PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE
A G E N D A
PLEASE NOTE VENUE
Date: Tuesday, 16th November 2004
Time: 6pm
Venue: Earl Baldwin Suite Duke House, Clensmore Street, Kidderminster PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE
Members of the Committee Councillor S J Williams (Chairman) Councillor Mrs L Edginton (Vice-Chairman) Councillor Mrs M B Aston Councillor M A W Hazlewood Councillor J-P Campion Councillor C D Nicholls Councillor S J M Clee Councillor Mrs F M Oborski Councillor N J Desmond Councillor Mrs J L Salter Councillor Mrs H E Dyke Councillor M J Shellie Councillor Mrs J Fairbrother-Millis Councillor J A Shaw Councillor P B Harrison Councillor J C Simmonds Councillor M J Hart Councillor K J Stokes Councillor Mrs S M Hayward Councillor A D Williams
Information for Members of the Public:-
Part I of the Agenda includes items for discussion in public. You have the right to request to inspect copies of Minutes and reports on this Agenda as well as the background documents used in the preparation of these reports.
An update report is circulated at the meeting. Where members of the public have registered to speak on applications, the running order will be changed so that those applications can be considered first on their respective parts of the agenda. The revised order will be included in the update.
Part II of the Agenda (if applicable) deals with items of "Exempt Information" for which it is anticipated that the public may be excluded from the meeting and neither reports nor background papers are open to public inspection.
Delegation - All items are presumed to be matters which the Committee has delegated powers to determine. In those instances where delegation will not or is unlikely to apply an appropriate indication will be given at the meeting.
Public Speaking
Agenda items involving public speaking will have presentations made in the following order (subject to the discretion of the Chairman):
¾ Introduction of item by officers; ¾ Councillors’ questions to officers to clarify detail; ¾ Representations by objector; ¾ Representations by supporter or applicant (or representative); ¾ Clarification of any points by officers, as necessary, after each speaker; ¾ Consideration of application by councillors, including questions to officers
All speakers will be called to the designated area by the Chairman and will have a maximum of 3 minutes to address the Committee.
If you have any queries about this Agenda or require any details of background papers, further documents or information you should contact Mrs Diana Glendenning, Committee Officer, Civic Centre, Stourport-on-Severn. Telephone : 01562-732763, e-mail [email protected] NOTES
• Councillors, who are not Members of the Planning (Development Control) Committee, but who wish to attend and to make comments on any application on this list or accompanying Agenda, are required to give notice by informing the Chairman, Head of Legal and Democratic Services or Head of Planning, Health and Environment before the meeting.
• Councillors who are interested in the detail of any matter to be considered are invited to consult the files with the relevant Officers to avoid unnecessary debate on such detail at the Meeting.
• Members should familiarise themselves with the location of particular sites of interest to minimise the need for Committee Site Visits.
• Please note if Members wish to have further details of any application appearing on the Schedule or would specifically like a fiche or plans to be displayed to aid the debate, could they please inform the Development Control Section not less than 24 hours before the Meeting.
• Members are respectfully reminded that applications deferred for more information should be kept to a minimum and only brought back to the Committee for determination where the matter cannot be resolved by the Head of Planning and Environment.
• Councillors and members of the public must be aware that in certain circumstances items may be taken out of order and, therefore, no certain advice can be provided about the time at which any item may be considered.
• Any members of the public wishing to make late additional representations should do so in writing or by contacting their Ward Councillor prior to the Meeting.
• For the purposes of the Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985, unless otherwise stated against a particular report, “background papers” in accordance with Section 110D will always include the case Officer’s written report and any letters or memoranda of representation received (including correspondence from the Highway Authority, Statutory Undertakers and all internal District Council Departments).
• Letters of representation referred to in these reports, together with any other background papers, may be inspected at any time prior to the Meeting, and these papers will be available at the Meeting.
• Members of the public should note that any application can be determined in any manner notwithstanding any or no recommendation being made. DUKE HOUSE
To A449 Wolverhampton A451 To Stourbridge BEWDLEY & BRIDGNORTH
Traffic Lights
A449 N.E. A451 A456 A448 A449 S.W. To Birmingham
DUKE HOUSE A456
To Bridgnorth
A442
A
To Bewdley
A
To Stourport
A448
(OFF M42)
To Bromsgrove M5 & A449 Warwick
To Worcester A G E N D A
PART I 1. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
2. APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTE MEMBERS
To receive the name of any Councillor who is to act as a substitute, notice of which has been given to the Head of Legal and Democratic Services, together with the name of the Councillor for whom he/she is acting.
3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
To invite Members to declare any interests in any item on this Agenda (including any declaration in relation to Section 106 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992).
4. MINUTES
To confirm the Minutes of the meeting of the Committee held on the 19th October 2004. (Pages 95 - 108)
5. APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
To consider the report of the Development Control Manager on planning and related applications to be determined. (Pages 1 – 68) 6. APPLICATIONS PENDING DECISION
To receive a schedule of planning and related applications which are pending. (Pages 69 - 78) 7. PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
To receive a schedule showing the position in relation to those planning and enforcements appeals currently being processed and details of the results of appeals recently received. (Pages 79 - 85)
8. PROPOSED WASTE TREATMENT AND RECYCLING FACILITY INCLUDING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE ON LAND AT HARTLEBURY TRADING ESTATE, WORCESTERSHIRE, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990, COUNTY MATTER APPLICATION
To consider a report from the Development Control Manager that advises Members that Wyre Forest District Council has been notified as a neighbouring authority with respect to the above application, submitted by Estech Europe Limited. (Pages 86 - 92)
9. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER (ODPM) - PLANNING PERFORMANCE STATISTISTICS
To consider a report from the Development Control Manager that informs Members of the published performance statistics relating to Development Control. (Pages 93 - 94) PART II
There are no items in this part of the agenda.
J:\Committee\DevContl\Agenda\2004/16.11.04doc WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE MEETING 16th NOVEMBER, 2004
PART A
WF.941/04 Proposal: Full : Conversion of part of Date Received: 1.9.04 telephone exchange to twelve Agent: Pegasus Planning Group apartments (three x one- Ord. Sheet: 8071 SE bedroom and nine x two- Policy: PPG1,PPG3,PPG13, bedroom). External PPS1 (Draft); alterations, new access, SD.3,SD.4,SD.6,SD.7 parking and amenity areas and D.9,D.11,T.1,T.4 associated works (WCSP) (resubmission of WF.1268/03) H.2,H.5,H.9,CA.1,TC.2 on part former Telephone D.1,D.3,D.4,D.9,D.10, Exchange, Sion Gardens, D.11,D.18,NR.9,NR.11, Stourport on Severn TR.9,TR.17,IMP.1,LR.1 (AWFDLP) Case Officer: Miss J. Summerfield Ward: Mitton Applicant: Orion Property Services Ltd.
1. Site Location and Description
1.1 The application site is L-shaped measuring approximately 0.1 hectares in area. The proposal seeks consent to convert the western part of the existing Telephone Exchange to twelve flats. The site is bordered by Sion Gardens to the north, properties fronting New Street to the south, open space to the west and the remaining part of the telephone exchange to the east.
1.2 The application site accommodates an existing two storey flat roofed building faced in brick and vertical tiles. Much of the site is set behind a substantial brick wall reaching a height of approximately 2.5 metres. The wall aligns an existing pedestrian walkway linking the site to the town centre.
1.3 The proposal comprises three one-bedroom flats and nine two-bedroom flats, with two separate parking areas providing a total of twelve spaces.
1.4 The application follows WF.845/00 which approved a total of six flats. The current proposal which seeks a higher density of development has been achieved by splitting the existing upper floor into two separate floors and raising the total height of the existing building by approximately 600mm by a parapet wall.
1.5 The proposed alterations to the elevations include the removal of the vertical tiles, replacing them with brickwork and proposed render to the front and side elevations, alternative windows to all elevations and Juliet balconies to the front.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.1 2
WF.941/04 continued
1.6 The scheme also differs to that approved in the year 2000 as the current proposal seeks consent for two vehicular entrances to the site off Sion Gardens.
1.7 The application site accommodates a total of five trees, one of which is protected by a Tree Preservation Order.
1.8 The application has been accompanied by a Planning Statement, an Architect’s Design Statement and an Acoustic Report.
2. Planning History (of relevance)
2.1 WF.845/00 – Change of use to six flats with associated access, parking, amenity areas and insertion of new walls on part ground and all first floor : Approved 12th December 2000
2.2 WF.1268/03 – Conversion of part of telephone exchange to twelve apartments, external alterations, new access and associated parking : Refused 9th March 2004
2.3 An Appeal has been submitted with respect to the above application (WF.1268/03) which is due to be determined by a Public Inquiry in March 2005.
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Stourport on Severn Town Council – Awaiting comments
3.2 Highway Authority – The Unit in this particular case, after careful consideration, is minded to recommend approval subject to conditions. The provision of one parking space per unit accords with the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan Appendix 9.
3.3 Severn Trent Water Ltd. – Awaiting comments
3.4 Worcestershire County Council Education Services - I can confirm that if development goes ahead, we will be seeking a contribution towards education provision in the area. We would only take a contribution for six of the proposed dwellings as planning permission was granted for the other six dwellings prior to the adoption of our Supplementary Planning Guidance on Education Contributions.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.2 3
WF.941/04 continued
3.5 Environmental Health Officer – I can confirm that I agree with the Consultant’s final summary comments in the Acoustic Report and accept that it is considered unlikely that the proposed car park would have a significant affect upon the residents of the sheltered accommodation to the north of the proposed site
3.6 Conservation Officer – No objections in principle subject to conditions
3.7 Arboricultural Officer – A Mulberry tree situated within the west corner of the site is afforded statutory protection by Tree Preservation Order No. 260 (2002). The site contains five trees – three small Mulberry trees, a sapling Ash and an Acacia, all situated towards the west of the site. Also on third party land beyond the boundary wall to the west of the site is a mature Pear tree. None of the trees are of particular individual merit, however they contribute to the amenity of the immediate vicinity to a limited degree. I have some concern with respect to the proximity of the proposed footpaths and car park areas in relation to retained trees. The installation of hard surfaces in close proximity to trees can cause significant damage to their health and stability through roots severance or damage. The proposed car park spaces are within 0.1 metres of a young Ash within the site, 0.5 metres of the Acacia fronting the site and 1 metre of the Mulberry fronting the site. I consider the car parking spaces too close to the trees proposed to be retained and are likely to cause significant root severance to the detriment of their health and possibly stability. It may be more appropriate to consider removal and replacement of the couple of trees which are so close to the proposed car park spaces. Request applicants to consider the implications of their proposals in relation to trees; it may be more suitable to remove the Acacia and sapling Ash and replace them with semi- mature specimens.
Additional comments with respect to amended tree planting details are anticipated prior to Committee.
3.8 Stourport on Severn Civic Society – Awaiting comments
3.10 Forward Planning Officer – Awaiting comments
3.11 Neighbour/Site Notice/Advertisement – A total of ten objections including a letter from Wyre Forest Community Housing have been submitted raising the following concerns: • whilst parking provision has been increased, the issue of visitor parking and the potential for private parking for this development as with our own remains
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.3 4
WF.941/04 continued
• private parking for shoppers results in on-street parking together with restricted access for emergency and other services • the additional spaces with their reversing area looks less than ideal • with the access onto Sion Gardens, we feel that with the extra noise, health and peaceful enjoyment of the residents in their own homes is at risk • it would greatly increase the hazard of crossing in the area, some people are partially sighted, some are in wheelchairs • many of the flats look directly into the development • we don’t want twelve – the Council passed it for six flats only • concerned about safety of elderly residents owing to increase in noise and contractors’ vehicles • living opposite I would be overlooked directly
4. Officer Comments
Proposed land use 4.1 The application site lies west of the High Street within the Inset Map of Stourport on Severn town centre as identified in the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
4.2 PPG1 (1997) urges Local Planning Authorities to make effective use of land and encourages the development of land within urban areas, particularly on previously developed sites.
4.3 The latest guidance as contained in Draft Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) (2004) states that planning policies should promote, “the more effective use of land through higher density, mixed use development and the use of suitable previously developed land and buildings. Planning should seek actively to get vacant and underused previously developed land and buildings back into beneficial use to achieve the targets the Government has set for development on previously developed land.”
4.4 PPG3 (2000) echoes the above objectives and advises Local Planning Authorities to provide more sustainable patterns of development. It advocates the conversion of properties to provide additional housing and states that Local Planning Authorities should adopt positive policies to promote conversions, by taking a more flexible approach to Development Plan standards with regard to densities, car parking, amenity space and overlooking.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.4 5
WF.941/04 continued
4.5 At a more local level, Worcestershire County Structure Plan Policies SD.3 and SD.7 again encourage the development of previously developed land, whilst Policy SD.4 indicates that development should be located so as to minimise the need to travel and should generally be located in or adjacent to urban areas.
4.6 Within the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan, the application site is allocated under Policy TC.2 – General Town Centre Uses. This policy excludes residential uses at ground floor, however there is an extant planning approval which could be implemented and furthermore it is considered that the proposal is in line with Government objectives as outlined above. Whilst the proposed use at ground floor is not in accordance with Policy TC.2, it is considered that there are sufficient mitigating circumstances to support the proposal in land use terms.
Parking 4.7 The previous application was refused for two reasons. The first was that the proposal would constitute over-development of the site resulting in inadequate car parking provision for the number and type of residential units proposed.
4.8 The current plans indicate an alternative layout to provide a mixture of undercroft and external spaces totalling twelve in all. One space per flat is consistent with Adopted Plan Policy. Furthermore, Policy TR.17 states that the parking standards as advised should be regarded as a maximum and should not be exceeded.
4.9 In addition, as indicated above, PPG3 advises that standards should be applied flexibly to encourage residential development, particularly in town centres.
4.10 It is therefore considered that the increase in parking provision overcomes the previous reason for refusal.
Noise 4.11 The second reason for refusing the previous application states the conversion of the building into twelve flats and the associated activities with that use will result in increased noise and disturbance which would adversely affect the amenity currently enjoyed by the surrounding elderly residents.
6
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.5 WF.941/04 continued
4.12 As stated previously, the current application has been submitted together with an Acoustic Report. The purpose of the assessment undertaken has been to establish the prevailing ambient background noise levels at the site and predict the likely impact of the proposed twelve space car park, based upon typical car movement noise levels, on the existing nearby elderly residential accommodation.
4.13 The report states that noise measurements were taken to assess the ambient noise at the site between 0500 hours and 0900 hours on 19th May 2004. Noise measurements were taken assuming that there would be two car movements in any one typical five minute period, each lasting one minute in duration. It was considered that this would be the reasonable worst case scenario. The report indicates that noise measurements were taken at the entrance to the proposed car park to the site where parking bays lie closest to the residential accommodation opposite. The results indicate that if bays 2 and 8 were vacated simultaneously, the resulting noise levels would be well within statutory guidelines for noise within habitable rooms. This would also be the case if taking open windows into account.
4.14 The report concludes that the proposed car park would have an insufficient effect upon the residents of the sheltered accommodation, and the Council’s Environmental Health Officer agrees with the conclusion.
4.15 It is considered that sufficient evidence has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposal would not adversely affect amenity by virtue of additional noise and subsequently the second reason for refusal has also been resolved.
Overlooking 4.16 Whilst the proposed scheme incorporates a second floor, the building envelope remains largely the same. A distance of between 23.5 metres and 28.5 metres is maintained between the proposed converted building and the existing residential accommodation on the opposite side of Sion Gardens. It is considered that there would be sufficient window to window distance to prevent a significant loss of privacy to the existing residents.
4.17 The windows serving habitable rooms to the rear, facing the single residential property fronting New Street, have been designed so that the cill heights are all at 1800mm above floor level to reduce the propensity to overlook.
7
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.6 WF.941/04 continued
Trees 4.18 One existing tree is protected by a Tree Preservation Order and this is to be retained in the current scheme. Revised plans indicating an alternative tree planting layout are anticipated prior to Committee, however the Arboricultural Officer is in agreement with the proposed changes to provide replacement planting in principle. Further comments are anticipated.
Education contribution 4.19 The Agent on behalf of the applicant has indicated that the education contribution is acceptable.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 It is considered that the current scheme provides sufficient parking to overcome the previous first reason for refusal. Sufficient information has also been supplied to demonstrate that the impact upon residential amenity is not so significant as to warrant refusal. It is considered that this town centre site is an appropriate location for residential accommodation and I therefore recommend delegated authority to APPROVE subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement for a contribution towards education provision and subject to the following conditions:-
1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters) 2. A11 (Approved plans) 3. B1 (Samples/details of materials including render) 4. Trees 5. Highways 6. Boundary detail in accordance with plans 7. Retention of high level windows 8. Details of window
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.7 WF.987/04 Proposal: Full: Change of use of Date Received: 20.09.04 land and erection of a Agent: Stansgate Planning fence and laying of Consultants hardstanding at land Ord. Sheet: 7970 SE adjacent to 34 Bowpatch Policy: D.1, D.3, D.4, D.10, D.11, Road, Stourport on LR.1, LR.2 Severn. Case Officer: C Wolfe Ward: Areley Kings Applicant: Mrs J Payne
1. Site Location and Description
1.1 The application site, which is immediately adjacent to 32 and 34 Bowpatch Road, is located at the end of both Callow Close and Wrekin Walk and is adjacent to the walkway which links both cul-de-sacs. The site is 0.106 hectares in size.
1.2 Trees on the site are afforded statutory protection by the ‘Land adjacent 32/34 Bowpatch Road, Stourport Tree Preservation Order’ No. 278 (2004).
1.3 The land has already been enclosed by a fence, which currently runs the entire length of the walkway between Callow Close and Wrekin Walk. The agents’ letter that was submitted in support of this application states that “the current situation is unsatisfactory for all parties concerned”. This application proposes to change the use of part of the land (approximately half of what has already been enclosed) to residential curtilage, with associated fencing and the laying of hard standing in association with a new vehicular access. The remainder of the land would be returned to its original condition and retained as open amenity land.
2. Planning History
2.1 SU.275/71 – 113 Houses, three shops with garages off Pearl Lane, Stourport – Approved
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Stourport on Severn Town Council – Recommend Refusal
3.2 Highway Authority – No highway reasons to recommend refusal. the existing street lighting column although near to the proposed vehicular access is not close enough to seek resisting.
3.3 West Mercia Constabulary – I consider that the described development does not have any significant impact on the likelihood of crime and disorder occurring/increasing in the area.
3.4 Cultural, Leisure and Commercial Services – Views awaited
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.8 2
WF.987/04 continued
3.5 Arboricultural Officer – Trees on site are afforded statutory protection by the ‘Land adjacent 32/34 Bowpatch Road, Stourport Tree Preservation Order’ No. 278 (2004) and are not situated within a Conservation Area.
I am aware that a high fence has already been erected at the above site and that it obscures view of the trees. While the current proposals allow for a reduction of the fence, I still consider it unacceptable in view of the adverse affect on the amenity of the locality.
I object to the proposed erection of the fence surrounding the garden in view of its likely adverse effect on the public enjoyment of the trees, which are subject to Tree Preservation Order protection.
3.6 Agents Letter in support of the application
The land in question formed part of planning application SU275/71 for “113 houses, three shops with garages of Pearl Lane, Stourport.” The approved layout plan shows the area as ‘Open Green Area’. Condition 9 states that “the open green area shown on the layout plan shall be seeded or turfed to the satisfaction of the planning authority concurrently with the occupation of various dwellings”. However, there are no planning conditions or legal agreements that properly address the status of the land, its purpose, its ownership or future maintenance. The land has always remained in private ownership and was recently purchased by Mr & Mrs Payne of 34 Bowpatch Road.
The landowner has the right to prevent public access to the land, including maintenance of the land by the Council. There is no requirement to maintain the land at all. A 2m high fence may be erected “not adjacent” to the highway, which would limit aesthetic appreciation of the land by the public. The landowner may enjoy the land for passive amenity purposes (like an orchard or paddock), provided there is not a material change of use of the land to residential use.
Clearly the current situation is unsatisfactory for all parties concerned. Therefore this application seeks to achieve a compromise that delivers benefit to the public and private interest.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.9 3
WF.987/04 continued
The proposal will enclose approximately half of the total “open green area” within the domestic curtilage. The remainder of the land would be transferred to the Council in perpetuity and secured by legal agreement. Although part of the 1.8m high fence would be erected close to the existing public footpath, it is not considered that this will have an adverse impact on either the amenity or safety of the footpath. This proposal would ensure that the land has a viable use, and secure public amenity space in a safe location for the enjoyment of the local community.
Within the proposed residential curtilage it is proposed to create a new access, with associated hardstanding and gates. The County Council has confirmed that planning permission is not required for the creation of the new access off Callow Close. With regard to the associated hardstanding and gates, I ask you to take into account the highly unsuitable means of vehicular access from Bowpatch Road. I am doubtful if the unadopted Bowpatch Road meets current highway standards. Therefore, in the interests of driver, pedestrian and cycle safety it is proposed to reduce the volume of traffic using Bowpatch Road and instead use the safer means of access from Callow Close.
