WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE 8TH APRIL 2008
PART A
Application Reference: 08/0049/FULL Date Received: 23/01/2008 Ord Sheet: 387412.9331132 Expiry Date: 23/04/2008 270946.02514605 Case Officer: Stuart Allum Ward: Blakedown and Chaddesley
Proposal: Change of use of land to a parking & storage yard in association with a warehouse/distribution centre at unit 342 (Class B8) hardstanding, security fencing & security lighting
Site Address: LAND ADJACENT UNIT 342 RUSHOCK TRADING ESTATE, RUSHOCK, DROITWICH, WR9 0NR
Applicant: Hovi Developments Ltd
Summary of Policy E5, GB1, GB2, GB4, D1, D5, D7, D10, D11, D15, NR11, NR12, TR9, TR17, NC4, NC5, NC6, NC7 (AWFDLP) SD2,D28, D39, CTC13, CTC15 (WCSP) QE1, QE3, QE7 (RPG11) PPG2, PPS9 Reason for Referral Statutory or Non Statutory Consultee has objected and the to Committee application is recommended for approval Recommendation DELEGATED APPROVAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 Rushock Trading Estate, which was formally in Wyre Forest District Council ownership, is now an established, privately owned and run business park. It is situated between Kidderminster and Droitwich and is located immediately adjacent to the A442 (Droitwich Road), which connects the two towns. As with the whole of the estate, access to the application site and the adjoining warehouse building is via a single main entrance point onto the A442.
1.2 The application site (Site A) is located at the northern end of the estate. Although the area of open land in question (1.62 hectares) adjoins the adjacent A442 to the east, it is separated from the road by a very high and wide (5m x 15m) landscaped earth bund. This bund is open into the site with palisade security fencing to the roadside. Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 1 of 53
08/0049/FULL 2
1.3 A smaller earth bund, which is approximately 2m in height, runs around the southern and western boundaries of the area, separating it from the adjacent internal roadway. To the south of the site is a large commercial building which has the benefit of Class B1, B2 and B8 consent (Business, General Industry and Storage Distribution). A large area of this building is to be used as the storage warehouse associated with the delivery vehicle parking area, the subject of this application.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF.1135/04 - Renewal of outline consent for industrial/warehouse uses (within Classes B1, B2 and B8) with associated landscaping on 4.185 hectares of land (5 areas) : Approved 20/12/04. 07/0768/FULL - Change of use of Unit 341 to include Classes B1, B2 and B8 : Approved 20/09/07
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Rushock Parish Council – Objects to the proposal and recommends refusal:- We object to this application (-8/0049) for hardstanding at the Rushock Training Estate for the following reasons:
i) Increased traffic which would result on the A442. This road is not designed for large numbers of heavy goods vehicles. There are already frequent accidents and it is not just this estate but also estates at the Cursley Lane Grain Store, Ikon, Hoo Farm and Potter Group which are going to further add traffic to the A442. In addition, Rushock is already plagued by lorries travelling to the trading estate using satnav navigation which directs them into unsuitable lanes.
ii) The noise of night time working. Originally all activities on this site were restricted to day time working only. The change to 24 hour working appears to have been introduced with no specific reference to the Parish Council or the neighbouring properties. We realise this goes back many years but we feel that the Planning Authorities should have pointed out this change. We note that the 65 new employees proposed far exceed the number of employee car parking spaces and again, this indicates that the proposal is for 24 hour working.
iii) The level of lighting proposed is quite unacceptable. The proposal is for 8 lamp standards of 430 watts each, a total of 3440 watts. This compares with the whole of the street lighting on the A442 outside the estate of 12 lamp standards of 90 watts each, a total of 1080 watts, i.e. a level of lighting more than three times higher than that of the current street
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 2 of 53
08/0049/FULL 3
iv) lighting which in itself has had a very negative environmental impact at night. There has also been a most undesirable increase in lighting from the estate, particularly by the lighting recently introduced by KLM Storage on land adjacent to the land involved in this application.
v) Paragraph 3.11 in the Planning Design and Access Statement produced by CSJ dated January 2008 is completely incorrect. Most of the land to the east of the site rises above the level of the bund which means that many of the houses in Rushock look down into the trading estate and the lighting and night movement would have a devastating effect on the local rural environment.
vi) Again, from a planning procedures point of view, it does seem wrong that neighbours immediately adjacent to the site, such as Mr & Mrs E Walker at Fox Hayes Farm and Mr D Palmer at Callimore Farm, have had no individual notifications of these planning applications.
3.2 Highway Authority - views awaited.
3.3 Conservation and Countryside Officer
From just a walk across the proposed site a few biodiversity issues were identified.
• The site has a wet corner that is starting to exhibit wet land vegetation and the site adjoins a larger, similar one to the north. This in itself holds some biological interest but upon moving a piece of rubbish, both smooth and great crested newts were clearly seen. • The bank of earth to the north east was seen to be infiltrated by many dozens of small mammal burrows. Near this on an upturned barrel, owl casts were clearly visible. It would the site is important for great crested newts, smooth newts, owls and small mammals.
On these grounds to develop this site would cause a significant biological loss and infringe on the Wildlife and Countryside Act as great crested newts are protected and to a lesser extent so are smooth newts. As a way forward I suggest the developer looks to employ an ecological consultant familiar with the needs of great crested newts.
3.4 Environmental Health – No adverse comments.
3.5 Natural England – views awaited.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 3 of 53
08/0049/FULL 4
3.6 Worcestershire Wildlife Trust - We note the contents of the great crested newts report and we do not wish to object to the proposed development. It would be helpful to include a SUDS (sustainable drainage) Scheme in the final development, if possible, particularly if this could be integrated with the proposed new ponds and other landscaping.
3.7 Access Officer – Further clarification required regarding location of disabled user car parking spaces and pedestrian route between car park and building.
3.8 Neighbour/Site Notice – No representations received.
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The various issues associated with this application are discussed in turn:-
LAND USE POLICY 4.2 Although Rushock Trading Estate is situated within the Green Belt, it is designated in the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan as a ‘major development site’ and as such is referred to by Policies GB4 and E5. Whilst Policy GB4 refers generally to Major Developed Sites in the Green Belt, Policy E5 is specific to this application, stating that:-
“Proposals for the use of land within the curtilage of Rushock Trading Estate for employment uses within Classes B1, B2, and B8 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987, as amended, will be permitted provided they are in accordance with Policy GB4.
4.3 This approach has historically been adopted in the renewal of the outline consents, culminating in the most recent planning permission, WF/1135/04. This permission granted consent for Class B1, B2 and B8 uses for five currently undeveloped plots of land totalling 4.185 hectares, including ‘Site A’. The application approved the:
“Renewal of outline planning permission for industrial/warehouse uses (within Classes B1, B2 and B8) and associated landscaping on 4.185 hectares of land (5 areas) at Rushock Trading Estate, Droitwich Road, Rushock.”
This approval was mitigated by the requirement to create the earth bund viz:-
“… a significant earth bund has been created together with planting to help screen future development from the Droitwich Road and the countryside beyond. The impact of the development on the surrounding Green Belt, and particularly with respect to the largest site, will consequently be less than was previously envisaged…”
As such the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 4 of 53
08/0049/FULL 5
HIGHWAYS SAFETY 4.4 No specific response had been received from the Highways Authority at the time of writing. However, the previous outline consents have taken account of the possible use of this land for warehousing and distribution. On this basis it is not considered that there are any highway issues in this case.
AMENITY, LIGHTING AND FENCING 4.5 A detailed chart indicating lighting levels within and adjacent to the site has been submitted. Eight lighting columns, each 6 metres high, are specified around the site. The applicants state that such illumination is required to provide essential visibility and security. No objections have been received from Environmental Health in relation to this scheme. It is considered that no residential amenity would be harmed, and no operating hours restrictions have been recommended.
4.6 The fencing style as submitted (palisade) is not considered visually acceptable. However, the applicant has agreed in principle to the use of an alternative (weld mesh) and a condition to such effect is recommended.
BIODIVERSITY AND PROTECTED SPECIES 4.7 The Conservation and Countryside Officers initial report is self explanatory. The presence of a European Protected Species on the site (great crested newts) has precipitated the preparation of a Mitigation Report by the Applicants’ Consultant. First indications are that this scheme of mitigation will provide the degree of protection the law demands. An update of specialist advice will be appended to the Committee update.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The determination of this application is a balance between the confirmed use of the land for industrial and warehousing purposes and the potential ‘spillover effects’ on the local environment and setting.
5.2 Rushock Trading Estate has an undeniable visual relationship with the rural Green Belt and, in particular, the land rising up towards Rushock Village.
5.3 However, your officers continue to take the view that it would be unreasonable to limit the hours of operation on the site for that reason or to deny the applicants the opportunity to reasonably secure or illuminate assets within the estate. The submitted scheme indicates a fairly intensive commercial use, but such intensity is not inappropriate on employment allocated land, even in these local circumstances.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 5 of 53
08/0049/FULL 6
5.4 The proposal is therefore considered to be in compliance with the appropriate policies and other guidance and Delegated Authority to APPROVE is requested subject to conditions and the completion of all consultations and re-consultations.
1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. Fencing design to be agreed 4. ‘Sustainable Drainage’ scheme to be agreed 5. Retention of existing trees 6. C7 (Landscaping - Large Scheme) 7. C8 (Landscape Implementation) 8. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, the development shall be implemented in accordance with the submitted biodiversity mitigation strategy
NOTE Licence application to Natural England to facilitate relocation of European Protected Species.
Reason for Approval As an identified Major Developed site in the Green Belt, the land is capable of being used for the employment use applied for. The effect of this would be such that the amenity of the area and the biodiversity interests of the site would be safeguarded. Highway safety would not be compromised. For these Reasons the proposal is considered to be in compliance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 6 of 53
Application Reference: 08/0164/FULL and Date Received: 20/02/2008 08/0165/LIST Ord Sheet: 382970 276549 Expiry Date: 21/05/2008 Case Officer: Paul Wrigglesworth Ward: Habberley and Blakebook
Proposal: Extension and alterations to Slingfield Mill, including two storey glazed extension (east and west elevations) to accommodate enlarged ground and first floor retailing (Use Class A1) with ancillary accommodation, subdivision of part ground floor to provide retail unit (Use Class A1/A2/A3/A4) and hotel lobby, change of use of upper floors (second, third, fourth) to hotel (Use Class C1), installation of plant (part fourth floor), reconfiguration of existing servicing arrangements and car parking, landscaping and associated works (08/0164/FULL)
Alterations to existing Slingfield Mill (external and internal) comprising addition of two storey glazed extension (east and west elevations), creation of four double height openings in existing façade, removal of existing windows to create door openings, reinstatement of historical openings, subdivision of existing floor space, internal alterations to accommodate proposed new uses and associated plant, insertion of roof lights and louvres, signage zones, new ground level entrance canopy, salvage of materials and re-use in elevational alterations/repairs and enabling works (08/0165/LIST)
Site Address: SLINGFIELD MILL, WEAVERS WHARF, KIDDERMINSTER, DY101AA
Applicant: Henderson UK Retail Warehouse Fund
Summary of Policy RT.1, TC.1, TC.2, KTC.1, NC.5, IMP.1, D.1, D.3, D.4, D.6, D.9, D.11, D.15, D.31, LB.1, LB.2, LB.3, LB.5, CA.1, NR.5, NR.6, NR.9, TR.9, TR.17 (AWFDLP) D.31, D.32, RST.16, CTC.15, CTC.19, CTC.20, CTC.21 (WCSP) UR.3, QE.1, QE.3, QE.5 (RSS: RPG11) PPS1, PPS6; PPG15 Design Quality SPG Planning Obligations SPD Reason for Referral ‘Major’ planning application to Committee Recommendation APPROVAL
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 7 of 53
2
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The application site includes the main Weavers Wharf car park, Slingfield Mill, also known as De Bradelei Mill and the public areas around this building. In total, it comprises an area of 1.86 hectares and its northern edge abuts the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area.
