore requested that deliveries cease by 11.00am or 12.00noon at the latest. The application was subsequently amended to relate to deliveries ceasing at 12.00 hours (noon).

9. Legal Implications

9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications. (LD/17082010/F)

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues are:

• Impact on Residents Amenities • Impact on the Car Park Use

Impact on Residents Amenities 10.2 The purpose of the condition in the original application (reference C/0151/93) was to protect the amenities of adjoining residents by virtue of nuisance, and to minimise the conflict between customers’ and customer vehicles and the movement of delivery/refuse collection vehicles. The applicants request to vary this condition in order to provide fresh produce on a daily basis, which is currently prohibited on a Sunday by virtue of the condition previously imposed.

10.3 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Policy EP1 ‘Pollution Control’ requires developments which may result in pollution of air ground or water through noise to be permitted where it can be shown that there would be no material adverse impact on the quality and enjoyment of the environment. Where appropriate, conditions or planning obligations will be used to reduce such impacts to acceptable levels.

10.4 UDP Policy EP5 'Noise Pollution' requires developments which are likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of noise pollution, not to be permitted unless measures can be taken to reduce noise emissions or intrusion to acceptable levels. The comments received from Environmental Services raise no objection to the proposal subject to the earliest time being 0900hours.

10.5 A letter of objection has been received from the neighbour whose rear garden abuts the delivery area with regard to continuous problems on the site relating to delivery times, running of engines and refrigeration units, late night workings when upgrading the premises and light pollution. The agents have responded stating that a number of complaints have been received directly by Aldi from this resident.

110

10.6 There is a high wall between the delivery ramp and the neighbour’s property. On the basis that the Sunday deliveries would be for fresh produce only and would be not be earlier than 0900hours, and the fact that the delivery ramp slopes steeply down to the delivery door behind a high brick wall thereby effectively separating it from the adjacent rear gardens, it is considered the proposal is acceptable and should not cause unreasonable noise disturbance. The proposal is in accordance with the requirements of UDP Policy EP1 ‘Pollution Control’ and EP5 ‘Noise Pollution'.

Impact on the Car Park Use 10.7 Transportation have considered the proposal and initially had concerns that the latter part of the requested time period would coincide with significant customer movements in the car park and in the absence of any Sunday trading or car park accumulation figures, it is considered that as discount retail stores can be busy by lunch time on Sundays, that deliveries should cease by 12.00hours (noon) at the latest. The applicant has agreed to this variation in what they initially applied for (i.e. 12.00hours instead of 13.00hours). The proposal is therefore in accordance with UDP Policy AM12 'Parking and Servicing Provision' which requires amongst other issues to address safety and amenity issues and UDP Policy AM15 'Road Safety and Personal Security' which aims to contribute to road safety and personal security.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposal would enable the delivery of fresh food to the supermarket on a Sunday. It should not adversely affect neighbours’ amenities or pedestrian safety to such a degree that would warrant a refusal of planning permission. Taking all factors into consideration, the proposal is acceptable in accordance with Unitary Development Plan Policies EP1 ‘Pollution Control’, EP5 ‘Noise Pollution’, AM12 ‘Parking and Servicing Provision’ and AM15 ‘Road Safety and Personal Security’.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Grant, subject to the following conditions:

(i) There shall be no deliveries and collection of goods and refuse except between 0700hours and 1100hours or between 1700hours and 2100hours on Mondays to Saturdays inclusive and there shall be no collection of goods and refuse except between 0900hours and 1200hours (noon) on Sundays only.

(ii) Only deliveries of fresh produce shall take place on Sundays in connection with the terms of this consent.

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

111

Planning Application No: 10/00511/VV Location Aldi, Goldthorn Hill, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391699 296521 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 5123m2

112

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00764/VV WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 12-Jul-10 TARGET DATE: 06-Sep-10 RECEIVED: 07.07.2010 APP TYPE: Vary of Condition(s) of Previous Approval

SITE: Woodville House, 10 Upper Green, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Application for variation of a condition following grant of planning permission 10/00017/FUL. The hours of use restrict the cafe/restaurant to operate as follows: Mon to Fri 0900 -1730hrs, Sat 0900 - 1700hrs and Sun 1000 -1430 hrs. Application is sought to vary the opening hours as follows: Mon to Fri 0900 - 2300hrs, Sat 0900 - 2230hrs and Sun 1000- 1900 hrs.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Paul Sadlier Mr Richard Taylor Sadliers Cafe ACP Architects 10 Upper Green Level 1, Roma Parva Wolverhampton 1 Waterloo Road WV6 8QH Wolverhampton WV1 4DJ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is a recently opened café/restaurant, prominently located within the Tettenhall Village Centre towards the entrance of the enclosed end of Upper Green. Woodville House is an attractive two storey building positioned directly against the back edge of the highway. The site is located within, and makes significant contributions to, the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area.

