Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Agenda Item No: 6

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 3rd February 2009

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

That Members determine the submitted applications according to the recommendation made in respect of each one. PLANNING COMMITTEE (3rd February 2009)

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

08/01364/FUL Castlecroft Garage Limited Tettenhall Page 4 Finchfield Hill Wightwick Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9EN

Application Type Smallscale Major Retail

08/01454/FUL Shoulder Of Mutton Public Tettenhall Page 12 House Wightwick Wood Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8NF

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling

08/01363/FUL Site Of Former Hare And East Park Page 20 Hounds Stowheath Lane Wolverhampton West Midlands WV1 2QN

Application Type Smallscale Major All Other Development

08/01323/FUL 1D Clark Road Park Page 24 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9NW

Application Type Minor Retail

08/01220/FUL 64 Wergs Road Tettenhall Regis Page 29 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8TD

Application Type Minor Dwellings

2 08/01522/FUL 11 Dewsbury Drive Penn Page 33 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV4 5RH

Application Type Householder

08/01497/FUL Westwood Hotel Park Page 37 259-261& 263 Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 0DE

Application Type Smallscale Major All Other Development

08/01478/DWF Site Of The Former The Glassy Blakenhall Page 45 Inn Bromley Street Wolverhampton West Midlands WV2 3AS Application Type Smallscale Major All Other Development

08/01195/FUL Former Sports Ground, Ettingshall Page 52 Spring Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

Application Type Minor All Other Development

08/01240/RP 73 Tettenhall Road Park Page 59 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9NE

Application Type Householder

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09 APP NO: 08/01364/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 05-Nov-08 TARGET DATE: 04-Feb-09 RECEIVED: 24.10.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Castlecroft Garage Limited, Finchfield Hill, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Neighbourhood foodstore and car parking. [revised application to retain the development as constructed, 830mm higher at the front and 650mm at the rear than approved under application 08/00371/FUL].

APPLICANT: AGENT: Miss Charlotte Davies Lidl UK GMBH Suite 2 Parkside House Oldbury Road Rowley Regis B65 OJR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description and Background

1.1 The application site is located in a prominent position at the junction of Finchfield Hill, Oak Hill and Finchfield Road West. Opposite the front of the site (east) lie two parades of shops with flats above, this is the local centre of Finchfield. The existing shops are set at a higher level than the site, the local centre rises along Finchfield Road West and on the southern boundary lies the former St Thomas’s Church (a locally listed building currently vacant) and behind this newly constructed detached housing. On the northern boundary is No. 42 Finchfield Hill, this residential property is also owned by Lidl and currently boarded up pending completion of the development when it will be returned into use as a dwelling house. The western boundaries of the site are marked by existing residential properties in The Terrace and those dwellings which front onto White Oak Drive.

1.2 Following the approval of planning permission for a neighbourhood foodstore in June 2008, Lidl have undertaken significant construction works and a semi-completed foodstore now stands on the site. A site assessment was undertaken in November 2008 where it was found that the store was being constructed higher than that approved. A temporary Stop Notice was served and works have ceased until the issue is resolved.

2. Relevant Planning History

2.1 In 2001 a planning application was submitted for a retail development (Waitrose) application reference 01/1621/FP. This application was withdrawn on 15 May 2002.

2.2 In 2003 an application for residential development on the site was submitted, application reference 03/1068/FP/M. This application was granted planning permission in April 2004.

4 2.3 In 2004 an application was submitted for retail development (Marks & Spencer Food) application reference 04/0678/FP/M. This application was refused planning permission in July 2004.

2.4 In 2007 an application was submitted for retail development (Lidl UK) reference 07/00446/FUL. This application was refused planning permission on 31 October 2007 for reasons of unacceptable design.

2.5 In 2008 an application was submitted for retail development (Lidl UK) reference 08/00371/FUL. This application proposed a revised design and was reported to Planning Committee on 24 June 2008 where it was resolved to grant planning permission.

3. Constraints

3.1 The only constraint identified in respect of this development is that of possible ground contamination of the site resulting from the previous use associated with works to vehicles.

4. Application Details

4.1 This planning application is very similar to the proposal as submitted under previous application reference 08/00371/FUL approved by Planning Committee on 24 June 2008. The proposal is still for a Lidl neighbourhood foodstore of the same floor space (790sq metres net), with a total gross internal floor area of 1113 sq metres.

4.2 The proposal includes the provision of 66 parking spaces which includes four designed for people with disabilities and four designed as parent and child spaces. The proposal includes a covered cycle store with provision for the parking of five cycles and an additional open cycle parking area with provision for three cycles. The proposal includes the provision of a 1.8 to 2 metre high brick wall along the car park boundary with a short length of 2.2 metre high timber fence. The car park would be screened around the boundaries with a mixture of trees and shrubbery. The only significant change to the proposal is for the development of a building higher than that previously approved. Lidl have undertaken a survey of the proposed modifications and this includes an increase in the height of the slab level by 400mm (40cm) and an increase in the height of the building by 250mm (25cm) at the rear and 430mm (43cm) at the front. The increase in the level of the slab plus the taller building results in a building 650mm (65cm) higher at the rear and 830mm (83cm) higher at the front than the one previously granted planning permission. The Council has commissioned its own survey and the results agree with the findings of Lidl’s surveyors.

4.3 The building has an overall length along the frontage of 42 metres with an average depth from front to rear of 24 metres. The proposed height of the building along the Finchfield Hill frontage would be 7.6 metres at the southern end (Oak Hill) and 9 metres at the northern end (Finchfield Hill) the proposed corner tower feature would rise to a height of 10.5 metres. The building would have a mono pitched roof which would fall gently from front to rear, the rear height of the building being 5.5 metres.

4.4 The main entrance of the store is at the southern (front corner) of the building which provides enhanced opportunities for linked trips between the store and the existing shops in Finchfield. The building is constructed in mainly red facing brickwork with horizontal cladding to the projecting bays which are to be finished in western red cedar. The proposed eaves fascias would be in aluminium and roof would be of aluminium standing seam construction. The windows and entrance doors are powder coated aluminium in Lidl livery blue and the corner tower feature is to be finished in

5 powder coated metal cassette panels in white aluminium with inset red cedar surrounds. Along the Finchfield Hill frontage, the three main projecting bays will have some clear and some blanked out glazing. The side elevation into the car park is to be mainly glazed with a canopy providing an area to store shopping trolleys. The facades to the rear (west) and side towards the dwelling No. 42 Finchfield Hill (east) are finished in blank facades of brickwork.

4.5 The store is sited on the eastern boundary which is also the main frontage to the highway. The building frontage is situated on the back of an extended pavement and follows the established building line of adjacent residential properties. The proposed front forecourt is to have a bespoke hard and soft landscape design and will include three mature trees positioned to reflect the recessed design in the front of the building.

4.6 The proposed car parking areas are located to the side and rear of the building which is approached by the provision of a new vehicular access off the existing roundabout. The realignment of the roundabout has just been completed to create this vehicular access. The proposed car park will have landscape buffers between the proposed wall and car parking spaces ranging from a depth of 4.5 metres to 1.8 metres.

4.7 In respect of servicing and deliveries to the store, the service area is to be located to the rear of the building. The application confirms that a 16.5 metre long articulated HGV would deliver to the store at a frequency of one per day. Appropriate auto track information has been submitted to confirm highway accessibility and manoeuvring into the service yard.

4.8 The application submission is supported by documentation including a design and access statement, a transport assessment, a retail impact assessment and a statement of community involvement.

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 Within the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (June 2006), the application site is located immediately adjacent to the identified Finchfield Local Centre.

5.2 The relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies to this proposal include the following:

D1: Design Quality D2: Design Statement D3: Urban Structure D4: Urban Grain D5: Public Realm D6: Townscape and Landscape D7: Scale - Height D8: Scale - Massing D9: Appearance D10: Community Safety D11: Access for People with Disabilities SH1: Centre Strategy SH2: Centre Uses SH3: Need for the Sequential Approach SH4: Integration of Development in Centres SH8: Local Centres AM1: Access, Mobility and New Development AM12: Parking and Servicing Provision AM15: Road Safety and Personal Security HE1: Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness S4: Mixed Use Development

5.3 Other relevant planning guidance includes the following:

PPS1: Delivery of Sustainable Development PPS6: Planning for Town Centres CABE - By Design PPG13 – Transport

6. Publicity

6.1 In response to the publicity, 18 individual letters of objection have been received and a petition containing 257 signatures. The letters of objection are from residents at 3, 4, 5 Birch Glade, 1, 25, 26 Finchfield Hill, 59 White Oak Drive, 2, 24, 34B, 38 Oak Hill, 4 The Dingle, 51 Uplands Avenue, 1A The Parklands, 31 Westhill, 27 Broadway, 28 Bellencroft Gardens, 11 The Terrace, 2 Meadow Road. The issues of concern to these residents include the following:

• out of proportion/out of character with adjacent buildings • looks obtrusive/dominant/overpowering in the street scene • less aesthetically pleasing • object to a store here in principle • object to proposed increase in height of brick boundary wall • needs to be corrected

6.3 There have also been four letters of support for the development which are from residents at 8 The Terrace, 5, 41, 56 Linden Lea, 22 Pool Hall Road, 43 Redhouse Road and 29 Meadow Road. The reasons for support include:

• two feet in height is neither here nor there • no point in prolonging the disruption • any delay to the completion of the project would be of no benefit to the community • delaying the project would prolong the presence of hazardous conditions for parents and children at Westacre School • within walking distance of older people/lifeline to the elderly • project needs to be finished as soon as possible.

7. Internal Consultations

7.1 Planning Policy confirm that they consider that the tests of need, the sequential test and impact have been met and in retail planning policy terms this proposal is acceptable in principle subject to conditions as follows:

• that the net floor space sales area does not exceed 790 sq metres • that within the sales area, not more than 158 sq metres of floorspace is used for the sale of non-food goods • that the unit cannot be sub-divided • that no mezzanine floors will be installed

7.2 Neighbourhood Renewal confirm no comments.

7.3 Landscape have commented in respect of appropriate shrub planting densities and soil requirements which can be conditioned.

7.4 Transportation make detailed comments in relation to visibility. In assessment these comments can be addressed with a suitable condition.

7 8. External Consultations

8.1 Centro confirm no objections.

8.2 Severn Trent Water - no objection subject to the inclusion of a planning condition.

9. Appraisal

9.1 As the application is for development which is in most regards the same as that for which permission was granted, the main issues for consideration with the amended proposal are:

(i) The appropriateness of the increased height of the building. (ii) The acceptability of the proposed car park levels and associated boundary treatment.