1.2 The proposals include:
• a change of use of the vacant top three storeys of the mill building to a hotel use • to construct a two storey extension on each side of the two main side elevations of the building • to carry out various internal alterations to facilitate the above works, the most significant being creating four new openings in the façade of the building on each of the two main elevations (a more detailed description of the alterations are included in ‘Officer Comments’) • other external alterations to the building which are detailed under ‘Officer Comment’ • alterations to the car park layout and circulation route • creation of a separate retail use (kiosk) within the building on the ground floor • relocation of drainage channels on both sides of the building • infilling and resurfacing of stepped hollow between the building and the canal
1.3 Servicing of the hotel and new retail kiosk will be via Weavers Wharf car park. Deliveries to the department store will be via the bus station/Circus to the end elevation of the building facing towards the canal and the Piano building.
1.4 Slingfield Mill is a Grade II Listed Building.
2.0 Planning History
06/0660/FULL Erection of two storey extension, formation of additional openings by enlarged window openings & removal of doors & frames & remodelling of Market Square for flood relief purposes Withdrawn
06/659/LIST Erection of new glazed two storey extension, formation of additional openings by enlarged window openings & removal of doors & frames Withdrawn
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 8 of 53
3
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
2.1 06/0464/FULL – Erection of two storey extension, formation of additional openings by enlarged window openings & removal of doors & frames & remodelling of Market Square to flood relief purpose : Withdrawn
2.2 06/0452/LIST - Erection of new glazed two storey extension, formation of additional openings by enlarged window openings & removal of doors & frames : Withdrawn
2.3 WF/1247/03 – Listed Building Consent: Five 'dummy' windows in place of infil brickwork on east elevation (variation to Consent WF.46/01) : Approved
2.4 WF/0949/03 – Listed Building Consent: Installation of 2 No. signs at high level (halo illuminated, 2 No. non illuminated signs and 2 No. non-illuminated pillar signs : Approved
2.5 WF/0948/03 – Advertisement Consent: Installation of 2 No. signs at high level (halo illuminated) 2 No. non-illuminated signs and 2 No. non-illuminated pillar signs : Approved
2.6 WF/0522/03 – Listed Building Consent : Alterations to two elevations to provide glazed entrance : Approved
2.7 WF/0521/03 – Full : Alterations to two elevations to provide glazed entrance : Approved
2.8 WF/0046/01 – Listed Building Consent : Refurbishment and repair to facilitate conversion of ground, first and second floors to a retail use, general repairs and refurbishment of remainder for possible re-use : Approved
2.9 WF.45/01 – Reserved matters application for the Weavers Wharf development : Approved 24/9/01
WF.450/96 – Outline planning permission for the Weavers Wharf development : Approved 15/10/96
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Highway Authority – Views awaited
3.2 Conservation Officer – No objection subject to conditions. Detailed comments are included in the ‘Officer Comments’.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 9 of 53
4
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
3.3 Environment Agency – Object to the development on the following grounds
1. The Flood Risk Assessment has not demonstrated that the proposal is sustainable for its complete lifetime and should include allowance for climate change.
2. The Flood Risk Assessment cannot demonstrate dry access for hotel residents
3. The proposal will result in considerable loss of flood plain. This must be offset
3.4 Access Officer – No issues in principle require clarification of certain issues (see Officer report)
3.5 English Heritage – The applications should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance and on the basis of your specialist conservation advice.
3.6 Countryside and Conservation Officer – No biodiversity losses provided that advice of the report is followed. Excellent gains with bat roost and boxes. Recommend approval
3.7 British Waterways – No objection
3.8 Historic Environment and Archaeology Service – Views awaited
3.9 Disability Action Wyre Forest ‘The marking out of the disabled car parking spaces should be in accordance with Diagram 2 of part M of the Building Regulations’. ‘The proposed wheelchair accessible toilet for the department store located on the first floor should be designed strictly in accordance with Part M of the Building Regulations. Further details of this and the Baby Change Room to show the internal layouts should be provided. We take it that both the lifts in the department store will be available to the public to use to ensure that the travel distance to the toilets is minimised’. ‘Details of all of the lifts including car size and capacities should be provided. At least 2 wheelchair accessible bedrooms should be provided on each floor of the hotel’.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 10 of 53
5
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
‘Our conclusion is that although there are clearly some access benefits in having the larger floor area department store over two floors, the imposition of such a plan over the footprint of Slingfield Mill is too drastic a solution both in respect of the historic architecture and the external spaces in this important and unique part of the Weavers Wharf site’.
NB. Other general comments have been made but they fall outside their consultation remit.
3.10 Environmental Health – Views awaited
3.11 Regeneration and Economic Prosperity – Amongst the key findings of the latest Wyre Forest District Retail & Commercial Leisure Study undertaken by White Young Green and published in December 2006 is the fact the town currently lacks a quality department store. They highlighted the requirement by Debenhams for representation in the town but commented that there was little prospect of this occurring given the unavailability of suitably located and configured floorspace. The study concluded that "the presence of a quality department store (such as Debenhams) is likely to have a major positive impact on the town centre, and we recommend a priority objective to seek to attract that type of retail provision to the centre." Therefore, recommends approval as the proposal for Slingfield Mill will achieve that objective.
The District Local Plan (Policy TM.2) identifies Kidderminster Town Centre as a key area of search for hotel accommodation and Local Plan Policy KTC.1, which specifically applies to the application site, includes provision for possible hotel accommodation. The introduction of new bed spaces will assist in the economic regeneration of the town centre and will be a key part of developing a sustainable evening economy .
3.12 Severn Trent Water Ltd . – Views awaited
3.13 Worcestershire Wildlife Trust – Views awaited
3.14 Kidderminster Civic Society – Views awaited
3.15 Property and Operational Services - Parking Services Manager: Site: Traffic will need to use roadways to access site. Not through car park. Could cause congestion and Health and Safety Concerns.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 11 of 53
6
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
3.16 Environmental Services Manager : Major concerns regarding inadequate waste recycling and disposable facilities for both a department store and hotel. Will these facilities be shared? The new ‘bin store’ is via an existing external archway – very narrow and likely to be damaged. Access to this ‘store’ will be through the department store service area. I am unsure that this will be feasible. Also access through the bus station and ‘The Circus’ is always limited.( Officer Comment: This is the route used to service the existing retail store. Further information on other issues raised is in the process of being provided by the applicant).
3.17 Neighbour/Site Notice – One letter from Wyre Forest Agenda: • We welcome the provision made to introduce a hotel into the upper floors of Slingfield Mill as this will bring the upper floors of the building into use which is preferable to remaining empty. We also believe that a hotel placed on the upper floors of the mill will encourage other hotel operators to come into the downtown Kidderminster area, particularly KTC.3. As well as this, we also believe the hotel provision will improve the night-time economy of downtown Kidderminster, which we appreciate.
• An improvement to the car park layout is also welcomed. However, we dislike any two-way turns in proximity to a zebra crossing. We find it amusing that anyone who wishes to use the 'drive-thru' lane but misses the slip forfeits the ability to get to the car-park without a nasty cross-lane turn. We believe there should be slanted bays. Also we would have hoped for more than 18 disabled spaces. We like the fact that cycle parks were placed next to the seating area by the bridge, but then no direct access from the bus-stop area was provided.
• On a par with our comment on the provision of the hotel, we also welcome the provision of a department store (Debenhams). We believe a department store will eat up Tesco's dominance on all markets (including clothes retail). We also believe more retail giants in downtown Kidderminster will induce more 'footfall', and with more footfall comes more chance for small local retailers to survive and make a profit.
• We approve of the 'Canalside Piazza', making the sunken triangle ground level because as a civic space this will be to the benefit of everyone including wheelchair and pushchair users.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 12 of 53
7
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
• Although we believe that the concept of glass extensions should function as foyers or entrances and not extra retail floor space, we feel a concession can be made on the Canalside Glass Extension only . Since we believe the Canalside of the building will not have as much footfall as the Market Square side and the major architecture merit of the building is the free-standing prowess of the Market Square side. Therefore if our comments on the Market Square Glass Extension are taken onboard, we would be prepared to accept that the Canalside Glass Extension only could be used as extra retail floor space.
• We feel from within the Canalside Glass Extension a comfort zone can be accomplished as the citizen looks out from within the glass extension to the canalside view. We believe this comfort zone is however difficult to accomplish in the hustle and bustle of a department store, a comfy sofa in a book store or seating in a restaurant yes, but difficult with a department store.
• We understand the requirements for roof vents and therefore accept these as necessary for a hotel to operate effectively.
• We have strong concerns over the façade openings. We disagree that the façade openings are 'not easily reversible' (Conclusion, p.20, Heritage Impact Assessment, Purcell Miller Triton LLP), we think they are totally non-reversible! It's just too much of a major alteration to the exterior fabric of the building and the exterior fabric (after the stand alone prowess) is a chief part of Slingfield Mill's personality. If the façade openings are to be approved then we wish a condition added that that the client remove the exterior fabric carefully and store and label all materials for possible rebuild at some later date as suggested in the Heritage Impact Assessment (Conclusion, p.20, Heritage Impact Assessment, Purcell Miller Triton LLP).
• We appose the comment made in the Heritage Impact Assessment (Conclusion, p.20, Heritage Impact Assessment, Purcell Miller Triton LLP): 'We believe it important that the visitor understands that the openings are indeed a modern intervention'. We feel that if the façade openings are to be approved then the opening are made to the best possible likeliness or facsimile of the style of the original building. This would include an arch pattern similar to the ground floor arches, and a continuation of the buff brick band, for instance. All as an objective for the visitor [of the future] to not be aware, at first sight, of the openings as an amendment but to understand them through communication.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 13 of 53
8
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
• Although we recognise that the small areas of glazing are not favourable to a retail function, the concern that, "the small, regular window openings on the mill result in only a small areas of glazing and transparency which gives a solid, impenetrable and inactive frontage at ground floor level for pedestrians" (para.3.18, p.7, Design & Access Statement, Turley Associates) we feel would be accomplished via a less imposing Market Square side glass extension such as one storey high , up to half the width of the mill. Therefore we feel the plans for the Market Square side Glass Extension go too far in this respect.
