Agenda Item No: 6 Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM
Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date 05-SEP-2006
Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND TRANSPORTATION
Contact Officer(s)/ STEPHEN ALEXANDER (Head of Development Control)
Telephone Number(s) (01902) 555610
Title/Subject Matter PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Recommendation
That Members determine the submitted applications according to the recommendation made in respect of each one.
PLANNING COMMITTEE (05-SEP-2006) INDEX
REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO
Bushbury North 05/2027/OP/M Land between Wobaston Road and The 4 M54 Motorway
06/0917/FP/M Trinity Court, Plot 5, Wolverhampton 30 Business Park, Stafford Road
Ettingshall 06/0905/GM/C Land at Powlett Street, 36
Fallings Park 06/0929/FP/R 51 Lower Prestwood Road 42
Oxley 06/0993/GM/C DNN Pendeford Lane Pendeford Lane 46
Park 06/0416/FP/R Land rear of 63 - 71 Newbridge Crescent, 51
06/0584/FP/R 32 Newbridge Street 59
06/0867/FP/R 86 Compton Road West 63
St Peters
06/0632/FP/M Molineux Hotel Molineux Street, 67 & 06/0633/LB/C
06/0674/FP/C 26 Francis Street, 73
06/0941/FP/M Land bounded by Worcester 78 & Street/School Street/Little Brickkiln 06/0944/CA/C
06/0943/AD/C Dudley Street/Queen Street/Woolpack 87 Street,
2 Tettenhall Regis 06/0969/FP/C The Kings School Regis Road, Tettenhall 91
Tettenhall Wightwick 06/0117/FP/R 89 Henwood Road, 96
06/0340/FP/R 103 Windmill Lane 100
06/0815/FP/C 21 Finchfield Road West, 106
Wednesfield South 06/0919/FP/C 31 Lichfield Road 111
3
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 01-AUG-2006
APP NO: 05/2027/OP/M WARD: Bushbury North;Oxley DATE 09-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 10-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
SITE: Land between Wobaston Road and The M54 Motorway Pendeford PROPOSAL: Comprehensive redevelopment of land at Wobaston Road to provide a strategic employment area comprising offices, workspaces, industrial units, education and research, hotel, ancillary, services, open space and associated highways, footpaths and landscaping.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Advantage West Midlands Ancer Spa (Midlands) Ltd 3 Priestly Wharf Royal Oak Business Centre Holt Street 4 Lanchester Way Birmingham Daventry B7 4BN Northamptonshire NN11 8PH
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This is an outline application on the 89 hectare site known as i54 at Wobaston Road, Pendeford on the boundary between South Staffordshire and Wolverhampton, for development as a strategic employment area. This development is to comprise a Major Investment Site capable of accommodating a single high quality manufacturing use and a Regional Investment Site that will provide a mix of office and manufacturing accommodation to attract uses compatible with the Wolverhampton to Telford Technology Corridor.
1.2 The site is located on the northern side of Wobaston Road, just to the west of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal. The M54 motorway forms the approximate northern boundary of the development area. The site is largely Brownfield land that has been previously used for waste disposal purposes. The former Pendeford landfill tip on the eastern part of the site has been reclaimed in the past year through the removal of contaminated soil.
1.2 The majority of the site is located within the South Staffordshire Council area, but a small part along Wobaston Road is within the boundary of Wolverhampton City Council’s administrative area. Hence the application has been made to both authorities.
Page 4
2. Planning History
2.1 94/0140/OP – Outline industrial/research and office use. Office content of the scheme 90 000 sq m. Condition of the planning permission allows 15 000 sq m of development to be accessed off Wobaston Road until the Motorway access onto the M54 is provided. Thereafter all vehicular access to be via the M54 motorway. Granted 1997. Time limit for implementation of 94/0140/OP extended by 99/1169/VV and 04/0605/VV.
2.2 The proposed principal highway access to the site on its northern boundary comprises a modification to Junction 2 of the M54 motorway involving elongated slip roads. This highway access is within South Staffordshire Borough Council. An application has been submitted separately to South Staffs (05/01312/FUL). Wolverhampton CC has been consulted.
2.3 05/2026/FP/M - An application for site preparation works comprising the second phase site remediation ground works, together with provision of the principal spine road, site services, drainage and structural landscaping. This application was reported to Planning Committee in April and approved on the 5/7/06.
3. Application Details
3.1 The outline planning application reserves all matters for subsequent approval, with the exception of the principal means of access to the site from the M54 motorway which is the subject of a separate planning application. The application package includes the following reports.
3.2 Development Specification and Phasing (Volume 2) The Development Specification and Phasing report defines the principal components of the development. It provides an indication of what land uses are proposed and the development parameters including maximum floorspace levels based on traffic generation constraints, potential job numbers and building heights. The Development Specification also includes the proposed Masterplan Development Framework (see below for further details) and a Phasing Plan to show the likely sequence of development.
3.3 Planning Policy and Regeneration Objectives (Volume 3) This report identifies the relevant strategic and local planning framework that provides the strategic policy context for the development. Fundamental to the whole rationale of the development scheme is the regeneration benefits it will bring to both the local community and the region and so the report also considers this context and sets out the key economic and social regeneration objectives and impacts.
Page 5
3.4 Transport Assessment (Volume 4) This report describes the existing transport provision and highway capacity in the area. It then proposes a multi-modal strategy and travel plan to serve the development. It identifies traffic impact on the network and proposes a mitigation strategy. The identification of traffic flows provides input to the Environmental Statement report in relation to issues such as air quality and noise.
3.5 Environmental Statement (Volume 5) This report is required in accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 (Amended Nov 2000). It describes the environmental impact of the development proposals and shows how potentially adverse impacts have been addressed in the planning and design of the scheme. It also highlights environmental benefits and environmental enhancement proposals included in the scheme.
3.6 Urban Design Framework (Volume 6) This report provides the urban design principles and concept for the development. It takes forward the Development Framework and suggests appropriate buildings and spaces, with development platforms set within structural landscaping. The Framework includes urban design guidelines for the principal component development sites.
3.7 Landscape Strategy (Volume 7) This report provides a landscape framework to create a comprehensive landscape infrastructure and setting for the development. It highlights those existing landscape features that are valuable and should be retained. It makes proposals for the phased implementation of landscaping improvements and also makes proposals for the management of existing and new landscape and nature conservation areas.
3.8 Statement of Community Involvement (Volume 8) This report describes the community involvement exercise that was undertaken by the applicant as part of the development of the Masterplan proposals for the development and summarises the responses received.
3.9 MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK This shows the general employment development proposals including the locations of a Major Investment Site (MIS) and a Regional Investment Site (RIS), the component land uses for the RIS, the M54 junction arrangements, the principal spine road through the site, footpath routes, a sustainable drainage system and retained areas of landscape or nature conservation interest. The principal development plots and a potential development scenario are as follows.
Page 6 3.10 Major Investment Site (Plots A and B) Large development platforms capable of accommodating a major single occupier manufacturing use of up to 135,000m 2 of floorspace. The two plots are defined by a wildlife corridor passing from the site of the former Clewley House through to Middle Lane.
3.11 Technology Gateway (Plot E) Campus area capable of accommodating a number of iconic buildings for technology uses including a flagship ‘Technology Hub’ building comprising site management, business support services and some incubator accommodation. It could include a building providing a University research and teaching centre and further business incubation accommodation. It could also include a building for government or private sector research functions.
3.12 HQ Offices (Plot C) For corporate businesses with an acknowledged technology focus in high quality office buildings at this northern gateway.
3.13 Business Hotel (Plot D) To accommodate a high quality 3.5 or 4 star facility providing up to 150 bedrooms and ancillary services to businesses on the i54 site including meeting rooms and a restaurant/bar.
3.14 Small Business Village (Plot F) Small unit business accommodation located in the centre of the site providing an attractive frontage along the spine road. Such accommodation would be suitable for supply chain small to medium enterprises (SMEs) and also provide more incubator space for technology business start ups.
3.15 Advanced Manufacturing (Plot G) Sites of various sizes can be provided for to provide a range of accommodation for manufacturing businesses, for inward investors or indigenous expansions.
3.16 Ancillary Services Centre (Plot H) Focal point location on Wobaston Road comprising small scale retail/café/bar with employee flats above, training centre and nursery with employee flats above, community offices and a fitness centre. Could also include design studio offices. The residual eastern part of this site could accommodate a high quality hybrid building comprising a research/manufacturing use with ancillary offices.
Page 7 3.17 Other features of the Development Framework to note are as follows. Retention of key environmental features such as Clewley Coppice, Clewley House Historic Monument, woodland and hedgerows of high ecological value on the western boundary and along the canal corridor, and the wetland to the north east of Waterhead Brook. These provide the basis for a high quality landscaped environment for the Technology Gateway area.
3.18 The principal means of highway access will be via a new junction to the M54 motorway through alteration of junction 2. Access from Wobaston Road will only be for public transport, emergency vehicles and car-borne users of Plot H including the ancillary services area. Provision of a pedestrian and cycle route into the site from Wobaston Road, along the main spine road route through the site and allowing for a route northwards up to Middle Lane where it crosses the motorway and also eastwards across to the canal corridor.
3.19 A principal objective of the Development Framework is to achieve a high profile for the i54 development by providing an imposing RIS frontage to the M54 motorway. It is proposed to provide an MIS frontage to the motorway up to a line connecting the eastern edge of Clewley Coppice in the centre of the site, northwards to the motorway. From the west of this point the motorway level falls, so views of the site are hidden by an embankment. It is the area to the east of this line that is visually prominent from the motorway and where it is proposed to provide an impressive gateway frontage demonstrating the RIS function and opportunity of the site.
3.20 Proposed land uses for the RIS have been configured to maximise the potential for iconic buildings with technology uses to be grouped around the motorway entrance to the site, including a technology hub building as a flagship centrepiece, university related uses, corporate HQ offices for technology companies, and a high quality business hotel. Such a ‘campus’ of buildings would provide an impressive gateway and an exciting vista from the motorway.
3.21 A report titled ‘i54 Planning Application Supplementary Submission in Relation to Consultation Responses’ (June 2006) and a further Report titled ‘Review of Supply and Demand for Hotel Accommodation in Wolverhampton and the Area Surrounding the i54 Wobaston Road`Site’ (June 2006) have also been submitted.
Page 8 4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Relevant Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (adopted June 2006) policies include:
B1 – Economic Prosperity B2 – Balanced Portfolio of Employment Land S1 – Strategic Regeneration Areas S2 – Strategic Regeneration Corridor EP1 – Pollution Control D1 – Design Quality AM 1 – Access and Mobility N1 – Promotion of Nature Conservation
4.2 Other relevant policies are set out in the Planning Policy and Regeneration Objectives (Volume 3) submitted with the application.
5. Publicity
5.1 A letter from Low Hill, Oxley and Bushbury Area Forum raises concerns in relation to increased traffic, protection of existing wildlife habitats, visual impact of the Wobaston road frontages and sports facilities on the site, air quality and noise issues.
5.2 Three letters from Wolverhampton residents raise concerns in relation to the safety of the Patshull Road/Wobaston Road junction, increased traffic and visual impact of development along Wobaston Road.
6. External Consultees
6.1 The Countryside Agency – no comment.
6.2 Severn Trent Water – no objection subject to standard conditions.
6.3 Transport 2000 Staffordshire – object on the grounds of inadequate access for pedestrians and cyclists.
6.4 Highways Agency – require conditions linking this application and the motorway access application.
6.5 Staffordshire Police and West Midlands Police – raise issues and offer advice relating to traffic generation and distribution, lighting, landscaping, car parking, footpaths and roads, perimeter control, motorcycle racing, and the provision of Police Community Support Officers and CCTV.
6.6 Staffordshire Badger Group – object on the grounds of lack of information and inadequate mitigation relating to badgers.
Page 9
6.7 Campaign to Protect Rural England (Staffordshire) – object on grounds of development in the Green Belt, availability of other sites, the large size of the industrial units, possible lack of demand for high tech/high skill/high pay industries, inaccessibility of the site to non-car users and environmental harm caused by access to motorway.
6.8 National Grid – a diversion or protection of their apparatus may be necessary.
6.9 Staffordshire Fire and Rescue Service – no observations at this stage.
6.10 Inland Waterways Association – welcomes the enhancement of the canal corridor. Raise concerns about nesting birds along canal corridor, tree planting along motorway, increased traffic and the affect of works on the narrow tree lined sandstone cutting in which the canal sits at the southern end of the proposed development.
6.11 English Nature - A land use change to a Strategic Employment Site from farmland will inevitably have net adverse impacts on the local flora and fauna and the Environmental Statement covers these reasonably well. Care in the design and layout and the incorporation of green infrastructure should limit the potential impacts of the development. A complete and effectively delivered mitigation and off-site compensation package will reduce the impact of the development. In order to maintain and enhance biodiversity conservation interests recommend conditions and a planning obligation S106 agreement to ensure that the proposed biodiversity mitigation and particularly the off site compensation, possibly involving Pendeford mill farm is secured. Also recommend condition that no development shall commence until a scheme for the protection of protected species and their habitat has been submitted to and agreed by the local planning authority. Also it is essential that the additional survey work detailed in 8.9 of the Environmental Impact Assessment relating to more detailed survey work for protected species is carried out in advance of any development (in relation to water voles badgers, crayfish and bats).
6.12 West Midlands Regional Assembly – The application is in general conformity with the West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy.
6.13 Centro – recognises that the development is generally in conformity with planning policy subject to conditions/S106 obligations to meet detailed requirements including bus infrastructure, funding for bus services if necessary and implementation of the Outline Travel Plan.
6.14 The Ramblers Association Staffordshire Area – no objections.
6.15 British Waterways – no objection in principle. The proposed towpath should be delivered through a S106 agreement with a commuted sum to BW to cover future maintenance. The corridor should extend under the
Page 10 M54 to increase mobility beyond the motorway barrier for brown hares, badgers, otters and amphibians.
6.16 Environment Agency – no objection. The Flood Risk Assessment is acceptable and the proposals welcome. Conditions required in relation to surface water drainage, provision of foul drainage works, ground contamination and site works during construction.
6.17 Staffordshire Wildlife Trust – The Nature Conservation Management Plan to be agreed before any development works are commenced on site should include the following. • Aim and objectives of the plan, how it will mitigate for quantified losses on i54, with timescale. • Baseline survey, as carried out on i54, mapping and describing habitats and notable species particularly protected species. • Evaluation of potential for increase in area/quality of each habitat and population of each species needing mitigation. • Monitoring program. • Proposed corrective measures to apply if some objectives fail and how this to be enforced.
6.18 Bilbrook Parish Council – Concerned about increase in traffic that will create noise nuisance and reduction in air quality. Concerned about access arrangements onto the Wobaston Road. Concerned about future encroachment into Green Belt Request a study of the impact on Bilbrook. Suggest that traffic impact could be reduced by the construction of a by-pass from A41 at Perton to Wobaston Road
6.19 Brewood and Coven Parish Council – Raise objections particularly in respect of the impact of the works relating to the M54 access.
6.20 Featherstone & Brinsford PC - The provision of 6,000 new jobs welcome. Concerns raised about increased traffic.
6.21 Sports England - Although Sport England would not wish to comment on the principle of this development we would wish to have the opportunity to comment on the masterplan proposals and in particular the proposals for sport and recreation.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Access – comments in relation to tactile information, car parking for Blue Badge holders, lighting, signage and surface treatments.
Page 11 7.2 Environmental Services – comments in relation to the submitted noise reports and air quality assessment in the Environment Statement. In relation to land contamination no further comments provided that the recommendations outlined in the Environmental Statement are implemented.
7.3 Archaeology – no comment.
7.4 Building Consultancy – no comment.
8. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
8.1 In accordance with The Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999 (Amended Nov 2000) an Environmental Statement has been submitted with this application.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key issues are: • The Principle of the Proposed Uses • Targeted Recruitment and Training • Impact on Local Amenities • Transportation • Nature Conservation • Public Access/Cycleways • Landscaping
Principle of the Proposed Uses 9.2 Proposals The Masterplan described in Volume 2 proposes the following development: • Major Investment Site located in the western part of the site occupying an area of 45.4ha . Two plots providing 135 000sqm floorspace for B1 and B2 development. • Regional Investment Site located in the eastern part of the site occupying an area of 26.3ha. Six plots providing 100 000sqm floorspace. This floorspace to me made up of: - Plot C – HQ offices – 17 500sqm B1(a) - Plot D – business hotel – 8 000sqm class C1 hotel accommodation (150 beds) - Plot E – technology gateway campus – 12 000sqm B1(b) and B1(c) and 10 000sqm education (D1) floorspace. - Plot F – small business village – 8 000sqm B1(b) and B1(c) - Plot G – advanced manufacturing – 29 500sqm B1(c) and B2 - Plot H – ancillary services centre – 4 400sqm retail/leisure/ community, 600 sq m flats, 2 500sqm B1(a) and 7
Page 12 500B1(b) and B1(c).
9.3 The Principle of Development The principle of Major Investment Site and Regional Investment Site development on this site is well established. In summary, the site is identified for Regional Investment Site and Major Investment Site development in the Regional Spatial Strategy in Policies PA7 and PA8 respectively. This allocation corresponds to Policy E5 of the Staffordshire Structure Plan (2002), and to Policies E1, GB4 and GB5 of the adopted South Staffordshire Local Plan (1996).
The eastern part of the site has the benefit of planning permission for Class B1 development and ancillary development and infrastructure granted in 1996.
Major Investment Site and Regional Investment Site are key elements of the Regional Spatial Strategy. They are a fundamental element of the package of proposals for the realisation of the High Technology Corridor concept, and will be critical drivers for change in the delivery of long term economic competitiveness in the Urban Regeneration Zones. The continuing relevance of the Regional Investment Site concept has been considered and endorsed in the Public Inquiry into objections to the Solihull UDP.
