PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 9Th January 2007

Agenda Item No: 6

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 9th January 2007

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 (9th January 2007)

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

Bilston North

06/01453/FUL Land Between 98 Prouds Lane And 5 8 Golf Lane Stowlawn Wolverhampton West Midlands

Bushbury South and Low Hill

06/01486/FUL Unit 15 & 16 11 Merryhills Enterprise Park Park Lane Low Hill Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 9TJ

East park

06/01667/DWF Land Corner Of Cooper Street And 15 Adjacent To 265 Bilston Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

06/01668/DWF Land Fronting John S Hickman And 19 Company Cooper Street Eastfield Wolverhampton West Midlands

Ettingshall

06/01666/DWF Land Corner Of Cable Street And 23 Adjacent To 266 Bilston Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

Fallings Park

06/01391/FUL 248 Cannock Road 27 Wednesfield Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 0BE

06/01392/FUL 246 Cannock Road 31 Wednesfield Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 8QF

Heath Town

06/01230/FUL Former G & P Batteries Limited 35 Site Grove Street Heath Town Wolverhampton West Midlands

Merry Hill

06/01313/FUL Land at rear of 118-120 Warstones 43 Road, Merry Hill, Wolverhampton West Midlands

Park

06/01571/FUL Land Between 44 And 70 50 Compton Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

3 Penn

06/01369/FUL 36 Vicarage Road 56 Penn Wolverhampton West Midlands WV4 5JA

Spring Vale

06/01158/FUL Former Garage Site To The Rear 61 Of 164 And 165 Sutton Court Lanesfield Wolverhampton West Midlands

Tettenhall Regis

06/01223/COU 59 Pendeford Avenue 66 Aldersley Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 9EH

Wednesfield South

06/01531/FUL Caparo Ltd 73 Neachells Lane Wednesfield Wolverhampton West Midlands WV13 3RF

06/01440/DWF Land fronting 24-44 Davenport Road, 77 Wednesfield West Midlands

APP NO: 06/01453/FUL WARD: Bilston North DATE: 10-Nov-06 TARGET DATE: 05-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 24.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land Between 98 Prouds Lane And 8, Golf Lane, Stowlawn, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising 4 no. two bedroom and 5 no. one bedroom apartments (9 flats)

APPLICANT: AGENT: GBS Builders Integrated Designs (Midlands) Ltd 46 Acfold Road 38 Old Walsall Road Handsworth Wood Birmingham B20 1HS B42 1NP

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site consists of an unoccupied piece of land, between residential properties 98 Prouds Lane and 8 Golf Lane, which is overgrown and quite unsightly. The land is very uneven, rising quite significantly towards the back of the plot of land, with a number of mature trees onsite. Security on the site is poor, with a panelled fence along the rear and side boundary only, screening the site from neighbouring properties.

1.2 The area is predominantly residential, with the street scene consisting of a mixture of properties. Immediately surrounding the site, to the side and rear are semi detached/terraced houses, of a traditional design, with part brick part render detail, and hipped roof design. Opposite the site is a block of flats of a basic square design.

1.3 The site is located on a busy main highway, within close proximity to public transport providing links to Bilston Town Centre, and within walking distance to other bus routes leading to Wolverhampton City Centre.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal consists of block of nine apartments, four 2bed and five 1bed. There is an enclosed landscaped courtyard to the front of the property, and a centrally located vehicular access leading to the car parking and shared private amenity at the rear of the site, beneath apartment seven.

3. Planning History

3.1 05/1254/DW/R for Residential development (outline application), Granted, dated 16.09.2005.

4. Constraints

4.1 Mining Areas

5. Relevant policies

5.1 AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy 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 H1 - Housing H6 - Design of Housing Development N7 - The Urban Forest

6. Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement. A site notice was posted on 16 November 2006.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 There has been one letter of objection from No. 98 Prouds Lane, who have requested to speak to Planning Committee.

The objection covers the following items:

* Potential of smells, noise, lack of hygiene and risk of vermin from the bin storage, which is adjacent to the rear garden of 98 Prouds Lane is unacceptable. * The proposed alley and bin storage enclosure is easily accessible and would be a magnet for unruly youngsters to gather, and criminal activity and anti-social behaviour. * Insufficient level of car parking, resulting in cars being parked on Prouds Lane which is unsafe. * Possible loss of outlook from side facing kitchen window due to projecting forward of the building line.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Tree Officer – A Silver Birch Tree on the boundary of 11 Claremont road is of good form and should be retained. The car parking is shown to be only 2m from this tree and should be a minimum of 3m from the trunk of the tree. Other trees worthy of retention are a Cherry on the Southern boundary adjacent to No. 8 Golf Lane and a

6 Larch Tree located adjacent to Car parking space No. 11 could be retained if this parking space was relocated elsewhere.

8.2 Access Officer - Compliant with Part M of the Building Regulations, door widths, level or ramped entrance, access from a vehicle to the dwelling, accessible heights, designed for ambulant disabled people, etc.

8.3 Building Control - Access should be level or ramped, design for ambulant disabled people. Fire Access appears ok. Ground Stability past mining area so report required.

8.4 Transportation Development - To be reported verbally at Committee.

8.5 Planning Policy Section - No objections in principle.

8.6 Environmental Services - To be reported verbally at committee.

8.7 Leisure Services – To be reported verbally at committee.

9. External consultees

9.1 Severn Trent Water - No objection, inclusion of sustainable drainage principles condition, and that no development shall take place within 2.5, of a public sewer which crosses the site, is necessary.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues to be considered in this scheme are as follows:

* Principle of Housing Development * Appropriate Design * Sustainable Development * Effect on Neighbouring Properties * Amenity * Parking * The Urban Forest - Impact on Trees. * Road Safety * Access for people with disabilities

10.2 The site concerned is quite uneven, well overgrown, and quite unattractive within the street scene. The street scene consists of residential properties of a varying design, consisting of semi detached and terraced houses to the side and rear of the site, with flats on the opposite side of the road. The site previously housed two pairs of semi detached properties; therefore, it is considered that the principle of residential development on this land is acceptable.

10.3 Due to the location of the land within an area of past mining activity, it will be necessary for the applicants to provide a ground stability report, to ascertain whether the land in question is suitable for development. This should be conditioned should the proposal be acceptable.

10.4 The design and massing of the apartment block has been carefully considered, taking into account those properties immediately attached to the site. Although the proposal is significantly different to the previous residential development on the site, the layout of the apartments takes into account the established building lines, to both Prouds Lane and Golf Lane, orientation (north/east and south/west facing windows), car parking, and private shared amenity space.

10.5 The design of the properties with a part brick/part render frontage, with hipped roof design and canopy frontages to the doorways are all in keeping with those properties neighbouring the site, and consistent with the character and appearance of the street scene, and local area. However, the front façade has also been broken up, to create shadows, and define lines between render and brick work, contrasting brick cills, and variation of windows which generally makes the building more appealing, providing a contemporary approach.

10.6 The layout of the apartments are well orientated with lounge and bedroom windows facing North/East or South/West providing a good standard of sunlight penetration to principal habitable rooms. Ground floor apartments have individual entrance doors leading out onto the front courtyard, and there is an additional hallway, leading to upper floors, and through the rear of the development, providing access to the amenity areas and car parking. Access is also afforded alongside the vehicle access below apartment Number 7. The apartment block will need to be accessible for people with disabilities.

10.7 Although set on a higher level, the apartment block will have no major impact on any of the neighbouring properties such as outlook, and loss of light. The side facing windows on the first floor to apartments No. 5 & 9 should be obscurely glazed to restrict any possibility of direct overlooking and perceived loss of privacy.

10.8 The amenity space to the rear of the property, is of a suitable size to support the development and is located within close proximity to the apartment being easy accessible.

10.9 The parking area has provided 13 car parking spaces, 125% parking for all proposed 1bed apartments and 150% for all 2bed apartments, two being disabled bays. The site is located within close proximity to public transport, however, confirmation is awaited from highways, that the level of car parking is sufficient for the proposed development.

10.10 The parking area would however, result in the loss of trees which have been highlighted by the Tree officer as worthy of retention, a Silver Birch Tree on the boundary with 11 Claremont Road, which is within 2m of the car park and should ideally be 3m, a Cherry Tree on the southern boundary adjacent to No. Golf Lane, and a Larch tree located adjacent to car parking space No. 11, which could be retained if this parking space was relocated elsewhere. In light of the possible impact on the trees especially the Silver Birch, and the constraints of the site, alternative methods to the construction of the car park are being investigated by the Agents, which may safeguard the trees, and will be reported verbally to committee. The Cherry Tree should be retained and a suitable replacement for the loss of the Larch Tree will be necessary.

10.11 The main vehicular access onto the site will also result in the loss of a mature tree located on the highway, comments from Leisure Services are still awaited and will be reported verbally to committee.

10.12 At present the central vehicular entrance point is insecure, with no detail on how this will be secured. Further detail is required on a gated entrance.

10.13 The development also proposes a secured cycle rack alongside the bin storage, however, little detail has been provided with the application and further information is required. Ideally, the cycle storage should be well covered in light of weather conditions and close to the apartments.

10.14 The bin storage although easily accessible for both residents and for refuse vehicles, I feel that a covered enclosure would be better with a lockable door, for security and due to possible disturbance to neighbours, as highlighted in the letter from No. 98 Prouds Lane. Amendments are awaited.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The application scheme has been developed in consultation with Officers of the Council prior to its submission. The principle of the scheme is acceptable, which will, with a scheme, re-develop the site, removing a quite unsightly and insecure piece of land, responding positively to the character and appearance of the area.

11.2 There are, nevertheless, still a number of outstanding issues that need resolving for the development to proceed, such as impact to trees, suitable bin storage and cycle storage, and vehicular access security.

12. Recommendation

Delegated Authority to Grant following the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and further detail regarding the following items:

• Silver Birch and Cherry Tree, including methods of construction of car parking within 2m of the Silver Birch Tree and satisfactory replacement tree for the loss of the Larch Tree, to be agreed by the Local Planning Authority. • Bin and Cycle Storage which should be enclosed and secured. • Secured entrance gates.

and subject to conditions to cover the following:

• Submission and implementation of a Landscape Plan • Tree Protection • Amenity Areas • Submission of Materials • Parking Provision • Cycle and Motor Cycle Provision • Obscure Glazing • Access for Disabled • Ground Stability Report • Sustainable Drainage • Severn Trent Conditions – regarding no development within 2.5m of a public sewer • Provision for all boundary treatment.

Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No. : 555641 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: 06/01453/FUL Location Land Between 98 Prouds Lane And 8, Golf Lane,Stowlawn,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 394805 297431 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 1663m 2 Printed

10 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01486/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill DATE: 01-Nov-06 TARGET DATE: 27-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 01.11.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Unit 15 & 16, Merryhills Enterprise Park, Park Lane, Low Hill PROPOSAL: Change of use of units from light industrial/general industrial (Use Class B1/B2) to indoor 'Childs soft play centre'/'family entertainment centre' (Use Class D2)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Go Bananas Play Zone Ltd ACP C/O Mr _ Mrs Dune St Johns Cloisters 31 King Street St Johns Square Wollaston Wolverhampton Stourbridge WV2 4AT West Midlands DY8 3QB

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site includes two industrial units which were constructed following the approval of application reference 96/1276/FP approved on 7th April 1997. The application site is within a mixed use area with industrial units on a site consisting of B1, B2 and B8 uses whilst the area beyond that is predominantly residential in character.

1.2 The units appeared to be vacant on inspection of the site, however from information from the applicant, the site is currently being used as temporary storage.