• If this application is approved, with the proposed plans for the Market Square Glass Extension, we would wish conditions made to not install any posters, signage, POS devices, kiosks or desks etc. within the Market Square Glass Extension as the glass extension concept is to allow pedestrians to view the façade from outside the building. We therefore believe the application treats the Market Square Glass Extension as extra floor space when they should function as a glass foyer or entrance. Also if the plans for both the Glass Extension are approved we would prefer glass sided escalators to be used.
• The text, "Within the glass extensions for the department store has been discussed in some detail during the pre-application discussions" (para. 3.20, p.7, Design & Access Statement, Turley Associates). We feel this application should resolve conditions of the glass extensions and believe that leaving it later for subsequent applications is disproportionate to the importance of the changes made with this application.
• Paragraph 6.43, p.24, Design & Access Statement, Turley Associates states, "The transparency of the glass box extensions, especially on the eastern side [Market Square side], will allow the existing building to remain substantially visible behind, thereby maintaining the apparent integrity of the overall mill structure." The contrary to this is implied with the visual representations shown with the planning application. Paragraph 3.12, p.7, Design & Access Statement, Turley Associates states, "Despite the current feel of the building being a stand alone structure, the building would not have historically functioned as such. Over time the mill has been extended and was once physically hemmed in to the point of it facades being barely visible - weaving sheds would have been present along the east and likely the south sides of the building, while a warehouse structure was located closely adjacent to the north (front) elevation. These extensions have subsequently been removed." We feel this statement is very misleading. Although the original weaving shed hemmed to the mill were ornate they were demolished and replaced with contemporary brick box-type sheds which had no architectural or historical (heritage) merit. Therefore by removing the modern weaving sheds the ' stand alone structure' of Slingfield Mill has become the pinnacle point of architectural or historical Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 14 of 53
9 08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
(heritage) merit of the mill, to which the Market Square Glass Extension would destroy. We cannot understand the strange logic that a building which was once cluttered with box block appendages then made 'good' (tidied) is now planned to be cluttered again.
• We note that the weaving sheds of the past were single storey, whereas the planned glass extensions are two-storey.
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 Only a fifth of Slingfield Mill is currently in use and the form of the building clearly needs to change if it is to play a key role that befits this important building and its central position in Kidderminster town centre in future years. It has also become apparent since the KTC.1 development that the car park does not function or operate as efficiently as it should. These applications have been submitted in order to address these problems and to propose sustainable uses for the building.
4.2 The applications for listed building consent and planning permission have different considerations; however, it is felt that they both can be dealt with contiguously by addressing the main issues as identified under the following headings:
• The principle of allowing the development in land use terms • The impact of the extensions and alterations on the fabric, external appearance character and setting of the listed building • The impact on the setting of adjacent listed buildings and the affect on the Canal Conservation Area • Car park / Servicing/Highway Issues • Access issues • Other considerations
PRINCIPLE OF ALLOWING DEVELOPMENT IN LAND USE TERMS 4.3 The site lies within an area covered by KTC.1 policies (Kidderminster Town Centre redevelopment area) in the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. This policy is to a certain extent historic in that its principal role was to guide the redevelopment of the area, which has now already occurred. However, close examination of the Local Plan Proposals Map shows an arrow that seems to indicate that this area, following redevelopment, should also form part of the principal shopping allocation. More recent documents reinforce this notion in that the Wyre Forest Retail and Leisure Study (December 2006) states that “Weavers Wharf is established as a Primary Frontage and should form part of the Principal Shopping Area” (paragraph 10.15). The Wyre Forest District Council Retail Monitoring Report (April 2006) also describes this part of Weavers Wharf as being a Primary Shopping Area (Appendix M of
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 15 of 53
10
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
that Report). It would be entirely consistent with these documents and with the way the area is now functioning to consider this area as being part of the principal shopping area.
4.4 Notwithstanding the two extensions on either side of the building, the difference between the proposed retail floor space and that originally approved for this building is relatively very small. This is because the original planning permission gave consent for retail trading on three floors of Slingfield Mill and the second floor is now proposed to be part of the hotel use. After taking account of the planning history of the building, the land use allocation, the role of Weavers Wharf it is concluded that the retail floor space proposed is acceptable in principle in this location without the need for any retail impact assessment. It should also be noted in this context that the introduction of a department store has already been identified as a high priority for the town centre (Retail Study referred to above).
4.5 Policy KTC.1 allows for a broad mix of town centre land uses and states that uses such as hotels may be acceptable and will be treated on their merits in terms of their contribution to a balanced development offer. One of the objectives of the town centre policy is to develop the evening economy of the town centre (objective 74) and to promote mixed use development schemes that complement their primary retail function (objection 69). A hotel fulfils both of these objectives and provides new tourist accommodation within the town centre (objective 54) and at the same time secures the beneficial use of the upper floors of a historic building (objective 34). A hotel use is therefore considered to be compliant with the policies and objectives of the Local Plan.
4.6 After taking into account of the scale of the development, its characteristics and setting, the impacts are considered to be only of local importance and an Environmental Statement under the Environmental Impact Assessment Regulations is not considered to be required.
THE IMPACT OF THE EXTENSIONS AND ALTERATIONS ON THE FABRIC, EXTERNAL APPEARNACE, CHARACTER AND SETTING OF THE LISTED BUILDING. 4.7 The alterations proposed to this listed building are described in the following extract from the Heritage Impact Assessment which accompanied the application (produced by Purcell Miller Tritton LLP):
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 16 of 53
11
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
‘Ground & First Floors The ground floor is set for the most alteration in the proposals, especially with regards to changes to the external fabric. The main change occurs in conjunction with an increase of floor space achieved by the construction of double storey glass box extensions to the east and west facades of the building. The glass extension to the east would be clear glazing, while that to the west would be more opaque. Two escalators are proposed to run along the exterior façade of the mill (within the glass extension) from ground to first floor. A glazed element of roof structure is set above the escalators to allow the customer a vertical view of the brick façade of the structure whilst on the escalator.
On both facades the glass extensions would span almost the length of the building between the north and south towers, with the first two bays at the north left open. These would be used for a staff entrance (west) and the main entrance with a glass draught lobby and cantilevered entrance canopy at first floor level (east). In order to create an ‘open feel’ retail space, double height openings would be punched through at both floor levels on both the east and west exterior walls of the mill. Each large opening would call for the removal of three windows and two brick piers, for a total of 16 brick piers across the two floors. These openings would be capped with a plain lintel at ground floor level, and at first floor level have an arched opening of yellow and blue brick with central keystone. In addition, at ground floor level a further 8 windows would be removed and the openings converted to doorway openings.
At ground floor level partition walls would be installed to create a small hotel entrance and retail kiosk at the north of the building and a stock holding area to the south. At the southwest corner, the exterior space between the corner tower and the main block would be built-in for use as a bin store and plant.
At first floor level the north of the building would be partitioned off to create office space and toilets for the retail facility, while the south of the building would be partitioned off for use as a stock/goods holding area. While the existing southeast tower staircase would be retained for circulation within the retail space, a further large staircase would be inserted within the main building in the southwest corner. This would be a shared staircase for use by the hotel and the retail facility.
Second & Third Floors These upper levels of the mill are proposed for use as a hotel facility. The entrance would be at the north end of the ground floor, and the existing northeast staircase and elevator would be dedicated for use by the hotel.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 17 of 53
12
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
The second and third floors are proposed almost entirely for hotel rooms, with 27 on each floor created through the insertion of partition walls. A central corridor runs from north to south, accessible through a small lobby leading in from the northeast staircase and lift, as well as another small lobby leading in from the southwest staircase. At the north of each floor is a further small corridor leading to the four rooms here. A storage space is allocated to the east side of the corridor at both the north and south ends. Each hotel room includes a small corner en suite on the corridor side, and the rooms alternate between single (one bay / window) and double (two bays / windows).
Fourth Floor & Roof This level is proposed for use for hotel rooms and plant space. A further 16 hotel rooms would be inserted along most of the west wall, part of the east wall, and most of the north portion of the floor level. In the southeast corner is the retail plant, hotel cooling plant and hotel hot water & miscellaneous plant. The northeast lift would be continued up to this floor.
At roof level, a continuous row of skylights on either side would light each room while roof louvres would be located above the plant space.’
4.8 Planning and Listed Building consent applications have been submitted previously to extend this building in the direction of market square and the last pair of applications were approved by the Council subject to the signing of a 106 Agreement, which was never finalised and the applications were subsequently withdrawn. The current applications employ a similar design philosophy in terms of the use of a lightweight two storey glass structure to gain additional floor space and an enhanced entrance to the building, on this occasion proposal affects the western as well as the eastern facade of the building. The other principal difference is that there is now further recognition that if this building is to function properly as an important retail outlet then there needs to be a greater degree of integration between the new floor space and the main body of the building. The four large openings on both sides of the building are the chief means of achieving this.
4.9 The applicant’s agent states: “ the overall form of the proposals has been driven by established retail requirements; including the need for well configured floorplates, highly efficient and flexible retail trading areas, strong physical and visual customer desire lines, and the ability to ‘showcase’ the goods on offer. The proposed design is considered to achieve these objectives in a sympathetic manner”.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 18 of 53
13
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
4.10 The extensions are proposed in a simple style that both contrasts with the rather ornate detailing of the Mill building and at the same time merges with it by dint of its see through characteristics. This type of extension also minimises damage to the fabric of the building where the two structures interface.
4.11 A great deal of thought has also been exercised with regards to the design of the openings between the extension and the original retail area. The employment of a few larger openings with attractive detailing, rather than a large number of smaller openings was considered to be the best way of achieving this.
4.12 The end result is an attractive synthesis of the old and the new which it is felt strikes the right balance between the need for adaptation and the retention of the essential characteristics of the listed building
4.13 The Conservation Officer has played a key role in the design process and has commented on the extensions, the new openings and the more detailed alterations to the listed building in the following manner:
“ I have no objections to the proposals, and feel that they will bring substantial benefit to the building, and to its environs. The access issue has always been recognised as being a problem for the building, and this new access will bring substantial benefits in making the building more user-friendly, and thus is in line with PPG15 para 3.8 and 2.18. The proposed design is sympathetic to the character and appearance of the main building, with extensive use of planar glass enabling clear sight lines to be retained through to the original structure.