9.4 Major Investment Site Policy PA8 of the Regional Spatial Strategy seeks provision of two sites in the Region to accommodate large scale investment by a single user with an international choice of locations in order to help diversify and restructure the Regional economy. As explained above, the site has long been recognised as meeting the criteria specified for Major Investment Site sites. In order to ensure the delivery of the Major Investment Site concept on this part of the site, any planning permission should be subject to a condition to ensure the site is reserved for a single user if it is to be in conformity with Regional Spatial Strategy Policy.
9.5 Regional Investment Site Regional Spatial Strategy Policy PA8 seeks identification of a series of large, high quality sites that are suitable to national and international investors within the B1 and B2 Use Classes. As established above, the site meets the criteria for Regional Investment Site designation. The proposals for the Small Business Village, the Advanced Manufacturing Facility, the B1b/B1c components of the Technology Gateway Campus and the ‘Early Opportunity’ manufacturing are consistent with Regional Spatial Strategy. These proposals comprise some 57,000sq m of high specification B1b, B1c and B2 floorspace. This is considered to be consistent with attracting knowledge and technology based organisations which will assist with the diversification and modernisation of the Region’s economy.
Page 13 9.6 Office Development (Plot C and part of Plot H) The development as a whole comprises some 20,000sq m of office development (17,500sq m of which is proposed on Plot C). While there is no basis in the Regional Spatial Strategy for precluding Class B1a office development at the site, it is important to ensure that the form of office development is not one which will potentially compromise those elements of the Regional Spatial Strategy spatial strategy concerned with maintaining and enhancing the vitality and viability of defined centres. There are a number of mechanisms which may be appropriate in order to provide such control.
9.7 The information submitted in support of the planning application contended that the development of i54 will complement the Wolverhampton City Centre office market rather than compete with it. The development of the site, and subsequent attraction of a large amount of new investment, will also help to improve the image of the City to investors, acting as a magnet to bring new companies to the area that would not otherwise have located in the region. To prevent speculative office development that is more appropriately located in centres and to ensure that occupiers contribute to the role of the Regional Investment Site in developing the economy of the Regeneration Zone and High Technology Corridor it has been agreed that controls are required as follows.
• Establishing a lower floorspace limit on individual occupiers so as to preclude small scale office occupiers that would otherwise be able to locate in centres. • Establishing an upper limit on B1a floorspace but one that better reflects the needs of the Regeneration Zone/High Technology Corridor to attract significant levels of high quality technology sector office space that would otherwise be lost to the region. A figure of 20 000sq m as suggested in the planning application may be more appropriate. • Precluding certain B1a occupiers such as public administration, financial services, accountancy and law firms, or public and commercial organisations which attract significant numbers of the public. • The establishment of a management plan which restricts occupiers to those which accord with the role of the Regional Investment Site in attracting high quality technology related investment.
It is considered that these controls will act as a comprehensive, sophisticated and appropriate package of measures.
Page 14 9.8 Business Hotel The hotel proposed in the Masterplan is 150 beds with a three to four star quality rating. The applicants report titled ‘Review of Supply and Demand for Hotel Accommodation in Wolverhampton and the Area Surrounding the i54 Wobaston Road`Site’ demonstrates evidence of a qualitative and to a lesser extent a quantitative need for additional quality hotel accommodation in the South Staffordshire/Wolverhampton area. It is considered that a hotel is an integral part of the i54 development. The size of the hotel can be controlled by a condition.
9.9 Development falling within Use Class D1 The proposal includes 10,00sqm of Class D1 floorspace. The statement submitted in support of the planning application explains that this floorspace will be utilised for a university/research/teaching centre. Such a form of Class D1 development is consistent with Regional Spatial Strategy Policies PA3 and PA4. This element of the proposals should be reserved for a specific purpose rather than the other uses within the D1 Use Class which may include non-ancillary free standing conferencing facilities or exhibition space. This can be addressed with the use of a condition.
9.10 Ancillary Service Centre The planning application indicates that such development will be in the order of 4,400sq metres. While it is accepted that local retail and service uses will enhance the sustainability of the site, it is essential that the phasing, scale, unit types and location of these elements should be controlled in order to ensure there is no detrimental impact on the vitality and viability of existing centres, in particular those district and local centres in the north and west of Wolverhampton. These issues can be resolved through the use of a condition.
9.11 Summary The proposal is in conformity with Regional Spatial Strategy and should be supported. The proposal has the potential to deliver very significant benefits to the sub-regional and regional economy with associated benefits to Wolverhampton residents. The development will deliver a quality and quantity of jobs that will not otherwise be brought to the sub- region in its absence, and is a fundamental element of the package of proposals associated with the High Technology Corridor and Regeneration Zone.
Major Investment Site and Regional Investment Site are key elements of the Regional Spatial Strategy. They are a fundamental element of the package of proposals for the realisation of the High Technology Corridor concept, and will be critical drivers for change in the delivery of long- term economic competitiveness in the Urban Regeneration Zones. The West Midlands Regional Assembly has confirmed that overall the principle of development of the site, as proposed, is in conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy.
Page 15 The i54 site provides the opportunity to capture emerging business opportunities including expanding technology based manufacturing businesses. The aspiration to attract a Technology Campus will provide the opportunity for University related research and teaching facilities. The suggested Small Business Village would provide accommodation for new start up businesses. It is anticipated that knowledge based business opportunities will increase and this will fit with the employment profile of South Staffordshire residents. If Members are minded to approve the i54 development then it will require a Section 106 agreement and the opportunity can be taken, as it has in other areas of the country, to insert clauses that facilitate access to jobs on the i54 site, either with end user companies or in construction work, for local people.
Targeted Recruitment and Training 9.12 A priority within Wolverhampton is to provide targeted recruitment and training (previously called local jobs for local people). This is to ensure that recruitment and training opportunities that arise from new developments benefit local people, especially those that are disadvantaged in the labour market. The overall vision of the Unitary Development Plan is to create a more sustainable Wolverhampton by improving the economic, social and environmental well being for everyone within the City. The Unitary Development Plan includes significant references to social inclusion and the need to target job opportunities. As well as the vision statement there are statements on the need to:
• target job opportunities; • reduce social exclusion and increase equality of opportunity; • provide local employment and business opportunities; • use planning agreements on major employment developing schemes to secure new training opportunities for local people.
9.13 The S106 agreement should include a clause relating to the following.
• The key requirement is to provide jobs and training opportunities to local people and/or those that are disadvantaged in the labour market, and possibly tender/contract opportunities for local supply-chain. • A second requirement may be a financial contribution towards (ideally) pre-recruitment training for the target groups prior to applying for a job related to the development, or for recruitment and training activities that will expand the available labour force. • Monitoring information.
Impact on Local Amenities 9.14 The visual impact of built development on the site will be mitigated by the arrangements for mounding, planting and the creation of buffer zones at strategic locations along the perimeter of the i54 site. Conditions have been drafted to protect local amenities, including dust noise, water quality and no outside storage. The proposed Masterplan
Page 16 shows a landscaped buffer to the Wobaston Road such that the relationship of the proposed development to the existing residential properties to the south is considered to be acceptable.
Following the successful implementation of the traffic management strategy developed during the initial Remediation Works in 2004, there is confidence that the construction traffic and site preparation works can be undertaken without significant impact on the nearest residential properties in Wolverhampton, subject to suitable conditions to control hours of work, routeing, dust, noise and odour. Equally, there is also confidence that the construction traffic required to erect buildings on the site, when ‘reserved matters’ applications are submitted, can be undertaken without significant impact on the nearest residential properties. A traffic management routing plan, including off site routing, to be agreed would be required by condition.
Transportation 9.15 The highway network within the vicinity of i54 is the responsibility of 3 different highway authorities. The Highways Agency is responsible for the M54 and the A449 (north of the M54). Key junctions that will be the focus for the Highway Agency’s attention will mainly be the roundabout at junction 2 of the M54 which will provide the principal access to and egress from the i54 development. Staffordshire County Council is responsible for the Wobaston Road west of the access to Pendeford Business Park and indeed would be responsible for any roads within the i54 that become adopted roads. The key junction that will be the focus for Staffordshire County Council’s attention will be Pendeford Hall Lane/Wobaston Road. Wolverhampton is responsible for the A449 (south of the M54) and also for all roads to the east of the Birmingham Midshires office building on the Wobaston Road. Key junctions that will be the focus for Wolverhampton’s attention will be the junction of Wobaston Road/A449, Three Tuns Lane Junction with A449, Patshull Avenue/Wobaston Road, the Droveway roundabout on Wobaston Road that provides the sole means of vehicular access to the i54 site until the M54 access is constructed, and finally the access to Pendeford Business Park, off Wobaston Road, adjacent to the Birmingham Midshires building.
9.16 Part B(iii) of Regional Spatial Strategy policy PA7 states that Regional Investment Site should generally ‘be served or be capable of being served by multi modal transport and broadband IT services’. Subject to the satisfactory resolution of the matters below there are unlikely to be any objections in principle to the planning application.
9.17 General 220,000 sq m of employment floorspace (including a hotel) is to be accessed from the M54 motorway via the redesigned junction 2. A further 15,000 sq m of employment floorspace and ancillary uses to serve the employees and local residents will be accessed from Wobaston Rd via a new junction at the Droveway. No private vehicular
Page 17 traffic will be able to traverse the site.
The documents accompanying the application and further information submitted in response to early consultation responses have been reviewed and in general the content and detail is considered acceptable. However, there are a number of outstanding issues that require further investigation and clarification and these are outlined below.
9.18 Motorway Access A cap of 1,546 trips on the pm traffic flows to/from the site via junction 2 of the M54 during the pm peak is proposed. This cap is based on the land use and gross floorspace assumptions for the site as included in the Transport Assessment.
This restriction on the level of traffic growth to and from the i54 development site could have impacts on the development of the site and undermine its regeneration capabilities. There is also concern about the impact this scenario could have in terms of pressures on the increased use of the Wobaston Road access and the consequent impact for Wolverhampton’s local road network. There is a strong link between the traffic flows to and from a site an d the levels of car parking provided. The relatively high car parking levels proposed (4,500) compared with the Transport Assessment assumptions for maximum car park accumulation (1,800) on the site would suggest that the form of the development is assuming more traffic to and from the site than the cap on traffic flows would accommodate.
Therefore it is recommended that the alternative approach where the trip rates through Junction 2 are based on the formula set out in Section 12.6 of the Volume 4 Transport Assessment submission are considered as a threshold and not a finite cap on traffic. This should be monitored in accordance with the LPA requirements as development proceeds. Development on the site generating trip levels above this threshold shall not be allowed to proceed until further mitigation measures (over and above those already agreed) have been provided. These should be agreed by the LPA and be in accordance with a further Transport Assessment to evaluate additional impacts on the local roa d network. Subject to the conclusions of the Transport Assessment this mitigation is likely to focus on the A449 south of the junction 2 of the M54 Motorway to and possibly including measures at the Vine Island junction, the local road network and further Travel Plan mitigation measures.
9.19 Design, operation and maintenance of the emergency and PT vehicle gate The design and management of this link are vital for the management of the site and the traffic management of the surrounding residential areas. The design and management solution for this ‘gate’ needs to be submitted to and agreed by the Planning Authority in conjunction with the Highway Authority prior to occupation of the development.
Page 18 9.20 Car Park Provision and Management The level of car parking proposed accords with Staffordshire County Council’s standards. Wolverhampton City Council use PPG13 as a guide for employment sites which would suggest a lower car park ratio to floorspace than is being provided here. The car park accumulation figures provided by the applicant shows that the maximum number of cars they would anticipate being parked on the site at any one time would be 1800. This is compared with the proposed level of provision of over 4000 spaces and would suggest that there is a significant over- provision of spaces. As noted above this over provision may also influence the level of traffic to and from the site.
While the figures provided by the applicants would suggest that more than enough car parking is to be provided overall local residents have raised concerns about the potential for parking overspilling onto the local road network and neighbouring residential streets, particularly from the phase 1 development of 15,000 sq m on Wobaston Rd which includes newsagents and crèche facilities that generate high short-stay demand in the morning peak where people would not wish to spend time seeking a car park space. Therefore, a condition should be imposed that requires monitoring to take place from first occupation of the site until 10 years following 75% occupation of the site. The scope and design of this monitoring regime and the definition of what would constitute a problem is to be agreed with WCC before first occupation of the site.
Should a car parking problem be identified then funding and assistance to WCC to implement a controlled parking zone would be required. In brief this zone would restrict car parking in a defined area and/or include a residents parking area or other measures as appropriate and in consultation with local residents.
9.21 Droveway Junction Design This entrance has always been identified as the key entrance for pedestrians, public transport and cyclists and in the extant consent for the site is exclusively to be used by these modes. The Droveway junction in this application is for permanent access for all transport modes to the first phase (15,000 sq m) and public transport, pedestrian and cycle entrance to serve the whole site. The design provided by the applicants to accommodate this arrangement is simply a reconfigured roundabout and is not acceptable and further work is needed to achieve a design solution that can accommodate the capacity for the forecast traffic flows and to provide the required public transport priority, and safe, direct and convenient provision for pedestrians and cyclists. The design for this junction needs to be agreed with WCC before construction commences and its construction to be completed prior to first occupation of the development.
9.22 Off Site Highway Mitigation Measures The design of the Wobaston Road/Patshull Avenue junction has yet to be agreed with WCC. The design for this junction needs to closely
Page 19 complement the scheme for Vine Island and would be delivered as an integral component of this scheme. It should incorporate Public Transport priority and facilities for pedestrians and cyclists. As for the Droveway junction, the design for the junction needs to be agreed with WCC before construction commences on-site and construction of the junction to be completed prior to occupation of the first phase of the development.
The design for the Pendeford Business Park junction needs to be agreed with WCC before construction commences on-site and construction of the junction to be completed prior to occupation of the development.
The redesign of the A449/Wobaston Road junction together with enabling works in the surrounding road network is subject of a Major Scheme bid to Government to be submitted by the end of 2006. The applicants, Advantage West Midlands, are required to make a contribution to the scheme equivalent to the level of investment required in the junction to accommodate i54 development traffic. However, should the Major Scheme bid be unsuccessful then the developer of i54 would be required to fund the full cost of a redesigned Vine Island to accommodate the traffic flows generated by the i54 development. The design of the junction under this scenario would need to be agreed with WCC prior to construction of the ‘main site’ (i.e. the 220,000 sq m of employment space to be accessed from junction 2 of the M54) and constructed prior to occupation of the main site and the opening of the new M54 junction 2.
The design for the Three Tuns Roundabout junction needs to be agreed with WCC within 2 years of first occupation of the development and to be implemented/constructed within 5 years following first occupation of the development.
9.23 Walking and Cycling Concerns remain regarding the geographical scope of the measures. It is important that people visiting the site form the north, south and east are able to do so by safe and direct routes. An audit of all cycle and walking routes to inform the location and extent of improvement measures is required. The new junction designs along Wobaston Road, including the Droveway junction do not show adequate pedestrian and cycle facilities and the revised junction design would need to incorporate such facilities as appropriate. Consideration is being given to further access to the site from the north that would be welcomed.
9.24 Public Transport The Public Transport access to the site is critical to achieving the mode split targets that underpin the Transport Assessment assumptions. Public transport access to the site is critical to its success and for it to meet Regional Spatial Strategy policy. The exact level of service provision will be defined and delivered as part of the Travel Plan. There
Page 20 should, however be good links with the City Centre, neighbouring residential areas to allow good access to new job opportunities for local residents and be linked with the recruitment strategy considered elsewhere in this report.
9.25 Road Safety The mitigation strategy needs to include measures to support road traffic accident reduction in the area and should include support for Safer Routes to School; Local Safety Scheme funding; and funding towards wider ‘soft’ measures such as ‘Kerbcraft’ and other pedestrian training activities and cycle training. The financial contribution to such measures needs to be included within the Section 106 agreement.
9.26 Travel Plan The Travel Plan Co-ordinators for Wolverhampton City Council and Staffordshire County Council have produced a joint response regarding the Travel Plan measures proposed for the site. This sets out the detailed requirements for the Travel Plan for this development and would need to inform the S106 Legal Agreement and conditions on this development.
Nature Conservation 9.27 Nature conservation and biodiversity issues have been considered in detail. Where possible native species that are disturbed by the proposals will be translocated within the site boundary to maintain and enhance the nature conservation potential of the site. Sections of hedgerow effected by the development platforms will also be translocated to reinforce existing hedgerows or new planting areas.
9.28 The applicant has submitted an i54 ecological survey and mitigation specification sets out the methodology to be followed in relation to further survey work and the mitigation measures that may be required in respect of legally protected species (water voles badgers, crayfish and bats). A condition is required to prohibit the commencement of work on site until a nature conservation method statement and management plan has been agreed in writing with the LPA.
9.29 There will be a loss of farmland habitat arising from the development of the site and off-site compensatory provision is proposed through the Section 106 agreement at Pendeford Mill Farm on Wobaston Road. The area of land covered by the compensatory provision is of equivalent size to that being lost through the development of the i54 site.
9.30 In response to concerns expressed by the Staffordshire Badger Conservation Group further survey work was undertaken. There is clear understanding of the use of the site by badgers. At present there are three setts within the site but only one of these has been active over the past year. Details of the preparation of the closure of the three setts that will be lost under the development footprint are currently in preparation
Page 21 and will be taken forward in consultation with the Staffordshire Badger Group. A licence application will be made to close the two inactive setts on the site to the south of the M54 shortly. Closure of the active sett to the north of the M54 is more complex, as an artificial sett will need to be constructed and its use by the badgers from the original sett proved before the active sett can be closed. This sett will be lost due to construction of the motorway access to the site which is not scheduled for construction this year.
Public Access/Cycleways 9.31 Although the scheme does not physically affect any local Public Rights of Way there were a number of informal routes on the site and these will largely be replaced with new routes linking key existing routes or features. Main pedestrian routes will comply with the Disabilities Discrimination Act in order to allow access for all. The informal routes, established over time, will become footpaths that will remain open at all times unless local authority consent is given to closure on a temporary basis. Planning conditions and the Section 106 will secure this provision.