2. Application details

2.1 The application was received by the Local Planning Authority on 1 November 2006 for the change of use from light industrial/general industrial (Use Class B1/B2) to indoor 'Childs soft play centre'/'family entertainment centre' (Use Class D2).

3. Relevant policies

3.1 B9 - Defined Business Areas

3.2 B10 - Redevelopment of Business Land and Premises

11 4. Publicity

4.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement.

4.2 A site notice was posted on 24 November 2006 as the application was considered to require wider public consultation.

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 The application has been advertised by site notice and neighbour letter and one letter of objection has been received. The letter has been received from Lowepro - DayMen International Ltd who occupy Units 4, 5, 7, 8 and from the comments in the letter, Units 15 & 16, the site subject to this proposal.

5.2 The proposed change of use in their opinion is totally unsuitable for the following reasons:- health & safety in particular to the traffic through the estate with 38tonne container trucks and other industrial delivery vehicles including forklift trucks presenting safety hazards, insufficient parking at the units for such a venture. Unit 6 is used as a training centre for ex-offenders who can be intimidating to visitors creating an unsuitable environment for families and finally the ongoing problem of security on the estate. Electric gates have been introduced on the estate to keep local youths out of the estate and in spite of this, the comments in the letter go on to say that windows are regularly broken with stones and bricks in the evenings and at weekends. Allowing this change of use will mean that the estate will have to be opened up at the weekend posing further security problems.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Transportation Development. No comments had been received at the time of writing this report.

6.2 Planning Policy. Defined Business Areas have been allocated to provide employment generating sites which will benefit the future of Wolverhampton's economy. The policy B9 therefore states that uses within a defined business area should predominantly be limited to Class B uses, Class A food/beverage uses that cater for the Class B use, or uses ancillary to the principle Class B use. However under policy B10 the UDP, the proposed use would only be acceptable if a series of conditions are complied with:- i) from the loss of employment and its replacement by the proposed use to be in accordance with another policy or proposal within the UDP, ii) the existing use and/or the traffic generated by that use has an unacceptable impacts on the amenity of surrounding land uses and/or the highway network, and the proposed use would remove those unacceptable impacts, iii) the site or premises are unsuitable for continued employment use, whether by reuse of existing buildings or be redevelopment, due to their location and/or the standards of accommodation and/or the condition of the land and the need for and costs of remediation works; and it has been shown that there is no market demand for continued employment use; and iv) it has been demonstrated that the loss of the site or premises from employment use would not prejudice the required supply of a balanced portfolio and geographical spread of land for employment purposes over the UDP period in accordance with B2.

6.3 Access Officer. The proposal adheres to the requirements of disabled parking bays with safety zones, glass entrance doors clearly defined with manifestation and the entrance to be level or ramped.

12 6.4 Building Control. The access for fire is considered acceptable although an access statement will be required with a Building Regulations application.

6.5 Environmental Services. No comments had been received at the time of writing this report.

7. Appraisal

7.1 The proposal comprises to convert two existing industrial units to a 'child’s soft play centre'/'family entertainment centre' (Use Class D2). In the supporting information provided with the application in the Design and Access Statement, it is stated that the units appear to have been vacant since November 2005, although the letter from the objector and the applicant state that the units are currently being occupied as a temporary storage facility. Whilst there has been no information on how long, or if any marketing has taken place, the units appear to be in use as temporary storage suggesting a need for the facility. On inspection of the site the remaining units all appeared to be in use.

7.2 The proposal is considered to be an unacceptable use within this predominantly industrial estate. One of the main concerns is the safety to the users of this facility in particular young children. The estate attracts alot of comings and goings of vehicles which are particularly heavy goods in nature and the use of forklift trucks on the site. In the Design and Access Statement, the anticipated opening times would be Monday to Saturday 10.00am to 6.30pm and Sunday from 11.00am to 5.00pm. In particular during midweek the opening times co-incide with the times the remaining units on the estate would be in operation and at their busiest and this would cause problems of traffic with conflict of parents and children visiting the estate. With the weekend and evening times, there appears to be an existing problem of vandalism and youths smashing windows which could rise if the entrance to the estate is to remain open to allow customers to gain entrance to the facility.

7.3 The Design and Access statement accompanying the application states that the proposal falls short of the number of parking spaces available but that many of the journeys to the facility will be to drop off and collect children at an estimated vehicular flow of 60 vehicles per day, potentially higher at the weekend. The comments of the Highway Engineer will be reported verbally ay committee.

8. Conclusion

8.1 It is considered that whilst the application site is predominantly industrial in nature, the proposed change of use is considered to be an unacceptable use, constituting a likely safety hazard to the users of the facility and to the lack of information provided on how long and the nature and outcome of any marketing of the units has taken place.

9. Recommendation:

9.1 Refuse – contrary to policy, lack of information on marketing and detrimental to the health and safety of the users to the facility. Contrary to UDP Policy B9 & B10.

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

Planning Application No: 06/01486/FUL Location Unit 15 & 16, Merryhills Enterprise Park,Park Lane,Low Hill Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 391800 301700 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 597m 2 Printed

14 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01667/DWF WARD: East Park DATE: 04-Dec-06 TARGET DATE: 29-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 04.12.2006 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Land Corner Of Cooper Street And Adjacent To 265, Bilston Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Replacement and enhancement of street scene features including paving and kerb inside footway on street corner and installation of new planting boxes.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Regeneration And Transportation Director Of Regeneration And Environment Civic Centre Civic Centre St Peters Square St Peters Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site consists of two small plots of land located on either side of Cooper Street at the junction with Bilston Road.

1.2 The allocated land is located adjacent 265 Bilston Road, with a large industrial building located on the opposing side of the street.

1.3 The land is currently quite untidy and does not provide a positive visual appearance. The plot of land has a hard standing grounding, with a large advertisement board sited to the rear of the plot. There are some existing bollards, which will be removed as part of the programme.

1.4 The plot of land on the other side of Cooper Street, adjacent to the industrial building also has a hard standing grounding, with existing steel railings based on a small dwarf wall to the rear of the site.

2. Application details

2.1 The application proposes to replace and enhance the street scene features on this plot of land. This will involve the removal of existing hard standing ground and bollards; these will be replaced with block paving and the installation of new planting boxes on both sites.

2.2 The existing advertisement board and steel railings will be retained on both sites.

3. Planning History

3.1 No planning history

15 4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zones - Name: 250m buffer around: Landfill Gas Site No.39 - Monmore Green Stadium.

4.2 Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Eastfield - Syowlawn - Rough Hills

5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D3 - Urban Structure D6 - Townscape and Landscape D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety

6. Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement.

6.2 A site notice was posted on 12 December 2006.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

The consultation period expires on 2nd January 2007. No letters of representation have been received to date.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Environmental Services

No response received at the time of writing

8.2 Transportation Development

No response received at the time of writing

9. External consultees

9.1 None

10. Appraisal

10.1 The overall purpose of the works proposed within the application is to improve the existing appearance of the allocated plots of land. This will replace the poor boundary enclosures and enable easier maintenance of the sites in the future.

16 10.2 This application is particularly relevant to the ‘Design’ policies as adopted in the UDP; these encourage good design within all planning applications. It is considered that the works proposed would enhance and improve the visual appearance of the areas identified. Both sites are located adjacent to Bilston Road and are in fairly prominent positions within the street scene, therefore such improvements would contribute to improving the visual appearance of the City’s townscape.

10.3 Any recommendation for approval would be subject to receiving consultation responses, particularly as visibility splays maybe affected by the proposed works at the junction of Cooper Street.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The application is recommended for approval, subject to the outcome of outstanding consultations.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Grant, subject to standard conditions and outcome of outstanding consultations.

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

Planning Application No: 06/01667/DWF Location Land Corner Of Cooper Street And Adjacent To 265, Bilston Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 393002 297533 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 79m 2 Printed

18 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01668/DWF WARD: East Park DATE: 04-Dec-06 TARGET DATE: 29-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 04.12.2006 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Land Fronting John S Hickman And Company, Cooper Street, Eastfield, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Replacement and enhancement of street scene features including boundary railings and paving on street corners, shrub planting areas and installation of new planting boxes, small retaining walls.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Regeneration And Transportation Director Of Regeneration And Transportation Civic Centre Civic Centre St Peters Square St Peters Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is located at the upper end of Cooper Street extending along the boundaries with a railway embankment and a gas sub station, up to the highway. This also incorporates a plot of wasteland set in front of a large advertisement board immediately adjacent to Bilston Road.

1.2 Currently the boundary with the railway embankment and gas sub station are overgrown and in need of maintenance.

2. Application details

2.1 The application proposes to replace and enhance the street scene features on the corner plot of land. The proposals include replacing the existing boundary fencing. The existing landscape area with bollards will be cleared and replaced

3. Planning History

3.1 No planning history

4. Constraints

4.1 None

19 5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D3 - Urban Structure D6 - Townscape and Landscape D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety

6. Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement.

6.2 A site notice was posted on as the application was considered to be null, .

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 The consultation period expires on 2nd January 2007. No letters of representation have been received to date.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Environmental Services

No response received at the time of writing

8.2 Transportation Development

No response received at the time of writing

9. External consultees

None

10. Appraisal

10.1 The overall purpose of the application is to improve the visual appearance of the existing area of land. Currently the land is overgrown, unkept and in need of maintenance. The proposed works would improve the visual appearance of the area.

10.2 The ‘Design’ policies in the UDP encourage a high standard of design in all planning applications. It is considered that the works proposed would enhance the appearance of the street scene and would contribute to improving the visual appearance of the townscape.

10.3 Environmental Services and Transport Strategy have been consulted; no response had been received at the time of writing.

20 11. Conclusion

11.1 The application is recommended for approval, subject to the outcome of outstanding consultations.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Grant, subject to standard conditions and outcome of outstanding consultations.

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

Planning Application No: 06/01668/DWF Location Land Fronting John S Hickman And Company, Cooper Street,Eastfield,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 392838 297735 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 614m 2 Printed

22 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01666/DWF WARD: Ettingshall DATE: 04-Dec-06 TARGET DATE: 29-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 04.12.2006 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Land Corner Of Cable Street And Adjacent To 266, Bilston Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Replacement and enhancement of street scene features including alteration of existing low retaining wall, parking on street corner and installation of new planting boxes.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Regeneration And Transportation Director Of Regeneration And Transportation Civic Centre Civic Centre St Peters Square St Peters Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is a small corner plot of land located at the junction of Cable Street and Bilston Road, adjoining the public highway. The land fronting Bilston Road is slightly raised from the highway.

1.2 The Red Lion Public House is located on the opposing corner of Cable Street.

1.3 The plot of land is currently grassed over with small weeds and shrubs. To the rear of the plot of land there is a large advertisement board.

2. Application details

2.1 The application proposes to replace and enhance the street scene features on this corner plot of land. The proposals involve repairing and raising the existing low retaining wall and the installation of three new planting boxes. The fencing and advertisement board to the rear of the site will be retained.

3. Planning History

3.1 No planning history.

4. Constraints

4.1 Coal mining area.

23 5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D3 - Urban Structure D6 - Townscape and Landscape D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety

6. Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement.

6.2 A site notice was posted on 12 December 2006.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 The consultation period expires on 2nd January 2007. No letters of representation have been received to date.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Environmental Services

No response received at the time of writing

8.2 Transportation Development

No response received at the time of writing

9. External consultees

9.1 None

10. Appraisal

10.1 The overall purpose of this application is to improve the visual appearance of the existing plot of land. Currently the land is un-kept and the alterations proposed would attempt to improve this appearance.