9.2 Appropriateness of the Increased Height of the Building This amended application proposal has arisen due to the building being constructed at the site being higher than that which was granted planning permission. Lidl have confirmed from their own survey and analysis that the building is 650mm higher at the rear and 830mm higher at the front than that approved. This increased height is due to a combination of two elements. Firstly, that the slab level of the building is 400mm higher than approved and secondly that the roof trusses are higher than approved. The reasons given for this is that Lidl’s technical experts were concerned about the possibility of the building flooding and secondly that lower roof trusses would not have worked appropriately.

9.3 As the built development is near completion, an assessment of the resubmission is easier to make in that the development can now be seen on site. Viewing the building from the front (Finchfield Hill) this road rises toward the centre of Finchfield and the adjacent houses i.e. 36, 38, 40 and 42 step up along this frontage. The Lidl development now on site again steps up from No. 42 and in this respect, this small element of stepping would seem appropriate. The Lidl store is part of the centre of Finchfield and the Lidl site is located at the lowest point of the centre with the two parades of shops along Finchfield Road West rising away from the building. In this respect, the height of the building would not seem to be out of scale or proportion relative to the local centre of Finchfield. Overall in terms of street scene and appropriateness relative to the local centre, although the building has been constructed higher than approved, it is not considered to be of a disproportionate scale to adjacent buildings along its frontage.

9.4 As the building backs onto other residential properties in The Terrace, the effect of the increased height of the building must also be considered. Lidl have recently commissioned a sun path analysis and a comparative sun path analysis, this analysis considers the impact of three different structures on the application site and the impact of these on residential properties numbered 7 and 8 The Terrace. This includes an analysis of the scheme as approved, the scheme as built, and the previously approved residential scheme for the site. The comparative sun path analysis undertaken at various times during the day confirms that the increased height of the building from that approved would have a very negligible impact upon sunlight to the rear of the adjacent dwellings. The submitted sun path analysis of the approved residential scheme indicates that this would have a greater impact than either of the two Lidl submissions during the winter months. The Local Authority must also consider any additional overbearing impact upon neighbouring residents. Whilst the Building is visibly higher at the rear, the difference between that approved and constructed is considered not to have a significant material impact that would justify demolition of the building.

9.5 Proposed Car Park Levels and Associated Boundary Treatment When the previous application was submitted, this did not include any proposed levels for the car park to the side and rear of the building. The amended application now includes details of the proposed levels of the car park. The details submitted show that the level of the site will fall by approximately 1.8 metres from the access point at Finchfield Hill down toward the rear of the site where dwellings front onto White Oak Drive. These levels fall from 121.95 down to 120.08. From an analysis of the site survey plan submitted (prior to the Lidl development) the proposed levels would be virtually the same as the original site levels.

9.6 To achieve appropriate drainage, site sections across the car park show that from the existing level of the land at No. 11 The Terrace, the level of the proposed car park would rise by 27cm and from the newly constructed houses off Oak Hill, the level of the car park would rise by 51cm. From the rear garden of No. 10 The Terrace, the proposed car park level would rise by up to 71cm and again from the newly constructed dwellings off Oak Hill the proposed car park would rise by 23cm. To help mitigate the required levels, Lidl have proposed to increase the proposed height of the rear/side boundary wall to 2 metres along the boundaries with 10 and 11 The Terrace, along the rear boundaries of 41 – 49 White Oak Drive and the rear boundaries of the new dwellings off Oak Hill and increase the height of the proposed close boarded timber fence to 2 metres along the rear boundary with No. 9 The Terrace and 2.2 metres along the side boundary of this property and along the rear boundary of No. 8 The Terrace. The proposed increase in height of the boundary treatments will help to mitigate any noise or visual disturbance from the car park, the proposed scheme will also include substantial tree planting between the car park level and the boundary fence/wall treatment. Letters confirming support for the increased wall height have been received from 43, 45 and 49 White Oak Drive and 10 The Terrace. A letter of objection has been received from 11 The Terrace. Lidl have confirmed that they will work with the neighbouring residents at 11 The Terrace to achieve an agreed height of boundary treatment.

10. Conclusions

10.1 The principle of a neighbourhood food store at this location, the positioning of the building, the floor space of the building, access and parking arrangements and hours of operation, have been agreed under the previous application, and are considered to be acceptable. The key issues of consideration on this application is whether the increased height of the building is appropriate. In addition, the proposed car park levels have been submitted for assessment with the application with associated proposals for a modest increase in the proposed height of the boundary brick wall and timber fencing.

10.2 Following assessment of the amended scheme, it is considered that the development as mainly constructed would be appropriate in the street scene when viewed from Finchfield Hill and considering the context of the wider Finchfield local centre. The increased impact on neighbours to the rear would be negligible, and the proposed increase in boundary wall height with proposed landscaping, will help to screen the proposed levels of the car park.

9 11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant planning permission subject to:

11.2 A deed of variation to the existing Section 106 Agreement with the Council for the provision of public art and for the provision of a local road safety scheme including provision for the reporting/advertising of revised TROs.

11.3 Conditions to include:

• Floor space sales area not to exceed 790 sq metres. • Not more than 158 sq metres of floor space to be used for the sale of non-food goods. • Unit not to be sub-divided. • No mezzanine floors to be installed. • Hours of operation shall not be outside 8.00am - 8.00pm Monday to Friday and 10.00am – 4.00pm Sundays and Bank Holidays. • Delivery/collections not outside store opening hours and are outside peak transport hours (school drop off and pick up times) and are from Finchfield Road West only. • Noise insulation measures prior to the store being brought into use. • No external refuse storage. • Landscape scheme. • Exterior of building to be constructed in accordance with approved details prior to use. • Boundary treatment details including wall and railings to frontage and provision of these before store is brought into use. • Hours of construction. • Wheel wash. • Drainage details. • Visibility splays to be provided and maintained. • Cycle store, motorcycle parking facilities and parking facilities for people with disabilities, prior to store being brought into use. • Car park provided, laid out and maintained for the use of the store. • Lighting scheme for the site, including hours of operation of lighting. • Contaminated land investigation and mitigation. • Chiller motors (and other noise creating service installations) to be agreed before store is brought into use.

Case Officer : Martyn Gregory Telephone No : 551125 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: 08/01364/FUL Location Castlecroft Garage Limited, Finchfield Hill,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388401 298128 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 4826m2

11 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01454/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 04-Dec-08 TARGET DATE: 05-Mar-09 RECEIVED: 25.11.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Shoulder Of Mutton Public House, Wood Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Demolition of pub and erection of 11No. dwellings, new access and associated works.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mrs Rachel Newnes Mr Andrew Tildesley Marstons PLC WYG Planning & Design C/O Agent Aqua House 20 Lionel Street Birmingham B3 1AQ

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 TPO’d trees in the extreme north off the site. Vehicular access is from Wood Road, adjacent on the west side of the public house, which fronts onto that road.

1.2 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 On either side of the application site, fronting Wood Road, 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 northeast (19th Century cottages). • Properties Nos. 70-82 Wood Road to the southwest. (19th Century houses).

1.5 To the north, the application site backs onto the residential cul-de-sac Tanfield Close To the northeast, houses in Woodland Avenue back onto the site.

1.6 The application site is bounded by a close boarded fence with a height of approximately 1.6m on the northern and western site boundaries, with a 2m high hedge on the eastern boundary.

1.7 The application site has approximately five ‘Tettenhall Dick’ pear trees located at the rear of the public house. 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 with most of the properties characterised by large sized gardens.

2. Application details

2.1 The application follows the refusal of applications for the residential redevelopment of the site in 2007 and 2008.

2.2 The applicant proposes the demolition of the existing public house and its replacement with a total of 11 houses:- 5 detached, 4 link-detached and 2 semi-detached houses, with a density of 25 dwgs/ha.

2.3 The proposed layout has the form of a central cul-de-sac, with houses on both sides and at the end.

2.4 The schedule of accommodation below illustrates the different house types in relation to private amenity space and the number of bedrooms.

SCHEDULE OF ACCOMODATION Private Plot No. Amenity House Types Numbers Bedrooms Space (s.q.m.) 1 Detached 5 217 2 Detached 4 185 3 Detached 4 208 4 Detached 4 149 5 Detached 4 171 6 Semi-detached 4 169 7 Semi-detached 4 175 8 Semi-detached 3 216 9 Semi-detached 4 90 10 Semi-detached 4 90 11 Semi-detached 3 205

2.5 The row of four houses at the end of the cul-de-sac (plots 8-11) 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 7 & 3.

2.6 In addition to plots 8-11 having a private amenity space to the rear (north), these houses would also have access to the wooded area where the protected trees are located at present (approximately 355sqm), which would serve as private, communal amenity space.

2.7 Plots 6 to 7, on the east side of the access road, are a pair of houses linked by a pair of garages.

2.8 The detached houses (plots 1 to 5) would all have single in-curtilage garages and a short private driveway. The houses on plots 1 and 4 are shown located on either side of the entrance to the site. The house on plot 1 (west side) would have its main elevation and front door facing onto the new road, while that on plot 4 (east side) would have its front door onto the Wood Road.

13 2.9 The design of the houses is contemporary in character, though the design has attempted to capture architectural features which are representative of the surrounding area and help define its character.

2.10 The submitted details of materials to be used on the buildings are as follows: brick work facing, slate roof tiles, timber windows, black UPVC rainwater goods, timber painted doors, colour renders, zinc cladding and reconstituted stone.

3. Planning History

3.1 08/00458/CON - Demolition of existing public house to enable redevelopment of site for residential purposes. Refused 28 May 08.

3.2 08/00457/FUL - Demolition of pub and erection of 11No. dwellings. Refused 28 May 08.

3.3 07/01404/CAC - Demolition of existing public house to enable redevelopment of site for residential purposes. Refused 26 Nov 07.

3.4 07/01403/FUL – Demolition of Public House and erection of 8 houses and 12 flats. Refused 6 Dec 07.

4. Constraints

4.1 Conservation Area - : Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area Tree Preservation Order

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Guidance

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPG13 Transport PPG15 Planning and the historic environment

5.2 UDP Policies

14 HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist HE3 Preservation and Enhance. of Con. Areas HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 Control of Development in a Con. Area HE7 Underused Buildings Structures in CA HE8 Encouragement of Appropriate ReDev in CA AM1 Access, Motability and New Development AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM14 Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Com. AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security R7 Open Space Requirements for New Develop.

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 Residential Development Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area Appraisal

6. Publicity

6.1 One hundred and twenty four letters of objection have been received, including objections from the Headteacher of Christ Church Infant School and Rob Marris MP. They are primarily concerned with the loss of the public house and the impact that the loss of pub car park (which is used by the general public and not just pub customers) would have on highway safety.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Conservation - Subject to appropriate materials and detailing, the scheme should positively enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.2 Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area Appraisal identifies the area of land as being "poor quality open space" (ref: Townscape Appraisal Map p.17). The text refers to the area as "significant but bland". It does not have any significant townscape value, in that, for example, it does not frame an important view or provide a setting for a prominent building. The promotion of improvements to the appearance of the areas of "poor quality open space" in the conservation area is one of the management proposals referred to in the document.