3.7 Site Notice/Neighbour – A total of 18 letters of objection have been received (with a total of 22 signatures) and a petition of objection with 59 signatures (20 of which have also written under separate cover). The reasons for objections are summarised as follows:
• This and other areas of amenity land were created as part of the overall planning approval granted for the construction of the residential estate • The land in question has always been considered by the local residents and the Council to be amenity land and this is recorded as being the case in property deeds • Deeds of the house state that a change of use to the amenity land can only be made with the approval of the adjacent properties • The land was allocated for use as a public open space and has been a significant advantage to the community • Object to the loss of amenity land which should be returned back to its original state • 6ft high concrete and wooden fence around the land contravenes the meaning of open plan which was the nature of the housing estate when it was first built
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.10 4
WF.987/04 continued
• View of open space has been replaced by 6ft wall • The appearance and materials of the fence and gates detract from the appearance of the area and destroys the open aspect of the area • Reduction of the fence to approximately half its’ present length would do nothing to reduce the eyesore that presently exists • Change of use of land and fencing creates an alleyway between Callow Close and Wrekin Walk • Alleyway encourages anti-social behaviour • There has already been one incident in early September with the police being involved • Concerns about graffiti, dog fouling, rubbish and the ongoing maintenance of the grassed area outside of the fence • Additional driveway would create a hazard on a very busy footpath used by many people including children • Concerns regarding the increase in additional traffic to Callow Close and further pressure on available car parking in the Close • The point at which the vehicular access is proposed is a turning circle on to which 3 driveways already terminate • Applicants were aware of the limitations and unsuitability of Bowpatch Road when they purchased the property • Position of lamp post is show incorrectly on the plan and would not enable the kerb to be dropped as shown • Driveway consists of a large area of gravel which covers a soakaway. This could cause more damage to an area which at times floods very badly because of an inadequate soakaway • Driveway encroaches upon a prescribed right of way from 29 Bowpatch Road into Callow Close • The change of use of the land could necessitate the removal of a number of trees • The work required could damage the trees especially the root systems • If this application were successful it would be more likely that future applications would be successful, further undermining this local amenity
One letter received from Areley Kings Amenity Protection Group:
The residents feel that this planning application submitted by Mr & Mrs Payne has been so designed to gain support after all the opposition to their erecting a fence creating an alleyway, building a drive, erecting gates and laying hardcore, gaining access through a cul-de-sac all without planning permission.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.11 5
WF.987/04 continued
The land in question has been maintained by the Council for 30 years and it gives concern to us that the Payne’s, planning consultant states that if planning permission is not granted the Paynes are under no obligation to keep the land maintained.
We feel that the fence erected around the Amenity Land contravenes the word “open plan”, which the whole estate is.
We strongly object to the alleyway that has been created, there has been recent unsavoury incidents regarding gangs of youths and police, and the female members of our group are now scared to walk through the alleyway between Callow Close and Wrekin Walk, especially at night.
The Paynes have also caused a hazard to children walking to school as they have opened up a cul-de-sac increasing volume of traffic through Callow Close.
4. Officer Comments
4.1 This application is in two parts. The first part is for the change of use of part of the amenity space to residential garden and the second part is for the change of use of a much smaller section of the amenity land to provide a vehicular access from Callow Close to the existing residential curtilage.
4.2 The application site was designated as an ‘open green area’ when the residential development was approved in 1971 and it would appear to be the only public amenity space provided as part of the application. Although there was a condition on the application to ensure the area of land was satisfactorily landscaped there was no condition or legal agreement controlling the future maintenance of the land. Notwithstanding this, however, the use of the land is still controlled by the Local Planning Authority and any change of use of the land requires a full planning application which must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise.
4.3 The key issues when considering this application are fourfold. Firstly, whether the proposed development would adversely affect the provision of public amenity space within this residential area. Secondly, whether the appearance of the fence and hardstanding are visually acceptable within the street scene. Thirdly, what impact the development would have on the protected trees and finally whether there would be any highway safety implications.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.12 6
WF.987/04 continued
Amenity Space 4.3 Local Plan Policies LR.1 and LR.2 state that development proposals which would have an adverse impact on open space areas or the provision of amenity space will not be permitted.
4.4 The amenity space, by virtue of its size and location, forms an important open space within this residential development and contributes to the quality of the area and amenity of residents. The proposed change of use would not only reduce the amount of amenity space by approximately 240 square metres, it would also detract from the character of the remaining amenity space which would no longer positively contribute to the whole residential development.
4.5 The agent’s letter says in support of the application that the retention of part of the amenity space, which could be transferred to the Local Authority under an agreement, would provide an area of maintained open space for the enjoyment of the residents. I do not consider this benefit to outweigh the loss of the remaining amount of amenity space that is being proposed to be enclosed and changed to residential curtilage.
Visual Amenity 4.6 The agent contends that it would be possible for a 2 metre high fence to be erected without the need for planning permission. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development Order) 1995 allows for the construction of a fence provided it would not exceed 2 metres in height or one metre if adjacent to a highway. In this instance, however, the fence would be changing the use of the land by enclosing the amenity space. Therefore, the fence and its appearance in the street scene should be considered as part of the proposed development.
4.7 Policy D.10 of the adopted Local Plan states that all boundaries must be designed to a high standard and to incorporate, wherever possible, vegetation or otherwise appropriate durable materials.
4.8 The fence is of timber construction and sits on gravel boards and would be 2.1 metres in height from ground level with concrete posts also standing at 2.1 metres in height. The existing fence is currently very visible from half way down Wrekin Walk and from the top of Callow Close. It is appreciated that the fence line would change from the existing situation and as a result its’ presence in Wrekin Walk would be less noticeable. Little attempt has been made to help screen the fence using landscaping although there would be a one metre strip between the fence and pavement edge. Notwithstanding this, however, I am of the opinion that the fence, by virtue of its height, materials and position, would still have an adverse impact upon the open plan appearance of this part of the residential development, particularly in Callow Close, the end of Wrekin Walk and when walking from Wrekin Walk to Callow Close.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.13 7
WF.987/04 continued
Trees 4.9 The Arboricultural Officer comments are provided in Section 3 of this report. He concludes that the position of the proposed fence is considered to obscure the view of the trees which are subject to Tree Preservation Orders. It is, therefore, considered that the proposed fence would adversely effect the public enjoyment of the trees and the amenity of the surrounding area.
Highway Issues 4.10 With regard to highway safety, the creation of the access does not require planning permission since this benefits from permitted development rights under Class B, Part 2 of Schedule 2. The gates already erected are also exempt from planning permission since they have been erected within the curtilage of the dwelling and are no higher than 2 metres in height.
4.11 Part of this application is seeking permission for the laying of the hardstanding in association with the permitted access to allow vehicles to cross a small section of the amenity land to reach the dwellings’ curtilage. The size of the amenity land involved is small in comparison to the whole application site, and although this has been covered with gravel I do not consider this part of the application to have a harmful affect on the visual amenity of the area.
Other Objections 4.12 Concerns have also been raised from local residents about the creation of an alleyway and the potential increase in anti-social behaviour and crime. The Crime Risk Manger has been consulted and did not consider the proposed development to have any significant impact on the likelihood of crime and disorder occurring in the area.
4.13 With regards to the right of way referred to be a neighbour, since this is not a public right of way it is not a material planning consideration. This would be a private matter between the neighbour and the applicant.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.14 8
WF.987/04 continued
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 It is considered that the submitted scheme, although attempts to give back some of the amenity land that has already been enclosed without planning permission, seriously reduces the provision of amenity space within this residential area and its contribution to the amenity of the residents and the surrounding area. The fence, by virtue of its position, height and materials, is not considered to relate to this open plan residential development nor complement the surrounding area. Furthermore it is considered that the fence would obscure the views of protected trees and would, therefore, adversely affect the amenity of the surrounding area. The proposed development is clearly contrary to Local Plan Policies and since there are no material considerations to outweigh these policies I recommend the application be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The change of use of amenity land to residential garden area would involve the loss of a large area of open amenity space. This amenity space is important to the aesthetics of this residential environment and the amenity of the residents. The loss of this open space and its’ enclosure by a 2 metre high boarded fence would be detrimental to the quality of Callow Close and Wrekin Walk and would set an undesirable loss of similar spaces within the residential development. The development is therefore contrary to Policies D.1, D.3, D.10, D.11 and LR.2 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
2. The proposed fencing due to its height and position would appear as a visually strident and incongruous feature in relation to the surrounding area and residential properties, in particular those in Callow Close and towards the end of Wrekin Walk. This would have a detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of this area. The development is therefore contrary to Policies D.1, D.3 and D.10 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan
3. The proposed fencing due to its height and position would obscure the views of various trees which have significant amenity value and which are afforded statutory protection by ‘Land adjacent 32/34 Bowpatch Road, Stourport Tree Preservation Order’ No. 278 (2004. The proposed fence would adversely effect the public enjoyment of the trees and the amenity of the surrounding area. The development is therefore contrary to Policies D.3 and D.4 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.15 WF.1007/04 Proposal: Outline : Erection of Date Received: 20.9.04 detached dwelling with Agent: M. G. Baynton integral garage at 6 Ord. Sheet: 8175 NW Southgate Close, Policy: H.2, H.5, D.1, D.3, D.10, Kidderminster D.13, TR.9, TR.17 (AWFDLP) Case Officer: P. Round Ward: Sutton Park Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Whitaker
THIS APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED FROM THE 19TH OCTOBER 2004 PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE FOR A MEMBERS’ SITE VISIT 1. Site Location and Description
1.1 The site measures approximately 190m sq. in area and is situated between numbers 6 and 9 Southgate Close located to the west of Kidderminster Town Centre. The site at present is used as garden area for number 6 Southgate Close, and also includes an area of hardstanding and a single garage which provide the off street parking facilities. The site is at a lower level than the existing dwelling at No. 6 and the properties to the rear of Ludgate Avenue.
1.2 The application seeks consent for the erection of a detached dwelling with an integral garage. In addition the proposal shows two new parking spaces for No. 6 within the newly designed curtilage. The application has been submitted in outline form, with only siting and access to be considered at this time. The design, external appearance and landscaping are all reserved for future consideration.
1.3 The area is allocated within the Local Plan as primarily for residential uses, and due to the garden nature of the site it is also considered to constitute previously developed land as defined in PPG.3 Annex C.
2. Planning History
2.1 None
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions. The location of the proposed vehicular access to serve the existing dwelling is sufficient in relation to visibility appropriate to the cul-de-sac. Vehicle speeds are relatively low although there is some on-street car parking which is expected. The County Council as Highway Authority could not support a refusal reason and in my view could not be sustained at any subsequent appeal. This unit provides consistent advice to planning application taking each case on its individual merits. If there were a problem in relation to visibility and/or layout this unit would certainly either be recommend refusal or request deferment. In this particular case there are no justifiable reasons that recommend refusal from the highway point of view.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.16 2
WF.1007/04 continued
3.2 Environment Agency – No objection
3.3 Arboricultural Officer – No objection
3.4 Severn Trent Water Ltd – No comments received
3.4 Neighbour - Six letters of objection and a 52 signatory petition received raising the following issues.
• Highway issues – inadequate road network insufficient off-street parking will result in, increased on-street parking harm pedestrians and vehicle safety, unsuitable access position; • over development leading to cramped appearance; • design incompatible; • loss of privacy to neighbouring properties and bungalows opposite; • set a precedent for further building and effect the character of this quiet unspoilt estate; • visually intrusive building too close to No. 8; • will cast shadows onto garden area; • disregard the local distinctiveness of the area; • not relate to the character of the street scene or architectural style of other properties (contrary to Design Quality SPG); • loss of openness and loss of views; • would be backland development; would add to further housing in Kidderminster where housing figures have already exceeded 2011 requirement by 10%; • drainage problems.
3.5 Hillcrest Residents Association – In addition to the petition and individual letters of objection, a separate objection has been received from Hillcrest Residents Association. They state that there is a significant level change along Southgate Close, and in particular between numbers 6 and 8 Southgate Close. This is a matter of real concern to the resident of 8 Southgate Close. The demolition of the existing garage and the building of the proposed house along the border line (Site Plan Reference Number 100020449) will be difficult to achieve without gaining access from the driveway of 8 Southgate Close. This is also a matter for concern.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.17 3
WF.1007/04 continued
3.6 Letter from Agent – Policy D.1 refers to design quality. This application is in outline form with design, and external appearance and landscaping reserved for future details. Access and siting only is to be determined at this stage. The relationship between the proposed house and the bungalow opposite is exactly the same as the relationship of numbers 8 and 10 Southgate Close. Policy D.3 has been observed by this application. The rear amenity of the proposed house is 67 sq. metres; No. 6 will have 95 sq. metres side and rear amenity. Reference to Policy H.6 of the Local Plan has been made in one letter of objection; this is not applicable, as our proposal is not backland development. Any future application within the locality will be treated on its own merits. Objectors have raised concern regarding road safety. This is without merit. Car parking requirements for the proposed house and 6 Southgate Close accord with car parking standards in the Local Plan. The Highway Authority has not objected. In view of the above and having regard to Government Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, we ask the Planning Committee to approve this application.
4. Officer Comments
4.1 As stated previously the site is allocated as primarily for residential use within the Local Plan. As such the principle of residential development conforms with Policy H2 (I). The main considerations in this case, are whether the site can accommodate a dwelling, the impact on the character of the area in terms of the footprint of the dwelling and the impact on highway safety.
4.2 The size of the proposed dwelling can be adequately accommodated on the site enabling sufficient amenity space to be provided. Indeed, the garden area provides at the shortest point 9m to the boundary increasing to 13m at the boundary adjacent to No. 8. In terms of the relationship between other dwellings, the proposed siting mirrors the plot width and set back from the highway as the other adjacent dwellings in Southgate Close. Although the proposed dwelling has a closer relationship with No. 8, than the other dwellings, it is not considered too significant in terms of the loss of amenity to No. 8 or the streetscene. The nearest property in Ludgate Avenue is No. 7, being 18.5m away from the proposed dwelling. Due to the angled relationship and level difference the impact on that property in terms of loss of privacy or amenity is not considered to be significant. Concern has been raised over the impact on the bungalows opposite the site, however in light of their distance (21 metres) from the site, it is not felt that any undue loss of amenity will occur.
4
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.18 WF.1007/04 continued
4.3 The five properties No’s. 8-16 (evens) on the same side of the road have a very distinctive pattern being of identical size and design. Their position differs slightly whereby Nos. 8 and 10 are in front of Nos. 12, 14 and 16. The proposed dwelling would follow the same form and give a symmetry to this side of Southgate Close resulting in 2 sets of 3 dwellings. I consider that the pattern of development in this area, will be maintained with this proposal, resulting in no adverse harm being caused to the character or the local distinctiveness of the area. I note the point made by the objectors, in respect of the roof plan showing a two storey addition to the dwelling. However, I consider this to be acceptable, and this could be a feature adopted by Nos. 8 – 11 should a two storey extension be required by them in the future.
4.4 The proposal seeks for access to the site to be determined at this stage. The Highway Authority have inspected the site and have concluded that the accesses to serve the new and existing dwellings are suitable in terms of their position and visibility afforded. In addition it is felt that the highway network can accommodate the additional traffic resulting from the dwelling and the off street parking provision accords with the County Council’s standards. I concur with this view, and as such I consider that the proposal is acceptable from a highway perspective.
4.5 In response to other matters raised by neighbours I would comment as follows:
1. Precedent – Any other similar proposal that may be submitted must be judged on its own merits. A previous refusal (WF.24/89) within the area related to a bungalow on land adjacent to 19 Southgate Close, and was on the basis of over development and the harmful impact on the amenity of the adjacent properties. Having reviewed the file, I would agree with this decision. However, I do not feel that the current proposal is comparable.
2. In terms of Housing figures, I do not feel that the housing figures within the Local Plan will be prejudiced by the construction of a single dwelling. The current proposal constitutes a windfall site and as such must be judged under the current policies.
3. Drainage concerns would be dealt with direct by the Council’s Building Control Section in liaison with Severn Trent Water Ltd.
5
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.19 WF.1007/04 continued
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable in principle in this location. The siting of the dwelling would conform with the general character of the impact of the new area and would not result in undue harm to neighbouring properties. The access on the road network has been carefully assessed and it is felt that the proposal will not result in deterioration of vehicular or pedestrian safety. As such the proposal is considered to accord with the policies of the Local Plan and the advice given in the Adopted Design Quality SPG.
5.2 I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:-
1. A1 (Standard outline); 2. A2 (Standard outline – reserved matters); 3. A3 (Submission of reserved matters); 4. B1 (Samples/details of materials); 5. B11 (Details of enclosure); 6. B12 (Erection of fences/walls); 7. B13 (Levels details); 8. J5 (Domestic garages: restriction of residential use); 9. J7 (Windows: obscure glazing); 10. J9 (Open plan frontage) 11. C6 (Landscaping – small scheme); 12. C8 (Landscape implementation); 13. E2 (Foul and Surface Water); 14. Highways
Notes
SN1 (Removal of permitted development rights) SN12 (Neighbours’ rights)
Reason for Approval The proposed dwelling is considered to be acceptable in principle, as this location is allocated for residential purposes in the Local Plan. The impact of the dwelling upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. In terms of access, the proposed access point and surrounding highway network is felt to be capable of accommodating the development. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.20 WF.1086/04 Proposal: Full: Change of use with Date Received: 12.10.04 extensions to form 7 Agent: T. J. Preece & Associates additional flats (8 in total) Ord. Sheet: 8176 SW at ‘Patin House’, The Lea, Policy: D.1, D.3, H.7, TR.9 & TR.17 Kiderminster Case Officer: P. Round Ward: Habberley & Blakebrook Applicant: Mr. R. Ramcharn
1. Site Location and Description
1.1 Patin House is a detached property located on The Lea to the west of Kidderminster Town Centre. The property was formally a 15 bedroom nursing home, with an associate managers flat. The site is also close to the recently constructed Bewdley Grange Housing Site.
1.2 The proposal is to convert and extend the existing property to create 5 two bed and 3 one bed flats. The extension is to be at first floor level and situated over an existing single storey extension.
1.3 The property measuring 3.8 x 8.8m is located within an area allocated primarily for residential uses. The building is on the Local List of buildings of Architectural and Historic Interest. The site is also subject to a Tree Preservation Order.
2. Planning History
2.1 WF.473/77 – Change of use to rest home - Approved WF.341/79 – Extension - Approved WF.581/81 – Extension – Approved WF.635/94 – Single and two storey extensions – Refused WF.712/95 – Single and two storey extensions – Approved WF.1036/02 – First floor extension – Withdrawn WF.1241/02 – Two storey and single storey extension – Refused WF.538/03 – Two storey and single storey extension – Refused – Appeal Dismissed WF.787/04 – Change of use with extensions to form 8 flats with front and rear extensions - Withdrawn
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions
3.2 Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions
3.3 Arboricultural Officer – No objection subject to conditions
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.21 2
WF.1086/04
3.4 Conservation Advisor – No objection
3.5 Environmental Health Officer – No objection subject to note
3.6 Worcestershire County Council (Education) – No comments received
3.6 Neighbour – 1 letter received – Our prime concern is one of safety for any children that may be living in the flats as there will be no possible space for a play area. Also parking, eight parking for eight flats is not adequate, so we feel more vehicles will have to park on the road, which is already happening.
4. Officer Comments
4.1 Policy H.7 sets out the criteria in which the scheme shall be judged.
“Proposals for the conversion of existing dwellings, to two or more dwellings including flats, will only be permitted where:
i) there would be no detrimental impact on the character of the area and the building itself;
ii) any alterations, extensions or external works are appropriate in scale, form and extent, to the site and its surroundings;
iii) provision for amenity space and enclosed storage of refuse is made;
iv) access is acceptable and parking provision in accordance with Policy TR.17 is made. Car parking will not normally be permitted in rear gardens, or in other locations which could harm amenities of adjacent dwellings;
v) the internal layout of rooms within the proposed development will not cause undue disturbance to adjoining dwellings or other units of accommodation in the building.
4.2 The proposed conversion can be carried out with little changes to the fabric of the existing building, and the extension proposed is at first floor level and mirrors the position and design a of previous extension approved on the building. The only other alterations proposed are additional windows at ground floor level. In light of this it is considered that the actual conversion works will not cause harm to the character of the building or the area. In respect of the use, I do not consider that the use of the building would cause harm to the surrounding area.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.22 3
WF.1086/04
4.3 The existing amenity space to the rear of the property is of a size that is appropriate for the number of flats proposed and includes drying areas for these flats. A brick building will be also provided to allow bins to be stored. The position and size of this building has been amended and is now considered acceptable.
4.4 In terms of the impact on highway safety, consideration must be given to the parking provision for the scheme and the access details. Access will be via the road at the front of the site and the submitted plans show a total of 8 spaces. This parking provision accords with the standards adopted by the County Council and included in the Adopted Local Plan. It is considered that the road network is capable of accommodating the traffic associated with this proposal. It is acknowledged that vehicular movements have increased as a result of the development on the corner of The Lea and Bewdley Hill, however I do not feel that this proposal, in addition to the newly built development, will result in a deterioration of highway safety. This view is supported by the Highway Authority.