2. Application details

2.1 The application seeks permission for a variation of condition 3 of planning permission 10/00017/FUL to extend the hours of operation of the previously approved café/restaurant use. The current hours of operation are restricted to: (i) Monday to Friday 0900 – 1730hrs (ii) Saturday 0900 – 1700hrs (iii) Sunday 1000 – 1430hrs

2.2 The proposed application seeks permission to vary the opening hours to: (i) Monday to Friday 0900 – 2300hrs (ii) Saturday 0900 – 2230hrs (iii) Sunday 1000 – 1900hrs

113 2.3 In a statement provided by the agent it is understood that no live music would be played, the living accommodation above the premises is occupied by the owners of the café/restaurant and, in order to protect amenity, an acoustic ceiling has been provided between the ground floor café/restaurant and the living accommodation above.

2.4 Sadliers do not presently sell alcohol and the applicant has submitted a separate premises licence in order to sell alcohol. It is understood that other cafés in Tettenhall are licensed, and sell alcohol.

3. Planning History

3.1 10/00017/FUL for change of use from A1 (Shops) to A3 (Restaurants/Cafes). Granted, 03.03.2010.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Conservation Area (Tettenhall Greens) Sites and Monuments Entry UDP: District Centre 3 – Tettenhall

5. Relevant policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan: D9: Appearance D10: Community Safety D13: Sustainable Development AM12: Parking and Servicing Provision AM15: Road Safety and Personal Security HE1: Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness HE2: Historic Resources and Enabling Development HE3: Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas HE4: Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5: Control of Development in a Conservation Area EP1: Pollution Control EP5: Noise Pollution SH1: Centres Strategy SH2: Centre Uses SH4: Integration of Development into Centres SH7: District Centres SH10: Protected Frontages SH14: Catering Outlets

Other relevant policies 5.2 National Planning Policies PPS 1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment

5.3 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

114 6. Neighbour notification and publicity

6.1 Five letters of support and a letter advising that the road should be kept clear of obstructions. Two letters of objection received. A summary of the reasons for objection follows: • Increase in traffic and concerns regarding illegal on-street parking (outside usual traffic warden working hours), • Increase of vehicles turning in the road and the potential disturbance caused, • Staff would likely leave beyond proposed hours.

7. Consultees

7.1 Transportation – Do not object to the application proposal as the site is located in an area classed as a local centre, with on and off street parking provided in the close vicinity and Traffic Regulation Orders installed on surrounding roads.

7.2 Historic Environment – No objections.

7.3 Food and Environmental Safety – No objections. The extension of the opening hours should not result in disturbance to residents in the nearby vicinity. It is noted that a restaurant in close proximity trades until 2230hours, and a near by public house trades beyond the hours proposed.

7.4 Deliveries nearby and refuse collection should be carried out at reasonable times that will not cause disturbance to local residents.

7.5 An acoustic ceiling has been installed to reduce the impact of noise generated from the premises to the residential flat above (which is currently occupied by the owners of the restaurant/café).

7.6 It is noted that live music will not be played. However, there are residential properties in the locality of the restaurant/café therefore, any music played should be limited to background music only, which should not cause a noise nuisance to local residents.

8. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

8.1 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).

8.2 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.

9. Appraisal

9.1 Key issues: • Neighbour amenity • Parking

Neighbour amenity 9.2 Policy SH14 of the adopted Unitary Development Plan (UDP) advises that the proposals for catering outlets (including cafés/restaurants) will not be permitted where

115 significant harm would be caused to the amenities of residential accommodation, including by reason of noise, smell, general disturbance or traffic impact. While policies EP1 and EP5 of the adopted UDP seek to protect neighbour amenity and living conditions.

9.3 The premises is currently used as a café/restaurant at ground floor level, above, at first floor, is residential accommodation. This is the nearest living accommodation and is occupied by the owners of business.

9.4 The Food and Environmental Safety team raise no objection to the extension of hours of operation. It is considered that there would be no undue impact to neighbour amenity, subject to appropriate planning conditions. The proposals are in accordance with policies SH14, EP1 and EP5.