7.3 Typical details of joinery, eaves details, railings rainwater goods etc. and sample of materials should be submitted for consideration in order that the quality of the scheme can be properly assessed.

7.4 The proposed roof covering specification is of concern. The site is partly within the Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area and the use of artificial ‘traditional’ materials should be avoided. If a traditional roof covering is proposed, appropriate materials must be specified in order to ensure a high quality scheme. I would suggest the use of natural slate and not ‘composite slate tiles’.

7.5 Transportation Development - Have concerns regarding visibility, width of parking spaces, width of highway and continuity of footways.

7.6 Environmental Services - Comments awaited.

7.7 Trees – There are no other trees on this site that are of sufficient value to deserve protecting by T.P.O. Request that trees be planted adjacent to the footway on Wood Road.

7.8 Access Team - Make detailed Building Control comments.

8. External consultees

8.1 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. They also state that a public sewer crosses the site and that this may need to be diverted if we were minded to grant permission.

8.2 Police - The police are seeking a contribution of £195.68 per household equating to a total sum of £2,152.47 in order to order to help meet the draw on existing police resources which they consider will arise from this development.

8.6 CAMRA - Although they accept that the building has little architectural merit, they consider that there is a need for this facility in the local community.

9. Appraisal

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

• The loss of the public house • Principle of development • Layout & siting • Design, scale and appearance • Loss of pub car park • Car parking and access • Section 106 requirements

The loss of the public house 9.2 The proposed application results in the loss of a public house that is currently used as a community meeting place, as defined under UDP Policy C3. This loss was determined to be acceptable in previous applications (07/01403/FUL & 08/00457/FUL). Evidence provided with those applications illustrated that there is a another public house and a community centre within walking distance (400m) that would, in part, be able to cater for the loss of the public house.

Principle of development 9.3 The area is mainly residential and so with policy C3 satisfied the site is suitable for residential development. UDP policy H9 states that residential development should have a density of 30-50 dwellings per ha. The density for the submitted scheme is 25 dph. However, due to the character of the area and the morphology of the site it is considered that this is an appropriate density of development.

Layout and Siting 9.4 Although the ‘highway’ covers a relatively large proportion of the overall site area, the ‘place’ function of the street, outweighs the movement function. This ‘place’ function comes largely from creating a strong relationship between the street and the buildings and spaces that frame it. The buildings would satisfactorily define the street and create a comfortable sense of enclosure within it. The houses on plots 9 and 10 would provide a ‘terminating view’ along the access road.

Design , scale & appearance 9.5 The submitted Design and Access Statement states that the design and appearance of the proposed development takes its inspiration from the Wood Road streetscape and

16 adjacent 19th Century terrace houses and cottages. However, although the proposed houses are ‘inspired by’ they do not seek to ‘replicate’ or ‘copy’.

9.6 Tettenhall Wood illustrates that different architectural styles can evolve compatibly and still retain their own aesthetic character. In addition, it is desirable to have representative buildings of all periods – including our own. CABE (the Commission of Architecture and the Built Environment). Therefore, the contemporary approach to the architecture of the houses is supported in principle

9.7 However, in order to be successful, it is important that significant attention is paid to the detailed design of the scheme. New buildings will be expected to compete with predecessors on equal terms and be judged accordingly. The neighbouring properties demonstrate a high standard of design. In addition, Policy D6 emphasises that proposals should preserve or enhance qualities of townscape and landscape character that are of value. Furthermore, policies D1 and D9 highlight the importance of demonstrating a high standard of design and contribute towards the creation of a strong sense of place through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials.

9.8 Subject to appropriate high quality detailing and materials, it is considered that the proposed development would represent a high standard of design and would contribute towards the creation of a strong sense of place. Such an approach would enhance the character and appearance of the Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area.

Loss of Pub Car Park 9.9 A significant number local residents have stated the existing car park is regularly used by residents and visitors and that there are concerns that the loss of so many spaces would cause significant highway safety problems. However, the car park is in private ownership and its use by the public is permissive and not of right. Therefore, although the loss of the car park is a concern to local residents, it is not appropriates to attached significant weight to its loss.

Car Parking and Access 9.10 The number of parking spaces provided (2 per dwelling) is acceptable providing that the spaces are of sufficient dimensions to ensure that they can be used. They are currently sub-standard. The agents have been asked to remedy this.

9.11 Transportation have concerns regarding visibility at the entrance to the site. The agents have been asked to address these concerns.

9.12 Concerns regarding the width of the access road and continuity of the footway are matters for the adoption of the road and not for planning. In planning terms there would be no objection to the road being privately maintained.

Section 106 Requirements 9.13 There is a requirement for a S106 to secure affordable housing, public art and open space/play contribution (BCIS indexed) as well as targeted recruitment and training.

9.14 Regarding the Police’s request for funding, a S106 obligations should be directly proportionate and reasonably related to the impacts of the proposed scheme. However, it is considered unlikely that the replacement of a public house with 11 family houses would result in an increase in crime and therefore it is not considered appropriate to request such a contribution.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The residential development of the site is acceptable in principle.

10.2 There are matters of detail relating to parking provision and visibility which need to be addressed.

10.3 The proposed development demonstrates a high standard of design which, subject to appropriate high quality details and materials, would enhance the character and appearance of the Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Delegated authority to grant permission, subject to:

1. Parking dimensions and visibility being satisfactorily addressed.

2. Negotiation of a S106 to secure affordable housing, public art and open space play contribution (BCIS indexed) and targeted recruitment and training.

3. Conditions are recommended to cover:

• Materials • Architectural details • Landscaping scheme • Boundary treatments • Drainage • Car parking • Details of cycle/motorcycle stores • Construction management plan • Parking to be provided and retained • 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 • Access not to be gated • Communal open space not garden, and not to be subdivided. • Management plan for communal open space

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

Planning Application No: 08/01454/FUL Location Shoulder Of Mutton Public House, Wood Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387909 299206 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 4537m2

19 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01363/FUL WARD: East Park DATE: 03-Nov-08 TARGET DATE: 02-Feb-09 RECEIVED: 24.10.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Site Of Former Hare And Hounds, Stowheath Lane, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing public house and redevelopment. Construction of elderly persons carehome and associated landscaping/parking including a new pedestrian footpath from Giffard Road to Green Park.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr D Wormald Mr Paul Burton Care Developments Ltd A P Architecture Ltd 31 Davenport Road E-Inovation Centre Suite SE219 Yarm University Of Wolverhampton Stockton On Tees Telford Campus TS15 9TN Telford Shropshire TF2 9FT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To update Committee and make a recommendation.

2. Background

2.1 This application was reported to Planning Committee on 6th January. Committee delegated authority to grant to the Director, subject to:

• No overriding issues being raised as a result of publicity regarding the effect of the development on the public footpath which crosses the site (part of FP148). • Issues raised by Transportation being satisfactorily addressed. • Negotiation of a S106 agreement to secure a compensatory payment for the loss of recreational open space, a pedestrian route from Giffard Road to the open space to the east, public art and targeted recruitment and training. • Conditions.

2.2 There is a pedestrian crossing over Stowheath Lane, adjacent to the Hare and Hounds, which facilitates the crossing of the Road by users of FP148.

3. Updating

3.1 Since 6th January a petition of objection to the pedestrian route from Giffard Road has been received. This has led to further consideration of alternative routes.

3.2 There is an existing public footpath from Green Park Avenue to the east of the Hare and Hounds, to Laburnum Road to the north east. Laburnum road in turn leads to

20 Stowheath Lane. It is considered that this route would be a suitable alternative to the previously proposed route from Giffard Road, subject to the provision of one or two pedestrian refuges in Stowheath Lane, close to the entrance to East Park, at the developers expense. A refuge(s) would facilitate the crossing of the road by pedestrians using the alternative route to get to or from East Park or other destinations on the west side of Stowheath Lane, as the existing pedestrian crossing would be too far to the south to be convenient. The refuge(s) should be provided before the public footpath through the site is lost.

3.3 The compensatory payment required for loss of open space is £277,603 with BCIS index applied annually from 1 Jan 09 and payable before the open space is lost, prior to the commencement of implementation works. This sum should be reduced by the cost of providing the pedestrian refuge(s) on Stowheath Lane to particularly ensure safer accessibility crossing points for local residents into East Park for recreational purposes.

4. Recommendation

4.1 Delegated authority to grant permission, subject to:

(i) No overriding issues being raised as a result of publicity regarding the effect of the development on the public footpath which crosses the site (FP148).

(ii) Issues raised by Transportation being satisfactorily addressed.

(iii) Negotiation of a S106 agreement to secure a compensatory payment for the loss of recreational open space (BCIS indexed annually as from 1st January 2009), pedestrian refuge(s) on Stowheath Lane, public art and targeted recruitment and training.

(iv) Conditions to include: • Use as a care home for the elderly only • Protective fencing for public footpath • Submission of materials • Large scale architectural details • Landscaping including boundary treatments • Drainage • Report to demonstrate that culvert can take vehicular traffic, with strengthening as necessary • Redundant dropped kerb to be made good • Car parking – provision, retention and management • Cycle/motorcycle parking • Workplace travel plan • External lighting • Bin stores • Construction management plan • Amenity space provided as shown • 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 • The public house to be demolished and site cleared prior to commencement of development. • South west corner of pub site omitted from application to be landscaped and maintained in accordance with a schedule agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

Note for information

• The site is within a mining area. Developers should seek advice of Coal Authority before undertaking any operations. • A public footpath crosses the site. It is an offence to illegally obstruct a public footpath.

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

Planning Application No: 08/01363/FUL Location Site Of Former Hare And Hounds, Stowheath Lane,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 393703 297508 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 6261m2

23 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01323/FUL WARD: Park DATE: 13-Nov-08 TARGET DATE: 08-Jan-09 RECEIVED: 20.10.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 1D Clark Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 9NW PROPOSAL: Change of use to hot food takeaway and extraction flue on roof

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Inderveer Multani 43 Birches Barn Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 7BL

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is approximately 1 mile northwest of Wolverhampton City Centre. 1D Clarke Road is a retail unit sited within a parade of 5 shops close to the junction of Tettenhall Road/Clark Road.

1.2 Directly opposite the unit is a 24 hour service station to the rear is a small service yard and garages. Thurlby Court a three storey block of flats is also in close proximity to the rear. The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application is for a change of use from retail (A1) to a hot food takeaway (A5) and the installation of an extraction system.

3. Planning History

3.1 01/0803/FP for Change of use to hot food takeaway (Class A3). The application was refused by way of a Decision Notice dated 14.08.2001.