10.2 This application is particularly relevant to the ‘Design’ policies as adopted in the UDP. These encourage good design within all planning applications. It is considered that the works proposed would enhance the appearance of the street scene and would contribute to improving the visual appearance of the townscape.

10.3 Any recommendation for approval would be subject to receiving consultation responses, particularly as visibility splays maybe affected by the proposed works at the junction of Cable Street

24 11. Conclusion

11.1 The application is recommended for approval, subject to the outcome of outstanding consultations.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Grant, subject to standard conditions and outcome of outstanding consultations.

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

Planning Application No: 06/01666/DWF Location Land Corner Of Cable Street And Adjacent To 266, Bilston Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 392849 297641 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 62m 2 Printed

26 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01391/FUL WARD: DATE: 16-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 16.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 248 Cannock Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV10 0BE PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached double garage to the rear

APPLICANT: AGENT: Clark Brothers Developments Brophy Riaz _ Partners 8 High Street 48A Hylton Street Bilston Jewellery Quarter Wolverhampton Birmingham WV14 0EH B18 6HN

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 This site, which was a vacant area of land, is on the corner of Grassy Lane and Cannock Road. To the north-east is 252 Cannock Road a large, detached house approx. 6 years old. Grassy Lane runs behind the new dwellings to the south and in an east/ west direction. The road is a dead end which leads to a business premises. Pedestrian access is still achieved along this roadway to the east. To the south of this highway is green belt open space used for grazing for horses.

1.2 There is a slight change in levels with the rear garden at the application site gently sloping down from the road towards the house.

1.3 There are trees on the south boundary which would be removed to accommodate the approved parking areas. There is a 1.8m high boundary fence on the boundary with 252 Cannock Road with side facing ground floor windows serving a kitchen (furthest away), and two windows serving a living room.

2. Application details

2.1 The application was deferred at Planning Committee on 5 th December 2006 for a site visit.

2.2 The application forms part of another application for a garage next door at 246 Cannock Road. The proposed garages comprise one large block across the rear garden of both houses. (06/01392/FUL)

2.3 The proposal involves a single storey garage block to accommodate 4 cars and in the rear garden of 246 and 248. It would measure 11.8m wide and 5.3m deep and 3m high at the ridge. The internal dimensions would be 5.6m for each garage and 5m deep.

27 2.4 The position of the building would be 2.3m closer to the boundary fence with 252 Cannock Road than the position of the approved parking bays. The doors to the garage would be electrically operated and have a metal external finish.

3. Planning History

3.1 Planning permission has been granted on appeal for 2 detached dwellings - ref 03/01415/FP dated 27th October 2004. The dwellings are near completion.

4. Relevant policies

AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

D1 - Design Quality

D8 - Scale - Massing

D9 - Appearance

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 Neighbour letters sent and expired 15 th November 2006. One letter has been received from 252 Cannock Road. The main concerns would be over development, loss of light to rear facing living rooms and negative impact on visual amenity. This neighbour has asked to speak to the Committee.

5.2 A letter of objection has been received from Cllr Steve Evans on the grounds of “disruption to the public footpath and loss of light”

5.3 Neighbour letters were sent following receipt of the amended plans. No objections received at time of writing the report.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Trees - no comments have yet been received.

6.2 Transportation Development - suggest that the internal dimensions be increased to 5.5m in length from the proposed 5m. Amended plans were received on 4 th December 2006 which increased the size in line with highway recommendations

7. Appraisal

7.1 The issues in respect of this proposal is the likely impact of the bulk of the garages on the house/garden area of 252 Cannock Road, reduction of amenity space and effect on visual amenity.

28 7.2 The proposed garage would be 2.2m to eaves and the north east most corner would abut the boundary with 252. The angles and views from 252 Cannock Road would be obscure from the rear living room window and very obscure from the kitchen window. This would be approx 6m from the south-west facing ground floor windows. Due to the obscure angle, and existing fence it would be difficult to argue loss of outlook to this room. There are other windows to this room, which overlook the garden and enjoy a satisfactory outlook. There would be no loss of light.

7.3 The garden area adjacent to the fence at 252 Cannock Road is not the main focus of outdoor living. On this basis it is unlikely that the proximity of the garage to the boundary with 252 would result in any adverse affect by reason of loss of outlook.

7.4 The principle of this use of part of the garden space for the parking of vehicles has already been addressed under the appeal application. The proposed garage block would however, require a slightly greater area of land than the approved parking spaces. The building would be closer to the boundary with 252 which in terms of loss of usable garden space would have little impact as the approved use of this quite awkward space was limited due to its shape and size. But this is the plot with the smaller garden and any loss of amenity space may be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers. However, 16.5m2 is not a significant amount to lose. On this basis it would be difficult to justify refusal on grounds of loss of amenity space.

7.5 The proposed electric garage doors would have a very solid appearance, particularly as they are both double width. The location however is very remote overlooking a field and would not be visible from anywhere but Grassy Lane which is a closed road to through traffic. Electronic doors have the minimum impact on the highway. On this basis the design is acceptable.

8. Recommendation

Grant planning permission.

Subject to the following conditions:

- matching materials

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

Planning Application No: 06/01391/FUL Location 248 Cannock Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV10 0BE Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 392473 299913 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 343m 2 Printed

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07 APP NO: 06/01392/FUL WARD: Fallings Park DATE: 16-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 16.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 246 Cannock Road, Wednesfield, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached double garage to the rear

APPLICANT: AGENT: Clark Brothers Developments Brophy Riaz & Partners 8 High Street 48A Hylton Street Bilston Jewellery Quarter Wolverhampton Birmingham WV14 0EH B18 6HN

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 This site, which was a vacant area of land, is on the corner of Grassy Lane and Cannock Road. To the north-east is 252 Cannock Road, a large detached house approx. six years old. Grassy Lane runs behind the new dwellings to the south and in an east/west direction. The road is a dead end which leads to a business premises. Pedestrian access is still achieved along this roadway to the east. To the south of this highway is open countryside. The site itself was a vacant area of land and now the two approved dwellings are under construction.

1.2 There is a slight change in levels with the rear garden at the application site gently sloping down from the road towards the house.

2. Application details

2.1 The application was deferred at Planning Committee on 5 th December 2006 for a site visit.

2.2 The application forms part of another application for a garage next door at 248 Cannock Road (06/01391/FUL). The proposed garages comprise one large block across the rear garden of both houses.

31 2.3 The proposal involves a single storey garage block to accommodate four cars in the rear garden of both 246 and 248 Cannock Road. Amended drawings were received on 4 th December 2006 and would measure 11.8m wide and 6.1m deep and 3m high to the ridge. The internal dimensions would be 5.6m wide for each garage and 5.5m deep.

2.4 The position of the building would be 2.3m closer to the boundary fence with 252 Cannock Road, than the position of the approved parking bays. The doors to the garage would be electrically operated and have a metal external finish.

3. Planning History

3.1 Planning permission has been allowed on appeal for two detached dwellings ref 03/1415 dated 27th October 2004. The dwellings are near to completion.

4. Relevant policies

AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

D1 - Design Quality

D8 - Scale - Massing

D9 - Appearance

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.2 A letter of objection has been received from Cllr Steve Evans on the grounds of “disruption to the public footpath and loss of light”#

5.3 Neighbour letters were sent following receipt of amended plans. No objections received at time of writing the report.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Trees - no comments have yet been received.

6.2 Transportation Development - suggest that the internal dimensions be increased to 5.5m in length from the proposed 5m. Amended drawings were received on 4 th December 2006 which increased the size in line with highway recommendations.

7. Appraisal

7.1 The issues in respect of this proposal is the likely impact of the bulk of the garages on the house/garden area of 252 Cannock Road, reduction of amenity space and effect on visual amenity.

7.2 The proposed garage would be 2.2m to eaves and the north east most corner would abut the boundary with 252. The angles and views from 252 Cannock Road would be obscure from the rear living room windows and very obscure from the kitchen window. This would be approx 6m from the south-west facing ground floor windows. Due to the obscure angle, and existing fence it would be difficult to argue loss of outlook to this room. There are other windows to this room, which overlook the garden and enjoy a satisfactory outlook. There would be no loss of light.

7.4 The principle of this use of part of the garden space for parking of vehicles has already been addressed under the appeal application. The proposed garage block would however, require a slightly greater area of land than the approved parking spaces. This is the plot with the larger garden but any additional loss of amenity space could be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers with the position of the building only 3.3m from the main house. However, the difference between parking spaces and a garage would be minimal. On this basis it would be difficult to justify refusal on grounds of loss of amenity space.

8. Recommendation

Grant Planning Permission

Subject to the following Conditions:

-matching materials

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

Planning Application No: 06/01392/FUL Location 246 Cannock Road, Wednesfield,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 393783 302346 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 239m 2 Printed

34 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01230/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 11-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 11.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Former G & P Batteries Limited Site, Grove Street, Heath Town, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of 52 No. two bedroom and 4 No. one bedroom apartments in single 3-4 storey with associated parking and amenity space.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Grosvenor Way Ltd Robertson Francis Partnership 67 Weston Street 5 - 7 Museum Place London Cardiff SE19 3RW CF10 3BD

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is found off Grove Street, to the east of the city centre off the main A4124 Wednesfield Road at Heath Town.

1.2 Grove Street currently gives access to this site, several residential properties, a trading electrical business and a pedestrian route to the Wyrley and Essington Canal tow path.

1.3 The site is approximately 0.7Ha and tapers towards the east.

1.4 The northern boundary is formed by a disused railway embankment which rises significantly above the site, the southern boundary is formed by the Wyrley and Essington Canal and the western boundary is formed by Grove Street. The site has a narrow frontage onto Deans Road to the east.

1.5 RDP Electronics Ltd., makers of electronic equipment, is accessed from Grove Street opposite the site.

1.6 The access from Grove Street is 2.1m below the level of the main site. The main body of the site shown in the proposal is level, at 2.1m, and the proposed built footprint is a little higher at 2.2m. The canal tow path is 1m above Grove Street and 1.1m below the main site. The former railway embankment is 4m above Grove Street with a bridge passing over and 1.9m above the main application site. The Deans Road end of the site is 2.75m above Grove Street.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal is to construct a single building approximately 98m long and 16.5m deep to contain 52 no. 2 bedroom apartments and 4 single bed apartments.

35 2.2 The central 50m part of the building would have 3 storeys and the side wings, each approximately 24m long, would be 2 storeys. The building would be gently angled to follow the line of the canal.

2.3 The proposed elevations are vertically divided into approximately 6m wide bays separated by columns faced with buff brick. The two central bays are 7.5m wide. In all other areas the elevations are fully glazed, using obscure glazed panels where there is structure to be hidden. The ‘fascia’ is finished in a white render.

2.4 The roof is shown as a series of mono-pitches which slope from the outside edge to the inside edge giving a strong allusion to an industrial saw-tooth roof. The central roofs rise to a 17.5m wide flat roof which overhangs the building beneath. The design statement accompanying the application describes it as having ‘aerofoil parapets’.

2.5 On the front, canal side elevations, balcony terraces of 5.5m wide and 4.5m depth are proposed [6.5m by 4.5m in the two central bays] and terraces of the same depth at ground floor. On the rear there are similar balconies proposed to the same depth but the stairwells restrict the width to approximately 4.3m wide.

2.6 From the side elevation the roof appears flat and there are four vertical lines of windows and a horizontal band of aluminium cladding beneath the white rendered fascia.

2.7 The apartments are dual aspect with bedrooms and living space taking natural light from both the northern and southern aspects.

2.8 The access road is from Grove Street in the form of a long gated ramp set approximately 8m back from the Grove Street kerb line, on the boundary of the site according to the plan submitted. The slope is a little steeper than 1 in 10.