9.32 Access to the site will be provided via Wobaston Road for pedestrians and cyclists. The dedicated footpaths and cycleways will travel along the central green spine, and provide frequent points of access and connections into and through the development. Two strong links will be created into the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal towpath. A footpath link into the site adjacent to the existing weir, to the north, and a second will link into Wobaston Road to the South. This towpath provides an important north/south route through the area. To the north along the path is the northern part of Brinsford. In the southern direction from the site, the towpath passes through several residential areas of Wolverhampton and passes through the Valley Park Nature Reserve.
9.33 This application includes the provision of a comprehensive footpath and cycle route network on site. The issue of off-site routes has been raised by Transport 2000 during the consultation process. Discussions about a strategic network will be necessary with the 3 highway authorities pursuant to the proposed planning conditions and Section 106 Agreement. Transport 2000 could be invited to join in these discussions, possibly within the context of a ‘sustainable transport forum’.
Landscaping 9.34 The new structural landscape that will be established as a result of the proposals will create a stronger landscape character than that which presently exists on the site. The scale of the landscape will be able to absorb the large sized developments which will be constructed within it. It is proposed to provide landscaped buffer zones, with mounding, at strategic locations within the site. The western boundary of the site (adjacent to the larger of the 2 MIS plots – Plot A) has a well established tree and hedge-line that is visible from the Motorway bridge to the west (on Lawn Lane) and is situated adjacent to the Middle Lane/Monarch’s Way public footpath. The buffer zone will vary between 30 and 50
Page 22 metres in width and the mounding will be 3-4 metres in height.
9.35 Detailed applications for individual development areas will be subject to landscape conditions and the detailed design of the internal landscape treatment of each development site should be sympathetic to the structural planting. Specific landscape conditions should ensure the establishment and ongoing management of the landscape elements of the outline proposals.
9.36 These proposals and the suggested safeguarding conditions will ensure that the built development on the i54 site is able to integrate into its landscaped setting producing a high quality development which respects and fits well into its natural environment.
10. Conclusion
10.1 This outline application brings forward a major new employment area which is of regional significance and will perform an important role in the regeneration of the Wolverhampton. A key objective for the i54 site is to attract investment and development that will result in the creation or safeguarding of over 6,000 jobs primarily in high value high technology industries.
10.2 The proposal is acceptable in principle subject to the carrying out of the relevant mitigation measures in the Environmental Statement. A S106 and planning conditions will be required as outlined below. These include measures relating to transportation, nature conservation, landscaping, noise, dust, drainage and the control of uses on the site in order to facilitate the creation of a strategic employment site within a high quality environment.
11. Recommendation
11.1 Delegated authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to grant subject to the resolution of outstanding transportation issues, the signing of a Section 106 legal agreement and any necessary conditions.
11.2 The principal items to be covered by the S106 are as follows.
• Highway improvements, public transport services, car parking strategy, provision of a cycling and footway network and the provision and on-going operation of a Travel Plan Framework. • Travel Plans (including arrangements for monitoring and review) and Transport Mitigation Strategy • Targeted Recruitment and Training. • Improvements to the canal towpath and future management and maintenance. • The implementation of Landscape and Nature Conservation
Page 23 Management Plans • Provision of Public Art • Off site nature conservation compensation at Pendeford Mill Farm • Open access to be maintained through the site • Measures to accommodate equestrians safely within the modified A449 corridor through Junction 2 • Clause to ensure a car parking management agreement is reached to ensure that vehicle parking, including service vehicles, is confined to designated areas and that action will be taken to deal with inappropriate parking elsewhere within the site and in the surrounding environs of i54 • Phasing of development
11.3 Any necessary conditions to include details of the following.
1. The development to accord with the Master Plan principles and phasing set out in the Development Framework Plan and Development Phasing.
2. Reserved matters for each phase: • details of layout/siting (including finished floor levels), • scale, design and external appearance of buildings to be in accordance with the submitted Urban Design Framework, • means of access • new or altered highway bridges, footbridges, culverts and highway retaining structures, • layout of each site including disposition of buildings and provision of adequate vehicle parking, turning and servicing within the site curtilage • the means of connecting the development site(s) to the network of footways/cycleways in the approved framework plan for cycling and walking • lighting details, • landscaping additional to structural landscaping. • means of surface water drainage from all areas intended to remain in private ownership • the means of providing footway connections between the development site(s) to the public transport routes in the approved framework plan for public transport circulation
3. Applications for reserved matters relating to the first phase of development identified in the Master Plan, to be made within 5 years.
4. The development to begin either before the expiration of 7 years from the date of this permission or before the expiration of 2 years from the date of approval of the last of the reserved matters for the first phase, whichever is the later.
Page 24 5. The total built floorspace (gross floor area) of the development not to exceed 235,000 m 2 and the amount for each use to be as indicated in the Development Specification and Phasing submission unless otherwise agreed in writing.
6. No occupation until the approved highway improvement schemes for Coven Lane, The Droveway Junction and Pendeford Business Park junctions on Wobaston Road have been completed.
7. The design of a new access onto Wobaston Road / Droveway junction to be agreed and completed prior to occupation. This access will only be used for the first phase of the i54 development (15,000 sq m). Public Transport, Pedestrian and Cycle access to the wider site will be provided from the new Wobaston Road / Droveway junction via a controlled access on the Spine Road.
8. The permitted trip rates through Junction 2 to be based on the formula set out in Section 12.6 of the Volume 4 Transport Assessment submission. Development generating trip levels above this threshold shall not proceed until further mitigation measures have been provided.
9. There shall be no more than 20,000 m2 gross internal office B1(a) floorspace on the site, excluding offices ancillary to manufacturing or managed workspace comprising small unit accommodation.
10. No single occupier shall occupy less than 2,500 m2 gross internal floor space unless an exception has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
11. The offices (B1a) shall not be let or occupied by public and commercial organisations which attract significant numbers of visiting members of the public.
12. A Scheme of Management shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval to ensure that the offices (B1a) hereby permitted are only used and developed for purposes that accord with the role of this Regional Investment Site in attracting high quality technology related investment to diversify the local economy.
13. Any hotel (Class C1) provided on Plot D shown on the Development Framework Plan shall not exceed 130 bedrooms or 6,000 m2 in floor space.
14. Any non-residential institution uses (Class D1) of buildings provided on Plot E shown on the Development Framework Plan shall comprise only higher or further education establishment teaching or research activities.
15. Any non-residential institution uses (Class D1) such as nursery, crèche and training facilities of buildings provided at the Ancillary
Page 25 Services Centre on Plot H pursuant to this permission shall not exceed 3,000 m2 floorspace.
16. The height of buildings on the site should not exceed the limits specified in the zoning scheme shown in the submitted Urban Design Framework (Volume 6) and Environmental Statement (Volume 5) unless otherwise agreed in writing.
17. A Transport Strategy and Travel Plan to address the transportation impact of the proposed development together with a programme for the phased implementation of the Strategy and Travel Plan, including appropriate contributions to specified schemes. The Transport Strategy to include proposals to improve specified junctions on Wobaston Road (the Droveway, Patshull Avenue and Pendeford Hall Lane) and the A449 Stafford Road (Vine Island). The Travel Plan to include public transport proposals, methods for reduction of single occupancy car usage with agreed targets, cycleway and public footpath proposals.
18. The first phase of development hereby permitted shall not be occupied unless and until the agreed highway improvement schemes for the Droveway, Patshull Avenue and Pendeford Hall Lane junctions on Wobaston Road have been completed.
19. The landscaping details to be carried out within 12 months of the commencement of each phase and the landscaping to be maintained in accordance with the Management Plan.
20. No existing trees, shrubs or hedges on the site or its boundaries, as identified on drawing 277/061 for retention shall be lopped, topped or cut down without the prior written consent.
21. A detailed scheme for the area of structural landscape shown in the submitted Landscape Strategy (Volume 7).
22. A Landscape Management Plan, including long-term design objectives, management responsibilities and maintenance schedule for all landscaped areas and nature of nature conservation interest.
23. A nature conservation method statement and management plan to include details of mitigation and translocation (including any phasing) of areas or features of nature conservation interest identified in the Environmental Statement. The method statement should set out survey and mitigation measures for the protection, retention and/or provision of replacement habitats and features suitable for use by protected species (e.g. badgers, great crested newts, bats, white clawed crayfish, otter and water vole).
24. A detailed Surface Water Drainage Strategy.
Page 26 25. A scheme for the disposal of foul sewage and surface water (which shall incorporate sustainable urban drainage systems).
26. All surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through an oil interceptor.
27. All surface water drainage from parking areas and hardstandings shall be passed through trapped gullies.
28. A detailed remediation method statement detailing the remediation objectives and targets, how the remediation works will be undertaken, measures to prevent watercourse pollution and the validation procedures for that phase.
29. Only solid ‘inert waste’ as defined by the Landfill Directive shall be used for restoration purposes on-site.
30. Any facilities for the storage of oils, fuels or chemicals shall be sited on impervious bases and surrounded by impervious bund walls.
31. A site fencing scheme to define the site boundary of that phase and to protect areas of retained and proposed landscaping, hedgerows and nature conservation interest.
32. A construction traffic route management strategy, including an off site traffic management plan.
33. No construction vehicles shall enter or leave the site except from an access which is provided with wheel washing facilities.
34. No machinery used in connection with the construction works for the buildings and infrastructure hereby approved shall be operated on the site outside the hours 0700 to 1900 hours Monday to Fridays, 0800 to 1300 hours Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays, unless an exception has been otherwise agreed in writing with the local planning authority.
35. There shall be no outside storage of goods, materials, plant, machinery or refuse except in a designated area.
36. A scheme to monitor dust, noise and water quality for each phase.
37. The reserved matters applications for each of the B1a office buildings on the site shall include car parking provision at a ratio to be agreed.
38. All vehicle parking, including cars and service/delivery vehicles, shall only take place within the designated parking and service delivery areas. For the avoidance of doubt vehicle parking shall occur nowhere else within the i54 site, including along the Spine Road and along access
Page 27 roads feeding off the Spine Road, without the prior written consent of the local planning authority.
39. Footpaths through the site (identified on the ‘Proposed movement concept plan’ within Volume 6 – Urban Design Framework) shall be provided in accordance with design details, including surfacing and where appropriate lighting. Thereafter these footpaths shall be kept open and available for public access at all times unless their prior closure, on a temporary basis, has been agreed in writing by the local planning authority.
40. No building works shall commence on site until the site preparation works comprising ground remediation, excavation to create development plots and the provision of infrastructure and landscaping have been fully implemented.
41. Details of the surface water drainage and outfall, including details of any off-site provision and necessitated improvements.
42. Before occupation of any building, other than the 15 000 sqm of development floorspace having access from Wobaston Road, the bus gate, spine road and footpaths are to be completed to surface course level, with street lighting
Case Officer : Stephen Alexander Telephone No : 555610 Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 28
Planning Application No: DCNC/05/2027/OP/M Location Land between Wobaston Road and The M54 Motorway Plan Scale 1:10000 National Grid Reference sj 390574 304104 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 1015483.438
Page 29
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0917/FP/M WARD: Bushbury North; DATE 27-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 26-OCT-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Trinity Court, Plot 5, Wolverhampton Business Park, Stafford Road Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Use Class B1 office scheme, ancillary car parking and landscaping
APPLICANT: AGENT: Broadlands (Wolverhampton) Ltd T.D. Partnership LLP C/O B & R Properties Ploysec House 2 Venture Court Blackpole TE West Broadlands Hindlip Lane Wolverhampton Worcester WV10 6TB WR3 8TJ
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is Wolverhampton Business Park that is situated close to Junction 2 of the M54 and to the east of Stafford Road. At present Plots 1, 2, 3 and 11 have been developed which comprise a hotel, public house and restaurant (Plot 1), Esporta Fitness Club (Plot 2), 3 No 2-storey office buildings, arranged in a courtyard style, on Plot 3 and are known as Charter Court, 2 No two storey B1 Office Buildings (Plot 11) known as Venture Court. Plot 4 is the site for the regional control centre for the Fire Service and this development is currently being constructed.
1.2 Plot 5 is situated adjacent to the M54 and comprises the current application site on which it is proposed to build three Use Class B1 office blocks, ancillary car parking and landscaping.
2. Planning History
2.1 Outline planning permission for a business park at Greenfield Lane for B1 uses (that is, excluding industrial development) were granted by both South Staffordshire District Council and Wolverhampton Council when the boundary between the two authorities ran through the site (the whole site came under the administrative control of Wolverhampton Council on 1 April 1994). The existing access road arrangements off Stafford Road and Greenfield Lane and some landscaping have been provided.
2.2 On 16 April 1994 an extension of time period for the outline permission was approved to allow submission of reserved matters until
Page 30 31 March 1999. On 3 July 1998 approval for further reserved matters was given (reference number C/1685/89/RM). These details included a Master Plan for the whole business park, showing internal roads and siting of buildings. A separate planning permission was given at the same time for a hotel on the Stafford Road frontage, which has since been completed. An adjoining leisure/fitness centre, approved under a separate Planning Committee (C/900/99) has also been completed together with two courtyard developments of B1 office development known as Venture and Charter Courts.
2.3 Your Committee on 1 March 2005 agreed a renewal of the outline permission under application 04/2205/VV to allow further time for the submission of Reserved Matters and the completion of the development.
3. Application Details
3.1 The scheme consists of a courtyard of three office buildings. It is proposed to erect one two storey office building and two three storey office buildings of contemporary design.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 The principle of the business park, including office development, was first settled in the now superseded Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan in 1993. Regional Planning Guidance in April 1998 also identified Greenfield Lane as a premium employment site to meet the needs of the Black Country. The principle of the business park, including office development, has also been reaffirmed within the new UDP adopted in June 2006 and also by the renewal of the outline planning p ermission. The most relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies (June 2006) are;
The Design Chapter B1 – Economic Prosperity B2 – Balanced Portfolio of Employment Land B3 – Business Development Allocations B5 – Design Standards for Employment Sites B6 – Offices AM1 – Access, Mobility in New Development AM6 – Transport Assessment AM7 – Travel Plans AM8 – Public Transport AM9 – Provision for Pedestrians AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision
4.2 Policy B3 – Business Development Allocation of the Adopted Unitary Development Plan June 2006 states that ‘Wolverhampton Business Park forms the City’s Regional Investment Site. The site has been identified through the regional planning process as a site with the potential to help diversify the region’s economy and assist with the development of clusters. The site serves the Wolverhampton – Telford High Technology Corridor and the North Black Country and South Page 31 Staffordshire Regeneration Zone. Wolverhampton Business Park is safeguarded for Class B1 Use only and has an approved master plan for a B1 business park that comprises largely office development. The Council will not permit any additional large scale ancillary development on the site following the completion of the health and hotel club’.
5. Publicity
5.1 A press notice was published and a site notice posted. The expiry of the publicity period is 25 August 2006. No comments received at the time of writing this report.
6. External Consultees
6.1 Environment Agency – no objections in principle. Recommend that a planning condition be inserted to any potential planning permission relating to surface water drainage and the prevention of groundwater pollution.
6.2 South Staffordshire Development Control – no response received to date.
6.3 West Midlands Fire Service – comment as follows:
6.4 The minimum width of any gateway to the site should be 3.1m. This is currently not the case either side of the electronic barriers. A fire fighters’ override device should also be fitted to the electronic barriers or the barriers should fail safe to the open position upon actuation of the fire alarm in any of the buildings served by the barriers.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Access Officer – Fire service access should be provided to within 45m of any point of the footprint of the buildings. Access for disabled people must comply with Part M of the Buildings Regulations. The lift must comply with Part M Building Standards.
7.2 In order to provide enough turning space for a wheelchair it is requested that the shower unit be swapped round to comply with diagram 24 in Part M of the Building Regulations.
7.3 Should the entrance doors be glazed, they have got to be clearly defined with manifestation on glass at two levels 850 – 1000mm and 1400 – 1600mm above floor, contrasting visually with background.
7.4 Planning Policy – The site is situated within a Defined Business Area and is part of the Wolverhampton Business Park as allocated in the Adopted Unitary Development Plan June 2006. B1 uses are an acceptable and encouraged use on this site.
7.5 Transportation – No objections subject to detailed comments raised Page 32 regarding parking provision, disabled bays, cycle parking, motor cycle parking, travel plan, pedestrian links, refuse collection, car parking circulation and postal numbering.
7.6 Environmental Services – No observations.
7.7 Landscape and Environment – Any comments will be reported verbally.
8. Appraisal
8.1 Trinity Court is an important scheme for the business park. It is the largest office scheme proposed on the Park to date and will also be the sixth plot to be developed, which marks the half way stage for the development of the business park. The proposed development is for three office buildings. It is proposed that there will be 2 No three storey office buildings and 1 No two storey office building.
8.2 The design of the scheme has focused on the creation of an enclosed courtyard of buildings with strong landscaped areas similar to that of Venture Court on Plot 11 of the Park. Buildings one and two will be three storeys in height and have been situated at 45 o angles to the estate road in line with the conditions set out in outline planning permission, however the inclusion of the L-shaped three storey office building (Building 1) helps to enclose the courtyard and terminate the vista through the scheme for the estate road. The inclusion of these two three storey office buildings will further add to the sense of enclosure in the central courtyard area.
8.3 The proposed office buildings, will have a floor space of 5,551 square metres, and will lie parallel to the M54. The scheme has been designed to incorporate a total of 196 car parking spaces and this equates to one space per 23.7 square metres. This car parking arrangement was set in the outline planning permission for the park. In terms of public transport, the park has a dedicated bus service to and from Wolverhampton City Centre and acts as one of the stops in the Wolverhampton to Stafford bus route along the A449. In addition, each building will include bicycle parking and shower facilities.
8.4 In conclusion further progress in the development of the Wolverhampton Business Park is to be welcomed. This office development scheme consisting of 2 No three storey office blocks and 1 No two storey office block has an acceptable impact on the character and appearance of the surrounding area.