3.2 02/0929/FP for Change of use to Hot Food Take-Away (Class A3). The application was refused by way of a Decision Notice dated 22.11.2002.

3.3 03/0158/FP for Change of use from Retail to Hot Food Take Away. The application was refused by way of a Decision Notice dated 12.05.2003.

4. Constraints

4.1 The site is located within the Tettenhall Road Conservation Area.

24 5. Relevant Policies

5.1 Relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies

EP3 - Air Pollution

EP5 - Noise Pollution

AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision

AM15 – Road Safety and Personal Security

SH9 – Local Shops and Centre Uses

SH14 - Catering Outlets

6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised in the Express & Star newspaper on 22.11.2008, as it was considered the proposal may affect the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

6.2 A site notice was posted on the 22.11.2008 as it was considered the proposal may affects the Character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7. Neighbour Notification and Representations

7.1 239 letters of support have been received for the proposal, the comments can be summarised as follows:

• The proposal would benefit the local community. • It would provide a convenient service • It will add variety to the current range of services offered by shops at this location.

7.2 There were 17 letters sent in objection to the proposal and two petitions with 106 and 183 signatures respectively. The comments can be summarised as follows:

• The proposal would have a detrimental impact on the local area. • The use will generate unacceptable noise and smells. • The extra traffic generated would cause traffic congestion and affect road safety. • The use will generate litter and other anti social behaviour.

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Environmental Services have stated a system for the control of odours should be designed and approved. Also a scheme to control noise and vibration particularly where domestic accommodation could be affected should be designed and approved.

Hours of trading and access times for delivery and waste collection should be consistent with those of similar establishments in the vicinity. Adequate provision should also be made for the storage and removal of refuse

8.2 Planning Policy Section were consulted on the 20 November 2008, their comments will be reported.

25 8.3 Conservation Officers reported that the proposal will have a very limited impact on the appearance of the Conservation Area and therefore they have no objections.

8.4 Transportation Development have serious concerns that the proposed use will further exacerbate the existing parking problems and have a detrimental affect on highway safety and the free flow of traffic.

9. External Consultees

9.1 None

10. Appraisal

10.1 The main issues to consider in respect to this application are as follows:

• Impact of the proposed use on the amenities of neighbouring properties • Impact on the free flow of traffic and highway safety.

Principle of Development 10.2 The site is located within a commercial enclave but it is not designated in the UDP as a local or district centre as such the frontage itself is not protected. Although this shop does provide a local service it is adjacent to other, similar uses and as such it is not considered that the loss of this shop would result in an increase in the number of people living more than 400 metres from alternative provision.

There are other matters to be considered in the context of policy SH9 but these are considered as separate matters. There would be no objection to the principle of the development in this location provided it is acceptable in terms amenity and highways.

10.3 There have been three similar applications previously submitted to the Local Planning Authority all seeking a change of use to a hot food takeaway at this address. All have been refused the last one submitted in 2003 was the subject of an unsuccessful appeal to the Planning Inspectorate. There was also an identical proposal for 1B Clark Road (a neighbouring shop) which was also refused by the Local Planning Authority, that decision was also upheld at appeal.

Neighbour Amenity 10.4 The nearest residential properties are located at Thurlby Court to the rear, 2B Clark Road, 1 Clark Road and the properties on the opposite of Tettenhall Road. Whilst it is recognised they do not lie immediately adjacent to the application premises it is considered that they would still be adversely affected by the activities associated with a hot food takeaway. The cumulative effect of noise and disturbance in the late evening when the unit is likely to attract most of its customers, and when ambient levels are declining will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the residential properties. Although the area is already busy with customers using the existing shop and 24 hour garage the addition of a hot food takeaway would exacerbate the situation.

10.5 Hot food takeaways tend to generate noise and disturbance in the late evening when the unit is likely to attract most of its customers. The characteristics of a takeaway are considered different to a retail shop, including one selling liquor, for example the length of time customers could spend waiting for hot food to be cooked etc could be significantly longer than that likely to be needed to purchase goods. This encourages customers to congregate outside the premises; they may then choose to eat food outside or in parked vehicles causing noise and disturbance.

10.6 The cumulative impact of the existing uses with the addition of the proposed use would have an unacceptable adverse impact on neighbour amenity by way of additional noise and activity from customers. The proposal is therefore contrary to UDP Policy SH14.

Highway Safety and Free Flow of Traffic 10.7 Highways Officers expressed serious concerns that on-street parking associated with the A5 use would exacerbate the existing parking problems at this location which, coupled with traffic attempting to exit the petrol station on the opposite side of Clark Road, would affect the free flow of traffic and the safety of pedestrian/road traffic close to the junction with Tettenhall Road.

10.8 There are double yellow lines on both sides of Clark Road at this location with a small parking bay (maximum 5-6 vehicles, 1 hour maximum 8.30am – 6.30pm) for customers using the parade of shops. The parking bays are frequently over subscribed leading to vehicles parking on the double yellow lines or on the tarmac area immediately in front of the shops. The proposed change of use would lead to an increase in traffic using the site. This would result in further competition for parking spaces and customers of the takeaway parking for longer periods while awaiting food orders. The proposal is therefore contrary to UDP Policy AM12.

10.9 Vehicles can only enter this tarmac area in front of the shops via a drop kerb at the south west end of the parade. Unless vehicles reverse to this same point the only other egress is to drive over the footway, causing an obvious safety hazard. The extra traffic it is perceived the proposed use would generate would only aggravate the situation. The proposal is therefore contrary to UDP Policy AM15.

11. Conclusion

11.1 There has been no material change in planning circumstances since the previous refusals for this type of proposed use at this location. It is therefore appropriate to consider the application in the light of the previous reasons for refusal.

11.2 The cumulative effect of noise and disturbance created by the activities associated with a hot food takeaway will have a detrimental impact on the amenity of nearby residential properties.

11.3 The extra traffic that will be generated by a takeaway will add to the congestion that already occurs at this location. Consequently the proposed use would have an adverse affect on the free flow of traffic and the safety of pedestrians/road traffic close to this busy road junction. Contrary to UDP Policies AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision and AM15 – Road Safety and Personal Security.

12. Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons:

12.1 Detrimental impact upon residential amenity due to cumulative noise and activity particularly late in the evening.

12.2 Adverse affect on highway/pedestrian safety and the free flow of traffic.

Case Officer : Colin Noakes Telephone No : 551132 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 08/01323/FUL Location 1D Clark Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV3 9NW Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390061 298999 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 54m2

28 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01220/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 23-Sep-08 TARGET DATE: 18-Nov-08 RECEIVED: 23.09.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 64 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 8TD PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 1No. 5 bedroom detached dwelling.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Baldip Breach Mr J K Kalsi 64 Wergs Road 2 Coalway Road Wolverhampton Penn West Midlands Wolverhampton WV6 8TD WV3 7LR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 No. 64 Wergs Road is a detached bungalow set well back from Wergs Road. It is partly visible from the road and has well established trees and bushes on the front boundaries. Access is from the parallel service road to Wergs Road.

2. Application Detail

2.1 Detached house, with a separate double garage close to the Wergs Road frontage.

3. Planning History

3.1 A previous application in 2008 for a detached house was withdrawn following concerns relating to overdevelopment of the site and adverse impacts on adjacent properties.

4. Contraints

4.1 There are TPO trees on this site, the most important being a large Beech in the front garden.

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 Unitary Development Plan Design Policies D4: Urban Grain, D6: Townscape and Landscape, D8: Scale - Massing, D9: Appearance and D12: Nature Conservation and Natural Features.

29 6. Publicity

6.1 Responses have been received from No. 62 Wergs Road and 24 Birchfield Avenue. The occupier of No. 24 has requested to speak to the Planning Committee. Views are summarised as;

• Concern over relationship between the rear elevation of the proposed house and the front elevation of No. 62. • Objection to the demolition of the existing bungalow. • Second floor windows (three bedrooms) will overlook No. 24 Birchfield Avenue, it will affect views and privacy. • TPO Corsican Pines in the rear garden of No. 24 will suffer, their roots may be disturbed, reference to these trees has not been made.

7. Internal Consultations

7.1 Environmental Services - No objections in principle. Comments made with respect to times of construction, road traffic noise and best practice for construction sites.

7.2 Trees Officer - Tree Protection measures necessary prior to works on site. Deletion of the proposed additional drive reduces risk to the Beech Tree. If the existing drive is to be relayed, specifications will be required to protect the roots of the Beech Tree. The detached garage needs to be at least 3 metres away from the trees and bushes on the front and side boundaries.

7.3 Transport Strategy - No objections.

8. Appraisal

8.1 Principle The existing bungalow is of no particular significance in terms of its detailed design. Its single storey form and relatively low roof does confer some benefits for this location. Whilst Unitary Development Plan Design Policy D13: Sustainable Development, comments on the desirability of retaining and re-using existing buildings, its demolition cannot be prevented. In principle, a new dwelling is acceptable.

8.2 Design and Street Scene The existing bungalow is relatively unobtrusive when viewed from Wergs Road and the adjacent houses. The proposed house would be more prominent especially when viewed from the service road. The adjacent detached houses in Wergs Road form a fairly regular line up to No. 62. In street scene terms, a replacement detached house at No. 64 is not considered to be out of character.

8.3 Amended Plans have been received which reduce the dimensions slightly, improve the relationship of the house to its site and have made some improvements to its design. It remains a somewhat plain design, but it is not considered that a refusal based on detailed design could be sustained. The detached garage at the front of the site will be well screened by existing trees and bushes. Some minor adjustments to the position of the garage is advised to further safeguard the tree and hedge screen. The distance between the new house and the canopy edge of the TPO Beech Tree is 10 metres, which is the same as the present bungalow. This is considered satisfactory.

8.4 Impact on Neighbouring Property The main concerns with this application are the impacts on No. 62 Wergs Road and No. 24 Birchfield Avenue to the rear.

8.5 The forward position of the proposed house in relation to No. 62 is such that it would have a very overbearing and obtrusive impact on the setting of this house and on the outlook from the front lounge window and front garden and drive area. This would have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of occupiers of this house.

8.6 The occupiers of No. 62 have expressed concern about overlooking from the rear of the proposed house. In response the house has been moved 0.6 metres rearwards. The angle of view between the critical windows is such that it would be unlikely that overlooking or loss of privacy to No. 62 could occur.

8.7 No. 24 Birchfield Avenue at the rear has a relatively open and private rear outlook. This is partly constrained by No. 62 Wergs Road, approximately 23 metres away but this is tempered by a conifer screen between these two houses. The outlook towards the existing bungalow at 31 metres away is more open. Its roof can be seen but the rear windows of the bungalow are hidden by the garden fence and vegetation on this boundary. In comparison, the proposed house would have a very overbearing impact on the outlook from the rear garden and rear windows of No. 24. The bedroom windows would have the potential to allow overlooking down into the rear garden of No. 24, resulting in significant loss of privacy and residential amenity. It would make the garden of No. 24 Birchfield Avenue much less pleasant to use.