4.5 In terms of the impact on residential properties, it is considered that the proposals would not result in increased overlooking or loss of amenity. Indeed any side windows that are on the first and second floor of the proposed extension are too be obscure glazed. In terms of boundary treatment the existing rear access will be only used for maintenance purposes and existing fencing will be maintained.
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 On balance the proposal is considered to meet the criteria laid out in Policy H.7 and accords with other policies in the Local Plan. As such the scheme is considered to be acceptable.
5.2 I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to a Section 106 to secure education contributions to the County Council and the following reasons:-
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. B3 (Finishing Materials) 4. C3 (Tree Protection During Construction) 5. E10 (Bunding of Tanks) 6. Highways 7. No pedestrian or vehicular access to rear
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.23 4
WF.1086/04
Notes
a) Highway b) Environmental Health
Reason for Approval
The proposed flats can be accommodated within the building without causing harm to the character of the building or the area. The impact on neighbouring properties has been assessed, however it is considered no undue harm will be caused. In terms of highway impact the parking provision and highway network are acceptable. The proposal thus conforms to the policies above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.24 WF.1092/04 Proposal: Full : Erection of dwelling Date Received: 14.10.04 on site of former Agent: RPS greenhouse with Ord. Sheet: 8378 SE associated parking Policy: H.2, D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, spaces, improvement to D11, GB1, GB2, GB6, access, replacement of LB1, LB2, LB5, LA1, boundary wall and LA2, TR.9, TR.17,: landscaping at Walled AWFDLP CTC1, CTC19, D12, D39 WCSP Garden, Sion Hill House, PPG2, PPG15, PPS7 Wolverley Case Officer: C. Eynon Ward: Wolverley Applicant: Comparo Ltd
1. Site Location and Description
1.1 The application site relates to the Walled Garden at Sion Hill House, in Wolverley. Sion Hill House, although originally built as a dwelling was last used as a nursing home and is a Grade II listed building. The main house and coach house have recently been converted to form a total of seven dwellings, although they are not occupied.
1.2 The site is within the West Midlands Green Belt and Landscape Protection Area and extends to approximately 0.4 ha. Access to the site is via the existing access to the main house, opposite Sion Hill Middle School. The Walled Garden is located to the south of the main house and coach house. Whilst there were previously structures including greenhouses and potting sheds within the walled garden these have since disappeared, although there are still some remnants on site. The site is therefore open land within the Green Belt. The northern and southern parts of the boundary wall of the Walled Garden are visible from the public highway (C2136).
1.3 The proposal is for the erection of a single dwelling within the walled garden on the site of a former greenhouse. It is also proposed to reconstruct the part of the wall which creates the walled garden.
1.4 This is a revised scheme following the withdrawal of previously submitted applications for planning permission and listed building consent. The difference between the current applications and those which were withdrawn in August 2004 are as follows: • Further submissions in respect of Green Belt policy • Amendment to access to avoid harm to existing trees
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.25 2 WF.1092/04
1.5 The planning application has been accompanied by a Planning Statement and a Design Statement.
2. Planning History Extensive but of most relevance, 2.1 WF.586/02 – Full: Conversion of existing house and coach house into seven dwellings – Approved September 2002
WF.587/02 – LBC: Conversion of existing house and coach house into seven dwellings – Approved September 2002
WF.1111/02 – Partial new construction of former green house as Eco-friendly dwelling house, parking space and reestablishment of garden and boundary wall – Withdrawn
WF.721/04 – Full - Erection of dwelling on site of former greenhouses with associated parking, improvement to access, replacement of boundary wall and landscaping – Withdrawn
WF.722/04 – LBC - Erection of dwelling on site of former greenhouses and replacement of boundary wall – Withdrawn
WF.1093/04 – LBC – Erection of dwelling on site of former greenhouse and replacement boundary wall – Pending consideration
The conversion works approved in 2002 have been completed but the residential units are not yet occupied.
3. Consultations and Representations 3.1 Principal Forward Planning Officer – I have considered the application mainly in the context of Policy GB1 but also GB5 and make the following observations: • The site is currently open land within the Green Belt • The land is enclosed but there are no buildings or structures on the land • The site is physically separate from Sion Hill House • The land was historically used as a small holding/garden to service the needs of Sion Hill House • In the past the land did contain a small collection of buildings/structures incidental to the use of the land as a ‘private garden’, none of which were substantial or capable of conversion • The enclosed land is now unused and not associated with any other property
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.26 3 WF.1092/04
In line with national planning policy (PPG2), Policy GB1 of the Local Plan provides a series of six very clear criteria for development to occur in the Green Belt. It seems to be agreed that the proposed development does not meet these criteria.
As to the question of very special circumstances, detailed comments are provided in response to the arguments put forward by the applicant. These comments are provided in the main body of the report.
3.2 Conservation Officer –
This application has been the subject of some pre-application discussions between the applicants, Development Control, and myself. Whilst the issues regarding the design (in that it was to be of high quality, sensitive, and sympathetic to both the area and the house), it was always made clear that issues regarding Policy would have to be overcome.
In general terms, the development seeks to bring about a new use for the Walled Garden, as a residential development space, with one house being constructed against the wall. This development site will clearly have links, both in visual and spatial terms, to the main house, and the rest of the grounds, whilst still retaining some form of separateness. Historically, the walled garden would have been an important feature in the grounds, but one that is functional, rather than aesthetic. Whilst it would have had a direct association with the house and its grounds, the walled garden was, in terms of design, a separate entity, with a specific use. It is my opinion that these proposals continue this association, with the Walled Garden being used as a residential space, closely linked to the main house, and the rest of the development. Furthermore, the wall will be subject of repair, and white-washing, again bringing back part of the character of this area of the site. Whilst I recognise that the repair of the wall is not a justification for the proposed development, this together with bringing a viable use to this part of the site is directly in line with Listed Building and historic areas legislation and guidance (both national and local).
In terms of design, it is my opinion that the proposals present a development that is strong in terms of character, yet sympathetic to the site, and more specifically to both the Walled Garden and the principle house. With the height of the building to run below the top of wall, and constructed from Oak and glazed panels, the building presents a light-weight structure, in terms of visibility, clearly representing a garden building (pavilion or hot-house – it contains element of both). It is my opinion that the modern design of the building, and the choice of materials are both sensitive and sympathetic to the site, of high quality, and would present a building within the grounds of Sion Hill House that would compliment the site.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.27 4 WF.1092/04
In terms of development within the historic environment, again, I feel that the proposals would be of great benefit to the site, in terms of design, and of bringing the Walled Garden back into some form of use, associated with the House, and its grounds. There are several elements to this, that can be measured against the guidance given in PPG15.
I appreciate that the proposals are contrary to policies regarding Green Belt and Landscape Protection Areas, but it is my recommendation that this is looked at flexibly, considering the high quality of design that has been secured on this site, with special regard to the sympathetic and sensitive re-use and adaptation of the walled garden, resulting in the continued use of this part of the gardens of the principle house, retaining the association with the main grounds, and with the main house.
I recommend Approval subject to conditions.
3.3 Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions.
3.4 Environmental Health – comments awaiting
3.5 Worcestershire County Council (Archaeology Service) – the application affects a site of archaeological interest. The walled garden forms part of the Sion Hill House complex of buildings. To date both Sion Hill House and the Coach house have been recorded prior to works being undertaken. I therefore recommend that the remains of the walled garden be photographed and where appropriate drawn in order to provide a complete record of the site.
3.6 Environment Agency – no objections subject to conditions
3.7 Severn Trent Water – no objections subject to conditions
3.8 English Heritage – on the basis of the information provided we do not consider it necessary for this application to be notified to English Heritage under the relevant statutory provisions
3.9 Wolverley Parish Council – Recommend refusal
- New development in green belt which would set a dangerous precedent in this sensitive area. - Inappropriate design against the backdrop of a 17/18th century range of converted buildings. - Will add more traffic to this extremely busy dangerous access.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.28 5 WF.1092/04
3.10 Site Notice/neighbours – One letter of objection received. The reasons for objection are summarised as follows: • There has been considerable development of the site in the last 2 years by changing from a residential home to several separate dwellings. We cannot see how additional traffic could be sustained, especially as site is opposite school drop off point. The proposal will create an even greater highway hazard taking into account that the earlier development is not yet occupied. • Proposed development will overlook our property and have a major adverse effect on our privacy as we are not currently overlooked on any aspect • The alterations to the listed wall at the entrance have not made any noticeable improvement to the entry and exiting of vehicles to and from the property • We have observed infestation of Japanese Knotweed through the common wall of the walled garden.
The letter also queries whether planning permission was granted for a garage which has been erected adjacent to their land.
4. Officer Comments
There are two main issues in the determination of this application:
i) Whether the development is inappropriate in the Green Belt and if there are any very special circumstances to outweigh any harm by way of inappropriateness
ii) Whether the proposed dwelling has an adverse impact on the setting of the complex of listed buildings at Sion Hill House.
GREEN BELT 4.1 The site is within the Green Belt where there is a presumption against inappropriate development. PPG2 and Policy GB.1 of the Adopted Local Plan both set out the types of development which are considered appropriate within the Green Belt. In terms of residential development it must be required for agriculture/forestry, constitute limited infilling or a replacement dwelling. The proposed dwelling however does not meet that criteria and is therefore ‘inappropriate’. PPG2 also advises that inappropriate development is by definition harmful to the Green Belt.
4.2 The applicant accepts in paragraph 2.21 of the Planning Statement that the proposal does not fall within any of these classes. However the Statement does include a chapter on the consideration of the appropriateness of the development. The issues raised in this context are summarised as follows:
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.29 6 WF.1092/04
4.3 Appropriateness of Development • Whilst it is not suggested by the applicant that the garden buildings represented former dwellings, as they were ancillary buildings to the main house it is therefore appropriate to consider the policy on replacement dwellings. • Whilst Sion Hill House cannot be described as a village for the purpose of limited infilling, if the site was treated as a washed over village then the proposal as infilling would be appropriate. • Were the site identified as a major developed site then the proposal would be appropriate • If the Walled Garden is taken to be a building the proposal can to an extent be seen to be appropriate. • It is correct to consider in what physical sense the proposal differs from these appropriate uses to judge the harm that would be caused
4.4 When considering inappropriate development in the Green Belt the main issue to consider is whether there are any very special circumstances to justify why the development should be permitted. The applicant has submitted a detailed Planning Statement which sets out the unique set of circumstances why it should be allowed to proceed. These circumstances are summarised as follows:
4.5 Listed Building Preservation • The application involves providing an active and viable use for the Walled Garden which no longer has any viable use associated with the principal house • Preservation of the Walled Garden as a curtilage feature within the listed demise of Sion Hill House is an important planning objective and supported in PPG15 • The reclamation and re-use of Walled Garden will complete the restoration of Sion Hill House and unify the whole development. It will also benefit the wider setting of Sion Hill House • The redevelopment of the main house and coach house does not provide for any works to the Walled Garden which will need to be self financing • The proposal will restore this element of the listed building and guarantee its maintenance into the future
4.6 Officer comments – in light of the recent redevelopment of Sion Hill House and the type of residential environment created, the preservation and up-keep of the house and its surrounding environment do not appear reliant on the successful outcome of this application.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.30 7 WF.1092/04
4.7 Presence of earlier structures • OS maps identify the presence of buildings within the Walled Garden from 1885 onwards and an OS map of 1935 clearly identifies the area covered by glasshouses and potting sheds • The footprint of previous development extended to about 216 m sq. The proposal is around 50% at 115m sq. • The proposal is therefore substantially smaller than those structures such that the openness of the Green Belt will be unaltered
4.8 Officer Comments – there are many instances where evidence of previous buildings/structures can be found. The application site is now fully open with no buildings remaining on the site. If the site was within an area where residential development is acceptable in principle, then the significance of the historic relationship in terms of conservation/heritage would be recognised, but this is not the case in this instance.
4.9 Enclosed Nature of the Site • The Walled Garden is enclosed by a high wall. The development will not be visible to any public viewpoint, or extend into the countryside or the Green Belt. • There will be no perceptible change to the openness of the Green Belt
4.10 Officer Comments – many sites are enclosed or capable of enclosure. It is considered that the construction of a house within a site that currently contains no buildings would reduce the openness of the site, contrary to advice in PPG2.
4.11 Limited scale of development • The proposal provides a building which is more consistent with the size of the original garden buildings than the scheme that was withdrawn in 2002
Officer Comments – The fact that a building is small does not appear relevant when considering the principle of development in the Green Belt.
4.12 Building Quality • A bespoke design solution has been proposed which reflects the ethos of the self-sufficiency of the Victorian kitchen garden, in design terms and the seasonal nature of the garden • A modern building is proposed which is respectful to its surroundings and subservient to the character boundary wall • Careful choice of natural and lightweight materials to facilitate a building which is in form, bulk and design in keeping with its surroundings • Proposal maximises upon the microclimate of the site The quality of design, materials and workmanship can be seen in the refurbishment of the main house and coach house.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.31 8 WF.1092/04
4.13 Officer Comments- The attention to detail and the consideration of the historic context is acknowledged and reported in more detail in the next section of this report (Impact on Listed Building). However this is a matter of detail and not relevant when considering the principle of development.
4.14 Proximity to Urban Area • The site is an urban fringe site which benefits from all the facilities of an urban area • Being wholly contained within the structure of the walled garden, the dwelling will not extend development closer to the built up area
4.15 Officer Comments – It is acknowledged that the site is very close to the Broadwaters area of Kidderminster. This is particularly relevant given that the proposal would extend the residential curtilage of the Sion Hill House development towards the boundary of the Kidderminster built up area and could serve to undermine the role and purpose of the Green Belt in this area.
4.16 Loss of Functional Relationship • There no longer exists any functional relationship between the walled garden and the main house and coach house which have been sub divided into 7 units • PPG 15 recognises that when such situations arise alternative uses that maintain the character and context of those uses being replaced should be considered • Keeping this area as a leisure space would not necessarily mean that in the long term it would retain its linkages with the main house, whereas using this a living space would mean it would be kept in good condition and the association would be retained
4.17 Officer Comments – there is no evidence to suggest that the land could not be used to provide amenity space for the new residents in the adjacent development. The submitted plans already shows half of the walled garden as ‘house walled garden’ and the Design Statement states that additional garden space will be created for residents of the main house and Coach house.
4.18 With respect to Green Belt policy the proposal constitutes inappropriate development. It is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate the very special circumstances why the development should be permitted in the Green Belt. In addition the erection of a dwelling within the open area of the walled garden would reduce the openness of the Green Belt.
IMPACT ON LISTED BUILDING 4.19 The second issue to consider is whether the proposed development will have an adverse impact on the setting of this complex of Grade II listed Buildings. 9
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.32 WF.1092/04
4.20 The proposed dwelling is to be located in the position previously occupied by greenhouses and associated structures. The dwelling itself would be approximately 6.0 x 21.5 metres in size The dwelling would have a flat roof 2.7 metres in height which would be lower than the renovated boundary wall which encloses the site. The dwelling would comprise 3 bedrooms (one with ensuite bathroom), bathroom, living room, kitchen and breakfast area.
4.21 Part of the northern boundary wall of the walled garden would form the rear wall of the proposed dwelling. The dwelling would then run parallel to the wall. As stated in the applicant’s Design Statement the proposal incorporates the character wall as a key feature in the proposed design. It is also proposed to make good the wall and raise it to its original height with suitable coping.
4.22 The design reflects the previous greenhouses by presenting the dwelling as a pavilion set back from the wall itself with glazing for the link and the return walls. The roof has been designed as a thin plate roof which is set lower than the boundary wall. Maximum use of glass has been used for the façade with a large eaves overhangs to provide shading. In addition, the dwelling has been designed to respond to seasons by the use of automated sliding oak panels which change the appearance of the dwelling internally and externally.
4.23 The contemporary design of the dwelling follows detailed discussions with Officers, including the Conservation Officer. The Design Statement submitted with the application includes examples of where dwellings have been successfully erected within walled gardens of other properties. The Statement also states that attention to architectural quality is important to ensure that the new building does not compete with the main house.
4.24 It is clear from the Conservation Officer’s comments that the proposed development is considered acceptable in terms of development within a historic environment. In particular he considers the modern design of the building and choice of materials to be both sensitive and sympathetic to the site. I would concur that view.
OTHER ISSUES 4.25 In terms of amenity space the submitted plans show that the walled garden would be subdivided by a new spine wall to define the garden area of the proposed dwelling. The remaining area of land within the walled garden would be created for residents of the main house and coach house.
4.26 Access to the proposed dwelling is shown via an existing driveway which leads to a three bay car port. It is proposed to extend this driveway into the walled garden through an existing opening in the wall, to a separate parking area to the west of the dwelling.
10
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.33 WF.1092/04
4.27 With respect to the issues raised by the neighbour, the Highway Authority have raised no objection to the erection of a further dwelling on this site. The scheme is therefore considered acceptable in terms of highway safety.
4.28 Due to the distance from the proposed dwelling and the neighbour’s property, the Barn House Cottage (distance in excess of 120 metres), and the single storey design of the dwelling, it is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of neighbours in terms of overlooking.
4.29 A refusal of planning permission on these grounds could therefore not be substantiated
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 Although the design and architectural treatment of the proposed dwelling is of high quality and not considered to have an adverse impact on the setting of Sion Hill House, the principle of the proposed residential development in the Green Belt is contrary to the Development Plan. Notwithstanding the strong support from the Conservation Officer to the proposed development, it is considered that the applicant has failed to demonstrate very special circumstances why this inappropriate development should be permitted in the Green Belt.
5.2 I therefore recommend that planning application WF.1092/04 be REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The application site is within the West Midlands Green Belt. The proposed dwelling would constitute inappropriate development and the applicant has failed to demonstrate the very special circumstances why this inappropriate development should be permitted. The proposal is therefore contrary to government advice in PPG2, Policies D12 and D39 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and policies H.2 and GB.1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan which state that housing proposals will only be allowed in the Green Belt where very special circumstances have been demonstrated which outweigh the harm arising from the inappropriateness of the development.