Page 33
9. Recommendation
9.1 Grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions, including materials, large scale architectural details, surface water and foul sewage, layout of car parking including disabled parking, cycle and motorcycle parking, gates to accommodate fire service access, disabled access, landscaping, external lighting, hard surfacing and boundary treatments.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 34
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0917/FP/M Location Trinity Court, Plot 5, Wolverhampton Business Park, Stafford Road Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference sj 392037 304384 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 12336.835
Page 35
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0905/GM/C WARD: Ettingshall; DATE 12-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 06-SEP-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: GDO Determination (Ground Masts)
SITE: Powlett Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Telecommunication development comprising installation of 1No 14.7m high streetworks monopole supporting 3No antennas with cabinet and ancillary development
APPLICANT: AGENT: T-Mobile (UK) Turner & Partners C/O Agent Unit 4 Hockley Court 2401 Stratford Hockley Heath Solihull B94 6NW
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 Planning Committee on 1 August 2006 resolved to grant planning permission. Prior to the decision notice being issued, a 229 name petition was received by the Local Planning Authority, objecting to the proposed development. In addition to the petition a letter has also been received objecting to the development, from ABCD (All Saints and Blakenhall Community Development Partnership). In view of the receipt of these objections, it is necessary to return this application to Planning Committee for your consideration.
1.2 The application site consists of the grass verge on the corner of Powlett Street adjacent to St George’s Ring Road in Wolverhampton City Centre.
1.3 The proposal is for a telecommunications development comprising the installation of 1 No 14.7m high streetworks monopole supporting 3 No antennas with cabinet and ancillary development.
2. Planning History
2.1 01/1307/OP – Mixed Use redevelopment at former Royal Hospital – Not Determined (14.2.2002)
3. Constraints
3.1 New Deals ABCD Area – Strategic Regeneration Area. Page 36
4. Application Details
4.1 Telecommunications development comprising installation of 1 No 14.7m high streetworks monopole supporting 3 No antennas with cabinet and ancillary equipment.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 D9 “Appearance” EP20 “Telecommunications” Interim Telecommunications Policy.
6. Publicity
6.1 This application has been advertised by letters to occupiers in the surrounding area, Site Notice and Press Notice.
6.2 136 Neighbour letters sent to occupiers in the surrounding area. Expiry date – 09.8.06
6.3 Press Notice expiry date – 12.8.06
6.4 Site Notice (Developers Notice) expiry date – 25.07.2006
6.5 A petition with 229 signatures has been received by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed development is opposed on two grounds. Firstly, this site is immediately adjacent to a planned housing development and this mast is an inappropriate adjacent land use. Secondly, residents’ health should not be put at risk when the long term effect of such installations is still not known.
6.6 A letter from ABC Countdown Cars Limited has also been received. The only concern raised was that the proposed telecommunication development should not interfere with the taxi company’s radio equipment.
6.7 A letter has been received from ABCD Partnership. It is argued that the siting as proposed is adjacent to a Conservation Area and would therefore detract from the area’s amenity. Furthermore it is also close to the Raby Street and Vicarage Road major housing renewal and regeneration area which is supported by the ABCD Partnership, City Council and the local community. This proposal involves the phased provision of new housing initially at the northern end of Raby Street. It is questioned whether it is not possible to find suitable sites slightly further west either at the St John’s Retail Park or on the corner of the existing City Council car park along Church Lane, a commercial area more suitable for the proposal.
Page 37 6.8 A letter of objection has been received from the Ward Councillor’s for Ettingshall. Councillor Alan Smith, Councillor Andrew Johnson and Councillor Bishan Dass object for the reason that there is a development planned in the future, at this location, and therefore should the proposal be allowed there may be a risk to health and safety.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transport Strategy - No objections to the proposed development.
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The Interim Telecommunications Policy explains that in ‘more sensitive locations’ such as transport corridors, sites fronting onto or dominating views from the ring road will only be acceptable if:
i. It is demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Council that the applicant has investigated alternative sites in a less sensitive location and that no such site is available.
ii. The equipment has been so designed and sited to minimise its impact on the visual amenity of the area.
iii. There is no adverse impact on amenity sufficient to outweigh other considerations.
10.2 The proposed telecommunications development comprising installation of 1 No 14.7m high streetworks monopole supporting 3 No antennas with cabinet and ancillary equipment is to be located within the grass verge at the end of Powlett Street near to Ring Road St Georges, Wolverhampton. Whilst the proposal fronts onto the Ring Road, amended plans have been received which show that the proposed mast is in line with the existing lamp posts at the edge of the grass verge and so it would not interfere with the vista to historic buildings across the Ring Road.
10.3 The siting of the proposed development has been the subject of detailed prior discussion with Officers when several alternative sites were considered. T-Mobile currently has prior approval for a 15 metre streetworks installation on highways land outside the BMW showroom at Melbourne Street. Since this approval was granted at appeal, BMW have stated their intent to extend the front of their garage out onto Page 38 highways land. Negotiations between BMW and the Council have begun with regards to buying this land and plans are being drawn up for submission to the Local Planning Authority.
10.4 As a statutory undertaker, T-Mobile has a right to build the approved installation. This would potentially impede any plans BMW may have to extend the front of its premises. In view of this fact, T-Mobile, in consultation with Officers, has sought to identify an alternative site, which would not impact on any future redevelopment plans by BMW.
10.5 An initial pre-planning application proposal on Cleveland Road was deemed unacceptable due to the high visual amenity value of the area, as it was proposed to site the development within the Cleveland Road Conservation Area and adjacent to a Listed Building. Information was also provided regarding a prospective major housing led regeneration project in the immediate area.
10.6 The decision was therefore taken by T-Mobile, following consultation with Officers, to propose to re-locate the development at the corner of Powlett Street, Wolverhampton. This site benefits from being approximately 70 metres outside of the Cleveland Road Conservation Area. This is a substantial distance and there will be no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.
10.7 The proposed site for the location of the telecommunications development is situated approximately 90 metres from the boundary of the former Royal Hospital site. A planning application for Mixed Use redevelopment at the former Royal Hospital site (Planning Application Ref No. 01/1307/OP) was withdrawn in February 2002. A new planning application for Mixed Use redevelopment of the former Royal Hospital site has now been received by the Local Planning Authority. This proposal includes residential, business and retail uses.
10.8 Given the distance (90 metres) of the proposed telecommunications development from the proposed boundary of the former Royal Hospital site it is not considered that the proposed telecommunication development will have a detrimental visual impact on the proposed mixed use scheme.
10.9 A forthcoming Supplementary Planning Document envisages regeneration of the area between Raby Street and Vicarage Road. This would be likely to introduce housing on the corner of Powlett Street and Raby Street. This would be approximately 30 metres away from the proposed mast. However this mast is not considered to be unduly obtrusive. It is a simple monopole design that appears much like a street lamp, although it is taller. There will be no adverse visual impact on the visual amenities of future residents.
10.10 In assessing this proposal, consideration has been taken of the public health fears relating to telecommunication base stations. Wolverhampton UDP Policy EP20 – Telecommunications sets out that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Page 39
10.11 However, it is the view of Central Government that the planning system is not the place for determining health considerations. In the Government’s view, if a proposed telecommunications development meets the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.
10.12 This planning application includes a declaration of compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure. Therefore whilst the health concerns of the general public are acknowledged, in the light of the above information, it is clear that the weight to be given to such concerns in this particular instance is not so great as to warrant refusal of the application on health grounds.
10.13 It is considered that it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the applicant has made a thorough investigation into assessing a range of alternative sites in the area. This investigation included an assessment of the possibility of siting the proposed development at St John’s Retail Park, off Birmingham Road. This site is located adjacent the ring road and is in a prominent location. Unfortunately the site falls within the ownership of the Argos Group who will not allow the installation of telecommunications development within their portfolio. In regard to the possibility of siting the mast at Church Lane, this prominent location, sited adjacent to the ring road was considered unacceptable on visual amenity grounds.
10.14 The site at Powlett Street is clearly the preferable alternative site to the location to which T-Mobile has prior approval for a 15m high streetworks installation at Melbourne Street. Although the equipment will clearly appear as a telecommunications development it has been sited, in line with existing lamp posts and against the background of a commercial building, so to minimise its impact on the visual amenity of the area. It is not considered that there is any adverse impact on amenity sufficient to outweigh other considerations.
11. Recommendation
11.1 Grant planning permission for the proposed telecommunications development.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 40
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0905/GM/C Location Land at Powlett Street, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 391737 298138 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 7.477
Page 41
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0929/FP/R WARD: Fallings Park; DATE 20-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 14-SEP-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 51 Lower Prestwood Road Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Sidney Fereday Mr Paul Lewis 51 Lower Prestwood Road 3 Wellington Road Wolverhampton Bilston WV11 1JY West Midlands WV14 6AA
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The subject site is a rectangular shaped residential property that lies on the north side of Lower Prestwood Road. The curtilage is generally flat and contains low-lying vegetation around the perimeter of the site. The boundary fence at the rear of the dwelling is approximately 1.5 metres tall to all adjoining properties. The property is an existing two-storey dwelling that forms part of a group of 4 attached dwellings. The subject dwelling is setback 11 metres from the south boundary (Lower Prestwood Road), constructed along the east and west boundaries for a distance of 6.6 metres, and 15 metres setback from the north boundary. The general character of the streetscape contains similar groups of attached dwellings with a set of 4 attached dwellings to the west and to the east. The set of four dwellings has a consistent front and rear building line with similar design characteristics.
2. Planning History
2.1 There are no previous planning applications for the subject site.
3. Constraints
3.1 The subject site is not subject to any constraints.
4. Application Details
4.1 Single-storey extension to the rear of the existing dwelling.
4.2 The extension will have overall dimensions of 5.83m x 3.08m (17.95sqm) and will be used as a bedroom and en-suite for a disabled
Page 42 relative of the applicant. A letter dated 11/07/2006 by Heantun Housing Association Limited indicates the extension will be for disabled use and funded via a Disabled Facilities Grant.
4.3 The extension will be constructed of brick cladding and will have a flat roof. The extension is proposed to be set 2.2 metres from the east property boundary, 9 metres from the north boundary and 0.68 metres from the west boundary.
4.4 The bedroom will be accessed from the dwelling and from a shared accessway between the west adjoining property and the subject property.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 Supplementary Planning Guidance No.4 ‘Extension to Houses’
Wolverhampton City Council Unitary Development Plan policies:- D1 – Design Quality D4 – Urban Grain D6 – Townscape and Landscape D7 – Scale (Height) D8 – Scale (Massing) D9 – Appearance
6. Publicity
6.1 One objection was received from 51 Lower Prestwood Road which adjoins to the east and is summarised as follows-
• Overlooking from the extension into the garden and kitchen window of 51 Lower Prestwood Road, • Visual impact in terms of height, mass and enclosing of the garden and view from kitchen window,
7. External Consultees
7.1 None
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 None
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required
Page 43
10. Appraisal
10.1 The application aims to extend to the rear of the existing dwelling for the purpose of a living space for a disabled relative.
10.2 The extension contains a window that is 75cms wide that faces the adjoining property to the east which begins at the rear of the existing dwelling.
10.3 Fences to the adjoining properties at the rear are 1.5 metres tall. At the rear of the dwelling to the east, the fence is 1.8 metres tall and steps down to 1.5 metres at approximately 2 metres from the rear of the dwelling. The proposed window is setback 2.2 metres from this boundary and it is considered appropriate to not cause any direct overlooking into the private open space of the dwelling to the east from the fence screening and setback. As such, there will not be any overlooking into the kitchen window from the proposed extension, and the kitchen is not a formal habitable room.
10.4 The extension will protrude from the rear of the subject dwelling by a distance of 5.8 metres, although with the construction of a flat roof should reduce any increase in bulkiness caused by the extension. Due to a brick shed being located on the west adjoining property, the shed should screen the proposed development.
10.5 The subject dwelling is constructed of brick cladding for the walls, and a pitched tiled roof, the proposed extension will be constructed of brick cladding and a flat roof.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The length of the extension is considered to be contrary to the advice in Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Planning Guidance No.4 (4.4 – Rear Extensions), However, due to there being no adverse material detriment caused to neighbour amenities, and given the need for disabled accommodation in this particular case, the proposal should be granted.
12. Recommendation
12.1 Grant consent, subject to:-
• Matching materials
Case Officer : John Somers Telephone No : 551134 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 44
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0929/FP/R Location 51 Lower Prestwood Road Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference sj 394253 301414 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 152.314
Page 45
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0993/GM/C WARD: Oxley; DATE 02-AUG-2006 TARGET DATE: 27-SEP-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: GDO Determination (Ground Masts)
SITE: DNN Pendeford Lane, Pendeford Lane Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Telecommunication development comprising installation of 1No. 11.7m high telecom streetworks monopole supporting 3No.antennas with equipment cabinets and ancillary development
APPLICANT: AGENT: T-Mobile Turner & Partners Unit 4 Hockley Court 2401 Stratford Road Hockley Heath Solihull B94 6NW
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The proposed installation comprises an 11.7m high streetworks monopole supporting the antenna with radio equipment cabinet and ancillary development on the highway verge at Pendeford Lane.
1.2 The proposed installation is to be located on highways land within a predominantly semi-rural location in close proximity to some existing vertical development. It is considered that in this location the proposal will effectively appear as an ancillary feature of the surrounding area and also benefit from a significant level of natural screening.
1.3 The nearest residential dwellings are approximately 20 metres away but these properties are at such an angle that the installation will barely be visible, due to the existing screening.
2. Planning History
2.1 There is no relevant planning history for this site.
3. Constraints
3.1 No constraints.
Page 46
4. Application Details
4.1 Telecommunications development comprising the installation of an 11.7m high streetworks monopole supporting three antennas with radio equipment cabinet and ancillary development on the highway verge at Pendeford Lane, Wolverhampton.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 Relevant Policies are D9: Appearance, EP20: Telecommunications and the Council’s Interim Telecommunications Policy.
6. Publicity
6.1 This application has been advertised by 107 letters to occupiers in the surrounding area.
Neighbour letter expiry date – 4 September 2006. Developer’s site notice expired on 14 August 2006 Press notice has yet to be posted at the time of writing this report. There will be an oral update at Committee.
6.2 At the time this report was written thirteen letters of objection have been received. Comments raised include the potential health risks of telecommunication masts, devaluation of property in the adjacent area, too close to houses and playing fields, attraction for children to climb, spoiling the countryside and skyline, obtrusive and incongruous feature. Detract from the setting of the green belt, alternative preferable sites exist (for example, i54 industrial site), set a precedent for further telecommunication development, result in outward migration of local population. Contrary to the precautionary approach for the siting of telecommunication developments as set out in the Stewart Report.
6.3 A letter of objection has been received from the Ward Councillor’s for Oxley. Councillor Christine Irvine, Councillor Ian Brookfield and Councillor George Lockett register their objection to the proposal for the reasons that the development would be sited too close to houses, and have a detrimental impact on visual amenity. It is also considered that there are other more preferable locations for the mast.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transport Strategy – no reply or response has been received at the time this report was written. There will be an oral update at Planning Committee. Page 47
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The Interim Telecommunications Policy explains that the factors which will be of particular importance in the consideration of siting of telecommunications development include the height of the site in relation to the surrounding land, the existence of topographical features and natural vegetation, and the effect on the skyline of the proposed development. It is also important to consider the impact of the proposed development in relation to adjacent residential properties, Conservation Areas, an existing mast, structure or building, including buildings of a historical or traditional character.
10.2 Developments are required to be designed to keep visual intrusion to a minimum. The choice as to whether ground based or building based masts, antennas and cabins are the most suitable is dependent on the impact the proposal would have on visual amenity, the local character, skyline and neighbouring uses.
10.3 It is important that opportunities are taken to use existing screening or backdrops to buildings to reduce the impact of development. Masts and antennas are most prominent when sited in open locations when viewed against the skyline. Such locations should be avoided as there are likely to be unacceptable.
10.4 Ground based masts should be of a minimum height necessary for their successful operation. Monopole masts are preferred.
10.5 The proposed installation is to be located on highways land within a predominately semi-rural location in close proximity to some existing vertical development. It is considered that in this location the proposed installation will more effectively appear as an ancillary feature of the surrounding area and also benefits from a significant level of natural screening.
10.6 The nearest residential dwellings are approximately 20 metres away but these properties are at such an angle that the installation will barely be visible, due to this and the existing screening. Due to these factors the proposed base station is not considered to have a detrimental impact on residential amenity within this locality.
10.7 The proposed mast is to be coloured to ensure that the visual impact of the monopole will be minimal. The slimline monopole will blend well into the existing screening thereby minimising the prominence and incongruousness of the installation. The telecommunications operator has advised that the height of the installation has been kept to the minimum possible whilst enabling the mast to effectively operate.
Page 48
10.8 In assessing this proposal, consideration has been taken of the public health fears relating to telecommunication base stations. Wolverhampton UDP Policy EP20 – Telecommunications sets out that health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval.
10.9 However, it is the view of Central Government that the planning system is not the place for determining health considerations. In the Government’s view, if a proposed telecommunications development meets the ICNIRP (International Commission for Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection) guidelines for public exposure it should not be necessary for a local planning authority, in processing an application for planning permission or prior approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.
10.10 This planning application includes a declaration of compliance with the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure. Therefore whilst the health concerns of the general public are acknowledged, in the light of the above information, it is clear that the weight to be given to such concerns in this particular instance is not so great as to warrant refusal of the application on health grounds.
10.11 In conclusion it is considered that it has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority that the proposed telecommunications equipment will be sited in such a location that will not have a detrimental impact on visual or residential amenity. It is not considered that there is any adverse impact on amenity sufficient to outweigh other considerations.
11. Recommendation
11.1 Delegated authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to grant planning permission subject to the expiry of the press notice time period.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 49
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0993/GM/C Location DNN Pendeford Lane Pendeford Lane Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference sj 390282 303448 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 13.744
Page 50
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0416/FP/R WARD: Park; DATE 17-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 11-SEP-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Land rear of 63 - 71 Newbridge Crescent, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising erection of 6 three bedroom terraced houses
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr P Nicholls Tweedale Ltd 265 Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton WV6 0DE
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The main part of the application site lies to the rear of properties numbered 63-71 Newbridge Crescent. The site is accessed via a private drive which leads to Newbridge Tennis Club. Approximately half the application site (closest to the rear of the dwellings 63-71, is hard surfaced and finished in what appears to be crushed brick, the remainder of the site beyond this is grassed with a hedge along the rear boundary where it meets with the tennis club. The site slopes gradually by 2 metres from the rear of the existing properties to the boundary with the tennis club. There is an access road immediately to the rear of the existing properties which provides vehicular access to the property situated at 73 Newbridge Crescent.