8.8 The new house would be no closer to the TPO Corsican Pines in the rear garden of No. 24, than the existing bungalow. These trees are not considered to be at risk.

9. Recommendation

9.1 Refuse, adverse impacts on No. 62 Wergs Road and No. 24 Birchfield Avenue, detrimental to neighbours amenity. Contrary to UDP Policies D4: Urban Grain and D8: Scale - Massing.

Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 550141 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

31 0 …………..

Planning Application No: 08/01220/FUL Location 64 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV6 8TD Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387851 300645 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 1311m2

32 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01522/FUL WARD: Penn DATE: 16-Dec-08 TARGET DATE: 10-Feb-09 RECEIVED: 16.12.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 11 Dewsbury Drive, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV4 5RH PROPOSAL: Front extensions

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr K Athwal Mr J K Kalsi 11 Dewsbury Drive Building Designs & Technical Services Wolverhampton 2 Coalway Road West Midlands Penn WV4 5RH Wolverhampton WV3 7LR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

Site Location and Boundary 1.1 The application site is a modern detached bungalow, set on an elevated position, with a large open plan landscaped frontage, with drive, set considerably back from the highway by approximately 22m.

1.2 The street scene consists of detached properties, houses and bungalows, of a modern appearance, all with open plan frontages. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

2. Application Details

2.1 The proposal is a resubmission following three similar applications, one which was withdrawn and two of which were refused at planning committee. Application 08/00239/FUL (refused by planning committee on 15 April 2008) was appealed against and subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate, due to the dominant gable end wall of the proposed side extension. However, there is no side extension as part of this application – it is for a front extension only. The inspector had no objections to the proposed front element of the previous application.

2.2 The site has been visited twice by planning committee, due both to the number of objections and a previous request to speak at the committee. This application differs from the previous in that the application concerns only a front, not side, extension.

2.3 The proposal is for an extension to the front (northern aspect) of the application site, providing a lounge and kitchen.

2.4 The extension to the front is set in stages. The lounge extension would project forward of the existing property by 5.275 m, with a width of 5.9m. The extension would then step back by 3m, continuing along the frontage with a width of 4.9m. It would then step back 4m to connect flush with the existing side elevation.

3. Constraints

• Landfill Gas Zones - Name: 250m buffer around: Landfill Gas Site No.37 - Chanterelle Gardens • Notes: Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Penn & Goldthorn Park • Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00025/TPO

4 Relevant policies

• AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision • D1 – Design Quality • D4 – Urban Grain • D7 – Scale – Height • D8 – Scale – Massing • D9 – Appearance • N7 – The Urban Forest • EP15 – Landfill Activities • EP18 – Mineral Extraction • SPG4 – Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 There have been 7 letters of objection received from; 23 Dewsbury Drive, 24 and 35 Sandhurst Drive, 2, 4, 6 and 24 Chanterelle Gardens. An objection has also been received from Cllr Mrs Bradley, concurring with the reasons of objection submitted by the residents of 1 Chanterelle Gardens. The objections concern: • Continued development if planning permission granted. • Overdevelopment and out of scale with the existing dwelling • Out of character with the street scene, overbearing height, size and scale. • Belief that the bungalows should only be extended to the side or back. • Vehicles may be parking close to the turning into the drive. • Proposed extension is too large for the site. Loss of areas of greenery to the front and rear of the property. • Impact on the sewerage and water provision to surrounding properties. • Visual intrusion of space allocated for parking vehicles. • Dominate views from neighbouring properties

6. Internal Consultees

6.1 Environmental Services: Landfill Gas Note No.2 required.

6.2 Trees: No objections

7. Appraisal

7.1 The key issues are:

• Design • Street Scene • Neighbouring amenities (Outlook, Light/Sunlight, Privacy) • Private Amenities ( Parking and Garden Area)

7.2 Design/Street Scene: The extension will be located along the frontage to the existing property. The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property and those surrounding in the street scene. The extension will not project forward of the existing building line, with those properties south of the site at No. 15 Dewsbury Drive, but will remain level, as indicated on the proposed floor plan (sheet 2). Therefore, there will be no detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the existing property or the street scene

7.3 Neighbouring Amenities: The extension will have no direct impact on the neighbouring properties at No. 15 Dewsbury Drive, or No. 4 and No.6 Chanterelle Gardens, or those properties directly opposite in Dewsbury Drive, due to the location of the extension, which does not impede their outlook, light or privacy.

7.4 Private Amenities: The property has a private rear garden displaying a length of approximately 12.5m in depth and 13m in width providing an area of garden of 162.5sqm, which is sufficient enough to support a property of the size and usage. There is an existing garage and driveway displaying a length of 18m, from the public highway, which would be sufficient for the parking of vehicles associated with the property.

8. Conclusion

8.1 It is concluded that the amended proposed development is acceptable in terms of design and street scene, having no significant detriment to any of the neighbouring amenities, displaying sufficient external private amenity area and parking to support the proposed use and size of the extension, and having no detriment to surrounding trees.

8.2 The development should be constructed with matching materials.

9. Recommendation

9.1 Grant, subject to the following conditions:

1) The external materials used in the development hereby permitted shall match in size, colour, form and texture to those of the existing building.

Reason: - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. Relevant UDP Policies D1 and D9.

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

Planning Application No: 08/01522/FUL Location 11 Dewsbury Drive, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV4 5RH Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390425 295750 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 635m2

36 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01497/FUL WARD: Park DATE: 16-Dec-08 TARGET DATE: 17-Mar-09 RECEIVED: 05.12.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Westwood Hotel, 259-261& 263 Tettenhall Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Change of use to and formation of a residential/nursing care home, single and two storey rear extensions.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr P Westwood Mr Paul Burton Birkdale Homes UK Ltd A P Architecture Ltd Home Farm E-Innovation Centre Suite SE 219 Spring Hill University Of Wolverhampton Lower Penn Telford Campus Wolverhampton Telford WV4 4UF TF2 9FT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is situated 2 miles to the north-west of Wolverhampton City Centre, on the southern side of the A41 Tettenhall Road and within the western part of the Tettenhall Road Conservation Area.

1.2 The Westwood Hotel is currently empty and is partly fire damaged. It is a late 19th century building, originally constructed as a pair of semi-detached, two storey houses. The rear garden is landscaped but the frontage area has been hard surfaced to provide car parking. A modern two storey detached dwelling is within the rear grounds of the premises. That dwelling is of no architectural merit and would have to be demolished to make way for the proposed development.

1.3 Number 263 is one part of a pair of late 19th century, three storey, semi-detached houses, now in office use. The frontage area has been hard surfaced to provide car parking. The adjoining part of the semi-detached pair (Number 265) has been converted from residential use and is now occupied by Beacon Radio Limited. It includes a large two storey rear extension and the rear garden has been hard surfaced to provide car parking.

1.4 Along the southern boundary of the site, Number 255 has been converted to a Dental Practice. It includes extensions to the rear. The majority of the rear garden has been hard surfaced to provide parking.

1.5 The flats to the rear of the site, along the south-western boundary, known as ‘The Courtlands’ have no windows in the north-east elevation and are 35 metres from the proposed extensions. The nearest house in Malborough Gardens is approximately 30 metres away.

1.6 There are a number of trees at the rear of the site that are of amenity value, some of which are protected by TPO.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application seeks permission to extend and change the use of the premises to a residential nursing care home (Use Class C2), including single and two storey rear extensions, car parking and landscaping.

2.2 The nursing home would accommodate people aged 55 years and over, in need of care.

2.3 The proposals would provide accommodation for thirty residents in single bedrooms. All bedrooms would be equipped with en-suite bathrooms.

2.4 The part 2 storey and part single storey rear extensions would result in a development which is roughly horse shoe shaped, the open end facing Tettenhall Road and a semi- private courtyard at its centre. A first floor glazed link would provide a connection between Westwood Hotel and 263 Tettenhall Road.

2.5 There would not be any significant proposals for external changes to the front elevations of the principle buildings other than the first floor glazed link.

2.6 The proposed extensions would be of a contemporary design and would predominately be constructed from brick, stone cills and headers, render and glazing. Roofs are proposed to be covered with a plastic membrane which is intended to give an appearance similar to lead.

2.7 The layout includes a large area of private amenity space to the rear and the existing vehicular access and car park would be retained to the front. The proposals include for new planting beds to the street frontage.

2.8 There would be 24 part-time and full-time jobs created. The development cost is likely to be approximately £2.5 million.

3. Planning History

3.1 08/00749/FUL - Proposed change of use and formation of a residential / nursing care home, including single storey and two storey rear extensions. Withdrawn 29.07.2008.

3.2 08/00751/CON – Demolition of building to rear. Granted 03.10.2008.

4. Constraints

4.1 Conservation Area Tree Preservation Order

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PG3 Housing PPG13 Transport PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment PPG24 Planning and noise

38 5.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies

D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement 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 Nature Features D13 Sustainable Development D14 The Provision of Public Art EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Protection of Groundwater, Watercourses and Canals EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development 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 HE6 Demolition of Buildings or Structures in a Conservation Area HE7 Underused Buildings and Structures in a Conservation Area N7 The Urban Forest B1 Economic Prosperity R4 Development Adjacent to Open Space H1 Housing H6 Design of Housing Development H12 Residential Care Homes AM1 Wolverhampton – The Accessible City AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG16 Provision of Public Art

6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site notice and neighbour letters. Four letters of objection were received and the comments are summarised as follows:

• Loss of neighbour amenity, particularly views and privacy • Excessive extension • Increase traffic congestion • Information relating to trees is incorrect and not all of the trees within the site are shown on plans

39 • The removal of established trees close to The Courtlands would result in a loss of amenity and privacy to residents • Trees and bushes should be retained to enhance the future living quality of future residents • Detriment to the general wildlife and the ambience of the whole area • No access for maintenance work from front of the site to the rear garden • The proposals would constitute high density development which would not be in keeping with the surrounding area • A brownfield site would be preferable for the proposed development • The premises could be converted to a hostel or short term residential use • Extensive redevelopment is taking place on the corner of Balfour Road and Tettenhall Road. A further development at Westwood Hotel would have an adverse impact on the whole area. • The statement in the application that the appearance of the proposed development will not change the external style and character of the existing building is misleading. • There is the likelihood that the proposals would result in noise disturbance to adjacent residents. • The proposed roof materials are not suited to premises in a conservation area

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Conservation and Urban Design – The committee report (2004) for the designation of the Tettenhall Road Conservation Area stated the following: • Tettenhall Road is of particular importance in townscape terms being one of the main western approaches to Wolverhampton City Centre. It is essentially ribbon development, which began at the beginning of the 18th century, as Wolverhampton expanded outside its medieval confides. Development spread westwards along Tettenhall Road throughout the 19th Century, gathering pace after the opening of West Park. By the beginning of the 20th century the development of Tettenhall Road was nearly complete. The buildings reflect the status of the area during this period. The architecture is of high quality, generally comprising large villas and short imposing terraces of townhouses. The building styles along Tettenhall Road vary, reflecting both changes in architectural taste and the Victorian architectural inclination towards variety. • The Westwood Hotel (259 – 261 Tettenhall Road) is a late 19th century building, originally constructed as a pair of semi-detached, two storey houses. The building is of red brick with stone dressings and a hipped roof Welsh slate roof. The front elevation retains much of its original character including the two over two paned sliding sash windows. The original ground floor canted bays have been altered to provide entrances and the stacks have been significantly reduced in height. The rear garden is landscaped but the front forecourt has been hard surfaced to provide car parking. • Number 263 Tettenhall Road is one part of a pair of late 19th century, three storey, semi-detached houses, now in office use. It is built of red brick with stone dressings and a Welsh slate roof with brick stacks. The building retains much of its original character, with many original features surviving. The front forecourt has been hard surfaced to provide car parking. • From the 1930’s onwards a number of larger villas were demolished and the grounds redeveloped for apartments. Some have been subdivided and are now in multiple occupation. Other buildings have been changed from residential to commercial use.