2. The erection of a dwelling within the currently open area of land within the Walled Garden would reduce the openness of the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to Government advice in PPG2, and policies GB.2 and GB.6 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan which seek to protect the openness of the Green Belt.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.34 WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE MEETING 16th NOVEMBER, 2004
PART B
WF.819/04 Proposal: Full: Proposed erection of 2 No. Date Received: 3.8.04 houses on site of existing Agent: Dean Walker Bateman bungalow with access and Ord. Sheet: 7875 NW parking at Brambles, Dowles Policy: PPG.1, WCSP CTC.1 AWFDLP Road, Bewdley LA.1, LA.6, LA.7, D.1, D.3, D.4, D.9, D.10, D.11, H.2, TR.9, TR.17 Case Officer: J. Summerfield Ward: Bewdley and Arley Applicant: Mrs. R. Johnson Site Location and Description: The application site is rectangular in shape and slopes steeply from Dowles Road at the lower end of the site towards the higher part at the rear, a difference in levels for approximately 10m from front to back. The site accommodates an existing bungalow set back approximately 14m from the highway which is largely screened by existing vegetation. The proposal comprises the replacement of the existing bungalow with two dwellings utilising a replacement access in the centre of the site off Dowles Road. The proposed 5 bedroom dwellings comprise a double garage with forecourt parking at basement level, lower ground floor, upper floor and first floor within the proposed roof space. The dwellings would reach an overall height of 13m to the ridge. Due to the significant reprofiling of the site much of the existing screening vegetation would be lost. The application has been supplemented by a Landscape Design Statement. Consultations and Representations: Bewdley Town Council – Recommend approval Environment Agency – No objections subject to condition Highway Authority – Object to proposed landscaping scheme Environmental Health and Licensing Manager – No objection subject to conditions Arboricultural Officer – The trees on site are not afforded statutory protection. The site contains a variety of vegetation including shrubs, hedges and several trees, however none are of significant individual merit. The vegetation as grouped does however provide amenity to the locality and serves to screen the existing property from Dowles Road. The proposals require that the majority of the vegetation on site be removed to accommodate the development. A comprehensive landscape scheme has been provided and is considered suitable to a certain extent. The applicant asserts that some of the vegetation including portions of the hedge to the front of the site and boundary trees might be retained, however I am sceptical that this would be possible. I consider it likely that the extensive excavations and alterations of ground levels required, would damage the root systems of some of this vegetation to the extent that it might be lost. A mature horse chestnut is present on the neighbouring land to the south of the application site and it would be important to protect its root system. No objection subject to the protection of horse chestnut tree and the implementation of a landscape scheme. Severn Trent Water Ltd – Awaiting comments Neighbour/Site Notice – No responses received Officer Comments: The principle of the development is acceptable at this location. Whilst the site is not within the Conservation Area or Landscape Protection Area concerns have been previously expressed with respect to the impact of the development on the street scene. The existing appearance is characterised by the established planting concealing the existing single storey development. Due to the re-profiling of the site, the access and the on-site turning provision, much of this vegetation will be lost. In response, alterations to the design of the dwellings together with a Landscape Design Statement have been submitted. Additional information indicates that the development would only require the minor cutting back of the existing frontage hedge, the existing trees to the rear of the site and on the boundaries would be retained, only ornamental planting would be lost and there would be no impact upon the wider landscape setting. Furthermore, if not permitted the vegetation would be removed for essential engineering works to rectify the current land slippage within the site. The development would prevent the potential for land slippage onto Dowles Road. Conclusions and Recommendations: The supporting information has been considered and whilst acknowledging the existing planting could be removed without the requirement for planning consent it is still maintained that the proposed development as a whole would, due to the style of property and re-profiling of the land look out of keeping with the existing street scene. I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reason: 1. It is considered that as a result of the proposed significant re-profiling of the site, the height, design and massing of the proposed dwellings, the proposed access, parking and turning provision combined with the loss of existing landscaping that a scheme of two dwellings is over development of the site. As such it is considered that the development would appear over prominent within and detract from the appearance of the streetscene. The proposal is therefore considered contrary to Policy CTC.1 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and Policies D.1, D.3, LA.1, LA.7 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. 2. The proposed landscape scheme does not allow sufficient visibility from the proposed new access, and is
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.35 therefore contrary to Policy TR.9 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.36 WF.843/04 Proposal: Full : Extension to existing Date Received: 09.08.04 retail area for Use Class A1 Agent: M Humphries retail at rear at ground floor Ord. Sheet: 8171 SW and first floor extension to Policy: H.2, D.1, D.3, D.18, CA.1, rear to provide additional flat CA.2, TC.2, RT.4 and patio deck area to rear of Case Officer: C. Wolfe existing second floor flat (demolition of existing workshop) at 8 York Street, Stourport on Severn Ward: Mitton Applicant: Mr H Barton Esq THIS APPLICATION WAS DEFERRED AT THE PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE TH ON 19 OCTOBER 2004, TO ENABLE FURTHER INVESTIGATION ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THE NEIGHBOURING BUSINESS ON THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL USE Site Location and Description: The application relates to a 3 storey Georgian terrace on the northern side of York Street within the Stourport on Severn Conservation Area. There is a retail unit on the ground floor with a large storage shed to the rear and residential flats on the upper floors which are accessed by an alleyway to the side. The application proposes to demolish the store to the rear and extend the retail sales area and construct a further flat over the new extension with a communal outdoor area for all three flats. Consultations and Representations: Stourport on Severn Town Council – Recommend Approval Highway Authority – No objections British Waterways – No objections Environmental Health – Further to a site visit regarding the application for a new residential unit at no. 8 York Street, I can confirm that the maggot facility at no. 10 is highly likely to cause problems with odours. At the time of my visit, the number of maggots being kept was a quarter of the amount stored when the fishing shop is operating at full capacity in the summer. The weather was overcast and cool. The smell of ammonia even under these conditions was strong and nauseous. In the summer, it is highly likely that we would receive complaints regarding odour from permanent residents immediately adjacent and above the maggot storage facility. Conservation Officer – No objection subject to conditions Neighbour/Site Notice – 2 letters received raising the following concerns: my business is situated at no. 7B at the rear of the alleyway; the general public use the alleyway to attend appointments; access is also for no. 6, 7, 8, & 8A; the alleyway should in no way be allowed to be used as site access for contractors/workmen, transporting building materials, tools, scaffolding, or the removal from the site of disused building materials, rubble etc; alleyway is not a site entrance it is purely an access for a long standing business and for their clients who need a non hazardous approach; will require that any asbestos is removed in a professional manner. Officer Comments: The retail unit and flats are currently empty and the store to the rear is rather ramshackle in appearance and currently does not provide the most useful space for a retail premises. 8 York Street is located within a Secondary Shopping Area where Policies TC.2 and RT.4 apply. These policies allow for residential development above retail premises and modest ground floor extensions to retail premises provided they do not exceed 250 square metres in floor area. The proposed development would comply with both these policies. The main cause for concern are issues raised by the Environmental Health Officer with regards to the storage of maggots at the adjacent site. Policy D.1 says that development must be designed not to give rise to serious detrimental impact such as smells on the amenity of nearby residents. When considering new residential developments this policy is also considered to apply to the future occupiers of the proposed development. However, PPG 23 ‘Planning and Pollution Control’ states that local planning authorities should not seek to duplicate controls which are the statutory responsibility of other bodies. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 states that a statutory nuisance includes smells of effluvia from an industrial or business premises. I am therefore satisfied that the concerns about potential odours can be dealt with under the Environmental Protection Act. Furthermore there are no openings proposed on the elevation facing no. 10 and there is no record of any complaints from current or previous occupiers of the existing nearby residential units. The proposal is not considered to have an adverse impact on the Conservation Area. With regards to the comments raised by third parties these matters are not material planning considerations. Conclusions and Recommendations: The application is therefore recommended APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: 1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B1 (Samples/Details of materials); 4. B9 (Notwithstanding Details on Plans – Details of Windows and Doors); 5. J23 (Storage of Refuse – Submission of Details Required); 6. J25 (Shop Front – Submission of Details Required). Notes SN2 (Section 106 Agreement); SN5 (No Advertisements); Conservation Area Consent Required. Reason for Approval - The proposed development is considered to be of an appropriate size and design and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene and Conservation Area. The impact of the development upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity and the Conservation Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered to comply with policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.37 WF.888/04 Proposal: Full : Replacement dwelling Date Received: 24.8.04 at Bon Accord, Kingsford Agent: Garfield Davies Lane, Wolverley Ord. Sheet: 8281 8381 Policy: H.9,D.1,D.3,D.9,LA.1,LA.2, GB.1,GB.2,GB.6,CH.4 AWFDLP CTC.4, D.39 WCC PPG2 Case Officer: P. Round Ward: Wolverley Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. P. Mansell
Site Location and Description: Bon Accord is a detached chalet style property located off Kingsford Lane, Wolverley. The property was identified within the Shack Survey 1979, and is located within the West Midlands Green Belt. The site is also within the Landscape Protection Area. The proposal seeks consent for a replacement dwelling on the site.
Planning History: None
Consultations and Representations: Wolverley and Cookley Council – Recommend Approval Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions Severn Trent Water Ltd – No objection subject to conditions Neighbour – No comments received
Officer Comments: The key principle for this type of proposal is set out in Policy GB.1 of the Local Plan. This states that replacement dwellings are allowed “provided that the new dwelling is not materially larger than the dwelling it replaces”. On this occasion although the footprint and position of the dwelling is considered to be acceptable, in order to get accommodation in the roof space the height has been raised by 1.1m. This is considered to be materially different to the existing dwelling and would cause harm to the Green Belt in terms of its visual amenity and openness. The proposal would therefore constitute inappropriate development in the Green Belt and no very special circumstances have been put forward by the applicant to justify why this development should be permitted.
In addition as the property was a former chalet (“shack”), Policy CH.4 also applies. This stipulates that for replacement chalets there should be a reduction in the visual impact on the landscape, this has not been achieved in this case. In view of these points the proposal is clearly contrary to Local Plan Policy.
Conclusions and Recommendations: I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons: 1. The application site is within the West Midlands Green Belt. The proposed replacement dwelling would constitute inappropriate development due to the increase in height above the original dwelling.
2. The applicant has failed to demonstrate any very special circumstances why this inappropriate development should be permitted in the Green Belt. The proposal is therefore contrary to government advice in PPG2, policy D.39 of the Worcester Country Structure Plan and policies GB.1 and GB.2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan which state that inappropriate development will only be allowed in the Green Belt where very special circumstances have been demonstrated which outweigh the harm arising from the inappropriateness of the development. 3. The existing property was identified within the 1979 shack survey. The proposed replacement dwelling by virtue of the increase in roof height will not result in a reduction in the visual impact on the landscape. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy CH.4 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.38 WF.922/04 Proposal: Full : Elevational alterations to Date Received: 26.8.04 amusement centre (as Agent: Building Design Group approved under WF.841/00) at Ord. Sheet: 8071 SE Riverside House & Policy: STC.5, CA.1, D.1, D.2, D.6, Amusement Park, Stourport NR.5, TR.6, LR.8, NC.2, LR.1 on Severn Case Officer: J. Summerfield Ward: Mitton Applicant: Shipley & Sons Amusements Ltd Site Location and Description: The application site accommodates the existing amusement centre east of Bridge Street on the northern side of the river. The existing building has frontage to both the river and the canal basin area. The application seeks approval for alterations to a previously approved scheme comprising extensions to the building to accommodate a play area, store and workshop to the rear and a café to the front. The alterations to the approved scheme comprise a decorative, conical roof in the style of a bandstand above the previously approved extension in front of the existing building/bowling area. In addition further alterations to the approved frontage to Bridge Street comprise a similar styled but higher conical roof above the existing entrance to the amusement centre. Finally, a pitched roof is proposed to the bulk of the main building with two proposed timber boarded canopies to the side elevation visible from the river. Planning History: WF.769/92 – Extension to amusement centre – Approved WF.378/94 – Extension to amusement centre – Withdrawn WF.429/97 – Major extensions and alterations – Approved WF.62/99 – Erection of extensions with refurbishment and new façade treatment – Approved WF.841/00 – Erection of extension to amusement centre, reposition rides in new paving at Riverside House – Approved 12/12/00 Consultations and Representations: Stourport on Severn Town Council – Recommend approval Highway Authority – No objection English Heritage – Do not wish to make any representations. Environment Agency – Since the application is purely related to the elevations the Agency wishes to remove its previous objection based on the absence of a flood risk assessment. Stourport Civic Society – Awaiting comments Conservation Officer – No objections subject to conditions British Waterways – Concern over how the additional height of the pavilion style roof will impact on the views across the basin, in particular on views from Engine Lane and the footbridge to the front of the upper barge lock; concern as to the impact the extension to the building will have as one wall will be immediately adjacent to the lower basin and the other behind an attractive existing block wall; would welcome proposals for the replacement of the existing block wall adjacent to the river. Officer Comments: With respect to the content of the scheme the proposed layout is as previously approved. The scheme is only different in its elevational treatment. In response to British Waterways comments the agent has advised that the proposed pavilion style pitched roof utilises the existing profile of the current roof along the side elevation with a similar eaves height and maximum ridge height only 0.4m higher than existing. Furthermore, the ridge height is located some 5m inside the current fascia position. With respect to the impact upon the adjacent basins area it is considered that the pitched roof will provide a less fussy exterior which is considered to have less impact upon the appearance of the amusement centre from the adjacent area. Unfortunately the existing brick wall lining the walkway adjacent to the river does not form part of the approved scheme, however, a condition of the previous approval requires details of all means of enclosure to be submitted to and agreed with the Local Planning Authority. Conclusions and Recommendations: It is my opinion that the proposals will improve the appearance of the existing building and preference is given to the current scheme over the previously approved scheme. No objections have been raised by the Council’s Conservation Officer. I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:- 1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials); 4. Permission relates solely to alterations to Riverside House.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.39 Reason for Approval The alterations to the previously approved scheme are considered to be acceptable within the Stourport Conservation Area with no undue loss of character on the adjacent canal basin. The proposal is therefore considered to be in accordance with the above policies.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.40 WF.932/04 Proposal: Outline : Residential Date Received: 4.10.04 development of up to 14 Agent: Hulme Upright Planning dwellings (demolition of Ord. Sheet: 8376 SE existing garage premises) at Policy: H.2, H.5, H.10, D.1, D.3, Randles Garage, George D.11, TR.9, TR.17, NR.2 Street, Kidderminster Case Officer: P. Wrigglesworth Ward: Greenhill Applicant: Randles Garage
Site Location and Description: This application relates to the car showroom/garage premises which takes up the whole of a corner site fronting George Street and Cherry Orchard. The application seeks planning permission to redevelop the garage and is an outline submission with all matters reserved. To one side of the site, existing residential properties are located in a set back position with access from Cherry Orchard.To the rear, new properties are being constructed with access from George Street. Planning History: Numerous but none particularly relevant
Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions Environmental Health and Licensing Manager – Views awaited Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions/notes Severn Trent Water – Views awaited Crime Risk Manager – No comment at this stage Neighbours/Site Notice/Advertisement – One letter received – no objection to demolition of the garage and its replacement with houses – would be grateful to be kept informed as we have some concern about possible road exit from the site and other matters.
Officer Comments: The site falls within the definition of previously developed land and is within an area designated for housing purposes. This application, which seeks permission for the redevelopment of the garage site for residential purposes, is therefore in accordance with Policy H2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. The application is in outline with all matters reserved and consequently there are no plans showing the number or type of properties proposed. The applicant’s agents however have stated that they are seeking planning permission for up to 14 units. This is also the number above which affordable housing is required. Policy H.5 (Housing Density) requires that development on sites such as this which lie within 500 metres of Kidderminster town centre or the railway station achieve a density of at least 50 dwellings per hectare. If as many as 14 dwellings could be accommodated on this site, then a density of about 84 dwellings per hectare would be realised. In fact only 8 dwellings would be needed to comply with Policy H5. The specification of 14 units as a maximum figure ensures that any developer wanting more units than this doesn’t escape from an affordable housing contribution on the back of an outline planning permission unfettered by a Section 106 agreement covering affordable hosing. This is because they would have to submit a fresh planning application rather than a reserved matters application. Conclusions and Recommendations: The garage site lies within a residential area where the principle of residential development is established by dint of Policy H2 of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan. Consideration of any scheme against other policies in the Local Plan, including those policies relating to design and the affect on nearby residential properties, will take place on receipt of a reserved matters submission.
I would therefore recommend that delegated authority be given to APPROVE this application on completion of a Section 106 Agreement covering educational contributions and subject to the following conditions: 1. A1, A2 (All matters reserved), 2. A3 (Submission of Reserved Matters), 3. A11 (Approved Plans), 4. Defining permission to no particular number of dwellings but to not more than 14 units, 5. B1 (Samples/Details of materials), 6. B11 (Details of Enclosure), 7. B13 (Levels Details), 8. Landscaping implementation, 9. Environment Agency conditions 10. Environmental Health conditions, 11. Highway conditions. Notes SN12 (Neighbours rights), Highway and Environment Agency. Reason for Approval The proposed development is situated in an area allocated for residential development and is considered to constitute previously developed land. To approve the principle of residential development in these circumstances would be in accordance with policies contained within the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.41 WF.942/04 Proposal: Full: Proposed boundary Date Received: 01.09/04 wall at 1 Abberley Agent: None Avenue, Stourport on Ord. Sheet: 7969 NE Severn Policy: D.1, D.3, D.10, D.11 Case Officer: C. Wolfe Ward: Areley Kings Applicant: Mr G Thomas
Site Location and Description: 1 Abberley Avenue is a detached dwelling located on a corner plot at the junction with Redhouse Road. The application seeks permission for a new wall along part of the boundary with Redhouse Road.
Planning History: WF.289/81 – Garage and Porch WF.177/90 – Garage WF.457/94 – Conservatory WF.852/04 - Conservatory
Consultations and Representations: Stourport on Severn Town Council – Recommend Refusal Highway Authority – No objections to revised scheme subject to condition Arboricultural Officer – No response received but no trees would be affected Neighbour/Site Notice – No response yet received.
Officer Comments: 1 Abberley Avenue currently benefits from a large area of garden land to the side and front of the property. This garden area is currently surrounded by a dwarf brick wall which is sited at the back edge of the pavement. The property benefits from permitted development rights for the erection of walls/fences. It is proposed to remove part of the wall that runs parallel with Redhouse Road and replace with a 1.8 metre high wall which would be re-positioned to allow for a landscaping strip of 0.5 metres between the proposed wall and the pavement. The wall would be set well back from the front elevation so the open appearance of Abberley Avenue would not be affected. The 1.8 metre high walling would be visible within Redhouse Road, however, this frontage does not have an open plan appearance because of existing walls and hedges. Although a 1 metre landscaping strip is normally required, in view of the position of the walling at no. 2 Abberley Avenue it is felt that this can not be insisted upon in this instance. The proposed wall is not considered to be visually harmful to this street scene.