In terms of the physical impact on the Listed Building, whilst the proposals may not usually be acceptable in terms of the extent of proposed works, the positive gain from these, in terms of creating a more usable building for modern day standards and uses, the proposals are acceptable. The design of the detail has been to replicate the detail already within the building, and will present good quality and appropriate design. The creation of glazed boxes is designed to minimise the impact on the Building, and thus are acceptable. The design of the advert stands has been to maximise the control of such items, by creating them as intrinsic to the building, therefore requiring that should they wish to be moved, or increased, etc, then this would require Listed Building Consent.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 19 of 53
14
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
With respect to the setting of the Listed Building and notwithstanding the reduction in the space of Market Square, taking into account the dominance of this building in its immediate surroundings and from further afield, the addition of the proposed extensions will enhance its setting particularly if it is to be lit as indicated in the supporting documents. Furthermore the design of the extensions and the materials proposed are relatively low in height and translucent in form thus reducing the impact on the setting of the building.
Overall I am happy with the proposals, and recommend for approval’
4.14 As stated by the Conservation Officer, the development will impact on the fabric on the listed building, particularly with regards to the openings in the side elevations. However, this needs to be balanced against the overall benefits to the community and the provision of sustainable uses for the building and it is considered that there are no reasonable alternative means of achieving these ends without further interference to the listed building. In view of this the development is considered to be compliant with Policy LB.1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
THE IMPACT ON THE SETTING OF ADJACENT LISTED BUILDINGS AND THE EFFECT ON THE CANAL CONSERVATION AREA 4.15 There are two adjacent listed buildings, namely the Piano Building and the Old Boiler House now occupied by Frankie and Benny’s. Slingfield Mill and its environs are also readily visible from the Canal Conservation Area situated adjacent.
4.16 The Council’s Conservation Officer has commented on these issues as follows:
“In terms of the impact of the setting of the adjacent listed buildings (Piano and Frankie and Benny’s), again I feel that the proposed alterations are sympathetic, continuing the strength of design starting with the Piano building. The creation of additional extensions to the rear side will also assist in creating more unity with the boiler house, and of the space/triangle between the two buildings.
It is also my opinion that the proposals will bring substantial benefits to the Conservation Area, creating interesting and sympathetic views out of the area, and recreating a better and more public friendly area.”
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 20 of 53
15
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
4.17 I concur with these views and particularly with regards to the Piano building feel that the overall impact is likely to be beneficial since the new department store and hotel use will hopefully attract significantly more people to this part of Weavers Wharf which should act as a catalyst which will hopefully encourage other operators to occupy that building as well. The effect on the Conservation Area will also be positive. The sunken area between Slingfield Mill and the canal side has been under-used and prevents the area becoming a meaningful space. It is proposed to raise this area and resurface. This may provide an opportunity for other users to inject more life to this area. The replacement of the trees in this vicinity with semi mature species will also soften and enhance the appearance of the canal side space and the setting of Frankie and Benny’s.
CAR PARK / SERVICING/HIGHWAY ISSUES 4.18 The applicants have identified a number of problems with the current layout: • Cross roads and cul de sacs within the car park adversely affects circulation • Disabled spaces are disparate and as a result some of the spaces are difficult to find • Frankie and Benny’s is serviced from the car park but has no allocated delivery service bay which creates occasional vehicle blockages and impedes access to a number of car parking bays.
4.19 The Transport Statement describes the proposed improvements as follows:
‘As part of the redevelopment proposal the southern end of the car park will be reconfigured. This will remove the cul-de sacs and cross roads that give the existing car park a convoluted circulation.
The improved car park layout shows a new angled perimeter circulation aisle at the southern end with extended central parking aisles.
All disabled bays in the improved layout are now DDA compliant with shared 1.2 metre hatched areas on both sides of the parking bays. This makes the disabled bays more accessible than in the current parking layout.
It is Henderson’s intention for the improved car park to be awarded ‘Park Mark’ status which is the industry award for safe and secure car parks. Following a meeting with the local area assessor we have included parking for up to four motorcycles as this was felt an essential inclusion to obtaining the award. These motorcycle bays are located in the North West of the car park , near the Pizza Hut.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 21 of 53
16
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
As part of the improvements we have incorporated the servicing of the existing Frankie and Benny’s restaurants existing services arrangements. The location of the delivery bay does not block any parking bays or the internal circulation routes.
All the improvements to the car park will provide a much improved circulation with a reduced number of traffic conflicts, thus the dynamic capacity is improved. The layout also achieves an additional 17 car parking spaces providing a total of 409. These additional spaces will cater for the increased demand caused by the expected longer shop at the refurbished Mill.’
4.20 The proposed delivery bay to the new store will be located on the south side of the building and the approach to this will be from ‘The Circus’ via the bus station. The area will be designated with a different surface treatment and protected by demountable bollards to prevent unauthorized parking.
4.21 In summary the Transport Statement predicts only a minimal increase in traffic . This is based on the increase in retail floor space being only 91 square metres. The statement also concludes that the increase in traffic arising from the hotel use will be outside of peak network and retail periods and therefore shouldn’t impact on the highway network or the car parking facilities.
4.22 The views of the highway authority are still awaited. However, it is hoped that there will be agreement that the package of measures proposed will bring improvements to the car parking and servicing arrangements which should more than compensate for any increase in traffic arising from the development.
ACCESS ISSUES 4.23 The submitted Design and Access Statement states the following; ‘The entrance to each of the building uses will have level /ramped access. Entrance to both the department store and the hotel will be via powered opening doors. There will be lifts to the upper floors within both the department store and hotel. (Although the size of lift car for the latter is in question). A few of the larger hotel rooms will be designed to be fully accessible, located as close to the lift as possible, (however there seems to be potential for the number of such rooms to be increased).
4.24 The Council’s Access Officer finds the general provision of access broadly acceptable but officers are in negotiations over the outstanding issues which should be clarified by the date of the Committee Meeting.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 22 of 53
17 08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
OTHER ISSUES 4.25 The building lies within a flood risk area, it will be noted that the Environment Agency has objected to the proposal on the basis of the submitted Flood Risk Assessment. Both Officers and the Applicant’s consultants are in discussions with the Environment Agency in respect of their concerns. The results of these discussions will be reported via the addenda and corrections sheet. However, should these discussions be unfruitful, consideration will have to be given to the benefits of the proposal in light of these comments and a decision taken whether to support the Environment Agency’s stance.
4.27 There is no requirement for a 106 agreement with this application. The Council’s Countryside and Conservation Officer is satisfied with that there is no biodiversity loss arising from the application and the gain can be provide by way of a condition relating to the proposed bat roof and boxes. Improvements to the Public Realm will be achieved with the improvements to the car park, landscaping which will benefit the appearance of the car park and the canal and innovative lighting of the building itself.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The proposed extensions are contemporary in design and will contrast with the Victorian Mill. Nevertheless it is considered to be an exciting and compatible juxtaposition of the two styles which will offer a striking new centrepiece to the Weavers Wharf complex which should not only improve activity in the underused areas around the building but will also hopefully improve the vitality of the shopping area as a whole. There will certainly be controversial impacts on the fabric of the Listed building but these have been carefully thought out and kept to the minimum necessary to ensure that the building is capable of supporting viable and sustainable uses appropriate to its location. The development in all respects, including impacts on adjacent listed buildings and the conservation area, are considered to be acceptable and in accordance with land use, listed building and conservation policies contained within the Local Plan. The improvements to the car park and servicing arrangements are welcomed and should improve the efficency of the car park for all users.
5.2 I therefore recommend APPROVAL to 08/0164/FULL subject to the conditions based on:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. Materials (e.g. Colour, material and style/section of all new rainwater goods; colour and design of all escalators including placement of machinery; sample of proposed roof membrane; colour or tint of glass for all elevations; colour of all aluminium flashings and fascias; all materials for making good brickwork, where removed.; bin storage) Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 23 of 53
18
08/0164/FULL and 08/0165/LIST
4. Ensuring completion of the drainage works to Market Square 5. Landscaping( including details of hard surfacing) 6. Bat roof/boxes 7. Lighting of building 8. Glass to be kept clear of all applied material unless otherwise agreed with Local Authority (e.g. during sales periods) 9. Highway conditions 10. Environment Agency conditions
Note re British waterways
5.3 I also recommend APPROVAL to 08/0165/LIST subject to conditions based on:
1. A7 (Listed Building Consent) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. Materials (e.g. Colour, material and style/section of all new rainwater goods; colour and design of all escalators including placement of machinery; sample of proposed roof membrane; colour or tint of glass for all elevations; colour of all aluminium flashings and fascias; all materials for making good brickwork, where removed.; bin storage) 4. Details of elevators to be submitted and agreed in writing . 5. Details of lighting to be submitted and agreed 6. Design of roof lights/roof vents to be submitted and agreed 7. Details of method of attachment of extension to Listed building
Reason for Approval The development is acceptable in land use terms. The extensions to the Listed building are considered to be well designed and compatible with the Listed building and will result in minimum impact on the fabric to the listed building. The alterations to the building itself will affect the external walls of the building in particular, but are considered to be necessary in order to provide effective and sustainable uses for the building in this prime location in the town centre; these alterations have been carefully considered and designed in a contemporary manner which will complement the character and appearance of the listed building. The proposals have been considered with respect to the effect of the development on the setting of this listed building, other listed buildings in the vicinity and the conservation area and judged to be acceptable. The proposal is also felt to be acceptable in terms of access for all, car parking, servicing arrangements and with regard to highway safety issues. For these reasons and with regards to all other aspects of the scheme the development is considered to be compatible with the above mentioned policies in the Development Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 24 of 53
Application Reference: 08/0204/FULL Date Received: 29/02/2008 Ord Sheet: 381280 272688 Expiry Date: 30/05/2008 Case Officer: Paul Round Ward: Lickhill
Proposal: Rebuilding of sports club, construction of new external stores building & erection of boundary fencing around athletics track
Site Address: STOURPORT SPORTS CLUB LTD, KINGSWAY, STOURPORT-ON-SEVERN, DY138BQ
Applicant: Stourport Sports Club Ltd
Summary of Policy D1, D3, D5, D9, D10, D11, D19, NR3, GB1, GB2, GB6, TR9, TR17, LR9, LR10, LR11, LR17 (AWFDLP) CTC6, D39 (WCSP) PA10, QE3, QE6 (RPG11) PPS1, PPG2, PPS7, PPG17 Reason for Referral ‘Major’ planning application to Committee Recommendation APPROVAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The site forms a 9.4 ha (23.2 acre) piece of land that is bounded by Minster Road to the South, Kingsway to the North and West and a Golf Course to the East.
1.2 The site is used by Stourport Sports Club and providing a range of facilities from the site.
1.3 The original club house was destroyed by fire on 4 th December 2007 resulting in the demolition of the entire building. This application seeks to provide a replacement club house building along with an external store and security fencing.