2.9 Access to the building at ground floor is almost level and suitable for wheelchair access.

2.10 The 4 one bedroom apartments are laid out to accommodate wheelchair users.

2.11 Parking for 70 cars, including 7 disabled user spaces, is proposed.

2.12 The embankment to the former railway line would have supplementary planting.

2.13 Bin and recycling storage is proposed to be located to the left of the entrance at the bottom of the slope from the railway line.

2.14 Boundary treatments proposed are a combination of 1.8m high railing fences, brick retaining walls varying in height from 2m at the site entrance to 1.35m at the canal boundary, and a 1.8m high fence with pedestrian gate at the Deans Road end of the site.

2.15 Two secure amenity spaces are proposed at either end of the site.

2.16 It is proposed to provide a ramp to provide a public link between the canal towpath and Deans Road for pedestrians and cyclists.

36 3. Planning History

3.1 06/0127/FP/M for Residential development comprising 64 x 2 bedroom apartments and associated car parking and landscaping - withdrawn.

4. Constraints

4.1 Adjacent to the canal.

4.2 Potential for shallow coal mining to have been carried out in the area.

4.3 Adjacent to former railway line which has been considered for a Metro route.

5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D14 - The Provision of Public Art D5 - Public Realm Public Open Private Space D10 - Community Safety D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part AM9 - Provision for Pedestrians AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM7 - Travel Plans AM6 - Transport Assessments H1 - Housing H6 - Design of Housing Development H8 - Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H10 - Affordable Housing H9 - Housing Density and mix

6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised by site and press notices.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 One letter of objection was received from the business on Grove Street raising concerns regarding additional traffic during construction and potential for obstructive parking from residents.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Access Officer – requires that the disabled car parking spaces are relocated and re- orientated perpendicular to the building. Paths should be widened to 1.2m in the vicinity of the dwellings.

8.2 Building Control – access for fire seems adequate. There is some concern that there may be shallow mining in the area which could affect structural stability.

37 8.3 Archaeology – no observations.

8.4 Environmental Services – reclamation comments as reported in body of appraisal to ensure that top soil to an acceptably low level of contamination before covering and that cover material clean.

8.5 Planning Policy Section - the proposal is acceptable subject to S106 to incorporate 14 affordable housing units, £111,788 recreational and open space contribution and public art. The principles of the development and the loss of the employment site are accepted.

8.6 Transportation Development has concerns regarding the junction of Grove Street with the A4124 and requires further investigation as to how the junction will function with a large new residential development. Other issues such as the parking to dwelling ratio and layout of the parking are largely resolved. An additional bin store towards Deans Road will help the occupants of the site. Cycle parking needs to be covered and secure.

9. External consultees

9.1 West Midlands Fire Service have no objection to the scheme provided they can turn their vehicles and an override mechanism is provided for electronic gates. 12.5 tonne vehicles are used in this area.

9.2 West Midlands Police have no concerns regarding the scheme.

9.3 British Waterways are seeking funding or works in kind for towpath and ramp access improvements to Deans Road. They request clarification of the details of the boundary wall and railings along the canalside. They have concerns regarding the storage of materials and waste and require that there is prior investigation to establish any former basins or culverts and have some concern regarding potential risk for contamination of the canal through disturbance carried out by the reclamation scheme works proposed.

9.4 Centro – No objection

9.5 Wildlife Trust For Birmingham And The Black Country and the Environment Agency were consulted but no responses have been received.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The main issues related to this application are:

Access, servicing and parking for residents and emergency vehicles, and routes for pedestrians and cyclists. Design and Appearance. Amenity space. Security. Environmental Protection - ground contamination, noise pollution and drainage. Landscape and boundary treatments. Affordable Housing Public Art Open Space Contributions.

38 Access

10.2 Transportation have raised concerns regarding the nature of the junction into Grove Street from Wolverhampton Road [A4124] which currently provides access for a few residential properties, one business and previously the lorries which serviced the GP Batteries business. Because of the potential for additional traffic movements associated with the development there are concerns that the present design of the junction is inadequate. The agent for the applicant has indicated his willingness to look at this issue.

10.3 The parking ratio is a little below 1.25 per dwelling, and is considered acceptable in this location

10.4 There are a number of detailed matters that need amendment. The agent has been asked to provide amended plans in advance of 9 January, relating to the following:-

o There are adequate numbers of disabled user spaces however their orientation and location need further attention.

o The access paths within the site are of substandard width and need to be widened to 1.2m to accommodate wheelchairs and push chairs.

o An additional bin store needs to be provided at the Deans Road end of the development.

o Cycle storage needs to be in an enclosed and covered building containing cycle racks.

10.5 The Wyrley and Essington Canal towpath runs parallel to the application site but there is currently no ramped access for cycles, wheelchairs or push chairs. This route will become part of the national cycle network and British Waterways are keen to find funding to improve the tow path surfaces and accesses. The ramped access to the tow path from the site and the gate and path arrangements within the application site will be looked at with a view to allowing towpath users to access Deans Road through the end portion of this site. British Waterways request S106 funding towards tow path improvements. There are ongoing discussions regarding the provision of a ramp to be used by towpath cyclists to access Deans Road and a condition to this effect can be added to any approval as the agent has indicated a willingness to do this.

10.6 There are adequate arrangements made for service and emergency vehicles to turn within the site but if security gates are used an adequate override system will need to be installed for emergency service vehicles. This can be required by condition.

Design

10.7 The proposal is of a very modern design incorporating a raised central flat roof area and monopitch roof features in an industrial idiom, glazing on the front and rear elevations, a white rendered fascia topped by aluminium parapet and overhanging roof details. The proposal is very adventurous in its use of balconies on all floors, with terraces at ground floor on both main elevations to take advantage of the canal environment. Its distance from other development across the canal means that the height is acceptable and the fresh design is a welcome change in the immediate environment.

39 Amenity Space

10.8 The useable area of amenity space is considered adequate for a development of this scale being well in excess of 1000sq metres. The agent has agreed to provide an amended layout showing the amenity space secured.

10.9 In addition to the communal amenity space, each apartment would have private balconies or terraces on both front and back elevations which would add to the 'outdoor living' space of the overall development.

Security

10.10 All of the spaces are well overlooked in the development and there is activity along both the front and rear elevation. There is a private space designated in front of and behind the ground floor properties which will shield ground floor windows and afford some privacy to them.

Environmental Protection

10.11 Environmental Protection issues relate to ground contamination and noise from other industrial use nearby. There is some risk that there was shallow mining in the vicinity. A full report on ground reclamation has been provided. The proposal is for 1m of top soil to be removed and replaced with clean soil. The local authority will require confirmation that the levels of contamination in the top soil being left on the site are acceptable before introducing clean soil to the site.

10.12 There have been no requests for an acoustic survey because there are no noise generating uses in the vicinity at the present time. However, there are established planning uses which could create noise, without needing planning permission, on the far side of the canal from the site and the applicant will need to consider this in their choice of noise insulation in the development. Equally there is still some potential that the tram route will use the railway embankment therefore wheel squeal will need to be considered in the choice of insulation.

Landscaping

10.13 A landscape and surface treatment scheme has been submitted with the application, however some elements within this do not meet the usual standards expected in the Council's adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance and changes will be expected as a condition of permission.

Affordable Housing

10.14 As part of the scheme 25% affordable housing units will be required to be provided in accordance with Policy H10 of the Adopted UDP. This equates to 14 units. A S106 will be required to this effect.

Public Art

10.15 There is a requirement for public art which would be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.

Open Space

10.16 Open Space contributions as set out in policy H8 of the Adopted UDP will be required to offset the cost of providing addition recreational, sport and open space facilities within the borough. The figure required through S106 is £111,788.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposal is acceptable with some modification to the parking layout and widths of paths, boundary treatment, and provision of an additional bin store, covered and enclosed cycle parking and a suitable access ramp from the canal.

11.2 A S106 for affordable housing, Open Space contributions and public art will be required.

12 Recommendation

12.1 Delegated authority to Grant subject to:-

A S106 to secure affordable housing, £111,788 recreational open space and sports contribution and the provision of public art. The receipt of plans amending the position of the disabled spaces, their orientation and the increasing paths to 1.2 metres. Conditions to include submission of:

o architectural details at roof level and of balconies o landscape and boundary treatment and planting details o details of an access ramp from canal tow path to Deans Road o external materials and details of acoustic properties of windows o details of two bin stores and cycle and motor cycle storage facilities o gates and system for override by emergency services o details of junction improvements of Grove Street and A4124 o management of Grove Street access arrangements during construction o means of securing the amenity space o confirmation of levels of contamination at agreed stages of reclamation o residential travel plan.

Advisory notes on:

o Health and Safety issues regarding working adjacent to British Waterways operational land and researching former canal related structures and hydraulic linkages to the canal. o Coal Mining

Case Officer : Mizzy Marshall Telephone No : 551123 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01230/FUL Location Former G & P Batteries Limited Site, Grove Street,Heath Town,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 393065 299323 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 7965m 2 Printed

42 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-06

APP NO: 06/01313/FUL WARD: Merry Hill DATE: 16-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 26.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land At Rear Of 118-120 Warstones Road, Merry Hill / Penn, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of detached bungalow

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs Williams Mr K Humpherson 118 Warstones Road The Corner House Penn High Street Wolverhampton Wombourne WV5 9DN

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is located to the rear of 118 and 120 Warstones Road, Wolverhampton. The site currently forms part of the private rear garden to 118 Warstones Road.

1.2 The street scene consists of a mixture of properties, semi detached and detached, houses and bungalows, of a traditional design, within an area which is predominantly residential.

1.3 118 Warstones Road fronts a very busy main highway, which has recently undergone alteration, with traffic calming measures, due to speed of vehicles and associated accidents. There is a chicane type structure to the highway directly in front of 118 Warstones Road. Between the highway and the property is a wide paved/grassed area forming part of the landscaping to the street scene, which is also used for parking vehicles. There is an Oak tree adjacent to the access to the site which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

1.4 The application site consists of a traditional detached property with paved forecourt, and side access leading to a substantial private rear garden area. The land directly to the rear of the property is currently covered by large chalet type wooden structures, which are used for storage of stock in connection with market trade. The land is also currently used for parking large vans in connection with the business.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal is for the erection of a detached bungalow to the rear of the property. The rear garden land will be divided up to provide a private garden area to the rear of the existing property at No. 118 Warstones Road (all wooden structures to be removed), and access to the new property, etc for the new property.

43 2.2 The proposed bungalow has a hipped roof design, with velux roof lights to both sides and rear elevations, and measures 12m wide and 10.1m deep. The layout includes a lounge, study, breakfast kitchen, bathroom and two bedrooms one with ensuite to ground floor, and within the roof will be a further two bedrooms both with ensuites. The property will have four bedrooms in all. There is a detached double garage measuring 5.7m deep and 5.7m wide with a hipped roof design.

3. Planning History

3.1 This application follows a previously refused application and a withdrawn application as follows:

05/1833/FP/R - Residential Development comprising the erection of three 3bed houses which was refused on 23 December 2006 for the following reasons:

* Discrepancies on plans * Cramped form of development * Unacceptable sub-division of existing garden * Detrimental impact on neighbours * Unacceptable disturbance from traffic * Adverse effect on the existing Oak Tree covered by a TPO * Poor relationship between properties * Detrimental impact on the amenities of future occupiers * Poor Orientation * Unacceptable disabled access * Insufficient detail on access arrangement for current and proposed properties.

The application went to appeal, which was dismissed on 5 May 2006.

06/0341/FP/R – residential development comprising of two detached bungalows which was withdrawn on 25 April 2006.