Conclusions and Recommendations: It is considered that the proposal meets the criteria of the relevant policies and therefore the application is recommended for APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: A6 (Full and no Reserved Matters); A11 (Approved Plans); B1 (Samples/Details of Materials including gates); C6 (Landscaping – Small Scheme); C8 (Landscape Implementation). Note – HN5 (Highway) Reason for Approval: The proposed walls due to their height and position are considered to be visually acceptable and would not result in a situation detrimental to highway safety. To approve the development in these circumstances would be compliant with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.42 WF.958/04 Proposal: Full : Change of use to hot Date Received: 10.09.04 food take away (A3 use) with Agent: Gurmukhi Building Design extraction ducting, new shop Ord. Sheet: 8376 NW front and roller shutter and Policy: TC.2, RT.4, D.1, D.18, NR.10, two self contained flats on the RT.13, H.2 first floor at 21-23 Coventry Case Officer: C. Wolfe Street, Kidderminster Ward: Greenhill Applicant: Spurville Ltd Site Location and Description: The application site is a double retail unit located on the northern side of Coventry Street near to the junction with Waterloo Street. The application proposes to change the use of this unit, which is currently vacant, to a hot food take away with associated extraction to the rear, roller shutter to the front and two self contained residential units on the upper floors. Planning History: Nothing relevant Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – No objection Environmental Health Officer – Views awaited Neighbour/Site Notice – One letter of objection, a petition against the development with 17 signatures; One letter of support from the agent and a petition of support with 27 signatures (please note that some addresses are found on both petitions). The reasons for objection are summarised as follows: • Located near double lines. Therefore this would encourage the violation of civil laws and it is deemed dangerous; • Near traffic lights so there is a high probability that this will only worsen the congestion in the area, which will only add more pollution into the environment; • There are sufficient catering shops already present to supply the general public needs. Fierce competition can lead to increase cost for customers; • Will result in the closure of one of the take aways already present; • There are already far too many catering shops and an additional shop would only lead to increased pollution which will damage the environment. The reasons for support are summarised as follows: • The proposed development provides an opportunity for re-development of the existing buildings; • The premises are run down, need repair and the creation of 2no. flats provide efficient use of floor space. • The premises are within Kidderminster Town Centre and many of the customers would walk; • Parking spaces have been provided for unloading/loading of goods within the site and to the rear; • The proposed extraction duct is well shielded by the existing first floor layout and would not cause a nuisance to occupiers or adjacent owners. Officer Comments: The premises are located within a Secondary Shopping Area where Policies TC.2 and RT.4 apply. These policies allow for changes of use to A3 in Secondary Shopping Areas subject to any other material considerations. The letter of objection and the petition against the development raise concerns about possible over intensification of A3 uses and the increase in competition which would be created by an additional unit. If approved I would not consider this additional hot food take away to result in an over intensification of A3 uses in this secondary shopping area. There would remain a good mix of A1 and A2 uses. With regards to the comments raised about a potential increase in competition this is not a material planning consideration. The extraction ducting would be sited to the rear of the premises and would not be visually harmful since it would be screened by the existing two storey protruding gable which forms part of the premises. The Environmental Health Officer’s comments are awaited with regard to its acceptability. With regards to the comments about potential highway safety issues, no objections are raised by the Highways Authority. No objections are raised to the provision of two self contained units on the first floor of the premises nor the proposed roller shutter which would be in accordance with the adopted Shop-front Design Supplementary Planning Guidance. Conclusions and Recommendations: the provisions of Articles 1 & 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into consideration, however, it is considered that the proposal meets the criteria of the relevant policies and therefore the application is recommended for delegated APPROVAL subject to no objections being raised by the Environmental Health Officer and subject to the following conditions: A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); A11 (Approved Plans); J19 (Hours of Opening to Customers); F.10 (Completion of Fume Extraction); Sample/Details Colour Finish for Shopfront and Roller Shutter. Notes - SN5 (No advertisements) SN12 (Neighbours rights) Reason for Approval: The impact of the proposed hot food takeaway use upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that, subject to suitable conditions, the use would not create a serious adverse effect on amenity. Therefore it accords with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.43 WF.963/04 Proposal: Full: Ground re-profiling Date Received: 8.9.04 and landscaping Agent: - improvements to existing Ord. Sheet: 7674 NE SE driving range and Policy: LA.1, LA.2, LR.8, LR.15 associated area (part Case Officer: J. Summerfield retrospective) at Wharton Park Golf Club, Long Bank, Bewdley Ward: Bewdley and Arley Applicant: Wharton Park Golf Club
Site Location and Description: The application seeks consent for an embankment at the southern end of the existing driving range which lies east of the existing club house, plus improvements to the existing adjacent track. The alterations are essentially to try to restrict golf balls from landing in the adjacent agricultural field which lies further to the south. The embankment which is partly complete would reach an overall height of 4m. The height is to be raised using soil taken from existing embankments at the northern end of the driving range adjacent to the club car park. Planning History: Of relevance WF.1019/89 – Outline – New golf course, club and associated facilities WF.740/90 – 18 hole golf course and club house WF.89/92 – Ancillary building for golf course, machinery and equipment WF.577/93 – Storage bay area WF.941/91 – Golf course entrance sign WF.566/98 – Extensions to clubhouse buildings providing new function suite, leisure area and ancillary accommodation Consultations and Representations: Bewdley Town Council – Recommend approval Highway Authority – No objections Arboricutlural Officer – Proposals do not appear to have any implications for existing trees, however landscaping of the altered mound would be beneficial Worcestershire County Council – The development affects a public right of way and it appears that there is no provision for this path contained within the proposal. We therefore must object to this application although we may be able to withdraw the objection if you can supply an indication of how the public right of way is to be accommodated. Ramblers Association – Despite the response given to the question regarding rights of way it would appear that a footpath passes directly through the driving range. In the circumstances we have to make formal objection to this application until such time as the matter is clarified or addressed. Environmental Health and Licensing Manager – No adverse comments Officer Comments: As the consultation responses indicate there is an existing public right of way which crosses the existing driving range and indeed the whole golf course. Amended plans have been submitted indicating the route which is to remain unchanged. The route does not intrude onto any area of land which is to be re-profiled. It is therefore considered that there would be no greater impact upon the existing right of way. Whilst the application seeks consent for the re-profiling of 3 areas of land it is not considered that the works would have a detrimental impact upon the appearance or character of the Landscape Protection Area. Conclusions and Recommendations: I therefore recommend delegated authority to APPROVE subject to no new objections being raised within the consultation period with respect to the impact on a right of way subject to the following conditions. 1.A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. Re-profiling of all areas to be completed and seeded by May 2005 unless otherwise agreed. Reason for Approval The proposed development is capable of implementation without creating an unacceptable or adverse impact upon the amenity of nearby residents, the character or appearance of the Landscape Protection Area, or highway safety. Therefore, it accords with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.44 WF.993/04 Proposal: Full: Erection of electricity Date Received: 23/09/04 sub-station at Lombard Agent: Pinnegar Smith House, Worcester Road, Ord. Sheet: 8171 SE Stourport on Severn Policy: D.1, D.3, NR.11 Case Officer: C. Wolfe Ward: Mitton Applicant: Thomas Vale Construction Plc Site Location and Description: Lombard House is located on the western side of Worcester Road and has recently benefited from planning permission for a three storey office block which is currently under construction. This application is for an electricity sub-station, which is required to serve the new building. The proposed sub-station would be sited approximately 28 metres back from the Worcester Road and would be sited on a concrete slab with a maximum height of 2.45m. Planning History: Most recent and relevant – WF.0024/04 – Two storey extension to extend office and production area - Approved; WF.0199/04 – Business centre (3 storey) with additional car parking provision – Approved Consultations and Representations: Stourport on Severn Town Council – Recommend Approval Highway Authority – No objection Highways Agency – No objection Environmental Health – No adverse comment Health & Safety Executive – Views awaited Central Network (formerly Aquila) – Views awaited Neighbour/Site Notice – 2 letters received (from the same person) raising the following points: We are concerned about the position of the proposed electricity sub-station, its height (as we are 8ft below it), its closeness to our property and a gas governor opposite the proposed site. I would request that Vales move the proposed sub station away from the back of my garden and further down behind their offices or maybe on the other side of their car park behind the Old Anchor PH. The area is already cramped since the building of their office extension will be at least 2ft over the existing bushes and that is at least 15ft above my garden. If this is not agreeable the cabinet around the station should be green and screened by mature shrubs (not conifers) which would not exceed the cabinet more than 6inches. Officer Comments: The main concerns regarding this proposal is the impact on the amenities of the neighbouring property and the safety considerations of locating an electricity sub-station within close proximity of a gas governor. There are two dwellings, which are semi-detached, adjacent to the application site. The sub-station would be sited at least 8 metres from the footprint of nearest house. The gardens to these dwellings are at a slightly lower level than the application site. There is currently planting along the boundary between the gardens and the proposed sub-station which would screen much of the development, although in the winter months this would be less effective. In view of the difference in land levels, the top of the housing cabinet would stand higher than the existing hedge and would, therefore, be visible from both gardens. However, I do not consider the proposed development to have an over bearing impact on either dwelling due to the distances involved, size of the housing equipment and screening. The external finish of the housing equipment is proposed to be dark green and this could be controlled by condition. With regards to potential noise issues Environmental Health have raised no objections. A request has been put to the agent to establish whether the applicant would be willing to provide additional screening, however, their response is awaited. With regards the health and safety issues and the proximity of the gas governor the Health and Safety Executive and Central Network comments are awaited. Conclusions and Recommendations: The proposed sub-station is not considered to cause any undue harm to the amenities of the nearby residential properties. I therefore recommend the application for APPROVAL subject to no objections being received from the Health & Safety Executive or Central Network and subject to the following conditions: A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); A11 (Approved Plans); External finish/colour of Housing; Reason for Approval The proposed sub-station due to its’ height and position is considered to be visually acceptable within the street scene. The impact of the proposed development upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there would be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.45 WF.1001/04 Proposal: Listed Building Consent: Date Received: 16.9.04 Retention of aerial on rear Agent: - elevation (retrospective) at No. Ord. Sheet: 8279 8379 1 Lucas Building, Old Policy: LB.1, LB.2, LB.3, LA.2, Wolverley Village, Wolverley CA.1, D.3, D.17, GB.1, GB.2 Case Officer: J.McKenzie-Watts Ward: Wolverley Applicant: Nicholas A Pennick Site Location and Description: No.1 Lucas Buildings is a Grade II Listed Building located in Wolverley Village, within the Conservation Area, the Green Belt and the Landscape Protection Area. This retrospective application is for the retention of a television aerial on the rear elevation of the building. Consultations and Representations: Wolverley and Cookley Parish Council – Recommend approval Conservation Officer - Due to the character and construction of Lucas Buildings, there is little alternative for a new site for an aerial, and it is my opinion that, whilst the aerial and its positioning is not the most desirable, there is a limit to the positioning of the aerial - there are no chimneys to attach on to, and the roof-scape would be seriously harmed if any aerial were to be attached to this. It is thus my opinion that the position of the aerial in its current location would be the most sensitive. Other properties within this group of buildings have incorporated aerials onto the properties, but due to the design of the roof-scapes and the general layout, the positioning of these aerials has been far easier to incorporate than this current one. Thus, whilst I recognise that positioning and size of this aerial may not be as sensitive as may otherwise be required, it is my opinion that the applicant has provided the best and most suitable location for this, and I therefore have no objections to the proposals. Neighbour/Site Notice/Advertisement – 1 letter of support: absolutely no objection to retention as the reception here is poor so a large aerial is required – there are aerials on all the surrounding houses. Two letters of objection – mast spoils character of group of buildings due to the enormous size, huge pole towering over our rear garden seems excessive and has a severe visual effect, the pleasant appearance of the listed buildings in the group should not be marred by excrescence’s like this mast. Application not informative and is framed as though consent only required for movement of pre-existing mast from the north front of the building to the south-east corner. If anything was previously fixed to front of building, it was nothing like appearance and size of proposed mast, which is noticeably ugly and in region of 20 feet long and looks brand new. PPG15 – paragraph 3.4 requires applicant to ‘justify proposals’ and show why works affecting the character of Listed Building are ‘desirable or necessary’. Could be said that mast would not have that effect and application contains no suggestion that it is desirable or necessary. I can understand that an aerial of reasonable size is necessary but not one of this size and character. Paragraph 3.5 (iii) also applies as the building is an ‘element within a group’ of fine listed buildings, all other occupants have exercised discretion in their choice and siting of aerials. If application is granted, will be no grounds for refusing consent for other buildings in group to be plastered with 20 ft. masts. Officer Comments: The applicant states that there is a need to locate the aerial in the position shown as Wolverley Village suffers from poor television reception, furthermore, the building lacks a chimney and there is limited loftspace. It is considered that the position of the aerial is not ideal but is an improvement on the previous position. Conclusions and Recommendations: In light of the Conservation Officer’s comments, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the criteria of the Listed Building Policies contained within the Wyre Forest District Local Plan and APPROVAL is recommended Reason for Approval – The retention of the television aerial on the rear elevation of the building, is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on the character and appearance of this Grade II Listed Building and the Wolverley Conservation Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered to accord with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.46 WF.1009/04 Proposal: Full : Erection of two detached Date Received: 20.9.04 split level dwellings with Agent: Dean-Walker Bateman associated access off Ord. Sheet: 7875 NW Woodthorpe Drive at Trimpley Policy: H.2,D.1,D.3,D.10,D.9,D.11, Hill View, site adjacent D.4,LA.1,LA.6,LA.7,NR.2, ‘Highlands’, Dowles Road, NR.4,TR.9,TR.17 (AWFDLP) Bewdley CTC.1 (WCSP); PPG1 Case Officer: J. Summerfield Ward: Bewdley and Arley Applicant: UFO plc Site Location and Description: The application site fronts Dowles Road and occupies land between the highway and two existing properties known as Highlands and Valley View House to the rear. The application site includes the existing private driveway at the end of Woodthorpe Drive. The site slopes up and away from Dowles Road with a difference in levels of approximately 13 metres. The footprint of the proposed dwellings would be set back approximately 10 metres from Dowles Road with the associated terrace approximately 7 metres back. The proposed five bedroom dwellings would incorporate accommodation at lower ground level, an upper ground floor at which the garage would be set and at first floor level within the roofspace. Both dwellings would be L-shaped and accessed off the existing private driveway. Planning History: (of relevance) WF.785/01 – Erection of split level bungalow with double garage and altered access : Approved 13th November 2001 Consultations and Representations: Bewdley Town Council – Recommend approval subject to a satisfactory traffic report Highway Authority – Recommend refusal as the proposed access is unsuitable for an additional dwelling, and there is insufficient turning/manoeuvring space. Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions Severn Trent Water Ltd. – Awaiting comments Environmental Health Officer – No objection subject to condition Arboricultural Officer – Trees on site are not afforded statutory protection. The proposals do not require any tree removal and are not dissimilar to the previously approved dwelling in relation to trees. No objection subject to suitable conditions to allow for the protection of the Horse Chestnut tree’s root system. Neighbour – One letter of objection received: no objection to the development, however the location on Dowles Road is very narrow, I would have anticipated that the frontage of the new property should be set back from the roadway a greater distance than indicated and protected by a substantial retaining wall in order to facilitate road widening. The access road onto Woodthorpe Drive was originally built to take the domestic vehicles from four houses. As the development has progressed the number of properties has risen to nine including the two on this application. I understand that the Council plan to take over the future of this road so I would like to put on record that there is no provision for a footpath on either side of the roadway at present. There is no provision for street lighting at all; there is a blind corner caused by a 15 ft. high brick retaining wall to the garden of ‘The Mount’ in the area of a severe rise in the road levels. Adequate road drainage must be considered. The stability of the sub-grade and surfacing which has already been undertaken is in my opinion very suspect. Officer Comments: From the planning history, Members will note that the site has an extant permission for one split level bungalow approved in 2001. An additional dwelling is acceptable in principle. Whilst the potential impact upon adjacent occupiers and the appearance of development upon the frontage to Dowles Road is not considered significantly different to the previously approved application, concern is raised with respect to comments from the Highway Authority. The existing private drive off Woodthorpe Drive serves two properties fronting Dowles Road, plus the ‘Highlands’, Valley View House and ‘The Mount’. The Highway Authority considers that a further two dwellings or one more than previously approved would not be satisfactory. Conclusions and Recommendations: On the basis of comments from the Highway Authority I recommend REFUSAL for the following reason:- 1. The private drive off Woodthorpe Drive is not suitable to serve one more property, in addition to those already built and approved. Furthermore, there is insufficient turning/manoeuvring space to enable vehicles associated with the proposed dwellings and the adjacent property known as ‘The Highlands’ to enter the adopted highway in a forward gear. The proposal is therefore considered
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.47 contrary to Policy TR.9 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.1022/04 Proposal: Outline : Erection of two Date Received: 22.9.04 bedroom detached bungalow Agent: Broadland Surveys with attached garage at rear of Ord. Sheet: 8175 NE 116 Greatfield Road, Policy: H.2,D.1,D.3,TR.9,TR.17 Kidderminster Case Officer: S. Allum Ward: Sutton Park Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. G. Walker
Site Location and Description: At present, 116 Greatfield Road benefits from a 37 metre long rear garden, the side boundary of which lies adjacent to Oakfield Road. The land slopes upwards towards the rear of the site. The proposal is for the erection of a bungalow is shown to be located facing Oakfield Road. Access from car parking and garaging is also to be from Oakfield Road.
The applicant has submitted a short letter of support for the proposal. “To allow this proposal would benefit local community – land adjacent to sub-station, now a dog toilet and litter dumping ground would become planned garden with lawns etc. Sub-station would be hidden from view by shrubbery. Concerns expressed previously in WF.85/03, with regard to ‘over-dominant visual presence’ on the adjacent property have been addressed by this more appropriately sized property. Allowing a building on this site would prevent any further development of rear gardens in the area of 116 Greatfield Road and also provide a degree of security for houses in the immediate area. My adjacent neighbour has no objection – proposed development a positive step forward in improving the local area.” Planning History: WF.891/89 (Outline) ; Two bedroom bungalow and garage : Refused WF.85/03 – Detached house with new vehicular access : Refused Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions Arboricultural Officer – Views awaited Severn Trent Water Ltd. – Views awaited Neighbour – Two letters of objection received: Entrance onto Oakfield Road would be a traffic hazard – privacy of house and garden would be greatly reduced by being overlooked – led to believe that a covenant forbids erection of a building within 20 yards of the original northern boundary. Due to the presence of underground electricity cables, the building would have to be located further south – overlooking my garden and house more than ever. Type of development would be out of keeping with houses in the surrounding area – traffic hazard of an access so close to a dangerous corner – especially in winter and in wet weather. Officer Comments: This proposal is a resubmission following refusal of a two storey dwelling on the same plot in 2003. On that occasion, vehicular access was shown to be gained from Birchfield Road to the north of the site. The Highway Authority has raised no objection to the proposed access from Oakfield Road and, as such, the development is considered acceptalbe in terms of highway safety. The site area for the current application is actually smaller than the previous scheme, and though the height of the building is a notional improvement on the previous design (being a genuine ground floor bungalow with no roof dormer), I continue to maintain that the principle of a dwelling on this site constitutes an over-development and is incompatible with the appearance and character of the surrounding residential development. This view is exacerbated by the elevated visual prominence of the site adjacent to a road junction. Although referred to in the neighbour objections, I am not convinced that neighbour privacy linked to overlooking would be seriously compromised by the proposal. Covenants, of course, are not material planning considerations.
Conclusions and Recommendations: Adopted policies of the Wyre Forest District Local Plan make it clear that new housing development, whether for individual dwellings or for larger developments should be compatible in scale, density, height, massing, proportion, character and overall design with surrounding development. The proposal fails to meet the criteria of ‘density, character and overall design’, and therefore I recommend REFUSAL for the following reason: 1. The proposal would represent an over-development in that the elevated and prominent site is considered to be too small to accommodate a dwelling and its associated curtilage. The proposed bungalow would therefore be visually harmful to the character, layout and local distinctiveness of this established residential area. This is contrary to Policies D.1 and D.3 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. To allow this development would be likely to encourage the sub-division of further
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.48 dwelling house curtilages in the area which would progressively harm the visual character of this established residential area.
WF.1032/04 Proposal: Full : Retention of decking Date Received: 27.09.04 to rear and side Agent: - (retrospective) at Ashgrove, Ord. Sheet: 7677-7777 Hill Farm, Northwood Lane, Policy: GB.1, GB.2, LA.2, CH.1, Bewdley D.1, D.3, Case Officer: C. Wolfe Ward: Wribbenhall Applicant: Mr. R. H. A. Court Site Location and Description: Ashgrove is a chalet whose rear garden backs on to the Severn Valley Railway. The chalet is currently being altered and extended under permitted development. The application seeks retrospective permission for decking to the rear and side of the chalet which would create a sitting out area or veranda. Planning History – None Consultations and Representations: Kidderminster Foreign Parish Council – The Council recommends refusal of this application, on the grounds that the decking is unsightly, and is constructed to a poor standard and of substandard materials. The Council also notes that the plans are insufficient to enable a proper evaluation of the application. Highway Authority – No objection Severn Valley Railway – Do not envisage the proposal having any adverse affect, in any case we note that this is a retrospective application, and any necessary excavations will already have been undertaken. Neighbour/Site Notice – No response yet received Officer Comments: This chalet has used up its permitted development rights by various recent extensions and alterations. The decking has already been partly constructed and it is proposed to extend the decking to the full length of the rear of the chalet and also the northern side. When visiting the site, prior to the application being submitted, it was evident from looking at the original structure that a veranda or similar structure used to exist to the rear. Indeed, verandas are typical features of these chalets and in most instances add to their character. In this instance the decking would not be unduly prominent and would not be visible from the wider landscape except when travelling on the Severn Valley Railway. The impact on the amenities of neighbouring properties has been carefully considered. When standing on the decking/veranda it is not possible to see into either of the neighbouring chalets or their gardens. With regards to the Parish Council comments that the decking is unsightly, the applicant has stopped work until the application has been determined, and therefore, it is not finished. With regards to the comment that the plans are insufficient, it is agreed that an elevation needs to be submitted to illustrate the proposed finish of decking/veranda (i.e. whether ballustrading is proposed etc.). Further plans are anticipated prior to Committee. Conclusions and Recommendations: It is considered that the proposal meets the criteria of the relevant policies and the application is recommended for delegated APPROVAL subject to additional information described above and subject to the following conditions: 1. A11 (Approved Plans); 2. B5 (Timber staining) Reason for Approval – The decking is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the chalet and in relation to the site as a whole. The impact of the development upon the neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact on their amenity. The development will not harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt or the Landscape Protection Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.49 WF.1033/04 Proposal: Full : Erection of two bedroomed Date Received: 27.9.04 detached house at land adjacent Agent: T.J. Preece & Associates to 77 Franche Road, Ord. Sheet: 8177 NE Kidderminster Policy: H.2, D.1, D.3, D.10. D.11, TR.9, TR.17, NR.9 Case Officer: C. Wolfe Ward: Franche Applicant: Mr. D. Murdoch Site Location and Description: The application site is adjacent no. 77 Franche Road which is situated on a corner plot at the junction of Franche Road and Mouse Lane. The application seeks consent for a detached two bedroom dwelling with associated car parking space and garden area. Planning History: WF.954/04 – Two storey front and rear extensions and single storey rear extension – Approved. Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – Recommends that permission be refused for the following reason: The proposed dwelling will deprive the existing dwelling at 77 Franche Road of adequate vehicle turning facility within its curtilage which the premises currently enjoys. The provision of a new access to serve a dwelling without a turning facility would be likely to compromise the safe movement of traffic and the safe use of the Class I Road, Franche Road, A442 by others. If the Planning Committee are minded to approve this application contrary to the recommended Highway advice then this unit would wish to see improvements to: 1. Visibility improvements junction Mouse Lane/Franche Road over the application site and 77 Franche Road; 2. Provision of a footway over the missing link from Mouse Lane to Franche Road. Worcestershire County Council Mapping Officer – No objection Ramblers Association – Despite the response given to the question regarding the rights of way on the application form it would appear from our copy of Worcestershire County Council’s Definitive Map that Mouse Lane also forms Bridleway 3 and as such affords public rights to three classes of User viz. Equestrian, Pedestrian and Cyclist. In the circumstances we would ask that it be a condition of any planning consent that at the very least the development should make provision for the creation of a footway along the edge of the development and Mouse Lane. Severn Trent Water – No objections subject to condition. Environmental Health – No adverse comments Neighbour/Site Notice – No response yet received Officer Comments: The application site is within an area washed over for residential use as identified on the Local Plan Proposals Map. The site is currently residential garden land associated with 77 Franche Road and is considered to be previously developed land. The scheme as originally submitted was considered to be unacceptable due to the height of the proposed ridge, and because of the appearance of the side elevation. These issues have been discussed with the agent and amended plans are expected. With regards to the Highway Authority’s recommendation, no. 77 Franche Road is a two bedroom dwelling and therefore only requires one car parking space in order to comply with the Car Parking Standards. The scheme as submitted proposes two car parking spaces for this dwelling with no turning facilities, however, the car parking layout is expected to be revised to propose just one car parking space with turning facilities. Parking and turning facilities are shown on the layout plans for the proposed dwelling utilising the existing access point. The key issue is whether the proposed development would adversely affect the adjacent bridleway. For clarification the public right of way is adjacent to the site and does not appear to cross the application site. The Highway Authority and the Ramblers Association have requested that should the application be approved, a footway should be provided over the ‘missing link’ from Mouse Lane to Franche Road. There is currently a 20 metre section of Mouse Lane which does not benefit from a footpath and the existing garden area of 77 Franche Road extends to the road edge. It would appear that this has been the situation for some time and following discussions with the County Council’s Mapping Officer, there is no evidence to suggest that there ever existed a stretch of pavement at this point. In view of this, and bearing in mind it is not proposed to introduce a vehicular access any nearer to this junction than is existing, I consider it unreasonable to insist upon this request. Furthermore, County Highways have requested that visibility improvements should be carried out to the junction should the development be approved. The proposed development is not going to have any significantly more harmful impact than the existing situation in view of the vehicular access not coming any nearer to the junction than is existing. A condition could be used to ensure the access is as per the approved plans Conclusions and Recommendations: The proposed development is considered to be in accordance with the relevant policies and therefore the application is recommended for delegated APPROVAL subject to the receipt of satisfactory revised plans and subject to the following conditions: 1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials). 4. B11 (Details of Enclosure); 5. B13 (Levels Details); 6. C6 (Landscaping – Small Scheme); 7. C8 (Landscape Implementation); 8. H.12 (Parking and Turning - Single House); 9. H12 (Parking and Turning – Existing Dwelling); 10. J8 (No further windows), 11. Severn Trent Water Condition. 12. Access as per plans; Notes – A. SN12 (Neighbours’ rights); , B. HN6 (Notice to County Council regarding highway works); C. Right of Way Reason for Approval: The proposed dwelling is well designed and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The scheme is also acceptable in terms of highway safety and impact on the public right of way. The impact of the dwelling upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.50 WF.1036/04 Proposal: Full : Variation of Date Received: 28.9.04 planning condition (No. 2 Agent: M. G. Baynton of WF.280/98) to enable Ord. Sheet: 8377 SW unrestricted restaurant/ Policy: D.1,NR.10,NR.11,RT.6, hot food takeaway use at RT.13 9 Horsefair, Case Officer: P. Wrigglesworth Kidderminster Ward: Broadwaters Applicant: Hodscoup Ltd.