1.4 The site is located within the West Midlands Green Belt, Landscape Protection Area and the Minster Road Outdoor Sports Area.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF.0763/96 – Construction of club house, tennis courts, track and alterations to junction – Approved 19th February 1997
2.2 WF.0632/97 – Revised Elevations to Clubhouse – Approved 24th September 1997 Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 25 of 53
2
08/0204/FULL
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Stourport-on-Severn Town Council – Views Awaited
3.2 Highway Authority – Views Awaited
3.3 Environment Agency – Views Awaited
3.4 Access Officer – No Issues.
3.5 Worcestershire County Council (Planning) – Views Awaited
3.6 Crime Risk Manager – Views Awaited
3.7 Community & Partnership Services – Conservation and Countryside Officer - given the location of the building in a setting of open grassland and hedgerows it would seem an ideal opportunity for the introduction of artificial bat roosts as part of its design.
3.8 Head of Property and Operational Services – This is an important building for the community and we support its early replacement. We welcome the change to refuse storage and support the garage move as this will help vehicle movements in the car park.
3.9 Environmental Health – Views Awaited
3.10 Sport England – No Objection. Would hope the Applicants would consider changes to changing facilities.
3.11 Severn Trent Water – No Objections subject to conditions
3.4 Neighbour/Site Notice – No Comments raised
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 Policy Context and Principle Format The site is located with the West Midlands Green Belt where tight controls are exercised over any development. In the context of planning policy set out in policy GB1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan and Government advice in PPG2 – Green Belt, its is clear that essential buildings are appropriate subject to being of the minimum size necessary.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 26 of 53
3
08/0204/FULL
4.2 The proposed building replicates exactly the size of footprint of the previous building, providing essential facilities for the sports club. When assessing the original outline application in 1992 the Secretary of State took the view that the site would require a clubhouse of 600m2, the current proposal a floor space of 597m2. On this basis I take the view that not only is the building providing ‘essential’ facilities but also provides them to the minimum size necessary in one building. I also consider that this applies equally to the other elements of this application. As such I consider that the development proposed by this application is appropriate development in the Green Belt. Even if the converse view should be taken, I consider that the circumstances surrounding this application are such as to constitute very special circumstances that would outweigh any in principle harm.
Design and Layout Format 4.3 The visual appearance of the building provides a functional building whilst providing a high quality of design. Although the design is similar to the previous building, I feel that the current proposal is more sensitive to the surrounding designations through the lowering of the roof height. As such the appearance of the building is acceptable.
4.4 As stated above the layout of the building replicates the previous footprint. Parking and access arrangements remain unaltered. On this basis there can be no issues raised in respect of the layout or siting of the building. It is sufficient to say the building is located in the optimum position in relation to the site.
Visual Impact on the Landscape and Green Belt Format 4.5 Due to the previous existence of a building on the site of an identical footprint to the one proposed, there is no in principle argument in respect of the impact of the Landscape or Green Belt. Due to the lowering of the height of the building by some 2.5m it is evident that there are improvements to be gained to the surrounding landscape by this proposal. Taking this line I take the view that the surrounding protected landscape and the visual amenities of the Green Belt will not be harmed by this proposal.
Highway Access Format 4.6 The access arrangements and parking provision will remain as exists and as there is no proposed increase in capacity of the building I consider that there are no highway issues in this case, although the formal comments of the County Council are awaited.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 27 of 53
4
08/0204/FULL
Other Issues Format 4.7 Biodiversity issues must be considered in this application due to the size of the application size. PPS9 requires that such applications must show a improvement to the biodiversity of the site. Having taken the views of the Council’s Countryside and Conservation Officer, it is felt that this requirement can be achieved through the incorporation of bat roosts and bird boxes around the site. This can be satisfactorily secured by way of a condition.
4.8 In respect of the fencing and external store I consider that these essential to the running of the club and can be provided with resulting in any visual harm to the surrounding landscape or the area in general.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions.
1. A6 (Standard time) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials) 4. B15 (Owl/Bat box) 5. Levels 6. Details Of Fencing 7. E2 (Foul and Surface Water) 8. Floodlights
Reason for Approval The proposals represent appropriate development in the Green Belt that can be provided without result in harm to the character of the Landscape Protection Area or the visual amenities of the Green Belt. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be compliant with the Policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 28 of 53
WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE 8TH APRIL 2008
PART B
Application Reference: 08/0107/FULL Date Received: 05/02/2008 Ord Sheet: 388005.137414275 Expiry Date: 01/04/2008 278635.693675387 Case Officer: Paul Wrigglesworth Ward: Blakedown and Chaddesley
Proposal: Change of use to car park, landscaping and associated works
Site Address: HINGLEY & CALLOW (OILS)LTD, STATION YARD, STATION DRIVE, BLAKEDOWN, KIDDERMINSTER,
Applicant: Hingley & Callow (Oils) Ltd
Summary of Policy D1,TR9, D15, TR17 Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan T2, T3, T5, T7 Regional Spatial Strategy PPS1, PPG13 Reason for Referral Parish Council request to speak on application to Committee Recommendation Delegated Approval
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The site is located between Lynwood Drive and railway line in Blakedown. Vehicular access to the site is adjacent to the level crossing from Station Drive. Residential properties in the Lynwood Drive cul-de-sac front onto the site on one site. On the opposite side is the main line railway and adjacent to this residential properties in Mill Close back on to the railway line and overlook the site. The access approach to the site passes close to two cottages near the entrance to Station Drive .
1.2 The application proposes a new car park with controlled parking to Blakedown Railway station for 34 cars and an additional bicycle and motor cycle parking. Five of the car parking spaces will be allocated for use in conjunction with an office use. 3 disabled spaces are provided. In addition 9 parking bays are allocated for local residents. It is proposed that there will be an electronically controlled barrier next to the offices. The parking charges are initially proposed to be £1:50 per day, £5 per week, £15 per month or £150 per year.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 29 of 53
2
08/0107/FULL
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF.148/05 - Extension of existing yard for car parking (temporary storage pending delivery) – Refused 18/4/05
06/0836/FULL - Temporary consent for single storey office extension & 10 additional car parking spaces for a period of 2 years - Refused 05/10/06
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Churchill and Blakedown Parish Council – No objection to the use of this land for car parking, particularly as it is understood that it will be available for users of Blakedown Station. However, this application should not be considered in isolation of the car parking problems that exist in the surrounding roads in the village – Station Drive, mill Lane, Lynwood drive and the Shoppers car park. The PC considers that permission should not be granted before appropriate Traffic Regulation Orders are in place to control parking in and around the station.
Considering the car park scheme Members would not agree to lighting on the site and would not expect overnight parking to be allowed by closing the car park say at 9pm.
3.2 Highway Authority – No objections
3.3 Network Rail - has concerns regarding this development on the grounds that there could be potential 'blocking back' issues with vehicles turning right into the site after negotiating the crossing either by having to give way to approaching traffic or the access road being blocked by other traffic entering or leaving the site. The access road up to the barrier does not seem wide enough for vehicles to pass simultaneously. Although vehicles blocking back does not represent a significant risk at this type of crossing there could be performance issues with trains being delayed on the approach to the crossing because of the signaller being unable to lower the barriers in time. With the re-signalling of this area in the next few years there may also be issues with the visibility of the crossing area if we propose to convert the crossing to CCTV operation. Notwithstanding these issues, should Council be minded to approve the application we would request that the following points are taken into account and should be the subject of conditions to ensure the safety, operational needs and integrity of the railway (Officer comment: there follows a list of standard rules and regulations which could form a note as part of any planning application).
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 30 of 53
3
08/0107/FULL
3.4 Neighbour/Site Notice – 6 letters received (see 6 paragraphs below); The application should be turned down as before on road safety grounds the situation is worse and will be exacerbated by such a proposed development.
Delighted that something is being done about the appalling parking problem. For most of 28years I have lived here there have only been one or two cars parked across the road but situation changed when British Rail started charging in Kidderminster- the situation has been a nightmare with caRs parked often from 7:30 to 7pm –like living in a car park making it difficult to reverse out of my driveway as I am quite unable to see traffic either way.
Can’t see how things are going to change as parking free and they are unwilling to pay unless there are double yellow lines or ‘no parking’ signs.
Happy to accept use as commuter parking. Hope that highway authority will look into additional traffic turning right next door to level crossing and the large number of children at the beginning and end of the day walking to the school and to catch a train. Would ask that there is no lighting that would intrude into our homes, a closing time of 21:00 hours, additional landscaping, an attendant or cctv –to prevent theft vandalism.
Letter regarding private matters and ownership of a small piece of land close to entrance. The writer claims he has title to this land but this is disputed by applicant’s solicitor.
Disappointed not to have received postal notification especially if there is a clear intent to extend adjacent to my property (Officer comment – the proposal doesn’t extend this far) Measures should be put in place to control access to the site to stop loitering and nuisance. Cars are gathering point for gangs of youths. How will access be controlled – when people seek to exit in a hurry when the level crossing barriers are down/ I hope access is prevented after rush hour to prevent such occurrence and is purely a commuter facility? No objection in principle but further consultation should be sought with residents.
Though needs to be given to yellow lines also the screening half way down Lynwood Drive
3.5 Access Officer – no objection
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 31 of 53
4 08/0107/FULL
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The main issues to consider in determining this application are:
1. Land use matters and Planning policy. 2. Highway Issues. 3. Traffic Regulation Order issues. 4. Impact on neighbouring property
LAND USE PLANNING MATTERS AND PLANNING POLICY 4.2 The Land is unallocated in the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan which effectively means that any use should be considered on its merits. The existing use of the land is for the private parking of vehicles in association with an existing office use and part of the site will still be used for this purpose. As the proposal seeks to utilise the existing car parking area, apart from a relatively small extension for the parking of bicycles and motorbikes, the principle of using this land as a pay car park in association with the station would seem an appropriate use and one that doesn’t differ markedly from the permitted use.
HIGHWAY SAFETY ISSUES 4.3 In terms of the car park and traffic generation the current application differs from the two previous applications affecting this site in three main respects: • The 2005 application proposed a substantial increase in the area of the car park extending back a further 65 metres on the existing car park and the 2006 application proposed a further 10 car parking spaces. The current application shows no increase in the area of car parking but does extend back a further 6 metres for the parking of motorcycles and bicycles. • the nature of the proposed car parking has changed from being mainly in association with a car hire firm involving vehicle trailers and a car transporter, to a use to provide paying car parking spaces in association with the adjacent railway line. • The highway authority is not recommending refusal to the application on the grounds that the access although deficient should not generate a significant increase in traffic over and above the current usage.
4.4 Network Rail did not object to previous applications but have on this occasion expressed a concern, as they feel that this application may prevent the railway level crossing being converted at some future stage to an unmanned crossing, and may slow down trains. It is unlikely that a back up of traffic will arise from vehicles turning right into the site, as most of the trips generated would be from the A456 Birmingham Road. Further comments from Network Rail are anticipated and should be available by the date of the Committee Meeting.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 32 of 53
5
08/0107/FULL
TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER 4.5 The Parish Council have asked that the application be considered in conjunction with a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) to control parking in and around the station. In light of this request the highway authority investigated whether a TRO is feasible in these circumstances, as there is no doubt that the parking on the verge of Station Drive is visually unsatisfactory and no doubt a source of nuisance to residents on this street.