1.2 The application site includes part of the property at 61 Newbridge Crescent (also owned by the applicant) and this involves demolition of part of this property to provide a wider vehicular access to the proposed new development .
1.3 The application site also includes land to the front of the existing properties to provide a formalised parking arrangement on the existing hard surfaced front forecourt.
1.4 The existing properties 63-71 Newbridge Crescent are quite distinctive late Victorian properties fronting onto Newbridge Crescent. There is an original low brick boundary wall with capping to the frontage and significant piers remain. There is evidence that originally, on top of this wall there were railings. Immediately behind this wall, there is a row of mature TPO’d trees. Behind this lies a hard surfaced front forecourt now used for parking. Originally, this would have been laid out as formal gardens to each individual property. The properties themselves consist of a fine four storey terrace of seven properties with blue edging detail, sliding sashes with stucco surrounds and large bays with stone surrounds. The roofs are tiled with chimney stacks.
Page 51
1.5 Properties numbered 73 and 75 within the terrace remain as individual dwellings and are privately owned. The remainder of the terrace (owned by the applicant) has over a number of years been converted with planning permission to a number of apartment units.
2. Planning History
2.1 There is significant planning history at the application site:
99/0047/FP – Erection of one detached house and one garage with store, toilet and games room – application refused 5 May 1999. C/1863/91 – New development of ten flats at two levels for domestic purposes – refused 12 September 1991. C/0081/91 – Ten flats at two levels – application withdrawn 13 February 1991.
2.2 Prior to these applications for development of the rear land, the following applications were made for conversion of the existing properties:
Application 1234/65 – 63 Newbridge Crescent – change of use of house into six bed sitting rooms and one flat – application approved 26 November 1965. Application 342/66 – 69 Newbridge Crescent – conversion of house to four flats – approved 9 May 1966. Application 1212/65 – 67 Newbridge Crescent – conversion of house to eight flats – approved 26 November 1965.
As part of the above approvals, the individual rear gardens to these properties formed part of the application proposals, and in each case these areas were identified as being the parking and amenity areas for each individual property conversion.
3. Constraints
3.1 The application site has a row of TPOd Lime trees along the site frontage and a newly TPOd Holly tree adjacent to the site frontage.
4. Application Details
4.1 The application proposal includes a number of elements. To provide an improved and appropriate access to the application site, the application involves the demolition of non original two storey and single storey buildings attached to the side and rear of No 61 Newbridge Crescent. The existing access drive would then be widened to include this newly created space.
4.2 The main element of the proposal includes the redevelopment of the land to the rear of the Victorian terrace and develop 6 x 3 bedroom terraced houses. The proposed houses would be laid out parallel to the Page 52 existing Victorian terrace, the development would be of three storeys with rooms created in the roof space having dormer projections the overall height of the development would be 10 metres at the front and 11 metres at the rear.
4.3 The proposed overall layout of the site includes retention of the existing access road to the rear to provide vehicular access to No 73 Newbridge Crescent. There would then be a landscape strip of approximately one metre in depth where a line of new trees are proposed, beyond this, there would be a row of 11 parking spaces which would include one suitable for people with disabilities, and then a six metre wide access road to provide vehicular access to the parking spaces and frontage of the new dwellings. Each dwelling would have one parking space allocated to it and each dwelling would have its own individual garage. Adjacent to each frontage parking space, each dwelling would have a small garden area with proposed tree planting. To the rear, each dwelling would have its own individual garden which would be bounded partly by a two metre high brick wall with boundary hedge to the rear and between the properties. The rear of the properties would back on to the access way to the car park of the Newbridge Tennis Club.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The following Development Plan Policies are relevant to the application proposal:
D1: Design Quality D4: Urban Grain D5: Public Realm D6: Townscape and Landscape D7: Scale – Height D8: Scale – Massing D9: Appearance D10: Community Safety D11: Access for People with Disabilities EP16: Energy Conservation AM1: Access, Mobility and New Development AM10: Provision for Cyclists AM12: Parking and Servicing Provision H1: Housing H2: Housing Land Provision H6: Design of Housing Development H9: Housing Density and Mix
The following national and regional policy context is relevant:
PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development PPG3: Housing Regional Spatial Strategy 2 (RSS11) West Midlands
Page 53
6. Publicity
6.1 Neighbouring residents were informed of the application by letter and a site notice was displayed with time for comment expiring on 17 August 2006. In response to this publicity five letters of objection were received from residents of 34, 36, Flats 1-55 and 73 Newbridge Crescent and 7 Chelston Drive. The issues of concern to these residents include increased traffic generation, highway safety, increased noise and possible accidents, the recent loss of trees and hedges to rear of 63-71 and loss of privacy to rear gardens.
6.2 One letter of support has been received from Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis and Squash Club and three other letters of support from residents of the frontage apartment building.
7. External Consultees
7.1 Severn Trent Water confirm no objection to the proposed development subject to the inclusion of a condition.
7.2 British Waterways confirm no objection to the proposals.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 The Council’s Access Officer confirms that principal entrances should be ramped or level and that the WC on the ground floor would not satisfy Part M of the Building Regulations.
8.2 The Council’s Tree Officer confirms that a Weeping Holly within the front curtilage has recently been TPOd.
8.3 Transportation confirm that there are a number of parking issues along Newbridge Crescent relating to a number of other developments and schools that access the road. It is therefore important that any new development has a neutral impact on on-street parking and does not give rise to any increase of vehicles parking on Newbridge Crescent. In this respect, it is recommended that the applicant provides an increase in parking provision from the proposed 21 to 25. It is also recommended that to ensure the proposed garages are usable, that they are increased in dimension to 2.5m x 5.5m and that the proposed driveways are widened to 3.2m. Transportation are also concerned the maximum number of properties accessed by a private unadopted road is four and that as the proposals are for six properties, that the access road should be brought up to the adoptable standards required by the Local Highways Authority.
8.4 The Council’s Environmental Protection Officers have concerns in respect of the following:
(i) Noise due to patrons and vehicles arriving and leaving Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis and Squash Club. Page 54 (ii) Noise due to live and recorded music from Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis and Squash Club.
The Officers confirm that there are records of complaints of noise related to Wolverhampton Lawn Tennis and Squash Club, the clubhouse being less than 100m from the development. The club can serve alcohol until midnight and is also licensed for live and recorded music until this time. Patrons may arrive either via the driveway that runs adjacent to the property or the driveway adjacent to the clubhouse. Cars must only leave by the driveway that runs adjacent to the proposed development. The proposed habitable rooms at the rear of the properties would be exposed to noise from vehicles at the point where they turn from the rear driveway and accelerate along the driveway towards Newbridge Crescent and the bedrooms at the front would be exposed to noise as the vehicles travel along the driveway.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key issues to be considered are as follows:
The acceptability of the proposed development of this piece of land. The impact on the amenity of the existing residents of properties 63-71 Newbridge Crescent. The amenity of residents of the proposed new development. Parking implications. Impact on residents of 7 Chelston Drive.
9.2 The Acceptability of the Proposed Development of this Piece of Lane As described above, approximately 50% of the proposed development site is hard surfaced the other half being grassed with tree stumps. The hard surfaced area is currently used for the parking of vehicles of the residents of the frontage properties which have been converted into flatted accommodation. Following a detailed inspection of the planning history of this site, when individual planning permissions were granted for the change of use of the frontage properties into flats, each specific permission detailed on plan that the land within the rear curtilage of each property would be retained for the vehicular parking and amenity space for the residents of the individual flats. These permissions also showed that the rear demarcating boundaries of each property would be retained. Each planning permission for change of use of the houses into flats, were conditioned that “the car parking areas and amenity areas shown on the submitted plans shall be laid out and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and shall not be used for any other purpose”. The reasons given for this were to safeguard the amenities of the area and the interests of the users of the highway. The application proposal would therefore conflict with these previous planning conditions and remove land which is required for the parking and amenity space for the residents of the existing flatted accommodation. The proposed development would constitute an over development of the overall application site, and would be completely and unacceptably out of character with the surrounding established residential area. Page 55
9.3 Amenity of Residents of Existing Living Accommodation 63-71 Newbridge Crescent Any new development on this rear site would remove what were the rear gardens to the frontage properties and therefore remove almost all the original amenity space for the residents of these properties. The frontage terrace Nos 63-71 would retain only a very small backyard space which would prove to be inadequate for the number of residents now living within these properties. No 63 Newbridge Crescent has been converted with planning permission to 6 bed-sitting rooms and 1 flat, No 67 to 8 flats and No 69 to 4 flats. The removal of all the rear boundaries has now left the rear of these properties very open and exposed. By virtue of the proposed close proximity of the new terrace to the rear, to the frontage terrace, (only 23m from the rear wing of the existing to the new building, and 29m from the main body of the building to the new terrace), and the proposed height of the new building at three storeys (10m in height) the proposed new development would have an unacceptable and unneighbourly impact upon residents of the existing terrace by reasons of overbearing impact and overlooking into the rear rooms of the existing terrace from the front rooms of the proposed new dwellings.
9.4 Amenity of Residents of Proposed New Development The future residents of the proposed new dwellings would have a poor standard of amenity. The outlook from the front rooms of the proposed new dwellings would look directly onto the existing four storey terrace which would be within 23m of the front of the dwellings. In addition, the inter-visibility would be poor with residents easily able to see one another between these two tall blocks. In addition, the frontage amenity would be poor, as the outlook would be onto 11 car parking spaces for the residents of the frontage terrace. It is also likely that any future residents would suffer poor amenity from noise associated with activities at the adjacent Lawn Tennis and Squash Club.
9.5 Parking Implications Following a transportation analysis of Newbridge Crescent generally and existing uses, and the implications of the proposed development, there is a major concern that the proposed development would not have a neutral impact and would lead to on-street parking and give rise to an increase in vehicles parking in Newbridge Crescent, which would be detrimental to highway safety. It is considered that the proposed new parking arrangement to formalise parking along the frontage and provide parking bays to the rear would not be adequate to support the vehicle requirements of the users of these two groups of terraces.
9.6 Impact on Residents of 7 Chelston Drive By virtue of the proposed siting, height and position of windows within the proposed new development, the proposal would be likely to have an unacceptable overbearing and overlooking impact upon the existing residents of the dwelling situated at No 7 Chelston Drive.
Page 56
10. Conclusion
10.1 The application overall consists of a very poor proposal, which would introduce backland and tandem development on land which already has a planning purpose as parking and amenity space in association with previous conversions of the frontage dwellings into flatted accommodation. The proposal would constitute an overdevelopment of the site which would be out of keeping with the established character of Newbridge Crescent, it would create poor living amenity for existing residents of the flats and dwellings within the frontage terrace, it would provide poor standards of accommodation for any future residents of the proposed new terrace by reason of overbearing and overlooking impact between the two parallel terrace blocks. The development would provide an unacceptable substandard level of parking which would lead to additional parking on Newbridge Crescent, and the development would have an undue and unacceptable impact upon the residents of No 7 Chelston Drive.
11. Recommendation
11.1 Refuse planning permission
Unacceptable loss of rear parking and amenity space for the residents of the existing flats within 63-71 Newbridge Crescent. Unacceptable loss of visual amenity and overlooking of the residents of the existing terrace. Unacceptable amenity for the future residents of the proposed new terrace. Unacceptable and inadequate parking arrangements. Unacceptable impact upon the residents of 7 Chelston Drive. Contrary to UDP Policies D1: Design Quality, D4: Urban Grain, D5: Public Realm, D6: Townscape and Landscape, D7: Scale – Height, D8: Scale – Massing, AM10: Provision for Cyclists, AM12: Parking and Servicing provision, H6: Design of Housing Development.
Case Officer : Martyn Gregory Telephone No : 551125 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 57
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0416/FP/R Location Land rear of 63 - 71 Newbridge Crescent, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 389200 299719 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 2427.762
Page 58 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0584/FP/R WARD: Park; DATE 09-MAY-2006 TARGET DATE: 04-JUL-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 32 Newbridge Street Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Two storey rear extension
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Kaur Integrated Design 32 Newbridge Street (Midlands Ltd) Wolverhampton 38 Old Walsall Road WV6 0ES Birmingham B42 1NP
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This application was reported to Planning Committee on 1 August 2006 and was deferred for a site visit.
1.2 The property concerned is a modern semi detached property, situated within a street scene of varying properties, the majority being of a traditional design, within an area which is predominantly residential. The land adjacent to the property is owned by the applicant, and is currently being developed with a residential scheme for a block of three terraced properties.
2. Planning History
2.1 This application follows a similar proposal Ref 05/1948/FP/R refused 19 January 2006.
The previous application was refused due to detrimental impact on the neighbouring properties, at both No.s 31 Newbridge Street and 26 Balfour Crescent having an unacceptable overbearing impact, reduction of sunlight, loss of outlook, and loss of privacy.
It was also considered that the existing rear garden area would not be adequate to support the size and use of the previous extension, to extend one bedroom and provide an additional bedroom (resulting in four large bedrooms in all).
Therefore, the previous proposal was contrary to UDP ENV2 Design Standards, and SPG4 Extensions to Houses.
Page 59 3. Application Details
3.1 The original proposal consisted of the removal of the existing conservatory, and replacement two storey extension, for a living room at ground floor and an additional fourth bedroom above.
The extension measures 3.945m wide and projects out from the existing rear elevation by 3.122m; the design incorporates a hipped roof design.
3.2 The proposal was amended on the 24 July 2006, changing the layout at first floor, from a fourth bedroom into a bathroom and ensuite to the master bedroom.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Unitary Development Plan Policies 2006 D1 Design Quality, D4 Urban Grain, D7 Scale- height, D8 Scale and Massing.
5. Publicity
5.1 Site Notice expires on 26 June 2006, and neighbour letters expire on 5 June 2006.
One letter of objection as follows:
26 Balfour Crescent, object to the loss of outlook and loss of privacy to their property.
6. Appraisal
6.1 Key issues of the proposal are as follows:
• Design/Layout • Impact on neighbouring properties
6.2 The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property and those surrounding. The extension would not be visible from the street, especially once the neighbouring development has been completed.
6.3 The initial layout of the proposal was unacceptable, due to the use of the first floor element as a bedroom, with an insufficient window provision to this habitable room, severely affecting the amenities that occupiers should be expected to be able to enjoy, by reason of outlook and daylight. Therefore, the agent amended the proposal changing the bedroom into a bathroom and ensuite area to the master bedroom. This layout is now acceptable.
6.4 The previous application was refused due to the detrimental impact on neighbouring properties at 31 Newbridge Street and 26 Balfour Crescent. The proposal has now been satisfactorily amended by reducing the width of the extension, setting the first floor element in from Page 60 the common boundary with No. 31 Newbridge Street by 4.581m, removing the detriment to the outlook from a first floor bedroom window and loss of sunlight to that window, and by inserting a high level, obscurely glazed window in the first floor rear elevation, removing the loss of privacy to No. 26 Balfour Crescent.
6.5 Due to the projection of the extension at the rear, and in the interests of neighbouring amenity, permitted development rights would need to be removed for any side facing windows at first floor, and for the rear facing window to remain as a high level obscurely glazed window.
6.6 The extension has no detrimental impact on the new development north/west of the site as the nearest property, is staggered, projecting out past the rear elevation of the application site. Therefore, the extension will have no impact on outlook, light, or privacy.
6.7 Due to the reduction in size of the extension, the rear amenity area is considered to be adequate to support the proposal.
7. Conclusion
7.1 The application has been satisfactorily amended, by addressing the previous reasons for refusal, with regards to the detriment to the neighbouring properties at 31 Newbridge Street and 26 Balfour Crescent, the level of private garden amenity, and the layout of the proposal.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Satisfactory amended plans received, therefore, Grant Planning Permission, subject to the following conditions:
• Matching materials • Obscure Glazing • Removal of Permitted Development for first floor windows • Unitary Development Plan Policy D1 Design Quality.
Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 555641 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 61
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0584/FP/R Location 32 Newbridge Street Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 389691 299656 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 199.086
Page 62
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0867/FP/R WARD: Park; DATE 03-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 28-AUG-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 86 Compton Road West Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: First floor front and rear extensions, conservatory to rear and new entrance porch
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr H.S. Bhella Stephen Sedgwick 11 Linton Road 21 Hawthorn Croft Penn Oldbury Wolverhampton West Midlands B68 0DP
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 86 Compton Road West is a relatively large property situated at the junction of Compton Road West and Waterdale Crescent. It sits within a spacious plot and is well screened by mature trees and hedges. The rear garden of the property rises slightly, away from the rear of the property and towards those on Waterdale Drive. As far as I am aware there have been no preapplication discussions about the proposal.
2. Planning History
2.1 0874/79 – Proposed dining and kitchen extension – Granted 6/6/79
3. Constraints
3.1 Tree Preservation Order
4. Application Details
4.1 The application is for a number of extensions to the property. The front elevation, that which faces Compton Road West, would be altered by the addition of a first floor extension above the existing garage. The roof of this extension would be pitched to match that of the existing property.
4.2 At the rear of the property another, larger, first floor extension would be created. This would add two further bedrooms to the property and would have two gables.
4.3 Also, at the rear of the building, a large conservatory would be added. This would project approximately five metres from the rear of the
Page 63 existing property.
4.4 Finally, along the elevation which faces Waterdale Road, a small porch extension would be added.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 D1 – Design Quality D7 – Scale D4 – Urban Grain D7 – Scale : Height D8 – Scale : Massing D9 - Appearance SPG4 – Extensions to Houses
6. Publicity
6.1 Three neighbour letters were sent on the 7/7/06, they expired on the 28/7/06. As of the 15/8/06, sixteen responses were received with regard to this proposal; all were very negative about the scheme. However, the majority of the reasons for this negativity were with regard to something which was indicated on the originally submitted plans.