00/0672/FP for Single storey rear extension, Granted, dated 18.08.2000.

4. Constraints

4.1 Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Penn & Goldthorn Park Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00582/TPO

5. Relevant policies

AM1 - Access, Motabaility and New Development AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part 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 H6 - Design of Housing Development

44 6. Publicity

A site notice was posted on 30 October 2006.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 There have been 6 Neighbour objections to the proposal, as follows:

* 69 Claverley Drive – Loss of light, and loss of privacy.

* 108 Warstones Road – Detrimental to the existing traffic calming measures, highway safety, highway congestion, loss of Oak tree covered by TPO.

* 116 Warstones Road – Loss of Oak tree, disturbance from construction, highway safety, disturbance to 118 Warstones Road from access to the side, detrimental to existing traffic calming measures, additional access to 118 Warstones Road would conflict with traffic calming measures, and insufficient level of parking for existing property.

* 122 Warstones Road – insufficient detail with regards to levels and landscaping, out of keeping with surrounding street scene, detriment to Oak tree covered by a tpo, loss of privacy from future dormer windows.

* 124 Warstones Road – loss of privacy, fails to respect the integrity, scale, mass and pattern of the surrounding premises, insufficient detail with regards to landscaping and ground levels, impact on the Oak tree to the front of the property.

* 223 Warstones Road – same objection as 124 Warstones Road.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Environmental no reply at time of writing.

8.2 Transportation amended visibility splay required at a scale of 1:100 or 1:200 showing all obstructions, such as the trees planted along the verge, visibility splay required is 2.0m x 90cm.

8.3 Tree Officers , detail and construction of driveway adjacent to T.P.O'd Oak tree be provided.

8.4 Building Control no reply at time of writing..

8.5 Access Officer entrance to be level or ramped, provision within the boundary of the plot of the dwelling for a disabled person to approach and gain access, full faced kerb around the site and to provide flush dropped kerbs with buff blistered paving at any uncontrolled crossing point across the vehicular route..

8.6 Housing and Health no reply at time of writing.

45 9. External consultees

9.1 West Midlands Fire Service – In order for the first service to traverse any route, the minimum width of the road between the kerbs should be 3.7m. The plans submitted show the width of the roadway to be 3m with overhanging trees also obstructing passage. Turning facilities for a fire service vehicle should also be provided in any dead-end access route that is more than 20m long.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues in respect to this proposal are:

* Design Quality * Neighbours * Access for People with Disabilities * Sustainable Development * Parking * Road Safety * The Urban Forest

10.2 There is an established pattern to development within Warstones Road, which consists of semi detached and detached properties, fronting the street, with the majority having equal sized rear gardens of a similar length and width.

10.3 118 Warstones Road is somewhat different as it has an ‘L’ shaped rear private garden, wrapping around the rear of No. 120 Warstones Road. This is due to part of the land being divided off for the erection of a detached bungalow (120 Warstones Road) sometime ago. Most of the garden land is unused and left to overgrow.

10.4 Previous applications for three houses, and two detached bungalows were felt unacceptable. This was due to the cramped nature of development on the site, not in keeping with the existing density, form and layout of the established pattern of development in the street, thus detracting from the established character and appearance of the street scene. The development would also have a detrimental impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties and future occupiers of the development.

10.5 The first application 05/1833/FP/R for a pair of semi detached houses and one detached property, was taken to appeal. The Inspectorate dismissed the appeal for the following reasons:

* Unacceptably cramped creating a poor quality of environment. * Houses would appear unacceptably prominent, cramped and incongruous, detracting from the spacious character and appearance of the surrounding area. * Oak tree would impede the views of drivers, and development could seriously threaten the future health and survival of the protected tree. * Unacceptable harm to the living condition of occupiers at 116, 118, and 120 Warstones Road and 69 Claverley Drive, through loss of light, outlook and privacy, and through noise and loss of amenity space. * Unacceptable poor living conditions for future occupiers, with regard to amenity space, outlook and daylight.

10.6 Although the inspector dismissed the appeal, she did state “The appeal site is already in residential use, and I have no objections to its subdivision in principle. I am aware of no other backland houses nearby but a change to the layout of the neighbourhood would not necessarily, in my view, cause harm to the character of the area”.

10.7 The current proposal has been significantly changed, reducing the scheme down from three houses to 1No. 4bed detached bungalow with a detached double garage. The proposal has satisfactorily addressed the cramped nature of development, and considered the impact to neighbouring properties, therefore, I feel that the principle of backland development for 1 No. detached bungalow in this instance is acceptable.

10.8 The bungalow has been centrally located on the plot, with a sense of space around the whole perimeter of the bungalow, providing ample private garden and sufficient car parking. The design of the bungalow is in keeping with those properties surrounding, with a hipped roof design, and the layout of the property has achieved a good orientation with a high level of sunlight penetration, to the principle rooms, lounge and master bedroom.

10.9 Level details are necessary to assess the full impact of the bungalow and detached garage on neighbouring properties, due to land being quite uneven. The bungalow has however been set in from neighbouring boundaries, and angled so as to reduce the impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties such as outlook, loss of light and possible loss of privacy. Further detail regarding levels is awaited which shall be reported orally to Committee.

10.10 The access to the site remains the same, which runs between the side elevations to the neighbouring properties at 118 and 120 Warstones Road. Initially it was felt that the access would cause unnecessary disturbance to those neighbouring properties and their rear amenities, with cars entering and exiting the site. However, the scheme has been substantially reduced down from three properties to just one bungalow; therefore, traffic along this access would decrease, along with any associated disturbance.

10.11 The access falls very close to a large Oak Tree which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order. This tree needs to be accurately plotted onto the plans, to assess any possible impact. Details are awaited.

10.12 The access and turning area is quite tight and would not allow a Fire Service engines to turn round. Therefore, it is necessary for the proposal to include a domestic sprinkler system.

10.13 Although Highways have suggested a reduction to the visibility splay, it is necessary for the Agent to submit further detail with regards to any other obstructions on the highway, to assess the suitability of visibility when exiting the site from both current and proposed accesses. Detail has been requested and shall be reported orally to Committee.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The principle of 1No. detached bungalow is acceptable. The design and layout is acceptable, with ample car parking and amenity to support the dwelling.

11.2 The impact to neighbouring properties such as outlook, loss of light and privacy seems to be minimal, however this will need to be confirmed to committee on receipt of satisfactory level detail.

11.3 It is important to remove permitted development for future development including extensions (Schedule 2 Part 1 Class A), additional windows at first floor (Schedule 2 Part 1 Class B) due to the possible impact to neighbouring properties.

47 11.4 The proposed velux roof lights should be obscurely glazed, to remove the possibility of direct overlooking and perceived loss of privacy to neighbouring properties.

11.5 The proposal provides a sufficient visibility splay, however, further details are required on any obstructions to the highway, such as trees etc, which will also be reported orally to Committee.

12. Recommendation

Subject to the satisfactory receipt of amended plans/additional information, Grant planning permission, subject to the following Conditions:

1. Standard Time Limit 2. Submission and Implementation of Landscaping, including Boundary Treatment. 3. Tree Protection (details required) 4. Submission of Materials 5. Provision of Access 6. Visibility (vehicular) 7. Parking Provision as shown 8. Restrict Extensions to Buildings 9. Restrict extension and external alterations 10. Restrict first floor windows 11. Restrict Outbuildings 12. Obscure Glazing 13. Access for Disabled 14. Note for information “Construction and maintenance of Freestanding Walls” 15. Note for information “Tree Preservation Orders” 16. Note for information “Construction of Footway Crossing” 17. Note for Information “Within a Coal Mining Area”

If satisfactory detail not received refuse due to the following reasons:

1. Insufficient detail on Levels to assess the possible impact on neighbouring properties. 2. Insufficient detail on the preserved oak tree to assess the possible impact from the development. 3. Insufficient detail on the visibility splay and possible obstructions within the highway, to establish the suitability of the existing and proposed access.

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

Planning Application No: 06/01313/FUL Location Land At Rear Of 118-120 Warstones Road, Merry Hill / Penn,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid sj 388762 296298 (approx) Reference Plan 12.12.2006 Application Site Area 792m 2 Printed

49 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01571/FUL WARD: Park DATE: 21-Nov-06 TARGET DATE: 20-Feb-07 RECEIVED: 17.11.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land Between 44 And 70, Compton Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of 24 apartments, parking and associated works

APPLICANT: AGENT: Bentley Homes Pegasus Planning Group C/o Agent 5 The Priory Old London Road Canwell Sutton Coldfield B75 5SH

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site was formerly occupied by the Coopers Hotel building, which was demolished in 2002. The site has remained vacant ever since. Compton Road (A454) provides one of the main arterial routes into the City Centre.

1.2 The site abuts an open beer garden and parking area associated with the Royal Oak public house. To the east of the application site are Georgian terraces most of which are Listed Buildings, and have been converted to apartments. Numbers 38-40 Compton Road consist of a 2 storey garage dating from the 1930's. It has rendered elevations with large display windows.

1.3 Opposite the application site is the Wolverhampton Eye Hospital and further west are established residential properties.

1.4 The site is included within the Oaks (Merridale Road) conservation area.

2. Application details

2.1 The applicant proposes an apartment scheme which will provide for 18 2bedroomed and 6 1bedroomed apartments. The building has been positioned to reflect established building lines within the vicinity.

2.2 The building would provide predominantly 3 storeys of accommodation, with a central element providing an additional floor in the roof space.

2.3 The accommodation would have active uses onto Compton Road, with bedrooms provided on the quieter courtyard side of the development.

50 2.4 Vehicular access would be directly off Compton Road into a parking court. Here 25 car parking spaces would be provided with an additional space suitable for a disabled person. An area of covered cycle storage has been identified. In addition covered bin stores have also been included close to the access point. It is intended that vehicular access into the site would be controlled via a key fob operated gate.

2.5 The proposed development would utilise features evident in surrounding buildings, including pitched slate roofs, rendered front façade, timber windows and Georgian proportions. Rear boundary treatments consist of walls whilst to the front railings are shown to match those on the terraced property to the east.

3. Relevant policies

HE8 - Encouragement of Appropriate ReDev in CA HE9 - Relaxation of Normal Standards in a CA H1 - Housing H3 - Housing Site Assessment Criteria H6 - Design of Housing Development H8 - Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 - Housing Density and mix SPG3 - Residential Development D1 - Design Quality D9 - Appearance D4 - Urban Grain D3 - Urban Structure D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D10 - Community Safety 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

4. Publicity

4.1 The application was advertised in the Express & Star newspaper and by site notice.

4.2 No responses have been received. As the consultation period has not yet expired, a summary of all responses will be submitted at the Committee meeting.

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 No responses have been received. As the consultation period has not yet expired, a summary of all responses will be submitted at the Committee meeting.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 The Access Officer has made detailed comments relating to Building Regulations.

6.2 Building Control - Consider access for fire service acceptable. They also make detailed comments relating to Building Regulations.

51 6.3 Conservation – awaiting response.

6.4 Landscaping - The plan is outline only, no detail of planting is given. It is requested that a detailed landscape plan be submitted. These should include details that relate to boundary treatment, planting in close proximity to the proposed building, hedging, and the number of trees on the site.

6.5 Legal Services – awaiting a response.

6.6 Planning Policy Section - awaiting a response.

6.7 Transportation Development – awaiting a response.

6.8 Environmental Services – awaiting a response.

6.9 Leisure Services – awaiting a response.

7. External consultees

7.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd: No objection - subject to conditions.