4.6 The Highway Authority has responded as follows: ‘Although the parking does occur, we are aware that this is in any way dangerous. The police are of the same opinion that whilst undesirable to residents, the parking carries only a nuisance/aesthetic issue. I believe that the introduction of waiting restrictions would merely lead to migration onto more dangerous locations on the A456 or other closes away from the station; a station that has existed for decades. We do not have the resource or nor does the priority exist to introduce formal lines purely to remove an aesthetic nuisance’ .
4.7 It therefore falls for the application to be considered in the absence of a TRO and the consequences of this are that on street car parking is likely to continue and that the proposed pay car parking is likely to be less successful since people can park for free on the road. However this in itself is no reason to refuse an application and particularly as this is outside of the control of the applicant.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTY 4.8 The alterations to the car park are so slight that they would not in my view be harmful to the visual amenity of neighbouring property. In fact with some additional landscaping as proposed the situation might be an improvement.
4.9 In terms of traffic generation there are two residential properties that are situated on the driveway approach to the site. The applicants have stated an intention of operating the car park at times that coincides with the first and last trains (i.e. from 05:50hrs to 23:40 hrs). However, in view of the close proximity of the two Cottages the Council’s Environmental Health Section has recommended that the hours of use be limited to 07:00 to 21:00hrs Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 20:00 hrs on Saturday and Sunday. With a condition to this effect in place this would in my view secure the amenity of the occupiers of these properties.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 33 of 53
6
08/0107/FULL
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The proposed use of the site for a public car park is acceptable and will not result in harm being caused to neighbouring properties, the visual amenities of the area or highway safety.
5.2 I therefore recommend delegated APPROVAL subject to no new issues being raised from Network Rails and subject to conditions based on:
1 A6 (Standard time) 2 A11 (Approved Plans) 3 Landscaping 4 No floodlighting and any low level lighting of the car park to be agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority 5 Hours of use condition 7.00 – 21.00 hours Monday – Friday, 8.00 – 20.00 Saturday and Sunday
Reason for Approval The application has been considered in terms of Land use issues, highway and railway safety, implications for parking on adjacent streets and impacts on neighbouring amenity and the application is judged to be acceptable and in accordance with the above mentioned policies in the Development Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 34 of 53
Application Reference: 08/0133/OUTL Date Received: 14/02/2008 Ord Sheet: 380111 269694 Expiry Date: 10/04/2008 Case Officer: Paul Round Ward: Areley Kings
Proposal: Demolition of existing garage & construction of new dwellings with access off Redhouse Road (access & layout to be determined)
Site Address: THOMAS'S GARAGE, RED HOUSE ROAD, STOURPORT-ON- SEVERN, DY130NW
Applicant: Mr N Thomas
Summary of Policy D.1, D.3, D.10. D.11, D.13, CA.6, TR.9, TR.17, NR.2, NR.11, NR.8 (AWFDLP) SD.3, SD.5, SD.6, SD.7, CTC.19, D.4, RST.3(WCSP) QE.3, QE.1, QE.6 (RSS) Reason for Referral The applicant is a Councillor to Committee Recommendation DELEGATED APPROVAL subject to Section 106 Agreement
1.0 Site Location & Description
1.1 This application site lies at the junction of Redhouse Road and Areley Common. The site currently accommodates a car sales and repair garage which formerly operated as a petrol filling station. The application seeks consent for a terrace of 5 dwellings. The application is in outline with only the proposed layout and means of access to be determined at this stage.
2.0 Planning History (of relevance)
2.1 WF.05/1220 – Outline – 3 detached dwellings – Withdrawn
2.2 06/0394/OUTL – 7 x 2 bedroom apartments (siting and access to be determined) – Withdrawn
2.3 07/0047/OUTL – 5 Houses - REFUSED
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Stourport-on-Severn Town Council – Awaiting Comments Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 35 of 53
2
08/0133/OUTL
3.2 Highway Authority – The County Council’s Principal Solicitor has given advice clearly indicating that the status of part of the site is highway which can only be stopped up through a formal legal process. In this particular case Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The land could also be stopped up under Section 116 of the 1980 Highways Act, however this is time consuming and a lengthy process.
3.3 Environment Agency – Object as their insufficient information to demonstrate that the risk of pollution to controlled waters is acceptable.
3.4 Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to condition
3.5 Environmental Health – No objection subject to condition
3.6 Access Officer – Determine as appropriate. If approved please condition that ` lifetime homes standards must be attained.
3.7 County Council (Education) – If development goes ahead in this area, there may be a need for education provision and we would be seeking a contribution for this in accordance with our policy on Section 106 Planning obligations.
3.8 Conservation Officer – Whilst I have no objections to the principle of this scheme, there are a couple of considerations I feel should be taken into account during the Reserved Matters. The Redhouse Road elevations of the scheme appear only to have one house, with the corner of the site, to Areley Common having the side elevation of a property. It is my opinion that the property on the corner plot should have a dual-aspect, with high quality detailing facing onto both roads.
3.9 Crime Risk Manager – No Objections in principle – Various crime reductions techniques have been suggested.
3.9 Neighbour/Site Notice – 4 letters of objection have been received raising the following points
• The density of housing as outlined is to great for this site • Increase in traffic congestion and indiscriminate parking • The development is out of character with the two listed buildings or the surrounding area • The proposed building line is too far forward resulting in visual intrusion • The form of the buildings is inappropriate to the site • Overdevelopment of the site • Not adverse to development of the site in line with policy
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 36 of 53
3
08/0133/OUTL
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 Background and Introduction The application is submitted as an attempt to overcome the reason for refusal on the previous application last year, which is replicated below
The proposed siting of the block of 5 dwellings would create a poor relationship with existing development facing onto Areley Common and Redhouse Road and result in a development which would appear unduly prominent and therefore detract visually from the setting of the adjacent locally listed building at No.2 Redhouse Road and from this focal corner site. The siting of the development is therefore considered contrary to Policies D.1, D.3, LB.1, LB.5 and CA.6, of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan, Policy CTC.19 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and the aims of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, Design Quality (July 2004).
4.2 It should be noted that issues in respect of highways, parking and environmental issues were considered as part of this application but were not felt to be sustainable as additional reasons for refusal. In addition it was also considered that whilst the design was unacceptable, the number of units proposed on the site was not excessive in density terms or an overdevelopment.
4.3 I consider in this application as in the previous, that these issues are acceptable and consideration should be concentrated on the matters highlighted by the refusal reason namely design and impact on the Locally Listed building
4.4 DESIGN AND SITING The main concern with the previous application was the relationship between the new buildings and the existing dwellings on Redhouse Road and Areley Common. It is acknowledged that the site provides a difficult position in respect to the corner and surrounding buildings and building lines. It is important to enable the site to turn the corner and address both road frontages whilst providing a visual transition between the existing buildings.
4.5 The application seeks to erect a block of 4 dwellings fronting onto Areley Common and a single dwelling adjacent to 2 Redhouse Road.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 37 of 53
4 08/0133/OUTL
4.6 The proposal establishes indicative frontage along Areley Common linking the existing property no.78 with The Astley Cross Inn. This provides the scheme with a visual improvement to the site and creates a visual linkage between the existing buildings. Whilst it is acknowledged that plot1 is stepped forward of No. 78 Areley Common, due to level differences there is no loss of amenity to this property and the visual appearance of the streetscene will not be undermined. It should also be noted that the existing hedgerow between these boundaries will be maintained.
4.7 A similar approach has been taken along Redhouse Road, and effectively results in the single dwelling being positioned marginally forward of 2 Redhouse Road a Locally Listed Building.
4.8 Having considered the previous applications and taking in account the previous Officer’s report and comments, I consider that the proposed siting of the units is acceptable and will provide a visual improvement to the streetscene. In addition, I do not consider that the siting of these dwellings will result in harm being caused to the amenities of surrounding residential properties.
IMPACT ON LOCALLY LISTED BUILDING 4.9 The previous application attracted an objection from the Conservation Officer in view of the siting of the previous block of dwellings. This revised application has addressed this situation to the locally listed building at no 2 Redhouse Road. The Conservation Officer has no objections to this scheme. I would agree with this viewpoint and concluded that the scheme would not result in adverse harm to the locally listed buildings at No.2 Redhouse Road or the Astley Cross Public House.
OTHER ISSUES 4.10 As stated above other issues raised in this application were addressed in the previous Officer’s report. The scheme although altered has not attracted an objection from the Highway Authority in respect of access of parking issues.
4.11 It will be noted that the Environment Agency has objected on the basis of lack of information. Members were advised last year that the Environment Agency has not requested such information previously and that a refusal could not be sustained. I feel that this advise is relevant to this application, further information is being sought from the applicant and will be updated on the addenda and corrections sheet.
4.12 Due to the nature of the application the Council’s Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations applies to this scheme. Contributions for Educational Purposes and Open Space are required. The Applicant is happy to enter into a S.106 agreement to secure these contrbutions.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 38 of 53
5 08/0133/OUTL
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The scheme has addressed the previous reason for refusal and now presents a scheme that is acceptable in layout and access terms, and does not impact on the character or setting of the locally listed buildings.
5.2 I therefore recommend delegated APPROVAL subject to
a) The signing of Section 106 Agreement to secure • Education Contributions of £23,505; and • Open Space Contributions of £3,195
b) The following conditions:
1. A1 (Standard outline) 2. A2 (Standard outline – Reserved Matters) 3. A3 (Submission of Reserved Matters) 4. A5 (Scope of Outline Permission) 5. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials) 6. B9 (Details of Windows and Doors) 7. B11 (Details of Enclosure) 8. B13 (Levels Details) 9. C6 (Landscaping – Small Scheme) 10. C8 (Landscape Implementation) 11. C9 (Hedge Protection) 12. D1 (Contaminated Land) 13. E2 (Foul and Surface Water) 14. F5 (Construction Site Noise/Vibration) 15. H4 (Visibility over Frontage) 16. H13 (Access, Turning and Parking) 17. J1 (Removal of permitted Development – Residential) 18. J8 (No further windows)
NOTES
a) SN1 (Removal of Permitted Development Rights) b) SN12 (Neighbours’ rights) c) HN5 (No Highway Works Permitted)
Reason for Approval The proposed dwelling is considered to be well designed and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The impact of the dwelling upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 39 of 53
Application Reference: 08/0151/FULL Date Received: 18/02/2008 Ord Sheet: 378876 275145 Expiry Date: 14/04/2008 Case Officer: James Houghton Ward: Bewdley and Arley
Proposal: Change of use to brewery (Class B2)
Site Address: UNITS 7 & 8 BEWDLEY CRAFT CENTRE, LAX LANE, BEWDLEY, DY12 2DZ
Applicant: Bewdley Brewery Ltd
Summary of Policy H.2, E.2, E.10, D.1 – AWFDLP PA 14 - RSS PPS.4, Reason for Referral Town Council request to speak on application to Committee Recommendation APPROVAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 Units 7 and 8 Lax Lane are located at the western end of Bewdley Craft Centre, and located off Lax Lane, south of the River Severn. The units were in the ownership of the District Council, but now are in private ownership
1.2 The current use of the site is light industrial. The proposal is for the change of use of these two units to provide a micro-brewery.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 Permission was granted in 2004 for the change of use of an existing council depot to provide additional units for a craft centre (WF/1262/03 Approved 10/02/2004).