6.2 Those initially submitted plans showed a space in the rear of the garden which was highlighted with the description ‘double garage subject to planning approval’. The most likely access route for this prospective garage would have been from the creation a new access route off Waterdale Road.
6.3 This proposed route would have been close to some trees which were protected by Tree Preservation Orders. However, information about this possible access was not indicated on any submitted plan and the possible provision of a double garage is not a consideration in the determination of this application
6.4 The rest of the neighbour objections where largely with regard to the number and size of the proposed extensions, which some individuals felt may be an overdevelopment of the site and, as such, affect the character of the existing building and surrounding area.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Trees were consulted on the 7/706. They replied to say that they had no objections to the proposal.
Page 64
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required
10. Appraisal
10.1 Whilst, it is recognised that the proposal represents a large extension to the original property. The design of the proposal respects the existing style of the property and would not create any problems with regard to privacy or overbearing nature on the neighbouring property, 84 Compton Road West. When this is combined with the relatively large plot size and the degree of the trees and hedges which help screen the property it is felt that this proposal is acceptable is this situation.
10.2 Futhermore, the surrounding area is characterised by relatively large properties, particularly along Waterdale Road, and in my opinion 86 Compton Road West, actually appears rather small on its plot in comparison to those properties and its neighbours along Compton Road West.
11. Recommendation
11..1 Grant permission subject to standard time period and the requirement to submit sample materials.
Case Officer : Richard Pitt Telephone No : 551674 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 65
Planning Application No: DCSW/06/0867/FP/R Location 86 Compton Road West Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 389138 298706 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 824.360
Page 66
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0632/FP/M WARD: St Peters; & 06/0633/LB/C DATE 17-MAY-2006 TARGET DATE: 16-AUG-2006 RECEIVED: & 12 JUL 06 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission & Listed Building Consent
SITE: Molineux Hotel Molineux Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: FP.- Change of use and extension of existing hotel to form public Archives and local studies centre LB - Demolition of existing south- west range of buildings and erection of proposed Archive repository extension. Various alterations to the existing building for the change of use including installation of a lift.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Wolverhampton City Council Donald Insall Associates Civic Centre 5 Swan Hall Court St Peter's Square Shrewsbury Wolverhampton Shropshire WV1 1RP SY1 1NP
REPORT:
1. Background
1.1 These proposals for planning permission and listed building consent were reported to Committee on 1 August 2006 and deferred for further amendment and details. 1.2 Amended plans were received on 1 August 2006 and have been referred to English Heritage for comment. Amendments include ; the use of terracotta ‘rainscreen’ material for the link element repositioning of the front gates re-orientation of the access ramp from the disabled parking
2. Site Description
2.1 A prominent site overlooking Ring Road St Peters on the North side of the City Centre. Access is from Wadhams Hill off Waterloo Road. The surrounding development is modern with offices to the west, football stadium stand to the north, inter war public house to the immediate east and University buildings beyond.
3. Planning History
3.1 The most recent applications were for restoration and refurbishment, now completed.
Page 67
4. Constraints
4.1 Grade II* Listed Building.
5. Application Details
5.1 The proposal comprises the demolition of the existing unrestored modest sized two storey pitched roof/flat roof wing and single storey flat roof outbuildings at the southwest end of the Hotel complex and its replacement with a larger footprint building of part three storey and part two storey with basement. The roof to the two storey element would be flat and to the three storey would be low pitch behind a parapet. The alterations to the Listed Building comprise the insertion of a lift, at ground floor some subsidiary internal partitions to restore a linking passageway (removed in 1926), public toilets (to disabled standard) and access lobby, at first floor partitions to form an issue desk area and airlock access to the Archive study room and finally at second floor partitions to form an access passageway and lift enclosure.
6. Relevant Policies
6.1 PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment HE12 Preservation and Active use of Listed Buildings HE13 Development affecting a Listed Building HE14 Alterations and extensions to a Listed Building HE15 Change of use of a Listed Building HE16 Demolition of a Listed Building HE28 Development affecting other archaeological sites
7. Publicity
7.1 Site notice expiry date 11.7.06. Press notice expiry date 1. 7. 06. Neighbour letter expiry date 7.6.06. Three letters of comment from Wolverhampton residents expressing dissatisfaction with the design.
8. External Consultees
8.1 English Heritage – No objection in principle having been involved in pre application discussions but do have concerns regarding the use of copper cladding for the recessed link due the risk of its weathered appearance (bright green) contrasting badly with the brickwork of the listed building and of the extension. Further comments on amended plans awaited.
8.2 The eight National Amenity Societies – no reply apart from the Georgian Group who welcome the imaginative scheme to repair and reuse one of Wolverhampton’s most notable landmarks and believes that the Council should be applauded for it’s role in rescuing the building. There is no objection to the demolition of the south west range Page 68 but the Group does have reservations regarding the choice of copper cladding for the link element and also the palette of materials for the façade of the store building itself. The Group recognises that the design constraints placed on the architect by the proposed function are considerable but believes that more could be done to enliven the facades and create an interest within the passing community as to it’s contents. The Group comments that the immediate environs do not presently encourage the passer-by to linger and that much more could be done to humanise the setting of this fine building.
8.3 Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society - would prefer matching rather than contrasting modern design and terracotta rather than copper, would prefer Welsh slate rather than Cumbrian green slate. Vertical slabs of slate not typical of Wolverhampton. Design will dominate the scene and overpower the Hotel.
8.4 Ancient Monuments Society - Commends the scheme as the last best hope for the building.
9. Internal Consultees
9.1 Transport Strategy - no objection Building Consultancy – no objection Conservation – the Conservation team have been involved in working up the submitted design
10. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
10.1 Not required.
11. Appraisal
11.1 The design put forward is of a style contrasting with that of the original Listed Building. It was considered that any attempt to copy the style of the original would be entirely inappropriate and could only result in a pastiche of doubtful value in terms of enhancing the setting and character of the Listed Building.
11.2 The loss of the un-restored two storey wing is regrettable in terms of the history and the evolution of the Hotel complex but in view of the new use for the building it’s replacement is considered reasonable .The Archives and Local Studies service can only be accommodated if a large self contained annexe is constructed to house the archive materials, with a capacity for 30yrs growth.
11.3 The overall mass of the extension is significant but follows classical lines and is in principally brick finish. The scale has been broken down by the use of recesses and steps. The use of slate in the principal recesses will give depth to the composition. The type of slate will not be green slate as queried by the History and Heritage Society but dark blue black Welsh slate. Page 69
11.4 When this proposal was discussed at the previous meeting the use of a flat roof for the extension was queried. Alternative solutions are being investigated to ascertain whether the use of a slight gradient would be more satisfactory. Oral report on any change to this part of the scheme.
11.5 It is considered that the cladding of the link element has now been satisfactorily resolved by the use of terracotta ‘rainscreen’ (similar to that used on the Art Gallery extension). It is anticipated by your officers that English Heritage will consider this material appropriate. Oral update on English Heritage comments.
11.6 Details of the exact design for the railings and gates remain to be resolved as part of a full landscape scheme which will be prepared and implemented as part of the development.
11.7 All the building works that comprise these Listed Building and Planning applications will be the second stage of the restoration of the Molineux Hotel. The first stage was funded jointly by Advantage West Midlands, English Heritage and the city council. This second stage will also be funded from a mix of sources, including a £3.3 m award by the Lottery Fund and the city council. As a result of the works undertaken to date, the Molineux Hotel has been moved from the highest to lowest category of risk in the English Heritage Register of buildings at Risk and will be removed altogether upon implementation of the conversion and extension proposed in these applications. It is hoped that the Archives and Local Studies will begin to operate from their new home in Spring 2008.
11.8 A condition will be required to ensure that any plant or air handling equipment is sited so as not to adversely affect the external appearance of the elevations or the roofscape of the extension. No such works can be allowed anywhere on the original Listed Building.
11.9 A scheme for a work or works of art will be needed to be included to enhance the scheme and it’s relationship to the Listed Building and to enhance it’s setting.
12. Conclusion
12.1 A satisfactory use for this important Listed Building which will enable members of the public to get into the building interior and view the restoration of the main Listed Building as well as providing a good quality location for the Archive and Local Study facility.
Page 70
13. Recommendation
13.1 Delegated authority to the Director to refer the applications to the Secretary of State for determination with a recommendation to grant planning permission and listed building consent subject to receipt of no adverse comments and subject to conditions relating to:- sample materials and sample panel large scale details archaeological investigation landscape and boundary treatment details of art work or works details of any external plant or air handling equipment no plant or services to be attached to the main Listed Building
Case Officer : Alan Gough Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer – Costas Georghiou
Page 71
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0632/FP/M & DCNC/06/0633/LB/C Location Molineux Hotel, Molineux Street, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 391269 298994 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 2885.329
Page 72
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0674/FP/C WARD: St Peters; DATE 25-MAY-2006 TARGET DATE: 20-JUL-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 26 Francis Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Change of use from shop (use class A1) to betting office (use class A2), rear extension and alterations to shopfront (Amended application)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Ladbrookes Plc Richard Raper Planning Ltd 218 High Street 82A Otley Road Erdington Leeds Birmingham LS6 4BA B23 653
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This property is a vacant shop and post office with a self-contained flat above, at the end of a row of terraced houses in Francis Street. It forms part of the Staveley Road local shopping centre.
2. Planning History
2.1 Two previous applications for a change of use of this shop to a betting office were submitted in 2005 and 2006. The first was withdrawn and the second application was refused. The principal concerns with these proposals were adverse impact on the adjoining house caused by a proposed rear extension to the shop, and retrograde alterations to access to the first floor flat. Shopping policy issues were not a concern.
3. Application Details
3.1 Change of use of vacant shop to a betting office, rear extension to form a staff room and toilet, alterations to the shop front.
3.2 The applicants, Ladbrokes Limited, operate an existing betting office which is in a small shop at No 200 Staveley Road. They propose to close this if they receive planning permission for the change of use at No 26 Francis Street.
Page 73
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 UDP Shopping Policies: SH8: Local Centres (Staveley Road is an identified Local Centre). SH9: Local Shops and Centre Uses. SH10: Protected Frontages.
4.2 Design Policies: D1: Design Quality D4: Urban Grain D9: Appearance
5. Publicity
5.1 Neighbour letters were sent to 56 addresses in surrounding roads and to the “Whitmore Reans in Partnership” Organisation. Five responses have been received including two from this organisation. Views are summarised as;
Inappropriate use in a residential street, likely to have a detrimental affect on young persons, it will attract the wrong type of people and increase antisocial behaviour. Premises are located at an important junction where parents and children pass. Increased parking difficulties. Excessive noise. A betting office does not add to the facilities in the area. Extension will block light from rear windows of No 25 Francis Street. Noise and disturbance caused to adjoining houses in Francis Street. Concern over opening hours. Request to speak to Planning Committee from Whitmore Reans in Partnership Organisation.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Environmental Services – concern re n oise nuisance to adjoining house. A noise assessment report should be submitted.
6.2 Transportation – no objections, the proposal is to relocate an existing betting office to these premises. It is a relatively modest proposal and should not generate significant additional demand for car parking.
Page 74
7. Appraisal
7.1 Key issues with this application are; Planning Policy. Neighbours’ amenity. Social and moral issues. External design.
7.2 Planning Policy (a) UDP Policy SH9: Local Shops and Centre Uses Outside Defined Centres seeks to ensure the provision and retention of local shops and other centre uses to meet essential day to day needs within reasonable walking distance of people’s homes. With respect to existing local shops the policy states that development involving the loss of a convenience shop, pharmacy or post office will be resisted where this would result in an increase in the number of people living more than 400m from alternative provision. It is not considered that this policy can be realistically upheld in this case. The post office closed approximately two years ago and the premises has been vacant since then. There is quite a good range of shops in this local centre, including four general/foodstores, a chemist, butchers, takeaway, pub and the existing betting office at No 200 Staveley Road.
(b) UDP Policy SH10: Protected Frontages, attempts to control the amount of Class A1 and non-retail uses in shopping centres. The proposal would result in three non-class A1 uses out of 15 units in this local centre (20%) and approximately 30% of shop frontage length on this side of Staveley Road. Therefore Policy SH10 would not be contravened.
(c) It is considered that this is an acceptable use in this local shopping centre and would provide better facilities than the existing betting office.
7.3 Neighbours’ Amenity The previous applications included a large rear extension positioned on the boundary with No 25 Francis Street which would have had very adverse effects. The proposal is now for a single storey rear extension to the proposed betting office of 3.2m projection, 2.5m away from the side boundary and 3.9m from critical ground floor side windows at No 25 Francis Street. This is considered to be a sufficient distance to preserve a reasonable outlook and to allow light to the rear ground floor of this house. The stair access to the first floor flat above is now internal (reverting back to the original layout) which is satisfactory.
7.4 Any permission will have to be subject to an acoustics assessment of the property, assessment of expected noise levels and recommendations for noise attenuation measures to protect the adjoining properties. This can be required by condition. Opening hours will be up to 10.00pm in the summer to cater for betting on evening race meetings.
Page 75
7.5 Social and Moral Issues The comments made by local residents and the Whitmore Reans Partnership are acknowledged but are not material planning considerations. Any refusal could not be sustained on grounds of such a premises attracting antisocial behaviour.
7.6 External Design The premises will retain and extend the shop windows and sign fascia on the Staveley Road frontage. The existing shop entrance on the corner will be retained. The rear extension will form part of the existing rear yard wall and will be acceptable in street scene terms. It is proposed to replace the existing shop front on Francis Street with external poster holders and to remove an existing window. This would have a deadening effect on the street scene, that would adversely affect the character and appearance of the area and would decrease security. Amended plans are required to address these issues.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Delegated authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to grant, subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and conditions with respect to acoustics assessment and details of internal noise attenuation, submission of details of any external air conditioning units, premises not to be open after 10.00pm on any day.
Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 555649 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 76
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0674/FP/C Location 26 Francis Street, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 391081 299597 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 124.421
Page 77
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0941/FP/M WARD: St Peters; & 06/0944/CA/C DATE 21-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 20-OCT-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission & Conservation Area Consent
SITE: Land bounded by Worcester Street/School Street/Little Brickkiln Street, Wolverhampton. PROPOSAL: FP - Mixed use development of 3 and 5 storeys, with basement parking, comprising 85 apartments and 703m2 of retail (A1/A3/A4) floor space CA – Demolition of 55, 57 and 58 Worcester Street (retrospective)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Fortmere Ltd Tweedale Ltd c/o Tweedale 265 Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton WV6 ODE REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This triangular site, of approximately 0.43 hectares, is bounded to the north by Little Brickkiln Street, to the east by Worcester Street and to the west by School Street, with the point of the triangle facing south onto Penn Road island. On the north side of Little Brickkiln Street are service yards and the backs of buildings facing onto Pitt Street. On the east side of Worcester Street is a surface level car park and the BT telephone exchange. On the west side of School Street is a surface level car park and the Fox Hotel.
1.2 Worcester Street is a major route taking traffic out of the town centre. School Street is a major route taking traffic into the town centre. Little Brickkiln Street is a minor road.
1.3 The only buildings that remain within the site are in Worcester Street - 49a and the former Scala Cinema (50 and 50a) - and School Street – an electricity sub-station. The other buildings have been recently demolished.
2. Planning History
2.1 03/1215/FP. Mixed use development of 3 and 5 storeys, with basement car park comprising 85 apartments and 827 sqm of retail (A1/A3) floor space on ground floor. Granted 26.2.04.
Page 78 2.2 03/1216/CA. Conservation Area consent for demolition of buildings in a Conservation Area – 49, 51-54, 55a, 55b, 56, 56a and 60 Worcester Street. Granted 18.3.04.
3. Constraints
3.1 The eastern part of the site is within the Worcester Street Conservation Area, designated 27 October 1995. The site lies within St John’s Urban Village.
4. Application Details
4.1 Two applications are under consideration, one for planning permission and the other for Conservation Area Consent. They are necessary because buildings of historic architectural or townscape interest in Worcester Street (55, 57 and 58) have been demolished. The extant planning permission and Conservation Area consent did not authorise their demolition.
Planning Application 06/0941/FP 4.2 This application is very similar to the previous one that was permitted in 2004. It is for perimeter block development , fronting onto all three of the surrounding roads, of between three and five storeys. There would also be a semi-basement car park. 85 apartments are proposed together with 8,905 sq metres of retail floor space. The car park, which would serve the flats, would accommodate 53 cars including 3 disabled spaces.
4.3 The submitted drawings show retail (A1) units extending along Worcester Street, with a retail/wine bar/café (A1/A3/A4) unit of 164sqm on the corner of School Street and Worcester Street, with frontages onto both those roads.
4.4 In School Street and Little Brickkiln Street flats on all floors are proposed, with flats above the A1/A3/A4 units in Worcester Street. The existing electricity sub-station in School Street would be incorporated into the building.
4.5 The building would be of three storeys to Little Brickkiln Street and the majority of Worcester Street, with five storeys at the corner of Worcester Street and School Street, extending along School Street. The majority of the building would be new. However, the historic facades, together with front roof slopes and some internal cross walls of 49a, 50 & 50b Worcester Street, would be retained.
4.6 It is proposed to recreate the facades and flank walls of the buildings that have been unlawfully demolished – 55, 57 and 58 Worcester Street – as accurately as can be achieved, using imperial sized bricks and natural Welsh slate roofs.
4.7 Other new buildings in Worcester Street - between Little Brickkiln Street and the former Scala Cinema - would reflect the historic buildings that Page 79 they replace, in terms of height, window proportions, shop front design and rhythm, and be of complementary roof and wall materials (reconstituted slate and red brick). The new building south of the former Scala Cinema and extending around the corner into the first part of School Street, would have a modern appearance with a glazed corner tower, areas of pre-patinated copper cladding and terracotta tile panel cladding (termed “rain screens”).
4.8 The rest of the School Street elevation would have gables fronting onto the road, red brick walls and terracotta cladding with small areas of timber cladding. The entrance to the basement car park would be located on School Street.
4.9 The elevation to Little Brickkiln Street would have a roof slope facing the highway, but with feature gables. The roof would be of reconstituted slate with walls of red brick, render and timber cladding.