7.2 Police - No objection in principle. They encourage the development, and welcome the measures proposed by way of security and the use of “defensible space”. However it is suggested that the access gates be modified slightly. Some concern was raised about securing the top of the gates, but acknowledges that access for service or delivery vehicles must be accommodated. An arched entrance is proposed either side of the development. It is unsure whether the access will be gated and it is encouraged that these are secured, similar to that of the vehicular entrance.

8. Appraisal

8.1 The key factors in determining the proposal are: - Acceptability of the principle of residential development. - Design and Layout - Effects on future residents relative to proximity of Royal Oak PH - Transportation issues - Recreational Open Space

Principle of Residential Development.

8.2 There is no policy objection to residential development.

Design and Layout.

8.3 Coopers Hotel was demolished in 2002 and the site has been vacant since. As the site is within a conservation area, UDP Policy HE8 applies. This policy states that favourable consideration will be given to appropriate redevelopment sites within or affecting the setting of a conservation area which currently detract from the character or appearance of the area.

8.4 The proposal remains consistent with the historical theme of this part Compton Road. The proposed development respects the existing building lines for Compton Road, providing enclosure, defensible space, definition of public and private realm and a layout with a secure and private amenity space. The apartment block would have four

52 communal pedestrian entrance points onto Compton Road, with a further four individual entrance points to the proposed ground floor apartments.

8.5 The mass of the building reflects its surroundings. A 3 ½ storey central element is proposed which provides variety in roofscape. The overall design takes on board the traditional aspects of its context whilst providing a modern interpretation of them. An area of amenity space is provided which measures approximately 350sqm.

8.6 The proposed apartments have been set out so as to provide habitable rooms facing toward Compton Road with bedrooms predominantly facing to the rear, into the courtyard space. The orientation of habitable rooms provides a more active frontage with overlooking of the public realm and allowing the main living spaces to take advantage of southerly aspects in accordance with the Council's UDP design policies.

8.7 The proposed materials to be used for boundary treatments are considered to be acceptable, however further details are required in respect of landscaping including boundary treatment. It is proposed to provide robust brick walls to the rear private area whilst the area fronting Compton Road will incorporate low walls, piers and railings allowing for passive surveillance toward the public side of development.

8.8 Bin storage will be located to the rear of the proposed development, close to the access point for service vehicles but out of view of the road.

8.9 On either side of the apartment building are shown pedestrian routes accessed through brick arches adjacent to Compton Road. The security of these arches is a matter of concern to the police. However, neither of the arches or paths are within the application site boundary. Clarification is being sought from the agents.

Transportation and Parking

8.10 Parking is provided on the basis of one space per apartment with an additional visitors space. A single wider space suitable for people with a disability has also been identified. Such an approach is considered to be acceptable in this location.

8.11 A 2.4 x 90m visibility splay is provided at the entrance of the proposed development. Transportation comments are awaited.

8.12 A covered cycle shelter is proposed within the north western portion of the site, to the rear, adjacent the parking bays. However, while provided with a roof the sides of the bike shelter would be open, and so would not provide adequate security. Additionally, it is considered that the bike store should be in the form of a proper building to compliment the apartment block. Additionally, a motorcycle storage area is located to the north east corner of the site.

8.13 The shared areas will require management to ensure that fire escape routes, car parking areas, access gates, cycle stores and bin areas are properly cared for, for the duration of the development.

Effects on future residents

8.14 The site abuts the Royal Oak beer garden and car park area to the west. Thus, the proposed apartments closest to the pub could be affected by potential noise sources particularly by the open beer garden. The applicant proposes no openings along the gable end opposite the public house with the intention of eliminating much of the noise from the public house and beer garden.

53 8.15 A noise report has been submitted with the application which indicates that with appropriate sound attenuation measures a good standard of residential environment can be provided within the apartments.

8.16 Environmental Health has been consulted regarding the issues relating to noise and air quality. Their comments are awaited.

Recreation Open Space

8.17 Any housing development of 10 dwellings or more will be required to contribute towards the provision and / or enhancement of open space, sport and recreation facilities sufficient to serve new residents.

8.18 A draft Section 106 agreement has been submitted by the applicant, which is under consideration by Council’s Legal department. The agreement proposes to provide a financial contribution which would offset the need to provide on site public open space.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The general principles and layout are acceptable.

11.2 There are some minor alterations to the landscape detailing and boundary treatment of the development.

11.3 The proposal will improve the condition and appearance of this part of the city, and will put in good use land that would otherwise remain derelict.

12. Recommendation

Delegated authority to Grant following receipt of favourable consideration by all external and internal consulted parties and satisfactory amended plans and completion of a S.106 agreement to secure an open space financial contribution and public art and:-

subject to the following Conditions include:

- details of external matching materials - revised landscaping details - submission of sustainable drainage detail - elevations and floor plans for bin and bike stores. - provision of parking (bike, motorcycle and car) and vehicle manoeuvring area prior to occupation and retention thereafter. - details of means of securing points of access. - large scale details of boundary treatments. - provision of boundary treatments prior to occupation

Further conditions may be required upon receipt of consultation responses.

Case Officer : Joseph Bartley Telephone No. : 555631 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01571/FUL Location Land Between 44 And 70, Compton Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 390379 298690 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area m2 Printed

55 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 09-JAN-07

APP NO: 06/01369/FUL WARD: Penn DATE: 06-Nov-06 TARGET DATE: 01-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 11.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 36 Vicarage Road, Penn, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for single storey extensions to side/rear wing building together with new pitched roof, to provide hallway, bedroom and garage.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs Pask Mr A S Taylor 36 Vicarage Road 32 Orton Grove Penn Penn Wolverhampton Wolverhampton West Midlands WV4 4JN WV4 5JA

REPORT :

1. Introduction

1.1 This is a retrospective application for the retention and completion of unauthorised extensions.

Your Committee were scheduled to visit the site on 19 December 2006.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application property is a detached bungalow on the corner plot where Vicarage Road meets Church Hill. On the opposite side of Church Hill is St Bartholomew’s Church, a Grade II* Listed building. On the opposite side of Vicarage Road is the Church Hall and car park.

2.2 The site slopes up quite steeply away from Vicarage Road and is also raised above Church Hill, along the boundary of which is a retaining wall together with a screen of hedges and trees. The bungalow has a gable facing towards Vicarage Road.

2.3 Prior to the construction of the unauthorised extensions there was a flat roofed wing building, containing a kitchen and garage, set to the side of the dwelling and behind its rear face.

56 3. Planning History

3.1 93/1091. Extension to side with alterations to roof. Permission granted 23.11.93.

3.2 03/0809/FP. Double garage extension and new roof to existing kitchen and garage. Refused 14.8.03.

3.3 04/0699/FP. Single storey extension to existing wing building and new pitched roof. Granted 6.9.04.

4. Constraints

4.1 The site is within the Vicarage Road (Penn) Conservation Area.

4.2 The property is close to a Grade II* Listed building, St Bartholomew’s Church, as detailed above.

5. Relevant Background and Application Details

5.1 In September 2004 the Council granted planning permission to the current applicant for single storey extensions and a new pitched roof to the wing building, which at that time contained a kitchen and garage. The approved plans indicated a small forward extension to the wing building’s existing kitchen and garage, together with a new garage to be built onto the side of the building. This application (reference 04/0699) was considerably amended during the course of processing in an attempt to achieve a suitable development that was subservient to the existing bungalow and of a design in keeping with the Conservation Area status and with the setting of the Grade II* Listed building, St Bartholomew’s Church. Moreover the previous application 03/0809 had been refused for reasons of detriment to the street scene and to the Conservation Area and setting of the Listed building.

5.2 Conditions attached to the planning permission included a requirement to submit details of external building materials prior to commencement.

5.3 However, the applicant proceeded to construct extensions that were not in compliance with the approved plans as follows:

The development had commenced without the approval of materials as required by condition. The extended wing building was significantly higher. The smaller extension was built further forward. The existing garage was now to be used as a bedroom. A large window was being provided instead of garage doors. A new glazed door and two flanking windows were being provided in the kitchen extension, instead of the single window as approved.

5.4 The unauthorised extensions are now almost complete but it appears that the applicant has ceased work following a letter from Planning Enforcement Staff informing him that if he continues to build without planning permission he does so at his own risk.

The wing building as extended has a hipped roof with the ridgeline parallel to Vicarage Road and at right angles to the ridgeline of the original dwelling. The roof has a height of 4.8m (approx.), 0.2m lower than the original house, as compared with a height of 4.25m (0.75m lower) if the extensions had been built as approved. There is a small

57 gable over the front of the new garage and a flat roof over the small front extension to the proposed new bedroom.

The wing building now has an assortment of external materials, including facing brickwork, a large area of York Stone cladding on the flat roofed extension and mock timber framing over horizontal timber boarding on the front gable. The new garage is indicated on the submitted plan as having wooden side-hinged double doors, as in the case of the approved scheme. The roof has rolled tiles, reasonably similar in colour to that of the original bungalow but of a different profile.

6. Policies and Guidance

6.1 UDP Policies HE5: Control of Development in a Conservation Area, HE13: Development Affecting a Listed Building, D6: Townscape and Landscape, D8: Scale – Massing, D9: Appearance.

6.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No 4 – Extensions to Houses.

7. Publicity

7.1 Site notice, press notice and neighbour notification. No representations received.

8. Consultations

8.1 Conservation Group – the site occupies a prominent position in the Vicarage Road (Penn) Conservation Area, at the junction of Vicarage Road and Church Hill, directly opposite the Grade II* Listed Church of St Bartholomew, arguably the focal point of the Conservation Area.

8.2 The application property has no particular architectural or historic interest; it is set back from Vicarage Road; the extension is set back behind the line of the existing bungalow; and the site is reasonably well screened from the Church Hill frontage. The building is, however, readily open to view from the majority of the Vicarage Road frontage and, in view of the location, any proposals need to be intrinsically well- designed, complementing but remaining subservient to the principal building.

8.3 In view of the scale of the extension, it is no longer subservient to the original building. It includes flat, gabled and hipped roofs whereas the roof on the original building is principally gabled. In includes an excessive variety of external facing materials including brick, York stone cladding and mock timber framing. These disparate roof forms and cladding materials draw further attention to the extension and exacerbate the problems of scale.

8.4 The proposals neither preserve nor enhance the character or appearance of the Conservation Area and refusal is recommended.

Archaeology - No archaeological implications.

58 9. Appraisal

9.1 It is considered that the sole determining issue is the impact of the development on the visual amenity and character of the area. As stated earlier in the report, the site is a prominent one within the Conservation Area and close to the Listed Building.

9.2 It is considered that the approved scheme, with a lower roof of an entirely pitched design, smaller footprint, and two garages was at the margin of acceptability in terms of its height and bulk, its general subservience to the original bungalow and its impact on the Conservation Area and important Listed Building. The wing building as now being built, despite its set back from the original bungalow has the appearance of a separate bungalow because of its excessive height, bulk and assortment of external materials.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The extensions fail to preserve or enhance the appearance and character of the Conservation Area, have an adverse impact on the setting of the Listed Building and fail to comply with the above mentioned policy and guidance.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Refuse permission for reasons of over-domination of the principal bungalow and detraction from the appearance and character of the Conservation Area and from the setting of St. Bartholomew’s Church. Authorise Enforcement Action under Section 172 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for the unauthorised extensions. In the event of non-compliance with the Notice being issued, to prosecute under Section 179 of the above Act.