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Bewdley Town Council – Bewdley Town Council objects to the application on environmental and highway grounds. It is stated that the development is considered wholly inappropriate for the area and would add to existing highway issues particularly with vehicles turning right onto High Street.
3.2 Highways Authority – Views Awaited
3.3 Property and Operational Services – No comments received.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 40 of 53
2 08/0151/FULL
3.4 Environment Agency – The Environment Agency have no objection to the application and comment that the site lies within Flood Risk Zone 3, land with a 1:100 or greater year annual probability of river flooding. The provided flood risk assessment is overly simplified, however as the proposed change of use is for a class within the same vulnerability classification as the existing use. A condition is recommended
3.5 Environmental Health – No objections to application.
3.6 Forward Planning – The application site is zoned for residential purposes within the Adopted Local Plan. Policy E.10 of the Adopted Local Plan relates to business development outside allocated areas. The policy states that within the urban areas, but outside those areas identified in policy E.2, employment development will only be allowed for class B.1 uses. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed application is contrary to Policy E.10.
Policy D.1 Design Quality is also an important consideration for this application. Parts i) and j) state that new development must be designed and sited to complement and respect any adjacent development, and not give rise to a serious detrimental impact, such as, dust fumes, vibration or smell, on the amenity of nearby residents, which is considered to be an important consideration for this application. It is understood that there are no concerns from the Environmental Health section with regard to this use and therefore the proposal satisfies criterion i) and j) of Policy D.1.
This application supports emerging national and regional planning policy. Draft Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development advocates that proposals should be considered favourably unless there is good reason to believe that the economic/and or environmental costs of development are likely to outweigh the benefits. In addition, that the Local Planning Authority should cater for a broad range of business types such as small start up businesses, through to smaller and medium sized enterprises.
West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (Phase 2 Revision), Draft Preferred Option, sets out the emerging policy context in relation to market towns. Policy PA14 advocates sustainable diversification and development of the rural economy through the growth of existing businesses and the creation of new enterprise. Proposals should meet local employment needs, maintain viable and sustainable local communities and respect local character and distinctiveness. Furthermore such development should be concentrated in towns and other larger settlements accessible to the rural hinterland. Priority should be given to economic activity with strong links to the rural area, including food and drink processing and to sustainable new activity which will strengthen and diversify the Region’s Rural Economy.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 41 of 53
3 08/0151/FULL
Bewdley’s role as a market town is an important consideration here. The proposed change of use to a brewery would represent a small scale enterprise with strong links to the rural area, which would support Bewdley’s role as a market town. This consideration needs to be carefully balanced against the provisions of Policy E.10.
3.7 Access Officer – The Access Officer recommends that the application be determined as appropriate.
3.8 Conservation Officer – No comments received.
3.9 Severn Trent Water – No objections to application.
3.10 Neighbour/Site Notice – Eight letters of support were received for reasons including: • Small/new businesses should be encouraged in Bewdley. • Support for any addition to the economic development of the town should be given. • Support for locally produced goods. • Support for investment in the town. • Observation that although there would be only a minimal increase in traffic movements in the town due to the proposal. • Site is ideal for the craft of brewing. • Support for Bewdley having a brewery for the first time in 100 years. • Increase in tourism.
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The development proposed would affect the use of two vacant units within Bewdley Craft Centre. The proposed use is classified as B2, and the site is currently allocated as an area primarily for residential use. As such consideration needs to be given to the environmental impacts of this development and the impact on residential properties.
4.2 Having considered the submitted information with the application it is considered that this small scale use is appropriate in the context of the Craft Centre and the residential area as a whole.
4.3 The Environmental Health Section has no concerns over noise or odours emanating from the brewery. This views adds to the consideration that the use is compatible with the surrounding area.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 42 of 53
4 08/0151/FULL
4.4 The applicant states that there would be three employees using the units and a small pick up truck used for deliveries to consumers as well as of raw materials to the units. The views of the highway Authority are awaited, these will be reported via the Addenda and Corrections Sheet. This is particularly important due to the Town Council’s views.
4.5 The views of the Forward Planning Manager have been carefully considered in the policy context . Consideration in this respect takes into account the requirements of Draft Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Development as well as Policy PA14 of the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy (Phase 2 Revision) Draft Preferred Option. In addition Bewdley’s role as a market town further adds to this consideration, the proposed change of use to a brewery would represent a small scale enterprise with strong links to the rural area supporting Bewdley’s role as a market town. In view of these considerations I consider that the proposed use would have limited impact on the surrounding area and Bewdley’s role as a market town.
4.6 Although the site is with a Flood Risk Area, the Environment Agency have no concerns over the proposed use.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 It is considered that there are specific considerations in this case that make this application acceptable in this location. Subject to the views of the Highway Authority it is felt that this use can exist with causing harm to surrounding area or neighbouring properties.
5.3 In consideration of Articles 1 & 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. Use as a brewery only, and no other B2 use whatsoever 4. Evacuation Management Plan
Reason for Approval It is considered that by virtue of its scale and nature, the proposed development accords with the reasoned justification and spirit of Policy E.10.. The proposal use will not result in harm being caused to the surrounding area or Bewdley Town Centre. As such the proposal is in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 43 of 53
Application Reference: 08/0263/FULL Date Received: 14/03/2008 Ord Sheet: 381231 277670 Expiry Date: 13/06/2008 Case Officer: Emma Anning Ward: Franche
Proposal: Demolition of existing pub and erection of 4no 3 bedroom houses and 10no 2 bedroom flats with associated access and parking.
Site Address: THE EAGLES NEST, CONINGSBY DRIVE, KIDDERMINSTER, DY115LY
Applicant: Christopher Compton Goddard
Summary of Policy H.2 H.5 D.1 D.3 D.10 D.11 D.13 D.16 LR1, LR2, NR.9 IMP.1 (AWFDLP) CTC.1 D.1 D.5 D.43 (WCSP) CF.3 CF.4 CF.6 QE.1 QE.3 QE.6 T.7 (RPG 11) Planning Policy Statement 1 Planning Policy Statement 3 Adopted Wyre Forest District Design Quality SPG Planning Obligations SPD Reason for Referral ‘Major’ planning application to Committee Recommendation DELEGATED APPROVAL subject to Section 106 Agreement
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The Eagles Nest site is a public house located within a residential area of Kidderminster. The site measures approximately 0.22 hectares and is bound to the east by Green Belt, to the west by the highway of Conningsby Drive and to the north and south by residential properties. Numbers 2, 4 and 6 Beechcroft Road boarder the south of the site and a detached bungalow (1 Rangeways Road) boarders the northern site edge.
1.2 The proposal is to demolish the existing public house and to erect 14 residential units comprising 4 x houses and 10 x flats.
1.3 There is an extant permission on the site of the adjacent bungalow for its demolition and the erection of two detached houses (07/0704/FULL).
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 44 of 53
2 08/0263/FULL
2.0 Planning History
2.1 An application identical to this was considered and was subsequently approved by Members at the Development Control Committee meeting in February 2008. The previous application 07/1245/FULL was approved subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement within the timescale specified. The agreement was not completed in time and therefore the application, on the advice of officers, was withdrawn, this application is a resubmission of that previous application.
3.0 Consultations and Representations
The following comments were submitted as a response to application 07/1245/FULL, however given that this application is identical to that I consider that the responses given will still apply in this instance.
3.1 Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions
3.3 Environmental Health – No adverse comments
3.4 Access Officer • Reference to Part M of the Building Regulations does not address the need for, or meet the requirements, of Policy D.1. • What is the philosophy and design approach to the provision of lifetime and accessible homes on this site? • All external doors must have level thresholds. • What provision is made for disabled user car parking? • How do wheelchair users manage refuse disposal? There is inadequate footpath access clear of parked cars. • Blister paving is required at the dropped kerb access to the site. • A level surface path, minimum 900mm wide is required from the highway footpath to the front door of each property and to any surface likely to be used for car parking. • Additional pedestrian access is required from the highway footpath to the entrance to units 1-6 in order to avoid the use of the vehicular access by pedestrians.
3.5 Countryside Officer – To the previous application the Countryside Officer verbally advised that a bat survey of the existing building and a survey of badger and reptile presence along the westerly bank will be required prior to any development. In order to ensure that there is no biodiversity loss on this site the Countryside Officer is happy that the planting of a large specimen tree which is allowed to grow to maturity will contribute towards a biodiversity gain in this instance in accordance with the Planning Obligations SPD requirements. Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 45 of 53
3 08/0263/FULL
3.6 Crime Risk Manager - Recommendations: • Landscaping – shrubs should be selected which have a maximum growth height of no higher than 1m and trees should have no foliage below 2m. • Boundary Treatment – Boundary treatments to the front of plots 1-4 should be visually permeable. To the rear boundary treatment should be to a minimum height of 1.8m and should be supported with additional deterrent factors such as trellising or defensible planting. • Doors and Windows – Should comply with BS 7950. • Car Park Lighting – Should be designed to cover high risk areas and should comply with BS 5489. • Surveillance of Car Park from Units 7-10 – The location of car parking in relation with these units affords no natural line of sight or surveillance. This will reduce the residents’ defensible space. Parking areas should be close to and visible from the owners’ property.
3.7 Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to conditions.
3.8 Residents Association - No comments received
3.4 Neighbour/Site Notice – No comments received on current application however previously 1 letter of support, 24 Letters of objection and one petition received collectively containing a total of 202 individual signatures. The main issues raised are as follows:
• The loss of a popular community facility. • The introduction of flats and houses to the estate will spoil the views of the neighbouring countryside and will bring unwanted trouble and ruin the local community by demolishing our local public house. • The Eagles Nest is the only place we have to meet friends and neighbours on the estate. • Without a public house I will be forced to travel into the town centre to socialise that is not convenient without a vehicle. • The Eagles Nest has recently come under new management and is currently undergoing a programme of refurbishment with the intention of catering for a more family based clientele. It would be a travesty to deny the local community the opportunity to benefit from this. • The preservation of recreational provision is paramount for community cohesion both now and in the future. • When the Ferndale Estate was planned one of the conditions was that it should have a pub. • The only remaining pub would be The Three Crowns which is a considerable walk away. • The premises should not be allowed to close as the present licensee has just moved in and has a four year contract and has spent lots of money on redecorating. • There are plenty of unsold houses in Kidderminster. Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 46 of 53
4 08/0263/FULL
• The proposal for ten flats is over-development of a small site. • The parking facilities will be insufficient for the number of proposed flats. Cars already park in the bus stop, the proposed development will only exacerbate the situation. • The proposed block of flats will be right opposite my house and as the building will be 30ft high it will stand considerably higher than my house which is 4ft below road level (85 Conningsby Drive).