Parking 9.5 Policy AM12 stipulates that developments are required to meet their own transportation needs with no detriment to pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic. The site is located within Tettenhall Village Centre and therefore, there is no requirement for the applicant to provide off-street parking in this instance. A number of neighbours have raised concerns regarding the parking of vehicles outside the premises, however, there are parking restrictions along the length of the road and public parking located nearby. The proposals are in accordance with policies AM12 and SH14 and there would be no adverse impact on highway safety.

10. Legal Implications

10.1 There are no specific legal implications for the purpose of this report (LD/17082010/Y).

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposed increase in hours of operation would not result in any undue adverse impact to neighbour amenity. The proposals are in accordance with policies SH10, SH14, EP1 and EP5.

12. Recommendation

Grant planning permission.

(i) Any necessary conditions to include:

• Opening and delivery hours: Monday to Friday 0900 – 2300hrs, Saturday 0900 – 2230hrs, and Sunday 1000 – 1900hrs. • All conditions from the previous planning permission (10/00017/FUL).

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

116

Planning Application No: 10/00764/VV Location Woodville House, 10 Upper Green, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388728 300089 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 166m2

117

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00679/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 17-Jun-10 TARGET DATE: 12-Aug-10 RECEIVED: 17.06.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Fallings Park Childrens Day Centre, Helenny Close, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Change of use of existing day centre to a nursing home for the elderly.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr S Sahota Turnbull Tweedale 82 Birmingham Street 61 Oaken Lanes Olbury Codsall Warley South Staffordshire West Midlands WV8 2AW B69 4EB

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is occupied by a vacant single storey building. This was formerly Fallings Park Children’s day centre. The site has vehicular access from Helenny Close and there is also a pedestrian access from Milton Road. There is an area for parking to the front of the building that can accommodate approximately six vehicles.

1.2 The building is located in a residential area. The immediately adjacent dwellings are 20 and 24 Helenny Close. A number of properties along Milton Road and Bushbury Lane back onto the site.

1.3 The site has a rear amenity space of 550m².

2. Application details

2.1 The application has been made to change the use of the building to form a twelve bedroom nursing home. The proposal does not involve any extensions or external alterations to the appearance of the building.

2.2 The application proposes parking provision for up to six vehicles including one disabled parking bay. Cycle parking would be provided for staff. It is proposed to introduce a turning head in the car park. The existing pedestrian link from Milton Road is to be maintained.

2.3 The rear amenity space is to be re-landscaped as part of the proposal.

2.4 A total of nine staff are to be employed, three of those would be part time.

118 3. Planning History

3.1 A/D/0054/85 for Extension to provide parents room and store room - Granted, dated 11.02.1995.

3.2 A/D/3005/77 for Day Nursery - Granted, dated 06.12.1977.

4. Constraints

4.1 None relevant.

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 D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy H7 - Conversion of Buildings from Non-Residential to Residential H12 - Residential Care Homes AM1 - Access, Mobility and New Development AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

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

7. Publicity

7.1 Two representations received objecting on the following grounds:

(i) Insufficient parking; (ii) Increased on-street parking on Helenny Close; (iii) Parking could be provided elsewhere in the site; (iv) Noise disturbance;

119 (v) Increased vehicular movement; (vi) Pedestrian safety; (vii) Loss of privacy; (viii) No provision for storage of waste.

8. Consultees

8.1 Environmental Services – No objection subject to a condition restricting hours of delivery/waste collection vehicles but excluding movement of vehicles for medical reasons.

8.2 Planning Policy Section – No comments received at time of writing.

8.3 Transportation Development – The ratio of parking to residents would be 1:2.4 which is higher than many existing care homes. On balance the site would be able to contain its parking demand but there could be overflow parking at busier periods. Whilst this is a concern, the existing use as a day nursery would almost certainly have a greater impact.

8.4 Details of a large scale plan (1:200) of the parking, access and turning area should be submitted.

8.5 Conditions should be applied for cycle parking and maintenance of footway link.

8.6 Adults and Communities – The applicants must assure themselves that their proposals meet the new Care Quality Commission standards relating to quality and safety.

8.7 Access – No objections.

9. Legal Implications

9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications (LD/17082010/Y).

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues are: • Principle of change of use • Provision of amenity space • Access and parking • Orientation/internal layout

Principle of change of use 10.2 Policy H12 requires that residential care homes are suitable for the building, compatible and in character with the area and surrounding land uses, provide adequate access and parking and have sufficient useable garden space. The application has been made to change the use of the day nursery to a 12-bedroom nursing home for the elderly. The surrounding area is predominantly residential; on this basis a residential institution, as proposed, would be compatible with the surrounding land uses and the character of the area. The principle of the use would not adversely affect existing residential amenity enjoyed by the occupiers of surrounding properties. The principle of the proposed change of use is therefore acceptable in accordance with policy H12.