Case Officer : Rob Hussey Telephone No : 551130 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01369/FUL Location 36 Vicarage Road, Penn,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 389422 295327 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 773m 2 Printed

60 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07

APP NO: 06/01158/FUL WARD: Spring Vale DATE: 17-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 12-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 29.08.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Former Garage Site To The Rear Of 164 And 165, Sutton Court, Lanesfield, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of 6 No. two bedroom apartments and associated works

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mrs B Willmott Paul Clifton Associates Rivergate 50 Princes Avenue Cookham Walsall West Midlands

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site consists of an area of unused land located to the rear of dwellings fronting Camberley Crescent and Farrington Road. The application site has a vehicular access off Farrington Road which leads to a garage court. The garage court is part of the larger development named Sutton Court. Sutton Court is a horseshoe shaped development consisting of two storey buildings within terraced blocks providing apartments at ground and first floor level. Sutton Court itself has a vehicular access off Camberley Crescent.

1.2 The application site is located within the larger Ettingshall estate the surrounding area is very much suburban with two storey dwellings. There is a significant change in levels from the top of Camberley Crescent towards Farrington Road and the existing dwellings and apartments step down along the Camberley Crescent frontage.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application is for the erection of 6 x 2 bedroom apartments and associated works. The application proposes the redevelopment of an unused site by providing a two storey building with apartments at ground and first floor. The building would have a gabled pitched roof to match those of the adjacent Sutton Court. The proposed building would be set along the line of the rear building of Sutton Court to provide some uniformity to the development.

2.2 The application proposes an area of shared amenity space to the rear of the apartments and also proposes the provision of 9 parking spaces for the residents of the new development . The application also proposes the resurfacing of the loose hardcore which provides the access road to the garage court.

3. Constraints

3.1 The only site constraint is that the land falls within a former mining area.

61 4. Planning History

4.1 There is no relevant planning history to this proposal.

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 Within the Unitary Development Plan, the application site is not identified for any particular use or purpose.

5.2 The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are relevant to the proposed development:

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 AM1 – Access, Motability and New Development AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision SPG3 – Residential Development. Note for information in respect of Mining Area.

6. Publicity

6.1 Neighbouring Residents were informed of the application by letter and a site notice was displayed with time for comment expiring on 28 November 2006.

6.2 In response to the publicity, there have been five letters of comment from neighbouring residents at 166 Farrington Road, 6, 8, 12 Camberley Crescent and 20 Sutton Court. The issues of concern include possible noise from the new development, possible overlooking, possible loss of privacy, extra traffic, noise and dust during development, inadequate bin storage, previous limestone workings, any impact on drains. A letter has also been received from the Springvale Ward Members who state that in broad outline terms they have no objections to the proposals, however confirm that the garage court is not disused and is in full use and therefore parking provision must also be provided on site to retain the use of the garages and prevent parking on the adjacent highways.

7. Internal Consultees

7.1 The Council’s Access Officer confirms that the entrances to the dwellings will need to be level or ramped, and that the developer make reasonable provision within the boundary of the plot of the dwellings for a disabled person to approach and gain access from a vehicle.

7.2 Planning Policy confirm no objections.

7.3 Transport Strategy confirm no objections in principle but request that the applicant provide a plan showing the area to be resurfaced within the garage courts, secure and covered cycle parking should be provided, clarity on the location of the bin store for the development, provision of a parking bay for people with disabilities at 3.6m x 6m, a footway from the

62 parking bays to the development at 1.2m, motorcycle parking and improved lighting in the car parking area.

7.4 Building Consultancy have no comment on the application.

8. External Consultees

8.1 There were no external consultees on the application.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues to be considered include:-

The re-use of this redundant land, Adequacy of parking/servicing provision, Design of the development , Impact upon neighbours’ amenity.

9.2 The application site accessed from Farrington Road lies within a large garage court area. At some time in the past, the land has been hard surfaced with hardcore, however, it is now overgrown with rough grass. This area of land does not provide formal amenity space for the residents of Sutton Court and it is not part of the manoeuvring area to gain access to the garages. In principle, the proposed development would provide a good use of wasted land within the urban area which could be used to provide new residential accommodation which would be sustainable.

9.3 The residents of Sutton Court evidently park their vehicles within the large hard surfaced horseshoe shaped area in front of the apartment buildings. The garages to the rear within the garage course appear to be all occupied and the garages are of a good quality and appear to be well maintained. The proposed development would not include the removal of any existing parking provision or garages or remove the ability for any resident to achieve vehicular access to the garages. The proposal would also include the laying out of nine new parking spaces for the residents of the proposed new apartments. Additional facilities for cycle, motorcycle and adequate disabled parking have been requested from the applicant.

9.4 The proposed design and layout of the new building would be acceptable and be in keeping with the surrounds. As there is a significant fall from the top of Camberley Crescent to Farrington Road, the proposed new building would be set at a level 2.5m lower than the adjacent block of apartments to the rear of Sutton Court. The proposed new building would also be set at approximately the same height as the dwellings to the rear in Camberley Crescent. The building would be designed to be of two storeys with gabled pitched roof to match those of Sutton Court. The proposed development would have acceptable orientation as in all cases the lounge and bedroom 1 would have a south-easterly orientation which is in compliance with Council guidance. The proposed new development would have acceptable shared private amenity space having an area of 310 square metres.

9.5 In respect of impact on neighbours’ amenity, the proposed new building would side on to the residents o f Sutton Court and back on to dwellings along the Camberley Crescent frontage. There are two apartments numbered 25 and 26 Sutton Court which have lounge windows facing towards the side of the new development, however, the distance between these windows and the gable end would be an acceptable 15m. In respect of the relationship between the rear of the proposed development and the dwellings in Camberley Crescent, there would be a 23m rear to rear distance which is slightly above the Council’s standard of 22m. In this respect, it is not anticipated that the development would have any undue impact on existing neighbours’ amenity.

10. Conclusion

10.1 Overall, this is a welcome proposal to re-use and redevelop an area of brownfield land which serves no particular use or purpose and which is located sustainably within the existing residential area. The proposal will provide good new residential accommodation, it would provide improved natural surveillance to the area within the garage court, the garage court would be improved with the provision of a new surface, and the proposal would have no detriment to neighbours’ amenity.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant planning permission subject to receipt of additional information in respect of the provision of adequate parking facilities for people with disabilities, motorcycle parking facilities, cycle parking facilities, adequate bin storage, improved lighting and subject to the following conditions:

Submission of samples of all materials, Surfacing and layout out of parking spaces, Provision of level or ramped accesses to the ground floor apartments. Adequate drainage provision.

Case Officer : Martyn Gregory Telephone No : 551125 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01158/FUL Location Former Garage Site To The Rear Of 164 And 165, Sutton Court,Lanesfield,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 392407 294692 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 1561m 2 Printed

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07 APP NO: 06/01223/COU WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 29-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 24-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 11.09.2006 APP TYPE: Change of Use

SITE: 59 Pendeford Avenue, Aldersley, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Change of use to hot food takeaway (Use class A5)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr D Singh Paul Turner 30 Manor Road PLG Consultancy Oxley Suite 4 Wolverhampton 'House By The Square' WV10 6DT 10-12 Wood Road Codsall Wolverhampton WV8 1DB

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 No.59 Pendeford Avenue is within a designated Local Centre as specified within the adopted UDP. The premises are currently vacant; however they were formerly occupied by a newsagent. No.59 is located amongst a block of four retail units, consisting of a Hairdresser, Butchers and liquor store, all falling within an A1 class. There are four residential flats that are located above the four units.

1.2 There is a further set of units located to the south of those already mentioned, these are of a similar design and style with residential flats located above. In between these two blocks is a Co-op Superstore. The block of shops to the south consists of a gift shop, a hardware store, a ‘Costcutter’ and a plumbing centre. During the site visit it was noted that the original greengrocer store appeared unoccupied.

1.3 The lay-by area does provide off road parking for a number of vehicles. During the officer’s site visit, on a weekday morning, it was noted that the parking provision was already close to capacity and that a number of vehicles were parking on the Pendeford Avenue roadside for convenience. The Co-op Superstore does have its own parking provision within the lay-by area. Adjacent to this there is an access leading to a gated ‘private’ parking area at the rear of No.55-61 Pendeford Avenue.

1.4 There is a bus stop located on Pendeford Avenue, directly adjacent to the block of shops.

1.5 The area surrounding this ‘local centre’ is predominantly residential; there are dwellings to the north of the south of the group of shops and also housing lining opposite side of Pendeford Avenue.

66 2. Application details

2.1 The application was originally scheduled to be heard at Planning Committee on 5 th December 2006. It was decided by the members that the hearing should be deferred to Planning Committee on 9 th January in order that members would be able to visit the site before the committee hearing.

2.2 The application proposes a change of use to hot food takeaway (Class A5) with an extraction duct, located centrally, to the rear which projects above the eaves level. The applicant proposes to close the premises at 8.30pm every evening.

3. Planning History

3.1 A previous application for a change of use to hot food take-away was made 04/1887/FP/C, dated 20 October 2004. The application was refused planning permission on 4th January 2005. A subsequent appeal was made against the refusal to grant planning permission – the appeal was dismissed at a hearing held on 12 April 2006.

3.2 There have also been several other applications at other properties along the parade.

3.3 04/0842/FP/C – No.51a Pendeford Avenue, planning permission for hot food take- away withdrawn on 2 November 2006.

3.4 02/0641/FP – No.47a Pendeford Avenue had planning permission refused for a hot food take-away and first floor flat on 10 October 2002.

3.5 99/0649/FP – No.51a Pendeford Avenue had planning permission refused for a hot food takeaway on 13 September 1999.

3.6 C/0629/93 – No.51a Pendeford Avenue has planning permission refused for a fish and chip shop on 10 August 1993 and an appeal dismissed on 20 May 1994.

3.7 C/1432/92 – No.51a Pendeford Avenue has planning permission refused for a hot food take-away on 18 February 1993.

3.8 In the above decisions, the reasons for refusal were the likely increase in nuisance, primarily noise and disturbance in the evening, to residential amenities to the occupiers of the flats above and nearby residential properties. The effect of cooking smells although controlled by fume and filter extraction rarely completely remove the smells and these reasons for refusal were also re-iterated in the appeal decision dismissed on application C/0629/93.

4. Constraints

4.1 The proposal is within the Aldersley (18) Local Centre as stipulated by the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

67 5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D9 - Appearance

SH8 - Local Centres SH9 - Local Shops and Centre Uses SH10 - Protected Frontages SH14 - Catering Outlets

6. Publicity

The application was advertised in the Express & Star newspaper on 14.10.2006.

A site notice was posted on 26.10.2006.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 The application has been publicised by neighbour letter, press and site notice with a deadline date for comments to be received by 16 November 2006. One petition has been received against the proposal containing 118 signatures. Two neighbours and the agent acting on behalf of the applicants have requested to speak at Committee.

7.2 The petition received on 18 October 2006 contained 118 signatures objecting to the proposed application. A further 22 letters objecting to the proposal have also been received during the consultation period. The points raised in the letters of objection are summarised below;

• Litter – the area already suffers and the proposed fish and chip take-away would exacerbate the problem and possibly attract vermin. • Increase in traffic, with particular concern from local residents about additional noise in the evening, danger to pedestrians and overflow parking blocking driveways • An increase in anti-social behaviour, with particular regard to youths that reside around the fish and chip shop providing a general disturbance to neighbours. • The fish and chip shop would result in an increase in criminal activity in what is already a ‘crime hot spot’. • The proposed extraction duct would not be able to completely remove the cooking smells that would affect neighbour amenity. • Despite proposed closing time of 8.30pm neighbours were concerned that later license would be applied for and granted should the application be approved. • Adequate fish and chip facilities in the surrounding area, one objector noting 3 hot food takeaways within a one-mile radius. • Concerns were raised from the local school headmaster, that it would encourage students to leave to school premises and would undermine that campaign to promote healthy eating amongst students. • The fact that previous applications within the precinct for hot food take-away had been refused, and also that the previous application had been refused and dismissed at appeal, therefore questioning why an application had been made.