7.2 The submitted details are the result of pre-application discussions. No objection to the proposal subject to appropriate details and materials.

40 7.3 Environmental Services request further information, and recommended conditions and notes for information in relation to noise, ventilation and access for deliveries and collection of goods and refuse.

7.4 Landscape – insufficient detail provided. Detailed soft and hard landscaping scheme should be a condition.

7.5 Trees – No objections.

7.6 Transportation Development – There is sufficient parking provision to cope with likely demand. However, request further details in respect of location and design of refuse storage, cycle / motorcycle parking and visibility splays.

7.7 Housing and Health, Access Team and Building Control – comments awaited.

8. External Consultees

8.1 Severn Trent water – comments awaited

8.2 Police – comments awaited

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues to be considered when determining this application are:

• Use as a residential institution • Design and layout • Boundary treatments • Private shared amenity space • Access and parking • Neighbour amenity • Landscaping • Public art

Residential Care Home Use 9.2 UDP Policy H12 sets out requirements for the location and design of residential care homes. It states that proposals for residential care homes will be assessed against the proximity to public transport and local facilities. The application site is located at an accessible location, there are regular bus services along Tettenhall Road and Newbridge local centre is approximately 150m away. It is therefore considered that the use of the site as a residential care home would comply with UDP Policy H12, subject to a suitable design outcome and compatibility with adjacent uses.

Design and Layout 9.3 The existing buildings make a positive contribution to the conservation area. It is therefore important that at such a location, the proposed extensions are subservient to the original buildings and the architectural treatment high quality.

9.4 The proposed scale, and architectural treatment of the proposed development is considered acceptable.

9.5 Parking arrangements should normally be located away from the public realm and catered for in ways that do not detract from the effectiveness of the built up frontage in defining public areas. However, car parking on the front forecourt is considered acceptable in this instance, since parking to the rear would result in substandard amenity space and detract from the established urban grain.

9.6 The layout of the proposed development would not constitute overdevelopment and the there would be no detriment to the established urban grain

Boundary Treatment 9.7 The proposals to treat the site boundaries are broadly acceptable. However, the boundary wall to the site entrance is in a poor state of repair and detracts from the visual amenity of the surroundings. A condition can require the improvement or replacement of this boundary treatment.

Private shared amenity space 9.8 UDP policy H12 requires residential care homes to have adequate useable garden space. The area shown on the submitted plans is approximately 1200 square metres and is a usable shape. This would be acceptable provision.

Access and parking 9.9 The site layout includes 20 parking bays. Disabled and delivery vehicle parking bays are located adjacent to the main entrances. The level of parking proposed is considered acceptable.

9.10 Details of refuse storage and cycle parking have not been provided. These facilities should be provided to the rear. These matters can be dealt with by a condition.

Neighbour amenity 9.11 The premises to the north and south of the site are in commercial use and contain substantial rear extensions and car parking. There would therefore be no issues regarding residential amenity to those premises. The impact of the proposals on the living quality of occupiers of ‘The Courtlands’ flat development to the rear of the site would be acceptable since that development is 35 metres away from the proposed extensions with no windows in the north-east elevation which overlook the site. The nearest house in Malborough Gardens is approximately 30 metres away. Occupiers of houses along that street would not experience a significant loss of amenity.

Landscaping 9.18 Insufficient landscaping details have been submitted. A landscaping scheme can be required by a condition.

Public Art 9.19 Public art can make an important contribution to the amenity and environmental quality of an area. UDP Policy D14 ‘The Provision of Public Art’ and SPG No.16 ‘Provision of Public Art’, states that the Council will seek to negotiate public art on all major developments. The applicant has not provided proposals for public art alongside this application. This should be secured by a condition.

10. Conclusion

10.1 In summary, the proposed use is one which is considered acceptable for this site and the scheme is one which will provide, when completed, new employment opportunities and the re-use of existing empty buildings which are of historic merit.

10.2 The proposed extensions would demonstrate a high standard of architectural design, and be in scale and character with the surroundings.

42 11. Recommendation

11.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Development to grant subject to:

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees.

2. Conditions are recommended to cover: • Targeted recruitment and training • Public art • Building to be used for purpose applied for only (care home for the over 55’s) • Submission of materials • Submission of architectural details • Refuse storage • Cycle and motorcycle storage • Landscaping scheme • Details of boundary treatment • Details of hard surfacing • drainage • External lighting • Plant and ventilation equipment • Parking provision as shown • Car park management plan • Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation

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

Planning Application No: 08/01497/FUL Location Westwood Hotel, 259-261& 263 Tettenhall Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 389515 299633 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 2735m2

44 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01478/DWF WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 01-Dec-08 TARGET DATE: 02-Mar-09 RECEIVED: 28.11.2008 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Site Of The Former The Glassy Inn, Bromley Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of two storey neighbourhood centre

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Chris Huddart Mr George Mikurcik Adults & Community Architype Wolverhampton City Council Upper Twyford Civic Centre Herefordshire St Peters Square HR2 8AD Wolverhampton WV1 1RL

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site in question once formed “The Glassy Inn” Public House, located at the junction with Baggot Street and Bromley Street, adjacent to St Lukes C of E Primary School. The public house has now been demolished leaving an area of flat land, surrounded by red-brick wall.

1.2 There are a mixture of uses surrounding the site, comprising of residential properties predominantly to the north, east and south of the site, industrial areas west and northwest of the site, and there are a number of green spaces adjacent to the site, including the proposed Blakenhall Gardens to the south, the newly erected St Luke’s School playing fields to the west, and a small parkland corner plot to the north.

1.3 The current “Blakenhall Regeneration Program” has implemented the demolition of three 1960’s high-rise blocks of flats, one freeing up the site for the newly erected St Luke’s Primary School building, and the others freeing up a development site for a proposed ‘parkland’ open public space, housing and shops.

1.4 The site allocated for the proposed “Blakenhall Neighbourhood Centre” is located between the northern portion of the school site (to the west), the proposed housing development (to the east), proposed ‘parkland’ to the south and Bromley Street to the north, and although not part of the Blakenhall Gardens Regeneration Scheme, the centre would link well with the scheme, and would form part of the wider Blakenall Gardens Regeneration Scheme.

1.5 There are a number of listed buildings nearby, most notably St Luke’s Church (a polychromatic Gothic Revival church from 1861 Grade II*) which acts as a landmark and social focal point to the area. The site is within 10 minutes walk of local retail facilities, and public transport.

45 2. Application details

2.1 The proposal for a “Neighbourhood Community Centre”, is in the form of a two storey building, providing core sport, leisure, social and community facilities, and would act as a hub directing users to a wider network of facilities in the community, as follows:

• Sports facilities including two court badminton hall, fitness suite, family exercise area, healthy lifestyles office, changing facilities, access to and management of Multi Use games Area(MUGA) with St. Luke’s School grounds. • Recreational Facilities including a range of flexible and subdividable spaces for clubs, associations and community groups, meeting rooms, offices and IT suite. • Social facilities including café, information area, large hall, catering kitchens, internal and external breakout spaces, and crèche.

The site is 2184m2 with 20min.parking spaces, break-out spaces and landscaping, service and delivery access to kitchens and plant room.

3. Constraints

3.1 • Authorised Processes - Company: 250m buffer around Authorised Process at Kamal Dry Cleaners Location: 448 Dudley Road, Wolverhampton, Wv2 3AQ Process: Dry cleaning • Policy: Strategic Regeneration Area

4. Relevant policies

4.1 • AM1 - Access, Motabaility and New Development • AM10 - Provision for Cyclists • AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision • B5 - Design Standards for Employment Sites • D1 - Design Quality • D10 - Community Safety • D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part • D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy • D14 - The Provision of Public Art • D2 - Design Statement • 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 • EP10 - Notifiable Installations • EP4 - Light Pollution • EP5 - Noise Pollution • EP9 - Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Dev • N7 - The Urban Forest • S4 - Mixed Use Development

46 5. Publicity and Neighbour notification

5.1 No objections received

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Disabled Access Team - Pedestrian access gates are to be easy opening and have an opening/closing pressure of no greater than 20 Newtons. Access readers for swipe cards should be at a height between 750mm and 1000mm, also the distance from the corner, or any door/wall will also need to be considered. The entrance door frame needs to contrast with the elevation so that it is easy to recognise.

6.2 Environmental Services – Awaiting comments.

6.3 Transportation Development - Detailed comments in relation to site access and visibility. Raise concern relating to size of car park. Cycle and Motorcycle parking required. Works to footway and highway will be required by condition or through a legal agreement.

6.4 Conservation – Awaiting comments.

6.5 Trees – Awaiting comments.

7. External consultees

7.1 Environment Agency - No comment.

7.2 ABCD – Awaiting comments.

8. Appraisal

8.1 In determining this application, the main issues for consideration are:

• Principle of a Neighbourhood Centre • Layout/Street Scene • Design/Street Scene • Parking/Access • Disable Access • Trees

Principle of a Neighbourhood Centre 8.2 The previous use of this site was a public house which falls within the category C3 “Community Meeting Places” of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan. The proposed “Blakenhall Neighbourhood Centre”, offers a variety of community facilities under the same policy, therefore, the principle of this usage is considered as being acceptable.

8.3 The proposals for the neighbourhood Centre have been part of the integral master planning exercise for Blakenhall Gardens.