120 Provision of amenity space 10.3 The site has an existing space to the rear of the building for amenity purposes; this is approximately 550m². In accordance with guidance provided in SPG3 ‘Residential Development’ the amount of amenity space is adequate to serve the occupiers needs. The level of amenity space is also acceptable in respect of policy H12 which requires that residential care homes provide sufficient useable garden space.

Access and parking 10.4 Policies H12, AM12 and AM15 require that proposals provide satisfactory vehicular access and parking, and improve road safety and personal security. The access and parking arrangements are restricted by the existing site layout. A total of six parking spaces including one disabled parking bay have been proposed. The site plan also proposes a turning facility within the site. However, as the levels vary across the site it needs to be demonstrated that this can be achieved. The applicants have been requested to submit large scale plans for the parking and turning area to include site levels.

10.5 The provision of six parking spaces would generally be acceptable. It is acknowledged that during busier visiting periods that there could be overflow parking onto Helenny Close; however this would be infrequent and not significant enough to warrant recommending the application for refusal. The building already has an existing day nursery use; the retention of this use would likely have a greater impact on local residents in terms of parking than the proposed use.

10.6 The application proposes to retain and utilise the existing pedestrian access from Milton Road. It would provide access for staff and visitors. Details of access times and security arrangements should be detailed and submitted for prior approval.

10.7 Overall the proposed parking and access arrangements would accord with polices H12, AM12 and AM15 by providing adequate parking and access arrangements subject to satisfactory details being provided in respect of the site layout and pedestrian access.

Orientation/Internal Layout 10.8 Policy D13 requires that proposals respect the principles of a sustainable environment in terms of their resources and energy. The proposed individual bedrooms have been appropriately located with outlook from the east and west of the building. This arrangement ensures that the accommodation will benefit from natural sunlight during the course of the day minimising the reliance on artificial heat and lighting sources. The proposed layout respects the principles of policy D13.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The principle of a nursing home use for this site is acceptable. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and therefore the use would respect the character and surrounding land use of the area. This would meet the requirements of policy H12.

11.2 The site would provide adequate private amenity space to serve the occupiers of the nursing home and would accord with the requirements of policy H12 and guidance provided in SPG3.

11.3 On balance, the access and parking arrangements are generally acceptable, however further details are required to demonstrate that a turning facility can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site given the levels variation. Details of arrangements for the pedestrians access are also required. Providing this can be adequately demonstrated the proposal would accord with policies AM12, AM15 and H12.

121 12. Recommendation

12.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant subject to:

1. The receipt of satisfactory plans demonstrating that the turning head can be satisfactorily accommodated within the site and details of the proposed pedestrian access arrangements.

2. Any necessary conditions to include; • Landscaping • Parking and access available prior to use commencing • Restrict use within Class C2 • Cycle storage • Restrict delivery hours except for medical reasons • Bin stores • Lighting • Footway link to be retained

Case Officer : Mark Elliot Telephone No : 01902 555648 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

122

Planning Application No: 10/00679/FUL Location Fallings Park Childrens Day Centre, Helenny Close, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393177 300327 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area 1882m2

123

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 07-Sep-10 APP NO: 10/00680/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill DATE: 18-Jun-10 TARGET DATE: 13-Aug-10 RECEIVED: 16.06.2010 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 2 Burncross Way, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Single storey rear and side extension.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mrs A Mohindra Mr M Faulkner 2 Burncross Way TDF Design Ltd Wolverhampton 202 Spies Lane WV10 9YH Halesowen West Midlands B62 9SW

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site contains a small semi-detached property, 2 Burncross Way. The dwelling formerly had a rear garden area approximately 10m long and 6m wide. The immediately adjacent dwellings are 1 and 3 Burncross Way. Both adjacent dwellings are of a similar scale, design and appearance and neither have been extended to the rear.

1.2 The surrounding area is largely residential as the dwelling is sited in a fairly modern residential housing estate.

1.3 The dwelling has an unauthorised single storey extension to the rear (09/01019/RP). The extension had not been occupied.

2. Application details

2.1 The application has been made following the withdrawal of a previous application made for the retention of the existing single storey extension (09/01019/RP). This application was withdrawn on officer advice that it would not gain planning permission by reason of its scale and massing impacting on neighbour amenity.

2.2 This application has been made for a single storey side/rear extension. This would retain part of the existing structure on site and extend the dwellinghouse to the side.