7.3 14 letters of support were also received during the consultation period these stated that;

• Most residents in the area were in favour a fish and chip shop at 59 Pendeford Avenue, as there is a need for a takeaway facility in this row of shops.

68 • It was considered that there is sufficient parking facilities and that as other shops remain open until 10-11pm that a fish and chip is not going to cause any additional problems • It will bring custom to other stores. • Following the proposal to close the store at 8.30pm and the installation of a decent odour control system this resolved neighbour concerns.

7.4 In addition to these letters of support Ken Purchase M.P for Wolverhampton North East has submitted a letter stating that as additional information has now been submitted, regarding the extraction system, and the hours of trading are restricted to 8.30pm, he wishes to support the application. The letter also raises the point that Mr Singh owns three other fish and chip shops in Cannock and is familiar with trade and is sympathetic to the concerns of neighbours and other residents.

8. Internal consultees

Environmental Services

8.1 It was recommended that a system for the effective control of cooking odours, to be designed and approved by a suitably competent person, must be installed prior to the use of the food room. A copy of the scheme for odour control should be submitted to the Food and Occupational Safety Division for information. A scheme to control noise/vibration from any ventilation system should be designed and approved by a suitably competent person, and submitted for written approval by the LPA. Ventilation systems should be located and constructed so as not to cause nuisance from both noise and odour to occupiers of surrounding premises.

8.2 Adequate provisions must be arranged for the safe storage of refuse awaiting disposal, which is preferably capable of being paved and drained, so as to prevent a nuisance occurring.

8.3 Hours of trading and access times for delivery and waste collection should be consistent with those of similar establishments in the nearby vicinity. Opening hours 12pm-2pm Monday to Saturday, 4.30pm-8.30pm Monday to Saturday and closed on Sundays.

Transportation Development

8. 4 No objections to this application as there is sufficient parking in the shopping parade to cope with the likely generated parking demand.

9. External consultees

Police

9.1 Analysis of police reports since the original 2004 application, indicate that the parade of shops remains problematic regarding crime and disorder. Amongst other crimes, three reports of burglary, fourteen thefts and two armed robberies have been reported. In addition, twenty-three incidents of an ‘anti-social behaviour’ type have been recorded. Thirty seven of the recorded police incidents occurring in Pendeford Avenue are classified as ‘disorder’. These incidents have occurred since the submission of an original report for the previous planning application in November 2004.

69 9.2 It was claimed that 59 Pendeford Avenue had not suffered any reported crime; this was confirmed by West Midlands Police. However, as the premises have been void, burglary would be futile, robbery impossible and criminal damage pointless. As the premises have been unoccupied, incidents of disorder could not have been noticed from there.

9.3 It was noted of the proposal to restrict the opening of the premises to 8.30pm. And it was considered that this would reduce the effect that the proposed change of use would have. However, there were concerns that an application to vary this could be made and granted, allowing later hours opening at a future date.

10. Appraisal

10.1 A previous planning application was made to change the use of 59 Pendeford Avenue to a hot food take-away in 2004 (04/1887/FP/C). The application was refused at committee on 4 January 2005. A subsequent appeal was also dismissed, this was despite the applicant offering to limit the opening hours of the take-away, closing the premises at 8.00pm. It was still considered that ‘there would remain scope for behavioural problems well into the evening, when ambient noise levels have dropped and many people are at leisure.’

10.2 Following the officer site visit it was appreciated that the parade of shops in their current format are a bustling and popular destination amongst residents, with a mixture people arriving on foot, public transport and by car. Therefore during the day, when the majority of the businesses operate, it is acknowledged that there will be a general degree of noise and disturbance. However towards the evening time the area is generally quieter.

10.3 It was noted that the Co-op Superstore and the ‘liquor store’ do remain open until approximately 10-11pm at night. However with regards to these types of shop, whilst food and drink is purchased there the general customer will leave the parade immediately upon completing the purpose of their visit. In the case of a fish and chip takeaway, it is considered that there would be an increase in general noise and disturbance as a result of customers eating there food or waiting to be served that would inevitably occur with this form of business. West Midlands Police and neighbour correspondence have also raised the existing problems with youths hanging around area causing disturbances and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

10.4 The introduction of a hot food take-away into the parade of shops would detract from amenities currently enjoyed, in terms of peace and quiet that those living nearby have come to expect in the evening, with reference to the reason mentioned above and additional influx of customers. It is acknowledged that whilst a percentage of customers will arrive on foot, many of the consumers would arrive at the premises by car. With the provision of the lay by, vehicles would be starting and stopping and the slamming of car door throughout the early evening period would be a source of additional noise and disturbance.

10.5 With regards to the fume extraction, the location of the proposed systems has been revised from the previous application, so that that the fume would be central to the rear elevation of the application property. However there would still be concerns regarding the complete eradication of cooking smells, despite the fully submitted details of proposed odour control. Therefore as raised in the appeal report, the small sitting-out area at no. 57A and 61A would both be adversely affected while equipment was in use, and to a lesser extent adjoining dwellings as well.

70 11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposed hot food take-away would adversely affect the amenity of residents in the flats above the premises and the residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity by virtue of general noise disturbance and smells. For these reasons the proposed application would be contrary to Policy SH14: Catering Outlets,

12. Recommendation

12.1 Recommendation Refuse – by reason of its location, the use of 59 Pendeford Avenue as a hot food take-away would be likely to result in general noise disturbance, primarily in the evening when the locality is generally quieter. This would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the flats above and the adjacent properties. The use would also result in cooking smells, to the detriment of neighbouring amenities. Contrary to policies D1 and SH14 of the adopted UDP.

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

Planning Application No: 06/01223/COU Location 59 Pendeford Avenue, Aldersley,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 389156 301479 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 214m 2 Printed

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 09-Jan-07 APP NO: 06/01531/FUL WARD: Wednesfield South DATE: 09-Nov-06 TARGET DATE: 08-Feb-07 RECEIVED: 09.11.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Caparo Ltd, Neachells Lane, Wednesfield, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing single storey workshop and erection of new single storey workshop in same location.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Caparo Ltd RPS Design Ltd Pond House Industrial Estate Salisbury House Neachells Lane 2A Tettenhall Road Wednesfield Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV1 4SG Willenhall West Midlands WV13 3RF

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 Caparo Limited is a manufacturing firm operating within the boundaries of an industrial site located on Neachells Lane, off Wednesfield Way. Within the site there a number of existing workshop/warehouses, referred to on the site plan as ‘Bay[s]’. The existing workshops are screened by a narrow two storey office building that extends along the western side of the site fronting Neachells Lane.

1.2 Within the immediate vicinity of the Caparo Ltd premises, the land use is predominantly industrial, storage and distribution. To the immediate north there are a number of small industrial units that extends along the northern boundary of the site, on Phoenix Road.

1.3 The Watery Lane Industrial Estate is located along the western boundary of the ‘Caparo Ltd’ site

2. Application details

2.1 The application site is the whole of the industrial estate. However the application proposes to replace only three bays out of a row of buildings. The building is currently unoccupied and awaiting demolition. The proposal will be sited on the original building footprint and will not create any additional floor space than already existing (4,415m²).

2.2 The proposed building would be located centrally within the site and would be surrounded to the east and west by existing warehouse/workshop structures. The building would measure approximately 41m by 93m with a centrally pitched roof measuring 9.8m from ground level to the highest point. This will be the same height as the adjacent workshop to the east.

2.3 The external building materials proposed are ‘Kingspan’ insulated roof and wall panels both of a grey colour.

3. Relevant policies

B1 - Economic Prosperity B2 - Balanced Portfolio of Employment Land B9 - Defined Business Areas AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance

SPG1 - Business, Industrial and Warehouse Development

4. Publicity

4.1 The application was advertised by site and press notices. No responses have been received.

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 The consultation period expires on 2nd January 2007. There have been no letters of representation received to date.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Access have No objections.

6.2 Building Contro l - Access for fire fighters appears unsatisfactory. I would suggest that the comments of West Midlands Fire Service are sought.

6.3 Environmental Services - No response received at the time of writing

6.4 Planning Policy - No objections - The subject site is within a defined Business area under Policy B9 of the Wolverhampton UDP.

The proposed replacement building would be in-line with the aims and objectives of the UDP.

6.5 Transportation Development - No response received at the time of writing

6.6 Archaeology - No archaeological implications.

7. External consultees

7.1 Fire Service - No response received at the time of writing.

74 8. Appraisal

8.1 It is proposed to replace an existing industrial building within an established industrial estate. The replacement would be of a similar scale to the surrounding buildings and would enhance the appearance of the site. It would be used for a manufacturing process to house industrial press machines.

8.2 It has been noted that the plans submitted do not illustrate the current and proposed parking provision for visitors and staff, including disabled parking, within the site and these have been requested.

8.3 As recommended Building Control. West Midlands Fire Service has been consulted although no comments have been received to date.

8.4 Comments from Transportation development and Environmental Services are awaited.

9. Conclusion

9.1 Application is recommended for approval, subject to receiving satisfactory additional plans relating to parking.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Grant, subject to receiving satisfactory additional plans and conditions including:

Submission and approval of external materials. Car parking to remain available for use in connection with the development. Provision of cycle parking.

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

Planning Application No: 06/01531/FUL Location Caparo Ltd, Neachells Lane,Wednesfield,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid SJ 394834 299349 (approx) Reference Plan 21.12.2006 Application Site Area 47463m 2 Printed

76 PLANNING COMMITTEE – 9 Jan- 2007

APP NO: 06/01440/DWF WARD: Wednesfield DATE 24-Nov-2006 TARGET DATE: 19-Jan-2007 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Demmed Planning Permission

SITE: Land Fronting 24-44 Davenport Road, Wednesfield PROPOSAL: New Access Road and Parking Spaces

APPLICANT: AGENT: Regeneration & Environment Gwyn James

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is an area of grass with several mature trees with flats and houses on three sides, within a housing estate. None of the houses or flats presently has vehicular access or parking.

2. Constraints

2.1 No known policy or physical constraints.

3. Application Details

3.1 The proposal is to form a new roadway in the form of a circular access road which would permit direct vehicular access to most of the houses which face onto the present green and to form six off street parking spaces for the residents of the flats. The roadway is to be in tarmac and the parking spaces in blocks.

3.2 Tree of the existing eight trees on the green, are to be removed.

4. Relevant Policies

4.1 The Design Policies of the Design Chapter of the UDP and the Council’s Interim Telecommunications Policy. Policy AM15 Road Safety and Security

5. Publicity

This application has been publicised by letter to occupiers in the surrounding area. No response received.

6. Consultations

6.1 Transport Strategy; awaited Access Officer; awaited

77 7. Appraisal

7.1 The scheme is intended to enable the residents of the 9 houses to be able To access their frontages and to provide the flats with off road parking. In this respect it will improve road safety by removing on street parking and improve security for resident’s vehicles.

7.2 There will be a loss of part of the present green in front of these houses and three of the eight trees presently on the green. This will still however leave a large green and the lost trees can be replaced by condition.

7.3 The detailing and materials for the scheme are of a suitably high specification and standard.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The scheme achieves an acceptable balance between retaining the present attractively green environment and providing residents with safe and accessible off street parking.

9. Recommendation

9.1 Deemed Planning Consent be granted subject to standard conditions and replacement trees and one parking space to be for the disabled.

Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 555623 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01440/DWF