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The main issues to consider is the determination of this application are as follows:
• Policy & Allocation • Design and Layout • Highway and Access Parking • Landscaping • Planning Obligation Contributions • Other issues
POLICY & ALLOCATION 4.2 The site currently contains a public house and its associated car park. I am satisfied that the site constitutes Previously Developed Land as defined in Planning Policy Statement 3: Housing. The site is allocated as being suitable for residential development in the Adopted Local Plan and as such, the principle of residential development on this site is acceptable.
4.3 The proposed density of development would equate to 63 dwelling per hectare. This level adequately meets the requirement as set out in Policy H.5 of the Wyre Forest District Adopted Local Plan.
DESIGN AND LAYOUT 4.4 In terms of design I consider the proposal to be of good design which will harmonise well with the locality. The style of the proposed dwellings and apartment blocks reflects the architectural characteristics from properties in the immediate vicinity, including front facing gables, integral garages, driveway parking and front gardens. A condition on any permission could ensure that all materials are appropriate to local distinctiveness. I therefore consider the proposal will harmonise well with the character of the locality and will not result in the creation of an incongruous feature in this streetscene, in accordance with Policies D.1 and D.3 of the Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 47 of 53
5 08/0263/FULL
4.5 The site is bounded by Green Belt and as such due regard must be given to Policy GB.6 of the Adopted Local Plan which is concerned with the protection of visual amenity from within the Green Belt. In light of the comments above and that the development will ‘infill’ an area of existing residential development I do not consider it would be detrimental to the visual amenity of the Green Belt. The proposal therefore also accords with Policy GB.6. Concern was raised that the development would restrict residents’ views of the countryside however this is not a material planning consideration and cannot be taken into account when determining this application.
4.6 The proposed site layout indicates that the two pairs of semi-detached 3-bed homes would be sited to the western end of the site roughly where the Eagles Nest public house currently stands. The semi detached dwellings would occupy similar size plots to adjacent properties having front gardens with off street parking and rear gardens of roughly 10m in length. Given that there are no properties to the rear of the proposed dwellings there will be no impact of overlooking as a result of the proposed development and I feel that 10m garden lengths constitutes a sufficient amount of private amenity space for each dwelling.
4.7 Garden lengths of properties on Beechcroft Road are roughly 15m and as such I consider this to be sufficient separation distance to ensure that the proposed development does not have an overbearing impact on the neighbouring properties. The layout of the four dwellings would also form a footprint of buildings which mirrors adjacent development and as such would integrate well with the area.
4.8 The two apartment blocks would be positioned towards the eastern extreme of the application site. Amenity space for the residents of the apartment block would include a small area to the north of the site and a larger area to the eastern extreme behind Units 7-10. I consider this would afford sufficient communal amenity space for residents in accordance with Policy D.13 of the Wyre Forest District Adopted Local Plan.
4.9 An area of communal parking is proposed between the houses and the apartment blocks utilising the existing access from Conningsby Drive. I am satisfied that the layout is acceptable in design terms. The Crime Risk Manager raised concerns that there would be insufficient natural surveillance afforded to the parked vehicles by virtue of the proposed layout and that vehicles should be close to and visible form the owners’ property. Given the layout of the development I am satisfied that there will be adequate surveillance from Units 1-6 across the car parking area. Whilst locating the car park between the two apartment blocks may be more appropriate I consider this would compromise the existing bus stop by virtue that the existing access would need to be relocated across it.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 48 of 53
6 08/0263/FULL
4.10 The distance between the most easterly apartment block and the boundary with 1 Rangeways Road would be 10m, I consider this would be acceptable in terms of overlooking and the impact of the proposal on the amenity of occupiers. Similarly, and in considering the extant permission for two detached dwellings on the site of 1 Rangeways Road, I feel that should the properties be erected the impact on occupiers of those properties would be acceptable in terms of overlooking. Given that the window to the side elevation of the proposed detached dwelling would not serve a habitable room there would also be no undue impact on privacy.
4.11 The site layout shows provision for a secure cycle store and two separate bin stores to serve the apartment blocks. The cycle store would be sited along the rear boundary of the car parking area. One bin store would be positioned to the front of the parking area and the second bin store would sit between the two apartment blocks near to the front of the site. Given that all three stores are to be of timber construction and are to be well screened by landscaping I am satisfied that the proposed locations are acceptable. I consider this to be a suitable footprint of buildings which would respond well to local character in accordance with Policy D.1 of the Adopted Local Plan.
HIGHWAY ACCESS AND PARKING 4.12 Concerns have been raised regarding the level of car parking provision proposed and that the proposed development would exacerbate the problem of insufficient parking that already exists. In terms of car parking provision the four dwellings would have two parking spaces, one an integral garage space, the other a driveway space. This level of provision satisfies the Worcestershire County Council car parking standards as set out in the Adopted Local Plan.
4.13 Twelve spaces have been identified for the ten two-bed apartments. The car parking requirement is one space per two-bed apartment, and as such the provision is considered adequate. I therefore consider that in terms of parking provision the proposal accords with policy TR.17 of the Adopted Local Plan.
4.14 The existing vehicular access to the site is to be retained in order to serve the car parking area for residents of the apartment blocks. The four semi detached dwellings would have individual access points to private drives within curtilage. I am satisfied that the proposed access arrangements are adequate to serve the numbers of units proposed and that there would be no detriment to highway safety as a result of this proposal. The bus stop lay-by on Conningsby Drive would be retained. No adverse comments from the Highways Authority were received. The proposal therefore accords with Policy TR.9 of the Adopted Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 49 of 53
7 08/0263/FULL
4.15 The District Council’s Access Officer has raised concerns that the pedestrian route ways and entrances to the proposed dwellings are not sufficient. The Design and Access Statement has been revised along with several of the proposed plans in order to address the issues raised. I am satisfied that the applicant has addressed all of the issues raised and no further adverse comments from the Access Officer have been received. The proposal therefore accords with Policies D.1 and D.9 of the Adopted Local Plan.
LANDSCAPING 4.16 The proposed site plan shows an acceptable degree of indicative landscaping to provide adequate screening and will also provide a positive contribution to the visual amenity of the development. It is proposed to include a condition requiring the submission of a detailed landscaping scheme and management plan prior to development commencing. The landscaping scheme should also include the planting of a large specimen tree in accordance with the recommendations of the Countryside Officer and the requirements of the Adopted ‘Planning Obligations’ Supplementary Planning Document which requires a contribution towards biodiversity.
4.17 Through the requirement of a landscaping scheme it would also be possible to address the issues raised by the Crime Risk Manager with regards to the reduction of crime and principles of ‘secured by design. I am satisfied therefore that the proposal accords with Policies D.10 and D.11 of the Adopted Local Plan.
4.18 Issues raised by the Crime Risk Manager regarding window and door fitting will be covered at the Building Regulations stage and are therefore not material considerations to this planning application.
PLANNING OBLIGATION CONTRIBUTIONS 4.19 In February 2007 the District Council adopted a Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations. This sets out the Council’s stance on the type and level of contributions that would be required for certain types of development. The following table sets out the requirements as identified in that document, to which the applicant is willing to contribute: S106 Requirement Offered Provision Required By SPD Open Space £7,192 off site contribution towards White Wickets Education £16,164 towards educational facilities Contribution Public Realm It is considered that the visual improvement which will occur as a result of the development are sufficient in themselves to provide a contribution to the public realm. £10,000 towards a bus shelter opposite has been offered in addition. Biodiversity On site provision of the planting of a Contribution specimen tree which should be allowed to grow to maturity. Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 50 of 53
8 08/0263/FULL
4.20 The Education, Public Realm and Open Space contributions will need to be secured through a Section 106 agreement, however the Biodiversity contribution can be dealt with adequately by condition.
OTHER ISSUES 4.21 The majority of neighbour objections received raise concerns over the loss of this popular public house facility. The Design and Access Statement submitted with the application states that the public house “is struggling financially and is no longer economically viable in this location”. The report also states that “there are 6 other public houses within 1mile of the application site” although I understand this to be an overestimate of the provision available locally I am happy that other public houses do exist in the vicinity and I am therefore satisfied that the needs of the local community can be met at other nearby sites.
4.22 One neighbour has raised concerns with regards to the height and proximity of the apartment block to 85 Conningsby Drive, which is opposite. However given that there is a distance of 26m between the two I am satisfied that there will be no undue impact on the privacy of occupiers.
SUMMARY 4.23 This application is an identical resubmission of the previously approved scheme, I am therefore satisfied that given the subsequent approval this scheme conforms with all relevant policies of the Wyre Forest District Adopted Local Plan.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The development by virtue of its design and layout would contribute positively to improving the visual amenity of the streetscene and the area as a whole and would not harm the visual amenity of the adjacent Green Belt. Careful consideration has been given to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbours and it is considered that they would not be unduly affected. The proposal would not give rise to a situation which is detrimental to highway safety.
5.2 In consideration of Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, I recommend delegated APPROVAL subject to:
a) the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure the following: • £16.164 Education contribution • £7,192 Open Space contribution • £10,000 Public Realm contribution
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 51 of 53
9 08/0263/FULL
b) and subject to the following conditions
1. A6 (Standard time) 2. A11 (Approved plans) 3. B1 (Samples/Details of materials) 4. B9 (Details of windows/doors) 5. B11 (Details of Enclosure) 6. Bat, badger and reptile survey to be carried out prior to development commencing. 7. C6
NOTES
SN2 (Section 106 Agreement) SN5 (No Advertisements) SN12 (Neighbours’ rights) SN13 (Landscaping/Planting Works) HN1 (Mud on Highway) HN5 (No Highway Works Permitted) HN22 (Removal of Structures)
Reason for Approval The development by virtue of its design would contribute positively to improving the visual amenity of the streetscene and the area as a whole and would not harm the visual amenity of the adjacent Green Belt. Careful consideration has been given to the impact of the proposal on the amenity of neighbours and it is considered that they would not be unduly affected. The proposal would not give rise to a situation which is detrimental to highway safety. The proposal therefore accords with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 52 of 53
10 08/0263/FULL
5.3 In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 13 th June 2008, I also recommend that delegated authority be given to REFUSE for the following reason:
1. The applicants have failed to enter in to an agreement under Section106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) to secure contributions for Public Open space, Education Contributions and Public Realm. In the absence of this agreement the proposed scheme fails to comply with Policies LR.1, LR.2, D.12, CY.4 and IMP.1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan and the adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 8/4/08 AGENDA ITEM NO.5 Page 53 of 53