Conservation Area Consent Application 03/1216/CA 4.10 Conservation Area Consent is required for the demolition of buildings in a Conservation Area.
4.11 This application is retrospective and applies to the buildings in the Conservation Area that have been demolished unlawfully - 55, 57 & 58 Worcester Street.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The following UDP policies are relevant:
D1 Design Quality (Part 1) D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale – Height D8 Scale – Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety (Part 1) D14 The Provision of Public Art EP5 Noise Pollution EP11 Development on Contaminated or Unstable Land EP12 Reclamation of Derelict Land HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness (Part 1) HE3 Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 Control of Development in a Conservation Area HE6 Demolition of Buildings or Structures in a Conservation Area HE8 Encouragement of Appropriate Redevelopment in Conservation Areas. HE11 Shop Fronts and Advertisements in Conservation Areas HE26 Requirement for Archaeological Evaluation HE28 Development Affecting other Archaeological Sites SH2 Centre Uses SH5 Wolverhampton City Centre Page 80 SH11 New Retail Development – Comparison Goods SH14 Catering Outlets R7 Open Space Requirements for New Development H1 Housing (Part 1) H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments H9 Housing Density and Mix H10 Affordable Housing AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision CC3 City Centre Housing CC4 City Centre Environment CC9 St John’s Urban Village.
5.2 The development of the site is the subject of the “Little Brickkiln St Development Brief” (Supplementary Planning Guidance), approved by the Council following public consultation Feb 2002.
6. Publicity
6.1 The applications were advertised by site and press notices and letters to premises in the vicinity of the site. The period for comment expires on 4 September 2006. At the time of writing no comments had been received.
7. External Consultees
7.1 West Midlands Police:
Open porches to Little Brickkiln Street should be fitted with doors to avoid hidden areas where antisocial behaviour or crime may take place. Access to the car park must be controlled to avoid antisocial behaviour. Recesses in the building line to Little Brickkiln Street should be omitted. The Police make other comments recommending particular types of doors, windows, access control systems and the installation of CCTV.
7.2 The Environment Agency - consider the submitted ground investigation reports to be inadequate and recommend a condition requiring additional investigation for potential contamination and necessary remediation measures, in order to prevent the possibility of surface and/or ground water pollution.
7.3 Severn Trent Water - recommend a drainage condition.
7.4 Central Networks - point out the proximity of electricity supply cables and the electricity sub-station. They state that the sub-station could be a source of noise nuisance. Page 81
7.5 Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society - generally supportive of the proposals but make some detailed comments.
7.6 The Department of Trade and Industry - in connection with potential health effects from the electricity sub-station, it is for the developer to come to an appropriate arrangement with the electricity company to ensure compliance with health and safety requirements.
7.7 English Heritage – Recommend that the application should be determined in accordance with national and local policy guidance, and on the basis of specialist conservation advice.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 The comments of Environmental Health are awaited. With reference to the last application they expressed concerns regarding:
Air quality Noise Electricity sub-station (potential health effects of electro-magnetic radiation) Extract ventilation system for A3/A4.
8.2 Transportation comments are awaited.
8.3 Archaeological comments are awaited.
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 The application does not exceed any of the thresholds requiring a screening opinion. Also, the environmental consequences are not considered so significant as to require environmental assessment.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The key issues are considered to be:
• the extant planning permission and compliance with approved Development Brief; • the regeneration benefits of the development; • design and uses; • unlawful demolition of historical buildings in Conservation Area; • provision of affordable housing; • public art; • environmental health matters; • parking.
Page 82
The Extant Planning Permission 10.2 Although the extant planning permission has been rendered unimplementable because of the unlawful demolition of protected buildings, the development it permitted is a material planning consideration. The proposals generally accord with the approved Development brief other than the unlawful demolition of nos 55, 57 and 58 Worcester St. Regeneration Benefits 10.3 The site is in a prominent location, at an entrance to the city centre, and adjacent to the Ring Road. Its redevelopment would continue the regeneration of the City Centre and is greatly welcomed.
10.4 Design and Uses The general form of the proposed development, and the uses within it, are very similar to that permitted by the extant planning permission. The proposal is therefore acceptable in general terms. However, there are a number of points of detail - relating to materials, architectural treatment of parts of the development, positions of shop doors, the omission of lay-by parking spaces to Little Brickkiln Street and discrepancies between plans - that need to be resolved.
10.5 Unlawful Demolition of Historic Buildings in Conservation Area The developers, Fortmere, commenced demolition in order to implement the existing permission 03/1215/FP and Conservation Area Consent 03/1216/CA in April 2006. Nos 55, 57 and 58 Worcester Street, indicated for retention as buildings of character in the current planning permission and Conservation Area Consent, were unlawfully demolished in May 2006. Work on site has since stopped, awaiting the outcome of new applications to replace the historic buildings in question with replicas.
10.6 The unauthorised demolition of nos 55, 57 and 58 Worcester St, unlisted historic buildings within the Worcester Street Conservation Area was a criminal offence under Section 9 of the Town and Country Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990. The penalties on conviction including imprisonment or a substantial fine. Where as it is important for the development of this key site to go ahead as soon as possible, it is important that the Local Planning Authority considers what action is appropriate against the unlawful act of the developer, which has damaged the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The Council’s Legal Services are looking into the matter and it is recommended that a report be brought before Committee at the earliest opportunity.
10.7 The Provision of Affordable Housing The previous planning permission did not require any affordable housing to be provided as the financial appraisal showed a substantial gap, which was the subject of an application for gap funding to Advantage West Midlands. In the circumstances, it is not considered appropriate to require affordable housing under the new application which was only submitted to regularise the unlawful demolition of the historic buildings.
Page 83
Public Art 10.8 To be successful in urban design terms the tower feature on the corner of Worcester Street and School Street needs to have extra height. It has been agreed with the applicant that the public art element will be located on top of the tower and will take the form of a substantial art feature, which will give the necessary visual impact. This will need to be covered by a Section 106 Agreement, as with the previous permission.
Environmental Health Matters 10.9 It is anticipated that environmental health concerns will be similar to those raised with regards to the previous application and that they can be addressed through conditions. However, depending on the advice received regarding potential health risks arising from the electricity sub- station, it may be necessary to make some relatively minor changes to the internal layout.
Parking 10.10 The approved development included the provision of 8 lay-by parking spaces in Little Brickkiln Street. These are not shown in the current application.
11. Conclusion
11.1 This is a very welcome regeneration proposal which generally follows the form of the development permitted in 2004. There are however some matters of detail that need to be resolved.
11.2 A Section 106 Agreement will be required, as previously, to ensure the provision of public art and a publicly accessible footway along the southern side of Little Brickkiln Street.
12. Recommendation
12.1 In respect of 06/0944/CA – Delegated authority to grant, following resolution of outstanding matters of detail.
12.2 In respect of 06/0941/FP:
Delegated authority to grant following resolution of outstanding matters of detail, subject to a 106 Agreement requiring the provision of public art and a publicly accessible footway along the southern side of Little Brickkiln Street, with any necessary conditions. It is anticipated that necessary conditions will include: (i) Submission of large scale architectural details (ii) All cornices, fascias, projecting eaves, infill panels etc on the circular tower on the corner of Worcester Street and School Street to be truly curved not faceted. (iii) Submission of samples of external materials and construction of a large sample panel (iv) Submission of a noise assessment report and noise attenuation Page 84 measures. (v) Submission of details of access control to car park. (vi) Carrying out of a site investigation for ground contamination and a scheme of remedial works. (vii) Hard and soft landscaping scheme including all external works. (viii) An archaeological watching brief and mitigation strategy in case of significant remains being identified. (ix) Restriction on obscuring shop windows. (x) Submission of extract ventilation details for any A3 or A4 uses. (xi) No vents, ducts, aerials, antennae, plant or machinery on the exterior of the building, without prior approval. (xii) A3/A4 uses restricted to retail unit 1. (xiii) Provision of car and cycle parking.
12.3 A report be brought before Committee at the earliest opportunity explaining the circumstances of the unlawful demolition of nos 55, 57 and 58 Worcester St and the provision of law regarding what actions are open to the Council.
Case Officer : Ian Holliday Telephone No : 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 85
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0941/FP/M & DCNC/06/0944/CA/C Location Land bounded by Worcester Street/School Street/Little Brickkiln Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 391160 298205 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 3631.032
Page 86
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0943/AD/C WARD: St Peters; DATE 26-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 20-SEP-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Advertisement Display Consent
SITE: Dudley Street/Queen Street/Woolpack Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Installation of 30, seven metre high 'lighting columns', with attached banners
APPLICANT: Project Implementation Regeneration & Environment Wolverhampton City Council
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of Dudley Street, Queen Street and Woolpack Street located within the primary shopping area (The Shopping Quarter) of Wolverhampton City Centre. The Shopping Quarter is the main focus for retailing activity and investment into the City Centre.
1.2 The proposal is to install 30, 7m high lighting columns with attached banners along Dudley Street, Queen Street and Woolpack Street.
1.3 Regeneration and Environment Cabinet resolved on 28 June 2005 to allow for environmental improvement works in Dudley Street and Queen Square. A major component of the environmental improvement works to Dudley Street and Queen Street was considered to be the installation of new street lighting.
2. Planning History
2.1 There is no relevant planning history.
3. Constraints
3.1 Wolverhampton City Centre Conservation Area; Sites and Monuments; Listed Buildings.
4. Application Details
4.1 The installation of 30, 7m high lighting columns with attached banners.
Page 87
4.2 The banners will be sited along Dudley Street, Queen Street and Woolpack Street. The columns themselves will measure a total height of 6.8m comprising of a galvanised steel column base incorporating two pairs of banner arms 800mm in length at a height of 3.0m and 5.0m and an impact resistant acrylic upper light tube of 1.5m. Illumination of the light tube is via two sets of 18 high output LEDs in three groups of six. Each colour is controlled independently by a colour change driver located in the column base allowing for full colour mixing and control.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The Design Policies of the Design Chapter of the UDP. Policy CC1 – City Centre Shopping Strategy. Policy CC4 – City Centre Environment Policy CC6 – Shopping Quarter (Primary Shopping Area) Policy EP4 – Light Pollution Policy HE3 – Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas Policy HE4 – Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area Policy HE5 – Control of Development in a Conservation Area.
6. Publicity
6.1 None required as this is an application for advertisement display consent.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transport Strategy and Development Control –
8.2 This proposal is part of the City Centre Refurbishment and has been designed in consultation with the Street Lighting Department.
8.3 Conservation and Urban Design –
8.4 Conservation and Urban Design Team has been involved in the design of the City Centre Improvements and in particular this proposal. There are no objections or adverse comments on this proposal. There is no need for an environmental impact assessment.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The new street lighting is considered to be essential to the refurbishment of the City Centre. The new lighting will act as a means of reducing crime and disorder in the City Centre and will create a sense of vibrancy Page 88 and enhanced legibility for pedestrians.
9.2 The proposed banners on the lamp columns offer the opportunity to enhance the street scene with colour and movement whilst simultaneously promoting a corporate message. It is envisaged that the new lamp columns in Dudley Street, Queen Street and Woolpack Street will be used to promote Council activities and events. All of the advertising banners shall conform to strict design standards and include the City Council logo.
9.3 The lighting columns will measure a total height of 6.8m comprising of a galvanised steel column base incorporating two pairs of banner arms. The siting and design of the new lighting columns is considered to be acceptable in design terms. The lighting columns themselves will not be detrimental to the visual appearance of the street scene and wider Conservation Area.
10. Recommendation
10.1 Grant advertisement display consent.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 89
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0943/AD/C Location Dudley Street/Queen Street/Woolpack Street, Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference so 391512 298571 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 5621.136
Page 90
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0969/FP/C WARD: Tettenhall Regis; DATE 27-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 21-SEP-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: The Kings School Regis Road, Tettenhall Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Telecommunication development comprising of the replacement of Radio Base Station comprising 6No. pole mounted antennas 4No. dish antennas including cabinets and ancillary development
APPLICANT: AGENT: Orange Pcs Ltd Adams Holmes Associates c/o Agent Millhouse Elmsfield Worcester Road Chipping Horton
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is the Kings School, located off Regis Road, west of central Tettenhall and about 3km north-west of Wolverhampton City Centre. The school is set within a primarily residential area although there are extensive open grounds to the south of the school buildings.
1.2 The proposal is to remove the existing 5.6m high stub mast, cabinet and associated equipment located on the Kings School tower fronting Regis Road and replace with 6 No pole mounted antennas, 4 No dish antennas including cabinets and ancillary development. The existing stub mast is a very prominent and incongruous feature visible from the street and surrounding residential properties. The applicant proposes to conceal the proposed development with a GRP shroud. The shroud will be finished to match the existing brickwork of the school building on which it is to be located.
1.3 This proposed development is a resubmission application. The previous application was refused planning permission by Planning Committee on 11 April 2006. That application for a replacement of radio base station comprising 6 No antennas, 4 No dish antennas including cabinets and ancillary development included a shroud which was considered to be too tall and would have an adverse impact on visual amenity. The proposed development was also refused as it was contrary to the precautionary approach for the location of telecommunication equipment as recommended by the Stewart Report. The proposal was therefore also contrary to ENV2 and the Interim Telecommunications Policy.
Page 91
2. Planning History
2.1 Application reference number 06/0302/FP/C – installation of telecommunications equipment comprising of the replacement of radio base station including 6 No antennas, 4 No dish antennas including cabinets and ancillary developments – refused planning permission. Decision notice date 13 April 2006.
2.2 Application reference 01/0812/GT – telecommunications equipment comprising removal of existing stub mast, cabinet and installation of 6 No dual band pole antennas. Refused 18.7.01.
2.3 Application reference 97/0138/GT – installation of telecommunications equipment on roof adjacent to existing equipment. Permitted development 16.5.97.
3. Constraints
3.1 None
4. Application Details
4.1 Telecommunications development comprising replacement of radio base station comprising 6 No pole mounted antennas, 4 No dish antennas including cabinet and ancillary development at Kings School, Regis Road, Tettenhall, Wolverhampton.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 EP20 – Telecommunications of the adopted UDP June 2006. The Design Policies of the Design Chapter of the UDP and the Council’s Interim Telecommunications Policy.
6. Publicity
6.1 This application has been publicised by letter to occupiers in the surrounding area, site notice and press notice.
6.2 Neighbour letter expiry date 28.8.06.
6.3 Site notice expiry date 05.09.2006.
6.4 Press Notice expiry date 26.08.2006
6.5 Three letters of objection received. Comments include the following; potential health risks of telecommunications development; visually detrimental impact on surrounding area. The proposed mast should be sited away from school and residential area.
Page 92
7. Appraisal
7.1 The Interim Telecommunications Policy explains that in more sensitive locations such as grounds of education institutions telecommunications developments will only be acceptable if they meet the following criteria:
1. The application can demonstrate compliance with the precautionary approach adopted by the Stewart Report for the location of equipment. The applicant is also expected to demonstrate the agreement of the relevant school.
2. The equipment has been so designed and sited to minimise its impact on the visual amenity of the area.
3. There is no adverse impact on amenity sufficient to outweigh other considerations.
7.2 It is recognised that the Headteacher and Governors of the Kings School, together with the Diocese of Lichfield, are fully aware of the proposal, having renewed the agreement with Orange early in 2006. However, the proposed telecommunications equipment will be sited on a school used by children and young people, in a predominantly residential area, and as such does not meet the requirements of the Stewart Report to exercise a precautionary approach for the location of telecommunication equipment so far as children are concerned.
7.3 The existing stub tower extends well above the height of the existing school building and has a detrimental impact on the visual appearance of the school. In order to minimise the visual impact of the installation, the applicants have agreed to replace the existing stub tower with a revised arrangement that allows for the installation of a GRP shroud to completely conceal the equipment. The shroud will be finished to match the existing brickwork of the school building on which it is located. The height of the shroud would be 4.5m above the roof level of the tower. The shroud would be approximately 2m lower in height than that previously proposed as part of the refused Planning Application Ref. No. 06/0302 (decision notice date of 13.04.2006). It is considered that the new shroud is of an acceptable height and will have a considerable benefit in terms of the visual appearance of the area. Particularly as the resultant effect will not be out of scale or proportion with the existing building. It is therefore considered that the visual appearance of the proposed development is acceptable and in accordance with the Council’s planning policies.
8. Conclusion
8.1 The installation of replacement telecommunications equipment and shrouding is acceptable to the Local Planning Authority in visual amenity terms. However, as the telecommunications equipment will be sited on a school, used by children and young people, in a predominantly residential area, the proposal does not meet the requirements of the Stewart Report to exercise a precautionary approach for the location of Page 93 telecommunications equipment so far as children are concerned. It is also considered that the perceived health implications of telecommunications equipment on residents in the locality would be such that the fear of danger to the health of residents would have an adverse effect on amenity. In view of the above the proposal is contrary to the Council’s Interim Telecommunications Policy and Policy EP20 Telecommunications.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Delegated authority to refuse planning permission subject to the expiry date of the neighbour consultation period, for the following reasons:
1. Contrary to the precautionary approach for the location of telecommunications equipment as recommended by the Stewart Report.
2. The perceived health implications of the telecommunications equipment on residents of the locality is such that the fear of danger to health on residents would have an adverse effect on amenity to an extent to warrant refusal on the proposed siting of this equipment.
3. Contrary to EP20 of the Adopted UDP and the Council’s Telecommunications Policy.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 94
Planning Application No: DCSW/06/0969/FP/C Location The Kings School Regis Road, Tettenhall Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference sj 387641 300089 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 467.916
Page 95
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0117/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick; DATE 25-JAN-2006 TARGET DATE: 22-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 89 Henwood Road, Compton PROPOSAL: Two storey side and single storey side front and rear extensions (Amended Plans)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr G Bedi Sueshire Services 89 Henwood Road 46 Lingfield Drive Compton Great Wyrley Wolverhampton Walsall WS6 6LS
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 No 89 Henwood Road is a detached house in a cul-de-sac section of Henwood Road. There is a variety of houses and bungalows adjacent. Nos 85 to 91 Henwood Road stand at a higher level than the road and are quite prominent. They have a staggered position relative to each other. No 85 appears to have had a two storey side extension built some years ago. Nos 87 and 89 are similar though No 87 has a double garage and No 89 a single width garage. No 91 is differently designed and is gable end onto the road.