8.5 There are no objections to the principle of the proposal. However, the use of the café should be restricted and conditioned to that of an ancillary use of the Centre only.

47 Layout/Street Scene 8.6 The application site is relatively tight, resulting in a layout which is quite compact. Early discussions with WCC Highways determined the suitability of vehicular access directly off Bromley Street which enabled the building to be set back from the north site boundary, with the car parking along the main frontage to the site.

8.7 Ideally the layout should have addressed the prominent corner location, setting the building forward, making a feature of the corner location, and placing the car parking to the rear of the site, out of the sight from the street frontage.

8.8 However, the location of the proposed building set back approximately 18.5m from Bromley Streets relates well with those properties north/west of the site, the open aspect to the front of the existing St. Lukes school, providing views through to the listed church looking north/west from Bromley street, and providing excellent links with the newly constructed school, proposed public gardens, and the overall Blakenhall Regeneration Scheme. Therefore, the layout is considered as being acceptable.

8.9 Due to the location of the building with parking to the frontage, it is essential to have a sufficient boundary treatment to the site, and the current application proposes a dwarf brick wall with planting between the wall and the proposed carparking area, along the northern boundary and part of the eastern boundary.

8.10 The boundary treatment is considered to be unacceptable, as the car parking area will be quite visible from the street scene, and the proposed hedgerow between the carpark and the wall would fail to thrive. A more robust boundary treatment would be necessary such as a 1.4m high boundary wall/railings, which would screen the car parking area from the street scene, whilst providing pockets of railings.

Design/Street Scene 8.11 The surrounding area has a mixture of residential and industrial properties, with the adjacent school and church, setting a strong precedent for two storey structure. The design of the newly erected St Lukes Primary School provides a key precedent for reference.

8.12 The proposed two storey building has a contemporary design in the form of two simple oblong ‘blocks’ joined by an offset glass ‘slot’.

8.13 The glass slot enables day/sun light into the building, provides a visual reference, enables views into, through and out of the building, and separates the two individually expressed masses of building, adding interest to the building.

8.14 The design respects the existing grain of Bromley Street, and minimises narrow ‘litter strips’ and harsh close boarded fencing along the eastern boundary, by building directly up to the footway, providing an active street elevation of glazed windows, which would deter antisociable behaviour, to this area of the perimeter. A robust planted boundary to the south is also proposed, which links well with the proposed gardens beyond, and proposes a living wall providing character to this blank façade.

8.15 Further interest is proposed to this simple shaped building, with a mixture of materials, such as the east block which reflects a blend of industrial and housing context with a ‘pre-rusted’ Cor-ten cladding with vertical opening of glazing and timber ventilation panels. The West block relates to the newly built St Lukes School and surrounding industrial context, with timber cladding and north facing ‘saw-tooth’ rooflights.

8.16 However, further detail on the materials is required for assessment, such as examples of similar developments and specifications, especially the Cor-ten cladding and the living wall to the southern elevation, to consider their suitability and durability.

48 8.17 The design has also considered sustainability with openings for natural ventilation and day lighting, sustainable water drainage system, large cycle store, district heating strategy, sky lights providing placement for photovoltaic panels and/or solar hot water panels.

8.18 It is therefore considered that the building responds well to existing and proposed surroundings, creating an inviting meeting place for members of the local community, and providing a strong sense of place, with sustainable qualities.

8.19 Policy D14 “Provision of Public Art” states that the Council will seek to negotiate provision of public art on all major residential and commercial developments, which should be at least one percent of the total construction costs of a project, further details are required and the application should be conditioned appropriately.

Parking and Access 8.20 The site would be classed as highly accessible especially in light of the proposed adjacent residential development. The site is accessed from Bromley Street and is within walking distance of the Dudley Road corridor and local shopping centres. The location of the access would minimise the effect of the car park on the proposed adjacent housing area.

8.21 The visibility issue needs to be addressed by the applicant. This matter can be satisfactorily dealt with by further information and by suitable conditions.

8.22 Whilst the building has good accessibility and most users will be from the local area, there is still concern to the limited size of the car park compared to the facilities described. This is to be addressed within the revised Transport Strategy. It is proposed to have overflow parking available at the new St Lukes School site, and it should be clearly demonstrated how this will be acheived. Motorcycle parking should also be added to comply with Policy AM12, and 2 spaces should be adequate, and should have good natural surveillance.

8.23 The proposal offers sustainable alternative modes of travel such as the cycle parking; however this should be covered and secure. The transport strategy also suggests that a dedicated notice board detailing sustainable modes of travel, this should be displayed close to the entrance and regularly updated.

8.24 The proposed access point should be created from a new heavy duty footway crossing and to make good the redundant section of existing drop kerb. The existing footways are also in poor condition and, following removal of tress/setts, will effectively need to be replaced. This should also be carried out before the proposed centre opens, and should be conditioned to cover the footway works, the new access and any other external works.

8.25 The “Zig Zag” traffic regulation order, is currently located to Bromley Street frontage. This will need to be amended once the current St Lukes School is relocated. A No Waiting Traffic Regulation Order should be introduced before the proposed centre opens as parking on the highway would restrict visibility and cause a safety hazard due to the bend in the road. The cost of amending the TRO may be required by conditioned.

8.26 The two ground floor doorways (marked as “service access” points) are indicated as opening outwards. This is only acceptable if the open doors are clear of the adopted highway. The location of the “Service access” doors would also encourage delivery vehicles to park on new road 1 opposite proposed dwelling rather than in the car park. A TRO to restrict parking during school peak hours is already part of the proposed residential development.

49 Disabled Access 8.27 The disabled access is considered to be acceptable. However, all pedestrian access gates are to be easy opening and have an opening/closing pressure of no greater than 20 Newtons. Access readers for swipe cards should be at a height between 750mm and 100 mm, also the distance from the corner, or any door/wall would also need to be considered. The entrance door frame needs to contrast with the elevation so that it is easy to recognise.

Trees 8.28 There are a number of trees to be removed, retained and new trees planted, await comments from the tree officer.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The loss of public house is acceptable, with a replacement “Neighbourhood Centre” offering a variety of community facilities.

9.2 It is considered that the design responds well to the numerous constraints of the site and surrounding area, however, high quality architectural details and materials are required to be successful.

9.3 Request amended plans/additional information for the following elements: boundary treatment, materials, public art, visibility splays, security gates to car park, revised Transport Strategy, cycle parking, motorcycle parking, service access points, and disabled access.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Delegated authority to grant, subject to

1. No overriding issues being raised from outstanding consultees 2. Receipt of satisfactory amended plans and additional information 3. Any necessary conditions to include:

• Café to be ancillary to the main D1 Usage. • Submission of all external materials • Landscaping/Boundary Treatment (Implementation/Maintenance) • Car Parking Layout/Visibility Splays/Access • Cycle/Motorcycle Parking • Traffic Regulation Order • Footway works, new access and other external works • Disable Access • External Lighting • Public Art • Ground Investigation/Scheme for Mitigation • Obscure Glazing (first floor windows eastern (side) elevation) • Noise Assessment/Mitigation Measures • Transport Strategy

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

Planning Application No: 08/01478/DWF Location Site Of The Former The Glassy Inn, Bromley Street,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391418 297173 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area m2

51 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01195/FUL WARD: Ettingshall DATE: 04-Nov-08 TARGET DATE: 30-Dec-08 RECEIVED: 18.09.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Former Sports Ground, Spring Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of single storey development to create a DSA drive and test centre.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr J Tate Mr K Buckingham Greatline Developments GSS Architecture 4 Davy Close 2 Spencer Parade Central Park Northampton Rugby NN1 5AA CV23 CV2

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is a former sports pitch which is accessed off Spring Road, Ettingshall. The area is defined within the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) as a Defined Business Area and the site is an area of open space, sport and recreational facility.

1.2 The area of land is currently disused and has been left redundant and appears un- maintained. The area of land is on a higher level than the adjacent access road to the industrial estate and there are several mature trees along the eastern boundary.

1.3 The area is predominantly industrial in character although there are three residential properties to the west of the site in Taylor Road. The industrial buildings to the north of the site are vacant whilst the premises to the east appeared to be well used.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is for the erection of a single storey development to create a Driving Standards Agency (DSA) drive and test centre.

3. Planning History

3.1 95/0926/OP for Industrial and warehousing development, Granted dated 25.02.1997.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zones - Name: 250m buffer around: Landfill Gas Site No.20 - Taylor Road

4.2 Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Millfields - Bilston Town Centre - Loxdale Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Spring Road - Taylor Rd

52 Opencast Mining (areas of interest) - Name: Area of Interest to Open Cast Executive 2

5. Relevant policies

UDP Policies

5.1 D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part EP1 – Pollution Control (Part 1) EP5 – Noise Pollution B3 – Business Development Allocations B5 – Design Standards for Employment Sites B9 – Defined Business Area B10 – Redevelopment of Employment Land and Premises R3 – Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities R5 – Sports Grounds AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 – Road Safety and Personal Security

6. Publicity

6.1 Seven letters have been received in support of this application. The main reasons for supporting the proposal are that the test centre is great for the local economy, it would result in job creation elsewhere as a result of this development, support local businesses and would reduce the need to travel to other DSA test centre’s which are located out of the city.

7. Internal consultations

7.1 Tree Officers - Details are required with regards to the construction of the car park showing distances of trees from the car park to the building. The Lombardy Poplar trees range in height from 10metres to 20metres and have a significant rooting system. Construction works within 6 - 8metres of the trees could make them unstable and require their removal.

7.2 Access Team - The parking areas and entrances require satisfactory lighting. Flush dropped kerbs with buffer blister tactile paving are required at the new road junction and also near the disabled parking spaces.

7.3 Building Control - Access for Fire Services appears satisfactory.

7.4 Environmental Services - The location of the site is approximately 100m from three residential properties on Taylor Road and has the potential to give rise to noise nuisance at these dwellings.

7.5 The noise report indicated that noise from the tests is unlikely to be a problem. This is based on the fact that the predicted noise levels from the test centre are similar to noise levels which already occur in the locality. However there are concerns that noise

53 could be a problem in the evenings and weekend. The hours of operation will be 0730hrs to 1930hrs Monday to Saturday.

7.6 Outside normal working hours (0800hrs - 1800hrs Monday to Friday and 0800hrs - 1300hrs Saturdays) noise from the surrounding industrial estate will be reduced. The properties in Taylor Road are remote from other noise sources such as major roads, therefore the back ground noise level at these properties is likely to be significantly lower outside these hours. As the noise assessment is based on noise readings taken on a weekday between 1400hrs and 1615hrs it is not possible to conclude that noise from the test centre will be acceptable in the early morning, evening or at weekends.