Site Location and Description: This property is a vacant café/restaurant premises at the corner of Horsefair and Broad Street. It is proposed to vary a condition to allow any A3 use, including takeaway facilities. Planning History: WF.280/98 – Conversion to vegetarian restaurant with owner’s accommodation : Approved Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – No objection Environmental Health Officer – No objection subject to condition Conservation Officer – No objection subject to satisfactory flue arrangements Neighbour/Site Notice – No representations made Officer Comments: This premises is restricted to a restaurant and café by dint of a condition attached to a 1998 permission (WF.280/98). The reason for the condition was to protect the amenity of adjacent residents. No objections have been received as a result of the neighbour consultation process and the Environmental Health Section have no objection in principle in this regard subject to the inclusion of a suitable extraction system for the dispersal of odours and fumes. Since the last application, this property has been placed on the Local List for buildings of architectural/historical interest. It is important therefore that any flue arrangement is not only efficient in terms of the dispersal of odours and fumes, but also has a satisfactory appearance. Preliminary investigations have revealed that there is a possibility of utilising an existing chimney and if this proves to be the case then there would be very little ramifications for the external appearance of the building. The Highway Authority has been consulted and no objections are raised in view of the car parking facilities in the area. Conclusions and Recommendations: I am advised that a thorough investigation will take place before Committee to assess the feasibility of utilising the existing chimney as a flue for any hot food/takeaway premises. If this proves to be a satisfactory arrangement, in view of the response from the Environmental Health Section, the close proximity of other takeaway premises in the immediate vicinity and the absence of objections from neighbouring properties, I would recommend APPROVAL for the variation in condition subject to the following conditions:- 1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved plans); 3. F9 (Details of extraction equipment); 4. Extraction via chimney only; 5. Permission relates to ground and first floor only; Notes – Environmental Health
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.51 Reason for approval The intensification of an A3 Use arising from the variation in condition is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on nearby residential property. The flue arrangements will not detract from the character and appearance of this attractive building which is on the Local List. No objections have been raised by the Highway Authority and the principle of an A3 use in this location is considered to be in keeping with the aims and principles of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.52 WF.1038/04 Proposal: Outline : Erection of two detached Date Received: 28.9.04 houses on land adjacent to 605 Agent: M. G. Baynton Chester Road South, Ord. Sheet: 8374 NE Kidderminster Policy: H.2,H.5,D.1,D.3,NR.5, NR.6,TR.9,TR.17 Case Officer: P. Wrigglesworth Ward: Aggborough & Spennells Applicant: Mr. Hancocks Site Location and Description: This piece of land is located on the west side of the Hoobrook railway viaduct and on the south side of Chester Road South. It also has boundaries with Hoo Brook, and a footway which leads in the direction of Brockway Carpets. It is proposed to erect two detached houses on the land which has a shared access point to the footpath/drive which leads to Chester Road South. The applicant lives at Number 607 Chester Road South which is located nearby but doesn’t adjoin the site. The applicant has supplied a legal declaration to the effect that the whole of this land has been used as garden land in association with Number 607 since 1988. Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – Recommends refusal Environment Agency – Objection received. Severn Trent Water Ltd. – Views awaited Highways Agency – Directs refusal. Environmental Health Officer – Views awaited Network Rail – No objection subject to adherence to stipulations The Ramblers’ Association – Objection on safety and amenity grounds Neighbour – No representations received Officer Comments: This outline proposal gives rise to a number of fundamental problems. Although the application site lies within an area washed over by a residential land use designation, and is used in connection with the applicant’s dwelling, it does not form part of the residential curtilage of a house. Consequently, it is not considered to constitute previously developed land (as defined in Annex C of PPG3) which is a prerequisite for an acceptable site for residential development under the provisions of Policy H2 of the adopted Local Plan. The siting of two dwellings in the position intended sideways on to the road would be likely to create an unattractive layout close to this important road frontage and would represent a form of development that would be out of keeping with the character of development in the area. The Highways Agency have directed that the application be refused on grounds that the development is close to a roundabout in an accident cluster area and would compromise road safety and the free flow of traffic on the dual carriageway. Th Highway Authority also recommend refusal on the basis of conflict with pedestrians using the path. In addition the Environment Agency has objected to the development in that it doesn’t contain a Flood Risk Assessment (the site lies within the floodplain of Hoo Brook) and the development affects an 8 metre easement measured from the top of the bank which the Environment Agency require for maintenance. Conclusions and Recommendations: That the application be REFUSED for the following reasons: 1. The application site is not considered to be previously developed land as defined in PPG3 (Housing) and to approve the residential development in these circumstances would be contrary to the aims and provisions of Policy H.2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. 2. The proposed layout whereby properties are shown sideways on to the A449 Chester Road South would be likely to result in a form of development which would be out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area and detrimental to the appearance of the street scene. To approve this development in these circumstances would be contrary to Policies D.1 and D.3 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. 3. To enable the A449 trunk road to continue to be an effective part of the national system of routes for through traffic, in accordance with Section 10(2) of the Highways Act 1980 by avoiding disruption to flow on that route by traffic expected to be generated by the development and to protect the interest of road safety on the A449 trunk road. 4. The siting of the proposed dwellings adjacent to the Hoo Brook would be contrary to Policy NR.6 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan in that the development lies within 8m of the top of the bank of this watercourse. A distance of 8m is considered to be essential for the preservation of water corridor wildlife habitat, flood flow conveyance and future watercourse maintenance and improvement. 5. The site lies within Flood Zone 3 which is the high risk zone and no flood risk assessment has been submitted to demonstrate acceptability as required by PPG25 (Development and Flood Risk) and Policy NR5 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. 6. The use and adaptation of the existing access which is a Public Right of Way being a Footpath to
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.53 serve the proposed dwellings would be likely to compromise the safe movement and use of the Footpath by pedestrians.
WF.1040/04 Proposal: Full : Two storey side Date Received: 28.09.04 extension at 1 Portway Agent: PCP Design Place, Cookley Ord. Sheet: 8480-8580 Policy: D.3, D.17 Case Officer: J. McKenzie-Watts Ward: Cookley Applicant: Mr J Buckley
Site Location and Description: Number 1 Portway Place is a detached dwelling located in a narrow side road accessed off Castle Road in an area where there are a great variety of property styles. The application seeks to extend the property by erecting a two storey side extension to create car port at ground floor level, with kitchen and utility to the rear and the erection of a first floor bedroom and bathroom. Consultations and Representations: Wolverley and Cookley Parish Council – Recommend approval but request checks are undertaken to ensure this extension is not being built onto protected common pathway. Highway Authority – No comments Environment Agency – No objection Neighbour – 2 letters received: Objection - I am worried that the proposed extension may shade out my garden (rear). Concern – The rear access is not obstructed. Officer Comments: The Council’s recently adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on ‘Design Quality’ states that ‘extensions to existing residential development will need to be sympathetic to the original buildings, to which the design should be visually subservient. To help achieve this, extensions should maintain original frontage rhythms by stepping back slightly from the original building line and ensure that ridge and eve heights are lower than the original building to achieve a reduction of the terracing affect in the street scene. In this instance, the submitted drawings do not show a set back or a lower ridge height than the existing dwelling, however, the design of the extension would be sympathetic to the original building. Due to the position of the property in relation to the adjacent dwellings, no terracing effect would occur as the house stands alone in a set forward position and therefore a setback would not be necessary in this instance. A neighbour has raised concern over whether the development would have a harmful effect on the light to the rear garden of the property, however, the side elevation of the extension would be located approximately 12 metres from the rear wall of this dwelling located in Castle road and would not in my opinion cause shadowing to the adjacent rear garden to a degree to warrant refusal. Overall, the proposed extension complies with policy D.17 in that it would be in scale and character with the original property, would harmonise with the existing townscape and would not have a serious adverse effect on the amenity of neighbouring residents.
Conclusions and Recommendations: APPROVAL is recommended subject to the conditions below: 1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved plans); 3. B3 (Matching materials Reason for Approval The proposed extension is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the main dwelling and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The impact of the extension upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.54 it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
WF.1041/04 Proposal: Full : First floor extension Date Received: 29.9.04 above existing garage at Agent: M. G. Baynton 4 Brunel Close, Stourport Ord. Sheet: 8172 SW on Severn Policy: D.1, D.3, D.17 Case Officer: S. Withers Ward: Lickhill Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Berlyn
Site Location and Description: Number 4 Brunel Close is a modern detached dwelling in a cul-de-sac off Great Western Way. The proposal is to build above the garage which is attached to the side of the house to provide an enlarged third bedroom and an additional fourth bedroom. This elevation is adjacent a private drive serving two properties which face the gabled side of 4 Brunel Close.
Consultations and Representations: Stourport on Severn Town Council – Views awaited Highway Authority – No objection Ward Councillors – No representations received Neighbour – Two letters of objection received: will have an adverse effect on my privacy. The existing wall of their garage is against the boundary of my driveway so should a wall be built above this, the outlook from my lounge and bedroom would look very unpleasant and feel very enclosed, … very much against any work being carried out on my driveway, …. The extension will impose on the view from my front lounge, this will also reduce the natural light available, … the extension of the garage wall upwards will increase the proximity of 4 Brunel Close to my property, … I will feel ‘closed in’, … privacy will be impinged upon and will affect long term viability of selling own properties, … will cause disruption to my access. Officer Comments: The neighbours’ objections raise concerns about loss of privacy and outlook, however the proposed extension would not overlook any private amenity areas and would not, in my view, be close enough to either property to have a serious visual impact. It is considered that the proposed extension is in scale and character with and subservient to the original dwelling and complies with the Council’s 45° guideline. De-valuation of property and concern regarding work being carried out on the neighbour’s driveway are not material planning considerations. Conclusions and Recommendations: The neighbours’ comments and the provisions of Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 have been taken into consideration, however it is considered that the proposal complies with the relevant policies and therefore APPROVAL is recommended subject to the following conditions:- 1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved plans); 3. B3 (Finishing materials to match); 4. J8 (No further windows); Note – SN12 (Neighbours’ rights)
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.55 Reason for Approval The proposed extension is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the main dwelling and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The impact of the extension upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.56 WF.1042/04 Proposal: Full : Erection of detached dormer Date Received: 29.9.04 bungalow on land adjacent 8 Agent: Jason Asbury Honeybrook Close, Wolverley Ord. Sheet: 8278 8378 Policy: H.2,D.1,D.3,D.4,D.9, D.10,D.13,TR.9,TR.17 Case Officer: P. Round Ward: Wolverley Applicant: Mr. O’Dwyer Site Location and Description: Honeybrook Close is a cul-de-sac accessed off Beechcote Avenue to the south west of Wolverley village. The site was previously in use as garden land for No. 8 but has now been separated by a fence. The proposal seeks consent for one detached bungalow. There is an Oak and Silver Birch tree on site which are both protected by a Tree Preservation Order. Planning History: WF.966/02 – Detached bungalow (outline) : Approved WF.501/03 – Detached bungalow : Withdrawn WF.677/03 – Two semi-detached bungalows : Refused; Appeal Dismissed Consultations and Representations: Wolverley and Cookley Parish Council – Recommend refusal: 1. Development in Green Belt; 2. Detrimental back development in an area which has provided reasonable privacy; 3. Detracts from the enjoyed amenity of neighbours because of the unsatisfactory access; 4. Over-development of site which should only support a smaller property more in keeping with the rest of the estate; 5. There may also be an issue concerning underground power cables from the adjacent sub-station which needs to be investigated. Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions. Central Networks – Awaiting response. Severn Trent Water Ltd. – No objection subject to conditions Arboricultural Officer – No objection subject to conditions Neighbour – One letter of objection received which raises the following concerns: 1) We feel this will still cause a serious highway hazard, i.e. possible access of four cars from 8 Honeybrook and proposed property into a 14 ft. access. plus our two cars from No. 6. 2) There is a proposed fence showing at 1.8 height right down to the boundary which will impair our vision when coming out of our drive at No. 6 – causing a complete blind spot from No. 8 driveway; 3) The ground area for the proposed bungalow is approximately double the size of the existing properties, therefore out of character for environment; 4) Also feel this gives potential to conversion into two properties at a later date; 5) The bungalow is still very close to the Preservation Oak tree, which may cause problems when digging foundations, with root spreading; 6) Also feel that the size of this development gives potential of opening up backland development with access off Mill Lane. Officer Comments: Outline permission was granted on this site in 2002 for a detached bungalow. Under that consent, access and siting for one dwelling was agreed. This extant permission therefore establishes the principle of this type of development and the use of the access. In light of this, the current proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle and in terms of access arrangements. The design of the property is considered appropriate in this location although the size is bigger than the surrounding properties. However, I do not feel that the size of the bungalow results in a loss of amenity to the area. The windows and dormer windows have been positioned so as not to result in overlooking of neighbouring properties. The siting of the dwelling has specifically been positioned so as to minimise the impact on the trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The Arboricultural Officer is satisfied that the scheme is acceptable. I have considered the neighbour’s objections and would respond to the points not already addressed as follows: - the fencing between No. 6 will remain as existing; - an application to convert to the existing dwelling into two properties would be considered on its own merits; - the land to the rear is designated Green Belt, again any application on that land would be dealt with on its merits. In light of these points and the considerations outlined above, the application is considered to be acceptable. Conclusions and Recommendations: I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:- 1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved plans); 3. B1 (Samples/details of materials); 4. B11 (Details of enclosure); 5. B13 (Levels details); 6. C3 (Tree protection during construction); 7. F5 (Construction noise ); 8. E2 (Foul and surface water); 9. J1 (Removal of permitted development – residential); 10. J5 (Domestic garages; restriction of residential use); 11. J8 (No further windows); 12. J9 (Open plan frontages); 13. Highway; Notes – SN1 (Removal of permitted development rights); B. and C. Highway; D. Central Networks Reason for Approval The proposed dwellings are well designed and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The scheme is also acceptalbe in terms of highway safety. The impact on the dwellings upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact. upon their amenity. The principle of residential development on the site has been established by WF.966/02. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.57 WF.1043/04 Proposal: Full : Single storey Date Received: 30.9.04 extension at The Agent: M. J. Taylor Paddocks, Porchbrook, Ord. Sheet: 7270 7370 Rock Policy: D.1,D.3,D.17,LA.2 Case Officer: S. Withers Ward: Rock Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. C. A. Taylor
Site Location and Description: The Paddocks is a detached property with a substantial curtilage in the hamlet of Porchbrook. The proposal is for a small extension to the porch to provide a ground floor w.c. and a canopy to the existing porch entrance.
Planning History: KR.283/71 – Replacement double garage WF.241/71 – Lounge and porch WF.324/98 – Extensions to form enlarged living room and kitchen (below canopy), replacement garage. Approved WF.500/94 – Single storey rear extension and first floor extension : Approved
Consultations and Representations: Rock Parish Council – Recommend approval
Highway Authority – No objections
Neighbour/Site Notice – No representations received
Officer Comments: The property has had several minor alterations and extensions over the years. The most significant planning application, which was approved earlier this year, was to build a first floor extension with a hipped and gabled roof and a small ground floor lean-to extension. The current application is the result of an afterthought to relocate a proposed ground floor w.c. to a more suitable area and would require a small extension measuring 1.8m x 1.2m to the side of the porch and a canopy over the entrance. It would not be visible from the highway and the scale and design is in character with the property
Conclusions and Recommendations: Given the small size of this proposal which would not extend beyond the existing footprint, nor harm the visual amenity of the Landscape Protection Area, I consider that it complies with the relevant policies and recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:- 1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B3 (Finishing materials to match) Reason for approval The proposed development is capable of implementation without creating an unacceptable or adverse impact upon the amenity of nearby residents, the character or appearance of the Landscape Protection Area, or highway safety. Therefore, it accords with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.58 WF.1050/04 Proposal: Full: Erection of two-storey Date Received: 4.10.04 side extension at 10 Booton Agent: MFL Design Court, Kidderminster Ord. Sheet: 8478SW Policy: D.1, D.17 Case Officer: J. Howells Ward: Broadwaters Applicant: J. Stockley Site Location and Description: 10 Booton Court is a modern end terrace property within the northern part of Kidderminster. The application seeks consent for a first floor extension over the existing garage which extends to the rear to create a two storey extension. The proposal will create a dining and utility room at ground floor and an additional bedroom with ensuite at first floor. Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – No objection Neighbour - One letter of objection received concerned with the following: the extension will decrease the neighbours privacy due to the proposed window to the front elevation of the property giving further views to the rear garden. Any revision to set back the extension will decrease privacy levels further. The inconvenience of works to the adjoining garage and loss of access or use of the garage during building works. Officer Comments: The side extension has not been designed with a lower ridge height and is not set back from the front elevation of the property. In its current form the extension cannot be considered to be subservient to the original dwelling. The applicant has therefore been requested to amend the scheme by lowering the ridge height and providing a set back. Revised plans are anticipated prior to the Committee meeting.
The submitted plans also show a conservatory which the applicant believed to be permitted development. Due to the size of the conservatory this also requires planning permission and should form part of the current application. Based on the submitted plans, however, the proposed conservatory fails to comply with the 45 degree code and as such would have an adverse impact on No 12 Booton Court. The applicant has been requested to reduce its footprint so that is meets the 45 degree Code.
Finally with respect to the concerns raised by the neighbour, the front of the objector’s property faces the side of the application site, even though the garage to that property is adjacent to the applicants. The proposed extension above the garage has no windows on the side elevation and therefore would not overlook the neighbours rear garden. The view from the new first floor window on the front elevation is not considered to infringe the privacy of the garden and driveway significantly more than the current situation from the existing first floor front windows at the front of the property. The privacy and outlook has therefore been assessed but the proposal is not considered to have a significant adverse effect. The neighbour is also concerned about any inconvenience due to building works – this is not a material planning consideration. Conclusions and Recommendations: Subject to the receipt of satisfactory revised plans showing a set back and lower ridge height for the side extension, together with a reduction in the floor area of the conservatory I recommend Delegated APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: A6, 2. A11, B3, SN12 Reason for Approval - The proposed extension is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the main dwelling and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The impact of the extension upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
If satisfactory revised plans are not received however it is recommended that delegated authority be given to REFUSE the application on the grounds that the side extension would not be subservient to the original dwelling and that the conservatory would have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours, contrary to policies D.1 and D.17 of the Adopted Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.59 WF.1051/04 Proposal: Full: Remedial works and Date Received: 4.10.04 alterations to craft units Agent: Cultural, Leisure and roof and frontages, Commercial Services installation of water Ord. Sheet: 7875 SE supply to tea shop at Policy: D1, D3, D18, CA1, LB5 Bewdley Museum, Load Case Officer: S. Allum Street, Bewdley Ward: Bewdley and Arley Applicant: WFDC
Site Location and Description: The Craft Workshops and tea room are housed in a comparatively modern timber building within the museum complex, adjacent to the rear boundary with The Queen Elizabeth Silver Jubilee Gardens. This building is not considered to be included in the listed building description applying to the main museum buildings. This is due to the building being post 1st July 1948, the cut off date for additional separate buildings. However, any alterations to this structure would primarily need to be assessed in terms of the effect on the setting of the main group of adjacent Grade II Listed Buildings. The changes to this craft building comprise re-roofing, the incorporation of an additional door and window on the front elevation, and the installation of a water supply pipe from the nearby clay pipe workshop. Planning History: Various, most recent: WF.166/03 LBC Internal alteration to existing textile craft workshop and alteration to elevation to the Shambles – Approved. Consultations and Representations: Bewdley Town Council – Recommends Approval Highway Authority – No objections Conservation Officer – No objections County Archaeology – Views awaited Neighbour/Site Notice/Advertisement – No representations received Officer Comments: These proposed changes to the external appearance of the craft workshop generally uphold the high design standards expected in relation to development in Conservation Areas and within the setting of Listed Buildings. The materials and colours are appropriate to the surrounding historic environment of the museum complex, and do not impinge on the amenity of any neighbouring property. Conclusions and Recommendations: This proposal conforms with the design and conservation policies contained in the adopted Development Plan. In accordance with Circular 14/97, if Members are minded to approve this application, it will then be necessary to refer the application to the Secretary of State. I therefore recommend delegated APPROVAL subject to referral to the Secretary of State and subject to the following conditions: 1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); Reason for Approval The proposed alterations to the craft workshops/tea room are considered to demonstrate a good standard of design and materials in relation to their location within the Bewdley Conservation Area and their visual relationship with the adjacent Listed Buildings. The effects of the development on neighbouring property has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue loss of amenity. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.60 WF.1052/04 Proposal: Listed Building Consent: Date Received: 4.10.04 Installation of water Agent: Cultural, Leisure & supply from clay pipe Commercial Services workshop to the craft Ord. Sheet: 7875 SE units tea shop at Policy: LB.2, LB.3, CA.1 Bewdley Museum, Load Case Officer: S. Allum Street, Bewdley Ward: Bewdley & Arley Applicant: WFDC
Site Location and Description: Bewdley Museum, a Grade II Listed Building is located in the heart of the town centre Conservation Area. The site comprises a long plot stretching back from the Load Street frontage towards The Queen Elizabeth Silver Jubilee gardens to the rear. The ‘craft unit tea shop’ is situated adjacent to the rear boundary of the site, some 15 metres from the ‘Clay Pipe Workshop’. It is proposed to install a 15 mm diameter copper pipe at ‘eaves level’ between the two units. This is to facilitate tea making facilities for the public in the tea shop. The water at present is carried by hand in containers between the two locations. Planning History: Various, most recent: WF.166/03 LBC Internal alteration to existing textile craft workshop and alteration to elevation to the Shambles – Approved.