2. Application Detail
2.1 A first floor and part two storey side extension is proposed at the south west side of the house. The extension would be set back 3.2m from the front wall of the house and would project 3.6m out at the rear. The roof will be pitched to the same angle as the main house roof. A single storey 3.6m projection extension would extend across the back and north east side of the house, reducing to 2.6m adjacent to the boundary with no 91. A front bay window is proposed with a pitched canopy roof to replace the existing flat roof canopy.
2.2 The applicant requires these extensions to enable him to look after an elderly relative.
3. Relevant Policies
3.1 UDP Policy Design Policies D1: Design Quality and D4: Urban Grain.
Page 96
4. Publicity
4.1 Neighbours have been notified on four occasions because of amended plans. Eight letters have been received from Nos 87 and 91 Henwood Road. One letter of objection was supported by 6 adjacent residents. Principal concerns with respect to the latest amended plans are;
No 91, object to extension next to garage, will take sunlight from back garden and at the rear of the garage. No 87, object to two storey extension and brick wall next to No 87, this will block out light and spoil outlook of property. The occupier of No 87 requests to speak to the Planning Committee.
5. Appraisal
5.1 Key issues; Impact on neighbouring properties, Street scene issues.
5.2 A number of alternative schemes have been considered here to achieve a scheme that can be supported. The front elevation, front garden area and appearance of No 87 are affected by the side wall of No 89. There will be an additional impact from the two storey side extension but its substantial setback will minimise these impacts. The effect on outlook from and sunlight reaching the front lounge window of no 87 are not considered to be serious. The two storey side extension will reduce the first floor gap between these two houses, this is not considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of no 87.
5.3 At the rear there will be minimal impact on No 87 as the extension will not overlap beyond the rear of No 87. The single storey extension will have some impact on a yard/patio area at the rear of the garage to No 91. This is not considered to have a serious impact on residential amenity at No 91 because of the garden layout and orientation of this house.
5.4 Street Scene Issues The first floor extension would reduce the visual separation between Nos 87 and 89 and have some impact on the street scene. Because of the staggered position of these two houses, the set back of the extension and the variety of houses in this cul-de-sac it is considered that this extension can be accommodated without significant detriment to street scene.
Page 97
6. Recommendation
6.1 Permit, condition; sample of brick and roof tile to be submitted for approval and used in construction.
Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 555649 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 98
Planning Application No: DCSW/06/0117/FP/R Location 89 Henwood Road, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 388338 299198 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 458.055
Page 99
PLANNING COMMITTEE – 5-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0340/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE 15-MAR-2006 TARGET DATE: 10-MAY-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 103 Windmill Lane, Castlecroft PROPOSAL: Two storey and single storey extensions to create a four bedroom house.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr. Chris Reed J.K. Kalsi 103 Windmill Lane 2 Coalway Road Castlecroft Penn Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV3 8HN WV3 7LR
REPORT:
1. Update
1.1 This application was considered at Planning Committee on 1st August 2006.
1.2 Members raised concern regarding the ownership dispute which has arisen on the boundary between 101 Windmill Lane and the application site at 103 Windmill Lane. The area in dispute would form part of the land for the extension.
1.3 As a Planning Authority we are entitled to grant planning permission on land that is either in the ownership of the occupant or in another's ownership.
1.4 The dispute between the neighbouring parties is a civil matter and as such should be resolved between the two parties. The granting of planning permission has no bearing on the ownership dispute.
1.5 Therefore there is no change to the recommendation of the report to Approve permission subject to the conditions set out in Paragraph 11 below.
2. Site Description
2.1 A detached bungalow which is set well back [approx. 23m] from Windmill Lane but all the properties at this part of Windmill Lane are significantly raised above the level of the road by virtue of sloping front gardens and drives. The four properties to its right [south east] are bungalows which are set further back into their plots than 103. The properties to the left [north west] are two storey.
Page 100
3. Planning History
3.1 A previous application to extend the property was withdrawn on 8 th February 2006.
4. Constraints
4.1 None.
5. Application Details
5.1 The proposal is to extend the existing three bedroom bungalow to become a four bedroom two storey property with an attached garage to its south east and a single storey extension to the north west.
5.2 The existing property is approximately 6.2m high from ground level and the revised proposal is 7.8m high on the front elevation. The rear ground levels are higher than the front so the rear elevation height is 7.5m from ground level.
The proposal includes a 3.7m wide single storey side extension with a hipped roof and front facing window and a rear door and rear facing window. The front of this part of the proposal is set back behind the main front elevation.
5.3 3.1m wide single storey garage extension with utility and shower room behind with patio style door. This is set back 300mm from the front elevation and the roof is hipped to reduce the impact on the neighbouring property at 105 Windmill Lane.
5.4 The side elevations of the two-storey element of the proposal have one window at first floor level from an en suite bathroom and family bathroom respectively. The ground floor window is 1 metre from the boundary with 105 Windmill Lane. Both windows are indicated as obscured glazing on the plans.
5.5 The front elevation as proposed is symmetrical with two equal sized bedroom windows and a small central window in line with the fro nt door. At ground floor there is a forward projecting bay window under a mono- pitch roof, hipped at its ends, and a gabled porch area where the front door is proposed. There are steps leading to the front door behind a dwarf wall to cope with the rising ground.
5.6 The rear elevation of the proposal has three new bedroom windows, two from one bedroom shown in amended plans. The existing patio doors will be lost and the central window will be replaced by a door onto the rear garden.
Page 101
5.7 The amended plans alter the rear elevation bedroom window closest to 105 Windmill Lane to become two smaller windows. , which will overlook portions of both neighbouring gardens to some degree which reduce the ‘panoramic view’ effect of the wide window as originally proposed.
6. Relevant Policies
6.1 D4 – Urban Grain D9 - Appearance SPG4 – Extensions to Houses
7. Publicity
7.1 Neighbour letters to 101 and 105 Windmill Lane and 7 Chelmarsh Avenue with responses due by 26 th April 2006.
Re-consultation was carried out with the two adjoining neighbours and letters of objection were received from 101 Windmill Lane and from 105 Windmill Lane.
- The owner/occupier of 101 Windmill Lane claims the proposal will infringe onto his boundary which is refuted by the applicant. This is a boundary issue which needs to be dealt with between the two parties which has no bearing on the planning application.
- The owner/occupier of 105 Windmill Lane is concerned regarding the loss of privacy to his rear garden arising from the height of the proposal and the three new rear facing bedroom windows from two bedrooms; loss of sunlight from the proposal to the front of 105 although 103 lies to the west and north east of 105 so that any shadowing would be for a short period in the late evening; the shower room window at ground floor which is 1 metre distant from the boundary with 105; Party Wall Act issues which are not dealt with through Planning legislation; and concerns regarding future conversion of the loft space, the proposed porch, effect on the street scene and local character and the effect on property value.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 None
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key issues are the change in height and massing of the dwelling and the appearance of the development in the street scene; and the potential impact on the amenity of the adjoining occupiers.
Page 102
9.2 The proposal was amended following the withdrawal of the previous planning application and subsequently amended plans have been received which required additional consultation with neighbours.
9.3 Windmill Lane is characterised by a row of detached two storey properties set well back, and up, from the road. Where 103 sits is in line with the detached two storey properties although forward of the run of bungalows it begins. A two-storey property in this position continues the adjacent pattern of development therefore extending the bungalow to two storey is not out of character with the street scene and is acceptable visually in this setting.
9.4 The proposal is significantly larger than the existing property but it is set forward of the neighbouring bungalow, 105, in line with the two storey properties on Windmill Lane. A street scene submitted with the original application showed how it would fit in and the amended proposal which reduces the height of the dwelling demonstrates the gradual step in the height of rooflines in the street from the bungalow at 105 to the two storey property at 101, the proposal at 103 being lower in height than 101.
9.5 The application property is north-west of the neighbouring bungalow at 105 and while there will be some degree of impact on the outlook from the front window, the sun path from east to west through south will limit any loss of light to the front of that property to loss of late evening sun from the west. The sunlight reaching the rear gardens of 103 and to some degree 105 will be partially reduced when the sun is lowest in mid- winter but there will be no other perceptible loss of sunlight to either neighbouring rear garden. This level of change is, on balance, considered to be acceptable.
9.6 The bedroom windows on the rear will introduce an element of overlooking of the rear gardens of both neighbours. The wide window in the original proposal has been altered to two smaller windows which reduce the potential for a panoramic view. However, both neighbouring gardens will retain the full privacy of the areas immediately behind the dwellings by virtue of their relative positions. Both neighbouring properties are also separated from the two-storey part of the proposal by single storey elements in the proposal, and by the garage at no.105.
9.7 The proposed side windows from shower rooms at ground and first floor will be obscure glazed and open well within the boundary of the application.
10. Conclusion
10.1 It is considered that the proposal is acceptable in the street scene and does not have a significant adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours.
Page 103
11. Recommendation
11.1 Grant permission subject to conditions –
Obscure glaze all side facing windows Matching external materials Remove permitted development for additional windows without prior approval
Case Officer : Mizzy Marshall Telephone No : 551123 Head of Development Control : Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer : Costas Georghiou
Page 104 Planning Application No: DCSW/06/0340/FP/R Location 103 Windmill Lane Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 387553 297795 Plan Printed 24-APR-2006 Application Site Area 1216.075
Page 105 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-SEP-2006
APP NO: 06/0815/FP/C WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick; DATE 21-JUN-2006 TARGET DATE: 16-AUG-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 21 Finchfield Road West, Finchfield PROPOSAL: Change of use to Coffee Shop/Cafe
APPLICANT: AGENT: H.L.Kapoor West View 48 Mancroft Road Tettenhall Wolvehampton WV6 8RP
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is a vacant retail property with a flat above situated in a local centre on Finchfield Road West. The application site is within an area of predominantly residential properties although the properties to the south-west of the site comprise shops with various uses and to the north of the site is the Westacre Infants School. To the west of the site is a car showroom and to the south-east is a public house, namely The Chestnut Tree.
1.2 From the information on the application form, the property has been vacant since approximately 19 th March 2005 previously used as a retail shop and this proposal seeks to change the use to coffee shop/café.
2. Planning History
2.1 05/1036/FP/C 1 – 21 Finchfield Road West Erection of additional floor of residential accommodation to provide 5No. 2 bed flats and 4 No. 1 bed flats Granted 28-September-2005
2.2 01/0739/FP 21 Finchfield Road West Change of use from Retail (Class A1) to Café Food and Drink (Class A3) Refused 20-July-2001
Page 106 3. Application Details
3.1 The planning application for a change of use to coffee shop/café was received on 21 June 2006. In the supporting documents submitted with the application, the applicant intends to “open a quaint, organic, vegetarian eatery that serves only light snacks, homemade cakes, variety of teas and coffee and fresh fruit juices (no alcohol). Opening times will be 08:00 through to 17:00, targeting the local community and providing a service during the morning and afternoon.”
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Unitary Development Plan Policies SH1: Centres Strategy (Part I), SH2: Centre Uses, SH8: Local Centres, SH9: Local Shops and Centre Uses outside Defined Centres, SH10: Protected Frontages and SH14: Catering Outlets apply to this proposal.
5. Publicity
5.1 The application has been advertised by neighbour letter, press and site notice with deadline date for comments to be received by 1 st August 2006.
5.2 A petition containing 207 signatures and a further six letters of objection have been received. One of the letters received is from Councillor Wendy Thompson and has been signed by Andrew Wynne and Joan Stevenson who raise concerns shared by the local residents. These include the area is well catered for fast food outlets, the increase in traffic, vermin along with odour, noise, litter and some anti-social behaviour, the concerns of opening hours and the uncertainty of the use class as a take-away is mentioned.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 The Disabled Access Officer has been consulted and their comments refer to no front elevation being provided in order to assess entrance/exit facilities for disabled customers and the scheme to allow a disabled toilet would be required under Part M of Building Regulations.
6.2 The Highway Engineers have no objections for an A3 (Coffee Shop/Café) use as it is likely to generate a likely parking demand similar to or less than the previous use, which was that of a mini-market.
6.3 The comments from the Policy Officer are that within local centres, proposals for non-A1 uses will not be granted where such uses would constitute: i) more than 30% of units in the centre, ii) more than 30% of frontage length and iii) more than 3 consecutive units.
Out of the 19 retail units in the Finchfield Local Centre, five are in non- Page 107 A1 use (26%) and the change of use of this proposal would mean that 31.5% of the units would be in non-A1 use. A degree of flexibility should be applied to the policy and this minimal increase is considered acceptable.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The applicant proposes to change the use of the existing shop to a coffee shop/café. The application site is a larger shop than the others in the parade and therefore has two entrances which the proposal intends to use one half to provide a counter to serve, whilst the remaining area is to provide seating for customers.
7.2 In a supporting statement, the applicant has commented on their concept of the property being niche and utilising the existing arrangements in terms of parking. The hours of use would be limited from 08.00 to 17.00. The proposal does include a flue situated to the side of the building and in the applicants supporting statement they propose to provide a delivery service to nearby businesses. Whilst this has caused some concern to nearby residents, it is considered that in use class A3 restaurants and cafes, a certain element of take-away is expected with this use which is considered ancillary development and due to the restrictive opening hours, it is considered the amenities of nearby residents will not be adversely affected.
7.3 A previous application reference 01/0739/FP was for a change of use to Class A3 and was refused on 20 July 2001 primarily on the noise disturbance from the comings and goings caused by customers and their vehicles especially late in the evenings. However since this application was refused, changes have been made to the Use Classes Order and a Revised Unitary Development Plan has been adopted. The policies in the revised development plan, particularly in respect of catering outlets recognises that these uses provide a useful and necessary service to the community and can add to the vitality of the shopping centres.
7.4 The policy requires consideration of the environmental and traffic implications of these types of uses. Whilst the use will omit smells and odours, modern fume extraction equipment can go a long way in controlling the fumes extracted from this use. Catering outlets can cause pedestrian and vehicular activity, noise and disturbance however these can be distinguished between hot food take-away and cafes which normally operate during normal shop hours which this proposal intends to do. The comments of the highway engineers state that this use is considered to generate similar parking demands, if not less than the previous use of a mini-market.
Page 108 8. Conclusion
8.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable as the cumulative impact of catering outlets in this parade complies with the frontage policy of the development plan and whilst it is considered the proposal will generate an increase in noise and potentially fumes and odours, it will not adversely affect residential amenity to an extent to justify refusal of this application. The use will be operating during daytime hours and the impact on vehicular and pedestrian activity is acceptable and would be no greater than that of the previous use as a mini-market.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Grant planning permission subject to:- • Opening hours from 08:00 to 17:00 • Details of fume and ventilation extraction systems • Disabled Access requirements
Case Officer : Ragbir Sahota Telephone No : 555616 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 109
Planning Application No: DCSW/06/0815/FP/C Location 21 Finchfield Road West, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 388505 298090 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 160.678
Page 110
PLANNING COMMITTEE 5 SEPTEMBER 2006
APP NO: 06/0919/FP/C WARD: Wednesfield South; DATE 17-JUL-2006 TARGET DATE: 11-SEP-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 31 Lichfield Road Wednesfield PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for the erection of boundary fencing
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Trevor Roberts Mr T Long 31 Lichfield Road 114 Green Lane Wednesfield Birches Wolverhampton Walsall WV11 1TF WS2 8HY
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This application site is TJ Plumbing and Heating Ltd on the corner of Lichfield Road and Duke Street. The area contains a mixture of uses. Duke St is predominantly residential in character and the site adjoins a semi-detached property.
2. Planning History
2.1 Change of use to a place of worship – refused – 2004 (04/1570)
3. Constraints
3.1 None
4. Application Details
4.1 Retrospective galvanised metal palisade fencing boundary treatment.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 D1 Design Quality D9 Appearance D6 Townscape & Landscape
Page 111
6. Publicity
6.1 One letter of support received from Cllr Steve Evans on grounds of the amount of money spent securing the premises, the fence is not out of keeping with the area and is an improvement on what was previously in place.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 None
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required
10. Appraisal
10.1 The design and visual appearance of the proposed replacement palisade fencing is unacceptable and not in accordance with the local planning authority’s policies and guidance on boundary treatments.
UDP Policy D9 “Appearance” states that ‘boundary treatments should make a positive contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials’.
It is considered that the palisade fencing is of an inherently unattractive industrial appearance in a predominantly residential street. Even if the fencing were to be painted, the fencing would not have an acceptable appearance.
10.2 The Planning Authority’s own guidance sets out that a less oppressive, more attractive look can easily and cheaply be achieved in galvanised mild steel square or round rods to BS1722 Part 9 (Min 20mm round bar thickness. Factory painted before delivery).
10.3 The letter of support states that the applicant has spent a considerable amount of money on palisade fencing and it is in the Councillor’s opinion preferable to what was there previously.
However, the amount of money the applicant has spent on the boundary treatment is not a planning consideration and the Council offers clear guidance on suitable boundary treatments in its leaflet “Planning Permission for Security Fencing”.
Page 112
The reasons given in the letter are not strong enough to suggest the necessity for a departure from Council policy on the issue of palisade fencing.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The new fence is a harsh and unattractive feature that does not make a positive contribution to the street scene.
12. Recommendation
12.1 Refuse - Design and visual appearance of the palisade fencing is unacceptable, contrary to Wolverhampton’s UDP Policies D1 “Design Quality, D9 “Appearance” and D6 “Townscape and Landscape”; and the advice in Wolverhampton’s “Planning Permission for Security Fencing” Policy Guidance (Leaflet). 12.2 Authorise Enforcement Action be commenced to secure the removal of the fencing.
Case Officer : Penny Debuis Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning and Highways Officer – Costas Georghiou
Page 113
Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0919/FP/C Location 31 Lichfield Road Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference sj 394650 300419 Plan Printed 29-AUG-2006 Application Site Area 666.784
Page 114