2.3 The proposed rear extension would extend 4.85m. The side element would then wrap around the south-east corner of the dwellinghouse projecting 2.5m from the side elevation. The extension would have a flat roof approximately 3m high.

124 2.4 The structure would be brick built to match the existing dwellinghouse.

2.5 The extension provides for a bedroom and bathroom with a small lobby connection to the existing dwellinghouse.

3. Planning History

3.1 09/01019/RP – Single storey rear extension – Withdrawn, 22 January 2010.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes

5. Relevant Policies

The Development Plan 5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan

D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy H11 - Special Needs Accommodation

Other relevant policies 5.2 PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development

5.3 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Documents SPG3 – Residential Development SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5.4 Black Country Core Strategy (publication document Nov 2009).

6. Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations

7. Publicity

7.1 No representations received.

125 8. Consultees

Environmental Services – No observations.

Enforcement – No observations.

9. Legal Implications

9.1 General legal implications are set out at the beginning of the schedule of planning applications (LD/17082010/U).

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues are: -

(i) Reason for the extension (ii) Impact on neighbour amenity (iii) Loss of rear amenity space

Reason for the extension 10.2 The existing extension on site has been constructed without obtaining planning permission, the applicants were advised that this would not gain permission due to its scale, massing and impact on neighbour amenity.

10.3 The proposal looks to retain part of this building, demolishing the rearmost element, and extend to the side. The extension is for the purposes of providing ground floor accommodation for a disabled person and the application was supported by a letter confirming this. The requirement for the extension is therefore acknowledged and forms a material consideration, however this needs to be assessed against the planning considerations detailed below. Adults and Communities were involved in pre- application discussions in support of the proposal.

Impact on neighbour amenity 10.4 Policy D8 and H11 of the adopted UDP requires that proposals should not adversely affect people’s amenities in respect of outlook, loss of daylight/sunlight and loss of privacy and that residential accommodation for people with special needs should be suitable to the site, character and use of the area. An appropriately scaled extension for residential use would be compatible with the land use and character of the area to satisfy policy H11.

10.5 The existing single storey rear extension which has been constructed without obtaining planning permission has an adverse impact on both neighbouring properties by reason of its scale and massing. The application proposes to reduce the rearward projection of the structure by approximately 2m to 4.85m. Generally a single storey rear extension along the common boundary at this scale would be unacceptable. However, as the proposal has been set almost 2m off the boundary and the flat roof would not be higher than 3m, the potential overbearing impact would not be significant. On this basis, and taking into consideration the purpose of the extension to provide accommodation for a disabled person, the extension would not adversely affect the residential amenity enjoyed by either neighbouring property to an unacceptable degree and would be satisfactory in terms of policy D8. The extension of a residential use would be compatible with the character and use of the surrounding area and would be in accordance with policy H11.

126

Loss of rear amenity space 10.6 Wolverhampton’s SPG3 and SPG4 gives advice on the sizes of rear amenity spaces. The original rear garden area was approximately 10m long and 6m wide, thus providing a reasonable garden for a small family house. The unauthorised single storey building results in an unacceptable loss of amenity space and in its existing state the remaining space would not be sufficient to serve the potential needs of future occupiers, contrary to advice in SPG3. The proposal would reduce the rearward projection of the building thus increasing of the amount of amenity space to the rear.

10.7 In this instance the dwelling is not occupied by a family and the applicant needs the proposed internal space due to disability. On balance, the proposal is considered to be acceptable with regard to UDP policies D8 and H6 as well as guidance provided in SPG3 and SPG4.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposed extension would provide much needed ground floor accommodation for a disabled person. The reason for this extension is material, however it does not outweigh other considerations as the extension would form a permanent building remaining long after the personal circumstance of the applicant has ceased to be material. The current proposal would significantly reduce the scale and massing of the unauthorised extension. The reduced scale and massing of the extension would avoid adversely affecting neighbouring amenity to an unacceptable degree and would be acceptable terms of policies D7, D8 and H11 of the adopted UDP.

11.2 The reduced scale of the unauthorised building would increase the amount of amenity space. This space would be sufficient to meet the needs the occupiers. This would be satisfactory in terms of policies D8, H6 and guidance provided in SPG 3 and SPG4.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Grant, subject to the following conditions:

(i) Matching materials (ii) Six months limit for unauthorised building to be reduced in size in accordance with approved development.

Case Officer : Mark Elliot Telephone No : 01902 555648 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

127

Planning Application No: 10/00680/FUL Location 2 Burncross Way, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392570 300591 Plan Printed 24.08.2010 Application Site Area m2

128