Consultations and Representations: Bewdley Town Council – Recommends Approval. Highway Authority – No objections Conservation Officer – No objections subject to conditions relating to the finished colour of the pipe. County Archaeology - Views awaited Neighbour/Site Notice/Advertisement – No representative received.
Officer Comments: This proposal is a relatively ‘low key’ alteration which, subject to sensitive selection of an appropriate finishing colour for the pipework, is not considered detrimental to the character or appearance of the Listed Building. The character/appearance of the Conservation Area would also be preserved.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The proposed alterations to the Listed Building comply with the appropriate development plan policies. In accordance with Circular 14/97, if Members are minded to approve this application, it will then be necessary to refer the application to the Secretary of State. I therefore recommend delegated APPROVAL, subject to referral to the Secretary of State and subject to the following conditions: 1. A7 (Listed Building/Conservation Area Consent); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. Finished colour of pipework to be agreed before installation. Reason for Approval - The proposed installation of the water supply pipework is considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact upon the character and appearance of this Grade II Listed Building, and the Bewdley Conservation Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.61 WF.1069/04 Proposal: Full: Erection of detached Date Received: 7.10.04 dwelling with associated Agent: Central Building Design access and driveway; new Ord. Sheet: 8279-8379 drop kerb and hardstanding Policy: H2, D1, D3, D4, D9, D10, D11, area for No. 36 adjacent 36 D13, NR8, NR9, TR9, TR17, Franche Road, Wolverley, Design Quality Supplementary Planning Guidance Nr. Kidderminster Case Officer: P. Round Ward: Wolverley Applicant: Mr. Chance
Site Location and Description: The site forms the side garden area of No. 36 Franche Road, Wolverley, which is a semi detached property situated adjacent to Sebright Walk and directly opposite the redundant Showells Garage. The site is allocated within the Local Plan for residential purposes and the land is considered to meet the definition of previously developed land. The proposal seeks consent for a single detached dwelling.
Consultations and Representations: Wolverley and Cookley Parish Council – Awaiting Comments Highway Authority – No objection subject to conditions. Arboricultural Officer – Expresses concern whether boundary hedge can be retained Severn Trent Water – Foul sewer and adopted highway drain across the site need to be diverted – No objection in principle subject to conditions. Neighbour – No comments received.
Officer Comments: As stated above the principle of residential development in this area is established via the Local Plan allocation. The main issue to consider is how the development satisfies other policies in respect of its design and the impact on the surrounding area. The immediate streetscene is characterised by traditional style semi- detached properties. It is considered that the introduction of a detached property of this design would harm the character of this particular streetscene by altering the Rhythm, height and scale of the existing row of properties. As such the proposed dwelling would appear incongruous and would spoil the general character and local distinctiveness of the area. The Arboricultural Officer has raised concern over the hedgerow bordering Sebright Walk. I agree that the hedge is important, however there is not conclusive evidence to show that the hedge cannot be kept. Severn Trent Water have identified two pipes that cross the site, and the applicants have confirmed that if permission is given that these can be diverted through negotiations with Severn Trent Water. In terms of highway safety and the impact on neighbours, no harm will be caused in this respect. Notwithstanding, these comments the harm caused to the streetscene cannot be outweighed, and as such the proposal would be in direct conflict with Local Plan Policy.
Conclusions and Recommendations: : I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reason: 1. The proposed dwelling by reason of its position, size and design would appear as an incongruous feature within the streetscene that would harm the character and local distinctiveness of the locality. As such the proposal would be in conflict with Policy D1 and D3 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan and the advice contained in the adopted Design Quality Supplementary Planning Guidance.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.62 WF.1073/04 Proposal: Full: Change of use to business Date Received: 8.10.04 continuity offices and computer Agent: Wort Cherry facility; installation of a generator Ord. Sheet: 8171 SE and two air conditioning Policy: D20, D21, D25, D26 (WCSP) E2, condenser areas at Minerva Point E10, TR9, TR17, TR19 (formerly Duras) Worcester Road, (AWFDLP) Stourport on Severn Case Officer: J. Summerfield Ward: Mitton Applicant: Continuity Services Ltd. Site Location and Description: The application site fronts Worcester Road and accommodates the former Dura Automotive Unit. It is located between Parsons Chain and the existing electricity sub station. The site comprises a warehouse building of approximately 7434 m² with a two storey brick built office to the front and a total of 197 parking spaces located to the front of the building, the side and the rear. The application seeks consent for the change of use of the building to a business continuity centre. The purpose of the centre is to provide back up computer and office facilities for use by organisations when their main facilities suffer a disaster such as a power failure or bomb attack. It is anticipated the premises will be used infrequently and kept in a state of readiness. Most of the time only 20-30 people would be on site and it is unlikely that more than one customer would invoke the business continuity requirement at the same time. Planning History: Of relevance: WF.332/97 – Erection of a building for industrial production with associated offices, covered stores, car parking/lorry parking - Approved WF.332/01 – Installation of tanks and extract systems for welding, painting and assembly, alterations to loading area – Approved Consultations and Representations: Stourport on Severn Town Council – Awaiting comments. Severn Trent Water – Awaiting comments. Environmental Health – No objections. Forward Planning – This proposal complies with our Adopted Plan Employment Policies, notably Policy E.2 as the proposed change of use falls within Class B. It is a little unfortunate that the proposal does not make more effective use of the site in terms of employment provision. However, the site does fulfil the requirements of IBM and will provide employment for up to 30 people on a daily basis. Policy TR.19 (Implementation of Travel Plans), should be applied here and as outlined in the applicant’s brief it is essential that conditions are applied to the planning permission to cater for travel to the site in the event of the premises being utilised for Business Continuity following disaster. Aquila – Awaiting comments. Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions. Highways Authority- No objections subject to condition restricting use. Neighbour/Site Notice – Awaiting comments. Officer Comments: When in use the building will operate as an office. According to Policy E.10 first preference for office sites is in the town centre then followed by edge of centre, district and local centres and locations identified for employment development. Whilst the application site is not within an urban centre it is considered that the agent has supplied sufficient justification to support the location proposed. It is clear that there are no existing available buildings in any of the town centres for an office of this size. Whilst the proposed parking is approximately 70 spaces short of the local plan requirement it is acknowledged that in the event of the premises being used for business continuity following a disaster the staff who will be working in the building are likely to live in a wide area and consequently businesses will provide group pick up points or coaches to take the relocated workers to the site. This is considered acceptable in the light that the agents are willing to accept a condition to restrict the usage of the building, and a condition to require details of a Green Travel Plan is also proposed. The application also proposes two air conditioning condensers and a back up generator for those times when the national grid power fails. The supporting information indicates that there will be no loss of amenity to the nearest residential properties on the opposite side of Worcester Road. Conclusions and Recommendations: I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: 1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. Retention of Parking; 4. Building approved shall be for sole use as a business continuity centre; 5. - 7. Environment Agency; 8. Air conditioning models as specified; 9. No external storage; 10. Electricity generator only to be used in emergency 11. No additional external lighting; 12. Submission of Green Travel Plan. Reason for Approval: The proposed change of use is considered to be compatible with the surrounding land uses and will not cause a significant loss of amenity to nearby residential properties.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.63 The proposal is thus considered to comply with the Policies listed above.
WF.1080/04 Proposal: Advertisement Consent: Date Received: 11.10.04 Retention of one free Agent: - standing internally Ord. Sheet: 7875 SE illuminated advertisement Policy: AD.1, AD.2, AD.6 (AWFDLP), display unit (retrospective) SD.2, CTC.19, CTC.20 at Texaco, 21 – 26 (AWCSP), PPG.19 Kidderminster Road, Case Officer: S. Allum Bewdley Ward: Wribbenhall Applicant: Primelight Advertising Ltd.
Site Location and Description: The Texaco petrol service station is located in the Wribbenhall ward of Bewdley, adjacent to Pewterer’s Alley and close to the junction with Northwood Lane. The character of the surrounding area is predominantly residential, and the site is also situated in the Bewdley Conservation Area and the flood plain of the River Severn. The internally illuminated single sided advertisement display unit is positioned against a fence on the north facing boundary of the forecourt. Planning History: WF.168/98 – Installation of cashpoint/ATM within sales building: Approved WF.169/98 – Advert: Display of illuminated ‘Bank of Scotland’ ATM sign: Approved WF.801/01 – Installation of new underground tanks and pipework: Approved WF.264/04 – Advert: One internally illuminated projecting sign and internally illuminated ATM collar surround: Refused Consultations and Representations: Bewdley Town Council – Recommends refusal because of its impact on the Conservation Area and additional forecourt clutter. Highway Authority – No objections Environment Agency – Views awaited Conservation Officer – Views awaited Neighbour/Site Notice/Advertisement – One letter of objection received:- “We live in a historic property in an historic town, and are getting sick of Texaco doing as they please. We have signs going up for ‘Off Licence’, ‘Lottery’, bright pink ‘T Mobile’ signs, many advertising boards, etc. etc. I am sure that if I put up a day glow pink sign on my house I would quite rightly be made to remove it. Having read the latest local study done of Bewdley, published on your website, it makes recommendations about the town, and specifically mentions that a clear blight on the town is the petrol station, its location, colour, well most things about it. I also find it hard to grasp that anything they want to do, i.e. alcohol sale, talking pumps, 24hr service, car wash, cash point machines, etc. they just do. I note that this is retrospective, so well done to you or whoever collared them again from doing as they please. I hope this is refused, as bright signage cannot be acceptable in a conservation area.” Officer Comments: Policy AD.2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan makes it clear that within Conservation Areas, illuminated signage is not appropriate. In that context, it is considered that the display panel applied for retrospectively is not able to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Bewdley Conservation Area, as defined in the character appraisal document published in May 2002. Also, the panel contributes adversely to the existing visual clutter of signage on the forecourt, and the general nature of advertisement posters displayed do not relate to the business being carried out on the premises, contrary to the requirements of Policy AD.6. Conclusions and Recommendations: The retrospective proposal is at variance from specific advertisement policies contained in the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reason: 1. The advertisement panel is prejudicial to the visual amenity of the area, in that it creates a strident feature in the street scene, visible over a wide area from north facing viewpoints. Such an advertisement display also fails to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the Bewdley Conservation Area. Furthermore, the advertisement panel does not relate to the business being carried out on the premises. Overall the proposal fails to comply with guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note No.19, Policies SD.2, CTC.19 and CTC.20 of the
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.64 Adopted Worcestershire County Structure Plan, and Policies AD.1, AD.2 and AD.6 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.1081/04 & WF.1100/04 Proposal: Listed Building Consent/Full: Alterations Date Received: 11.10.04 / 15.10.04 to boundary wall to provide access to Agent: T. J. Preece & Associates parking area at 9 & 10 Parkes Ord. Sheet: 8171 SW Passage, Stourport on Severn Policy: D.1, D.10, CA.1, LB.1, LB.2, TR.9, LR.8 (AWFDLP), CTC.19, CTC.20 (WCSP), PPG.15 Case Officer: J. Summerfield Ward: Mitton Applicant: Mr. J. Lepper and Mr. & Mrs. Graham Site Location and Description: The application seeks consent to provide a new opening in the existing mustard coloured brick wall, which forms the eastern boundary to Parkes Passage and defines the boundary to the garden associated with no. 9 Parkes Passage. The existing wall reaches a height of approximately 1.8m if measured from the Parkes Passage side. The proposed new opening would cause the removal of approximately 7m in length of the existing wall, although matching brick returns are proposed to provide a visibility splay. Planning History: WF.1010/83 – Alterations and extensions to 9 Parkes Passage: Approved WF.602/94 – Erection of single storey workshop to 10 Parkes Passage: Approved WF.820/02 – Change of use from craft workshop to domestic garage including elevational alterations, dismantling of wall and lowering level of courtyard: Refused Consultations and Representations: Highway Authority – After careful consideration this unit would support the application for the following reasons: 1) The existing two dwellings do not benefit from any off street vehicle parking. 2) The shared access roadway is not maintained by the County Council as a public highway, except for the opposite footpath. 3) Although visibility will be reduced from the proposed access, vehicle speeds are slow along this section of private road. Subject to amendments to the set back entrance splays on each side of the gap, this unit is minded to recommend approval subject to conditions. Arboricultural Officer – The trees on site are not afforded statutory protection by a tree preservation order but are situated within a Conservation Area. The proposals require the removal of a number of old root trees, which are not considered to possess significant amenity value. No objections on arboricultural grounds. Ramblers – Awaiting comments. British Waterways – No objection subject to the use of suitable materials i.e. mortar. Stourport on Severn Civic Society – We are totally opposed to this planning application which involves breaching one of Stourport’s historic walls. The wall is integral to the design of these canal side cottages and the proposed development will destroy the integrity of the building. Alternatives need to be considered. Conservation Officer – This wall is a fine example of the type of historic boundary walls found within Stourport and forms the boundary of two fine Listed Buildings. I do not find the proposal sympathetic to either the wall itself, the Listed Buildings or the Conservation Area. It is often the case that large expanses of wall have their own characteristics through being exactly that – utilitarian in construction and design, and characterful in that they have no other architectural elements. It is my opinion that the piercing of this wall will have a detrimental impact on the character of this wall and upon the Listed Buildings, removing the element of separateness that these buildings currently enjoy from Parkes Passage. I appreciate that the wall to the opposite side of the street has recently been granted permission for entrances to be pierced through it, but in my opinion this wall is in a different situation, as it does not surround the main house but lies to the outside of what is the main curtilage and thus the impact on the Listed Building is minimised. I recommend Refusal on the grounds that the proposed works would be harmful to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area, detrimental to the character of the curtilage Listed Wall and to the character and appearance of the Listed Buildings. Neighbour – One letter has been received, fully supporting the application, as it will take 3 cars off the public highway. It could also ‘tidy the wall up’ as it is unsightly, and also it will not be seen much as you cannot see the wall from the roadway at all, only from the private access road, which they have the rights over. Officer Comments: The application site is within the Stourport Conservation Area (No. 2) and the Listing description for the pair of cottages, numbers 9 & 10, dated May 2002 makes specific reference to the late 18c wall aligning Parkes Passage. I agree with the comments of the Conservation Officer, in that it is visually harmful to the wall itself, the setting of the adjacent Listed Buildings and fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Parkes Passage, which is noted as a special feature within the Conservation Area. Conclusions and Recommendations: I therefore recommend REFUSAL to the Listed Building Consent application WF.1081/04 for the following reasons: 1. The proposed development would be detrimental to the appearance and character of the Listed Wall, which is acknowledged as a structure of interest within the Stourport on Severn Conservation Area No. 2 Character Appraisal (2001). It is therefore considered contrary to the advice of PPG.15, Policy CTC.19 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and Policies LB.1 and LB.2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. 2. The proposal would be detrimental to the setting of numbers 9 & 10 and the setting of Parkes Passage, identified as a special feature within the Stourport on Severn Conservation Area No. 2 Character Appraisal (2001). It is therefore considered contrary to PPG.15, Policy CTC.19 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and Policy LB.5 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. With respect to the planning application WF.1100/04, it is recommended for REFUSAL for reason 2 above and for the following reason below: 1. The proposal fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of Parkes Passage within the Stourport on Severn Conservation Area No. 2, as described in the Conservation Area Character Appraisal.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.65 As such it is considered contrary to PPG.15, Policy CTC.20 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and Policy CA.1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.1082/04 Proposal: Full: Garden Shed at Date Received: 11.10.04 Farview, Hill Farm, Agent: None Northwood Lane, Ord. Sheet: 7877 7977 Bewdley Policy: GB.1, LA.2, D.1, D.3, D.17, CH.1 (AWFDLP) Case Officer: C. Wolfe Ward: Wribbenhall Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. Heitmann
Site Location and Description: Farview is a residential caravan which is identified within the 1979 ‘Shack Survey’ and is located on one of the highest meadows at Hill Farm which is within the designated Green Belt and Landscape Protection Area. The application seeks permission for the erection of a garden shed Planning History: WF.891/04 – Retention of porch to existing caravan and decking area – Approved Consultations and Representations: Kidderminster Foreign Parish Council – Views awaited Highway Authority – No objection Neighbour/Site Notice – No response yet received Officer Comments: The application site relates to a mobile caravan which has been clad in timber and is used for residential purposes. Planning permission was recently granted for the retention of a small porch extension and an area of decking. Whilst extensions and other residential paraphernalia would not normally be permitted on caravans, in this instance it is felt that the caravan could be considered a dwelling for the purposes of PPG2 because of the unusual circumstances of the site and this particular caravan. There are a number of caravans within this meadow, the majority of which benefit from small garden sheds and other outbuildings. The proposed shed would be of a typical design and would be inconspicuously sited towards the back of the site. The rear and side boundary of the caravan is lined by trees/shrubs which would assist to screen the proposed development from further afield. The shed would not be visually intrusive within the meadow or within the wider landscape. It is felt that the shed would not harm this part of the Green Belt or the Landscape Protection Area in view of the nature of this site and the proximity of adjoining mobile homes. The proposed shed would be sited close to a neighbouring caravan which does benefit from a small window on the side elevation facing Farview. It is slightly unclear as to what room this window serves, however, it would appear to be an uninhabitable room and no objections have been received from the occupant. Conclusions and Recommendations: For the reasons outlined above I consider the development to meet all the criteria in the above policies and I recommend the application for APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: 1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. (Materials as shown on drawings); 4. B5 (Timber Staining) Reason for Approval The proposed shed is considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the mobile home which benefits from its own curtilage. The impact of the development upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact on their amenity. The development will not harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt or the Landscape Protection Area.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.66 For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.67 WF.1083/04 Proposal: Tree Preservation Order: Date Received: 12.10.04 Fell a Silver Birch tree at Agent: None 86 Burlish Close, Ord. Sheet: 8072 NW Stourport-on-Severn Policy: LA.13, LA.14, D.4, NC.6 (AWFDLP) Case Officer: A. Needham Ward: Lickhill Applicant: M. Saunders
Site Location and Description: The tree is a mature Silver Birch tree situated within the rear garden of No. 86 Burlish Close, Stourport on Severn.
Planning History: WF.272/92 – Prune Silver Birch tree – Approved.
Consultations and Representations: Stourport on Severn Town Council – views awaited. Highway Authority – views awaited. Site Notice – views awaited.
Officer Comments: The tree is a mature Silver Birch, situated to the rear of the property, at the bottom of the garden. It is approximately 11m from the rear of the dwelling. It is a healthy specimen that has had several lower limbs removed in the past to aid light to the property.
The tree contributes to the amenity of the locality and can be seen from neighbouring gardens and above several properties, when approaching from certain directions along Burlish Close.
The applicant asserts that the tree is a nuisance in view of its size and as it drops leaf debris. Certainly the tree will drop leaf and seed debris during limited periods of the year, however these are natural biological functions of all trees and are not considered sufficient reason to allow the removal of the tree. The tree’s size and the density of its foliage is not considered to be too overbearing in relation to the size of the garden or the tree’s proximity to the dwelling.