7.7 Transportation Development - Site Location/Accessibility The site is accessed via a private industrial road from Spring Road. The applicants should note that any road markings on the site are effectively advisory only and could not be enforced by police or parking attendants.

7.8 The site does not have particularly good accessibility by public transport as there is only one bus service (224, hourly 8.00-5.00approx) along Spring Road. However it is accepted that this is of limited importance as candidates and examiners are very likely to arrive by car/motor cycle.

7.9 Site Access/Visibility The site is higher than the industrial road - the levels on the site survey suggest over one metre difference. It is advised that the gradient into the site should not be greater than 1:12 and therefore at least part of the parking area would have to be cut into the existing surface. This also means that a ramp is likely to be required between the parking area and the motorcycle test area.

7.10 Parking Issues The numbers of parking bays for candidates and staff are acceptable.

7.11 Motorcycle Parking The ground should be as level as possible where the motorcycles are to be parked as gradients make the use of centre or side stands more difficult. A locking rail for motorcycle parking is required.

7.12 Sustainability The proposal includes “two cycle hoops” however as staff are the most likely users, the storage should be covered and secured.

8. External consultations

8.1 Sport England has considered the application in the light of its Playing Fields Policy, which is now largely incorporated into paragraph 15 of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17. The policy identifies exceptions to the normal position of opposing development on playing fields.

8.2 There are only 5 exceptions where Sport England would not object to the loss of playing field. These are summarised below and indicate whether the proposal meets the exceptions:

• An assessment has demonstrated that there is an excess of playing fields in the catchment and the site has no special significance for sport; • The Development is ancillary to the principle use of the playing field and does not affect the quantity/quality of pitches;

54 • The Development only affects land incapable of forming part of a playing pitch and the would lead to no loss of ability to use/size of playing pitch; • Playing field lost would be replaced; and • The proposed development is for an indoor/outdoor sports facility

8.3 This scheme effectively proposes to replace the lost element of the playing fields by means of a compensatory payment in accordance with this Councils normal practice.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues in determining this proposal are:

• Principle of Use including Loss of Sports Pitch • Design • Car Parking/Servicing Arrangements • Residential Amenities

Principle of Use including Loss of Sports Pitch 9.2 The site was last used as a Private Sports Ground for Rolls Royce and is designated within an employment use in the UDP and is subject to Policy B3: Business Development Allocation with a proviso for a compensatory provision in lieu of on site provision for the loss of recreational open space. Although the proposed use is not within Use Classes B1, B2 or B8, it is considered that the use of the land as a car and motorcycle test centre is both unique, and consistent with an employment area.

Loss of Sports Pitch 9.3 The site is identified within the UDP as open space, sport and recreation facility.

9.4 UDP Table 9.1 “Business Development Allocations” and Policy R3: Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities para 12.3.4 identifies the Rolls Royce Playing Fields (excluding bowling green) site has “potential to meet other social and economic objectives identified in the Plan” which can be realised by requiring “an appropriate proportion of the sale or development of the land to enhance or create recreational open space and facilities in the surrounding area.”

9.5 The Private Sports Ground contained a cricket ground with adult football pitch over and a bowling green. The compensatory payment required for the loss of the whole 1.7ha cricket pitch would be £360,000 – being the cost of laying out a new cricket pitch to replace that lost. As this development involves the loss of 0.53ha of the playing field, this would result in the need for a pro rata Loss of Sports Pitch Contribution of £112,235 with BCIS annual percentage increase applied from 1st January 2009.

9.6 This Contribution would satisfy Sport England’s objection to the proposal by providing improved replacement sporting facilities, would need to be sought through a S106 Agreement and secured prior to start of implementation works and specifically targeted at creating and/or improving and maintaining cricket facilities within the City.

Design 9.7 The development comprises a single storey building of 2135 square feet. The proposed building comprises examination rooms, offices, waiting room, motorcycle room, garage and store wc’s and shower facilities. The external materials to the building comprise silver metallic cladding and due to the position of the building significantly set back from Spring Road, its single storey nature and with it being screened by fencing and mature trees, the proposed design is considered to be acceptable as it will not harm the visual amenity of the area.

55 Car Parking/Servicing Arrangements 9.8 There are concerns with regards to vehicular visibility at the access with Spring Road and the industrial estate. However, improvements would be difficult as the land is in third party ownership. The accident records show that there have been no serious incidents at this location in the last five years.

9.9 The car park and servicing arrangements appear to be satisfactory as per the details submitted. Negotiations with the highway engineers and the applicants have resulted in the layout being amended and details with regards the car parking layout are requested should the application be approved with regards to large scale plans showing critical dimensions and gradients.

Residential Amenities 9.10 The location site is approximately 100metres from three residential properties in Taylor Road and the proposal has the potential to give to rise to nuisance at these dwellings.

9.11 The hours of opening are 0730 – 1930 Monday to Saturday and the applicants state that “the vast majority of testing occurs between 0830 – 1630 principally on weekdays only. Only a very small number of candidates are tested each year outside the standard 8 hour operational window.” In order to safeguard the amenities of the properties in Taylor Road, it is recommended that a bund or 1.8metre high close boarded fence having a minimum density of 10kg per square metre is erected along the western and southern boundaries of the test track details, if approved, shall be agreed in writing. This would reduce the impact on amenities of residents.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The loss of open space, sport and recreational facility is considered acceptable subject to a compensatory payment.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Delegated authority to the Director to grant planning consent, subject to:-

1. The signing of a S106 Agreement to provide compensatory payment of £112,235 subject to BCIS index from 1st January 2009 for the loss of sports pitch payable before the start of implementation works on site.

2. Standard Conditions are recommended to cover: • Landscaping scheme – implementation and maintenance • Details of cycle storage • Large scale parking layout plans • Hours of operation • Hard Surfacing • Details of boundary fencing • Disabled access provision • External lighting • Details of acoustic barrier/fencing along the boundary facing the houses on Taylor Road

Notes for Information

• The site is within a mining area. Developers should seek advice of Coal Authority before undertaking any operations.

56 • The site is within 250metres of a former landfill site. Anyone intending to implement this permission should contact Environmental Services for up to date information.

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

Planning Application No: 08/01195/FUL Location Former Sports Ground,, Spring Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393011 296204 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 7931m2

58 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 03-Feb-09

APP NO: 08/01240/RP WARD: Park DATE: 28-Nov-08 TARGET DATE: 23-Jan-09 RECEIVED: 29.09.2008 APP TYPE: Retrospective Planning Permission

SITE: 73 Tettenhall Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 9NE PROPOSAL: Retrospective. Replace existing wooden windows with UPVC.

APPLICANT: AGENT: South Staffs Estates Ltd 22A Haden Hill Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9PT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site contains a large detached dwellinghouse, 73 Tettenhall Road, and is located within the Tettenhall Road Conservation Area. The building was constructed in the late nineteenth / early twentieth century and forms an attractive and prominent building along the Tettenhall Road.

1.2 The property forms a licensed house in multiple occupation and therefore the building does not benefit from permitted development rights under Part A of the Permitted Development Order. In this circumstance the external appearance of the building has been materially affected by the installation of UPVc windows replacing the wooden double hung sliding sash windows.

2. Planning History

2.1 C/0810/88 - Conversion of existing two buildings into three residential units, one two floors and other one floor at rear of 73,75 & 77 Tettenhall Road – Refused.

3. Application Details

3.1 The application for planning permission has been made retrospectively for the installation of white UPVc windows. The existing windows have replaced timber framed double hung sliding sash windows.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Tettenhall Road Conservation Area Listed Building Curtilage - : 895-1/5/338

59 5. Relevant policies of the applicants statement

5.1 The following UDP Policies are relevant:

D1 - Design Quality D9 - Appearance HE3 - Preservation and Enhance. of Con. Areas HE4 - Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 - Control of Development in a Con. Area

6. Publicity

6.1 The application has been advertised by press notice, site notice and 17 neighbour letters.

6.2 15 similar letters of representation were received from individual persons. These supported the application on the following grounds

- the windows would be more energy efficient providing improved noise insulation.

7. Internal consultees

Enforcement 7.1 The application states that the property is a licensed House in Multiple Occupation but no planning permission exists for this change of use. The property has been owned by the applicant since 1972 and the last record of an application for conversion for use as 26 bedsits in 1988, which was refused due to lack of amenity. I consider on the basis of this limited information that the use of the property as a house in multiple occupation/flat is immune from enforcement action and as such, were a certificate of lawfulness to be applied for it would most likely be granted.

7.2 In these cases it is a matter of fact and degree whether or not the insertion of windows is a building operation i.e. they may not be development at all. The correct test in this case is whether the external appearance of the building is materially affected - Section 55 (2)(a) of the 1990 Act. The fact that the site lies within a Conservation Area has no bearing on the consideration as to whether development has occurred or not. In this case I consider that the external appearance of the building is materially affected as the windows do not appear as part of the original development and are incongruous and jarring which is materially alters the external appearance of the building to the extent that development has occurred.

7.3 Given the above it is my opinion that the use of the property as flats is lawful and as such they do not benefit from permitted development rights under Part A of the permitted development order, and planning permission is required.

Conservation 7.4 UPVC windows have an adverse impact on character and appearance of the Tettenhall Road Conservation Area.

7.5 Application should be refused and enforcement action instigated to secure replacement of double hung sliding sash windows in painted timber to original pattern.

7.6 The development neither preserves nor enhances the character or appearance of the conservation area.

60 8. Appraisal

8.1 The key factor in determination of this application is whether the existing development has preserved and enhanced the character and appearance of the Tettenhall Road Conservation Area.

8.2 The original timber sash windows provided interest and character to this prominent elevation and when viewed from the streetscene would contribute positively to the appearance of the building as part of the Conservation Area. It is therefore important that any replacement windows mimic the timber characteristics, i.e. thin profile of the frames and window divisions.

8.3 The UPVc windows that have been installed provide a chunky appearance that is entirely out of keeping with the character and appearance of the dwelling. It is considered that the windows installed are excessively thick framed and harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

8.4 It is stated in the application forms that the works were carried out to replace ‘rotten single glazed windows with UPVc double glazed windows’. This was carried out to improve the standard of heating and to conserve energy and to reduce traffic noise nuisance. This however does not justify the harm that the windows installed have had on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. There are other suitable forms of replacement windows that could have been installed that would preserve or enhance the character of the building and its setting in the Conservation Area. The reasons stated in the application form do not justify the development that has been carried out.

9. Conclusion

9.1 It is recommended that the application is refused as the existing UPVc windows that have been installed are out of character and detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling. The development neither preserves nor enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area.

9.2 The application should be referred to enforcement to take further action.

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

Planning Application No: 08/01240/RP Location 73 Tettenhall Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV3 9NE Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390280 298841 Plan Printed 21.01.2009 Application Site Area 619m2