Generally it is not considered appropriate to allow removal of protected trees because of the leaf debris they drop, except in extreme circumstances.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The Silver birch tree is considered to be a healthy specimen and insufficient reasons have been given to justify the tree’s removal. It provides amenity to the locality and its removal would be detrimental to the appearance of the area.
I would recommend that this application be REFUSED.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.68 WF.1089/04 Proposal: Full: Replacement Chalet Date Received: 13.10.04 and associated Septic Agent: None Tank (retrospective) at Ord. Sheet: 7877 7977 Orchard View, Hill Farm, Policy: GB.1, GB.2, LA.2, CH.4, Northwood Lane, Bewdley D.1, D.3, D.5, H.9 (AWFDLP) Case Officer: C. Wolfe Ward: Wribbenhall Applicant: Trevor James Rowley
Site Location and Description: Orchard View is a chalet on the far eastern meadow at Hill Farm and is identified within the 1979 ‘Shack Survey’. The application seeks retrospective permission for a replacement chalet and associated septic tank. Planning History: None relevant Consultations and Representations: Kidderminster Foreign Parish Council – Views awaited Highway Authority – No objection Environment Agency – No objection subject to conditions Neighbour/Site Notice – No response yet received Officer Comments: Policy CH.4 of the Local Plan says replacement chalets will not be permitted unless the replacement will result in a reduction in the visual impact on the landscape. Photographs have been submitted which clearly illustrate the appearance of the original chalet. In my opinion, the original chalet lacked the character that many of the other chalets possess and was not particularly aesthetically pleasing. The replacement chalet appears to have a smaller footprint than the original and the overall height of the building seems to be lower as a result of the living accommodation being at different levels to follow the lie of the land. The chalet has been constructed of timber with a felt roof. I consider the appearance of the replacement chalet within this meadow to be much less intrusive than the original and it sits much more comfortably with its neighbouring chalets. To be in accordance with Policy CH.4 a condition must be imposed to restrict the use of the chalet to holiday purposes. A recent decision for a replacement chalet at ‘The Haven’ Hill Farm (ref: WF.649/04) restricted the occupancy to 11 months with January being the month of no occupancy. In view of this it is considered that an 11 month occupancy will ensure proper control of the use of chalet as a holiday unit in accordance with Policy CH.4. It is felt, however, that there can be some flexibility on the month that the chalet does not have to be occupied. A septic tank also forms part of the application, to which the Environment Agency have no objections subject to conditions. Conclusions and Recommendations: The replacement chalet is considered to be in accordance with Local Plan Policy and I therefore recommend the application for APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: 1. K6 (Holiday Units – 11 month occupation); 2. J1 (Removal of Permitted Development – Residential); 3 – 4 Environment Agency; Notes: SN1 (Removal of Permitted Development Rights); Environment Agency Notes; List of Plans Submitted.
Reason for Approval The proposed replacement holiday chalet is considered to be appropriate development with the Green Belt. The proposed dwelling accords to the policy criteria laid out in Policy H.9 and CH.4 of the Adopted Local Plan in terms of replacement chalets. The size and position are considered to be acceptable in terms of its impact on surrounding properties and the open countryside. Thus the proposal accords to the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.69 WF.1096/04 Proposal: Full: Erection of first floor Date Received: 15.10.04 extension over ground floor Agent: Building Design Practice swimming pool at The Alms Ord. Sheet: 8674 8774 House, Worcester Road, Policy: D.1, D.3, D.5, D.17, GB.1 Harvington (AWFDLP) Case Officer: C. Wolfe Ward: Blakedown & Chaddesley Applicant: Mr. B. Adams
Site Location and Description: The Alms House is a detached property located on the western side of the Worcester Road immediately adjacent to ‘The Dog’ Public House. The application proposes to extend at first floor level to the rear of the property over an existing single storey flat roof swimming pool extension. Planning History: Most relevant: WF.299/93 – Alterations to existing swimming pool – Approved WF.587/04 – Proposed garage to replace existing car port – Approved WF.913/86 – Indoor Swimming Pool – Approved WF.461/83 – Porch, Conservatory and Stable Block – Approved WF.484/76 – Extensions - Approved 635/73 – Change of use of agricultural land to residential garden - Approved 51/71 – Outdoor Swimming Pool and changing rooms - Approved 94/67 – Extensions – Approved Consultations and Representations: Chaddesley Corbett Parish Council – Views awaited. Highway Authority – No objection. Neighbour/Site Notice – No response yet received. Officer Comments: The application site is located within the designated West Midlands Green Belt where Policy GB.1 applies. This Policy allows for extensions to existing dwellings provided that it would not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. The planning history for this site is extensive and I am of the view that what was once a modest cottage is now a large dwelling with various curtilage buildings. Many of the extensions were granted planning permission prior to the adoption of national and local policies on development within Green Belts. This application proposes to extend above the existing single storey flat roof swimming pool extension to provide a gymnasium and roof top garden. In 1993 planning permission was granted for a similar extension, however, this was never begun and the application has since expired. National and Local Plan policy has changed significantly since this previous decision, which has tightened control on development within the Green Belt. The agent contends that the existing flat roof is an awkward and non conforming element of the building which would be removed if the extensions were approved which would enhance the visual appearance of the building. The agent states that “the proposal is not adding to the footprint of the building or to the visual scale given the existing two storey elements that flank the extension”. The agent continues to say that Policy D.17 of the Local Plan states that flat roof extensions will not normally be allowed. However, this policy also requires residential extensions to be in scale with the original building, be subservient to and not overwhelm the original building. I have taken into consideration the view that the extension would assist to improve the appearance of the property, however, bearing in mind the existing flat roof is not visible from any public vantage points, I do not consider there to be any very special circumstances to outweigh Local Plan Policies. In this instance, I consider that in view of the scale of the previous extensions and outbuildings provided, the dwelling has been extended to its limit. Conclusions and Recommendations: The proposals are considered to be contrary to Policies GB.1 and D.17 and there are no very special circumstances to outweigh the Local Plan Policies. I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reasons: 1. The application site is within an area designated as part of the West Midlands Green Belt. The proposed extension, when considered together with previous extensions and alterations, would result in a disproportionate addition over and above the size of the original dwelling. The development is therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt and contrary to Policy GB.1 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. There are no very special circumstances to justify why these policies should be overridden. 2. The proposed extension, by virtue of its scale and design, would not be subservient to the original building and would be overwhelming. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy D.17 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.70 WF.1104/04 Proposal: Full: Erection of two Date Received: 18.10.04 storey extension and first Agent: Adrian Griffiths floor accommodation in Ord. Sheet: 8878 8978 new roof over existing Policy: D.1, D.3, D.5, D.17, GB.1 garage/utility area at (AWFDLP) Kersfield, Worcester Case Officer: C. Wolfe Road, Hackmans Gate Ward: Blakedown & Chaddesley Applicant: Mr. & Mrs. N. G. Griffiths
Site Location and Description: Kersfield is a modern detached dwelling located in a large garden plot on the lay-by on the eastern side of Worcester Road just north of the traffic lights at Hackmans Gate. The application proposes a first floor extension over the existing single storey flat roof garage and a two storey extension to the side. Planning History: WF.74/70 – Covered Courtyard - Approved Consultations and Representations: Chaddesley Corbett Parish Council – Views awaited Highway Authority – No objection Neighbour/Site Notice – No response yet received Officer Comments: The application site is within the designated West Midlands Green Belt where Policy GB.1 applies. This policy states that extensions to residential dwellings will only be permitted provided that they do not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. The existing dwelling is currently in its original form, except for a single storey flat roof garage/courtyard extension. It is proposed to extend above this to create a dormer bedroom in the upper floor. This, together with alterations to the ground floor part of this previous addition, would, in my opinion, enhance the appearance of this dwelling. The application also proposes to demolish the existing single storey wing to the south and replace with a two storey extension. The proposed extension would not project further to the south than the existing garage and it would be subservient to the original building. Although the overall scale of the proposed extensions does seem slightly excessive, consideration has been given to removal of the flat roof garage, which is visible from the Worcester Road. It must also be taken into consideration that a significant part of the original dwelling would be removed, the volume and floor area of which would be displaced within part of the new addition. Furthermore, many of the dwellings, in particular, the adjacent property, have been significantly extended in the past. The dwelling is set well back from the lay by and the main Worcester Road and the proposed extensions and alterations are not considered to have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the landscape. The impact on the neighbouring properties has been assessed and it is not considered to cause any undue harm to the amenity of these properties. Conclusions and Recommendations: The proposed extensions and alterations are considered to be in accordance with Local Plan Policies and the application is therefore recommended for APPROVAL subject to the following conditions: 1. A6 (Full with no Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B3 (Sample Materials); Note: SN12.
Reason for Approval: The proposed extensions are considered to be of an appropriate scale and design. The impact of the extension upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. The proposed development would not harm the visual amenity or openness of the Green Belt. It is thus considered that the proposal conforms to the policies listed above.
WF.1106/04 Proposal: Full: Erection of two
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.71 Date Received: 19.10.04 storey extension to Agent: T. J. Preece & Associates rear/side with single Ord. Sheet: 8475 8575 storey side extension at Policy: D.3, D.17, GB.1, GB.2, Honeysuckle Cottage, 3 CA.1 (AWFDLP) Stone Hill, Kidderminster Case Officer: J. McKenzie-Watts Ward: Stone Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Whitman
Site Location and Description: Honeysuckle Cottage is located off Dunclent Lane within the Parish of Stone. The current application is for the erection of a side extension to create an enlarged kitchen extension and a two storey side/rear extension to enlarge the ground floor living accommodation and two additional bedrooms at first floor level. Planning History: WF.842/04 - Erection of a two storey extension to rear with single storey glazed entrance porch: Withdrawn Consultations and Representations: Stone Parish Council – recommend refusal, considered to have a stifling influence on neighbouring property. The scale of extension dominates the original. Highway Authority – no comments. Conservation Officer – approval subject to conditions. Neighbour/site notice – no comments. Officer Comments: Honeysuckle Cottage is located within the proposed Stone Conservation Area and therefore it is important to ensure that any extension would not have an adverse impact on the area. The current application was submitted after a previous one was withdrawn, as it was felt that the extensions proposed were not subservient to the original, and not acceptable in design terms in that they did not relate well to the existing cottage. The current single storey wooden rear extension and a wrap around glazed structure, which do not compliment the existing dwelling, would be removed and replaced with a redesigned side and rear extension, which would be more in keeping with the existing cottage ensuring that its original character is retained. The Council’s Conservation Officer comments that, ‘the original building has already had extensions added to it, not in a sympathetic style, and this proposal seeks to remove those, and replace with something slightly more in keeping with the property’. Stone Parish Council object to the proposal, and their comments have been noted, however, the proposal complies with the Local Plan policies as listed, as the proposal would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining property. In addition, as the proposal would see the removal of the present uncharacteristic extensions replaced with a more aesthetically pleasing structure, it would result in a much better outlook for the neighbours than at present. I do not feel that a refusal to the application is justified. Conclusions and Recommendations: As the proposed extensions now comply with the Local Plan Policies as listed above, APPROVAL is recommended subject to the conditions below: 1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B7 (External Details – No Approval); 4. G1 (Details of Works to Listed Buildings);
Reason for Approval The proposed extensions are considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the main dwelling and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The impact of the extension upon the neighbouring property has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the policies listed above.
WF.1138/04 Proposal: Tree Preservation Order:
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.72 Date Received: 27.10.04 Prune a Sweet Chestnut Agent: - tree at 26 The Croft, Ord. Sheet: 8175 NW Kidderminster Policy: LA.13, LA.14 (AWFDLP) Case Officer: A. Needham Ward: Sutton Park Applicant: Mr. J. W. Dudley
Site Location and Description: The tree is a mature Sweet Chestnut at 26 The Croft, situated towards the rear left corner of the garden, approximately 50m from the dwelling.
Planning History: None
Consultations and Representations: Views awaited
Officer Comments: The tree is considered to be in average condition, notwithstanding an abnormal crown form, as the majority of the tree leans at an acute angle. A couple of long branches extend away from the property and may be prone to failure; their removal would not be detrimental to the tree’s health or the amenity it provides. A slight reduction of the tree’s canopy is considered appropriate to reduce the risk of failure and to balance the tree’s canopy.
I consider the proposed works to be acceptable in terms of their potential to affect the amenity and health of the tree.
Conclusions and Recommendations: The proposed pruning is considered acceptable and will not be detrimental to the tree’s health or the amenity it provides. I therefore recommend that this application be APPROVED.
Planning (Development Control) Committee : 16th November 2004 PAGE NO.73 WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE
MEETING 16 NOVEMBER 2004
List of Applications Pending 05 November 2004
N.B. This list includes all applications upon which no decision has been issued, including applications proposed to be determined at this Committee.
THE FOLLOWING APPLICATIONS WILL HAVE BEEN WITH THE AUTHORITY LONGER THAN 8 WEEKS ON 16 NOVEMBER 2004
WF NO. DATE ADDRESS OF SITE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL APPLICANT GR. REF PARISH CASE OFFICER
WF/0888/04 24/08/2004 'Bon Accord', Kingsford Lane, Full : Replacement dwelling and double Mr. and Mrs. P. Mansell 822 814 Wolverley and PR Wolverley detached garage Cookley
WF/0919/04:D 26/08/2004 Oakfield Farm House, Cakebole Full: Conversion of barn into a three Nigel Meredith 881 718 Chaddesley PW Lane, Cakebole bedroom dwelling with integral garage Corbett and construction of new access (Renewal of Planning Permission WF. 236/99)
WF/0920/04:D 26/08/2004 Oakfield Farm House, Cakebole Listed Building Consent: Alterations to Nigel Meredith 881 718 Chaddesley PW Lane, Cakebole barn building including installation of Corbett new windows and doors, new infill panels, timber and brickwork repairs and refacing of gable wall to rear wing to facilitate conversion into a single dwelling house (Renewal of WF.237/99)
WF/0922/04:D 26/08/2004 Riverside House and Amusement Full: Elevational alterations to Shipley & Sons Amusements 808 710 Stourport on JS Park, Stourport on Severn Amusement Centre (as approved under Ltd. Severn WF.841/00) WF NO. DATE ADDRESS OF SITE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL APPLICANT GR. REF PARISH CASE OFFICER Full: Proposed conversion of part of WF/0941/04 01/09/2004 Part former telephone exchange, Orion Property Services Ltd. 809 713 Stourport on JS Sion Gardens, Stourport on Severn telephone exchange to 12 apartments Severn (3 x 1 bed, 9 x 2 bed). External alterations, new access parking and amenity area and associated works (re- submission of WF.1268/03),
WF/0942/04:D 01/09/2004 1 Abberley Avenue, Stourport on Full: Proposed boundary wall G. Thomas 799 696 Stourport on CW Severn Severn
WF/0963/04 08/09/2004 Wharton Park Golf Club, Long Bank, Full: Ground reprofiling and landscaping Wharton Park Golf Club 768 743 Bewdley JS Bewdley improvements to existing driving range and associated area (part retrospective)
WF/0966/04 09/09/2004 'Cherryholme', Pound Bank, Rock INCOMPLETE APPLICATION
WF/0960/04:D 10/09/2004 10, 10A, 11 High Street, Stourport on Advertisement : One lightbox over ATM Lloyds TSB Bank plc 811 713 Stourport on SA Severn and one projecting sign Severn
WF/0972/04:D 10/09/2004 66 Oxford Street, Kidderminster Listed Building Consent : Creation of Barclays PLC 832 763 Kidderminster SA new entrance for disabled access, provision of internal access ramp (amendments to Listed Building Consent WF.972/03)
WF/0973/04:D 10/09/2004 10, 10a, 11 High Street, Stourport on Listed Building Consent : One lightbox Lloyds TSB Bank PLC 811 713 Stourport on SA Severn over ATM and one projecting sign Severn
WF/0980/04:D 13/09/2004 Goldthorn Road, Kidderminster Full : Erection of 2.4 m high palisade Oasis Art and Craft Products 821 750 Kidderminster SA fencing (painted green) on frontage to Ltd. replace existing mesh fencing (resubmission of WF.627/04) WF NO. DATE ADDRESS OF SITE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL APPLICANT GR. REF PARISH CASE OFFICER
WF/0983/04:D 13/09/2004 Land at Woodhouse Farm, Pound Certificate of Lawfulness (of existing E. H. Gatehouse 759 781 Upper Arley JW Green, Bewdley use/development) : Use of land as caravan site with associated surfaced road
WF/0985/04:D 14/09/2004 21 Prince Rupert Road, Stourport on Full : Erection of a single storey rear Mr. and Mrs. C. Lyndsay-Veal 804 707 Stourport on JMW Severn extension Severn
WF/0987/04 14/09/2004 Land off 34 Bowpatch Road, Full: Change of use of land to private Mrs. J. Payne 799 700 Stourport-on- CW Stourport on Severn residential curtilage, erection of fence Severn and gates and laying of hardstanding in association with creation of new access (Retrospective)
WF/0988/04 14/09/2004 'Brindley Arms'. Minster Road, Full : Erection of twenty-eight dwellings George Wimpey Midland Ltd. 813 718 Stourport on JS Stourport on Severn (ten two-bedroom and eighteen one- Severn bedroom) and associated roads and sewers
WF/0989/04:D 14/09/2004 21 and 22 Load Street, Bewdley Listed Building Consent : Replace Bewdley Institute 786 752 Bewdley JMW existing glazed roof section with tiled roof
WF/0990/04:D 14/09/2004 21 and 22 Load Street, Bewdley Full : Replace existing glazed roof Bewdley Institute 786 752 Bewdley JMW section with tiled roof
WF/0991/04:D 14/09/2004 Rear of 122 Linnet Rise, Full: Change of use of 'waste ground' to Mr. and Mrs. I.P. Birch 838 744 Kidderminster JMW Kidderminster garden and new boundary fence line (retrospective application)
WF/0992/04:D 15/09/2004 52 Belbroughton Road, Blakedown Full : Erection of two storey side and T. White and R. Belte 883 782 Churchill and JMW rear extensions and single storey rear Blakedown extension WF NO. DATE ADDRESS OF SITE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL APPLICANT GR. REF PARISH CASE OFFICER
WF/0998/04:D 16/09/2004 63 Baldwin Road, Kidderminster Full: Erection of a conservatory to the Mr. and Mrs. Bytheway 847 775 Kidderminster SW rear
WF/1001/04:D 16/09/2004 No. 1 Lucas Building, Old Wolverley Listed Building Consent: Retention of Nicholas A Pennick 829 795 Wolverley and JMW Village, Kidderminster aerial on rear elevation (retrospective) Cookley
WF/0999/04:D 17/09/2004 Sebright Stores, 37 Sebright Road, Full: Front extension to create additional Mr. Sukhi 822 791 Wolverley and SA Wolverley retail area Cookley
WF/1000/04:D 17/09/2004 20 Kendlewood Road, Kidderminster Full: Erection of first floor extension to Mr. and Mrs. Boulton 845 780 Kidderminster CW form fourth bedroom
WF/1003/04:D 17/09/2004 36 Westhead Road North, Cookley Full: Single storey extension to front and Philip Mark Homer 843 799 Wolverley and SW side (with conversion of garage) Cookley
WF/0958/04 20/09/2004 21-23 Coventry Street, Kidderminster Full: Change of use to hot food take Spurville Ltd 833 768 Kidderminster CW away (A3 use) with extraction ducting, new shop front with shutter. Two self contained flats on the first floor
WF/1004/04:D 20/09/2004 39 Aggborough Crescent, Full: Erection of a two storey rear Mrs. C. Protheroe 832 755 Kidderminster JMW Kidderminster extension and single storey extension to the front
WF/1006/04:D 20/09/2004 Land adjacent to 130 Linnet Rise, Full: Change of use from amenity land Mr. and Mrs. D. Jones 838 744 Kidderminster JMW Kidderminster to private garden and erection of a fence (retrospective application) WF NO. DATE ADDRESS OF SITE DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL APPLICANT GR. REF PARISH CASE OFFICER
WF/1007/04:D 20/09/2004 6 Southgate Close, Kidderminster Outline: Erection of detached dwelling Mr. and Mrs. Whitaker 811 759 Kidderminster PR with integral garage
WF/1008/04:D 20/09/2004 14 Great Western Way, Stourport on Full: First floor side extension over Mr. and Mrs. Nicklin 812 719 Stourport on SA Severn existing garage Severn
WF/1009/04:D 20/09/2004 'Trimpley Hill View', Site adjacent Full: Erection of two detached split level UFO Plc 782 756 Bewdley JS Highlands, Dowles Road, Bewdley dwellings with associated access off Woodthorpe Drive
WF/1012/04:D 20/09/2004 Pony Paddocks, Grey Green Lane, Full: Erection of pitched roofs on flat Mr. and Mrs. D. Barnsley 791 757 Bewdley SW Bewdley roofed dormers
WF/1013/04 20/09/2004 22 Linden Avenue, Kidderminster Full: Proposed loft conversion, roof Mr. M. Kragulj 844 771 Kidderminster JMW extension with parapet wall and front lounge extension WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE MEETING 16TH NOVEMBER 2004
PLANNING AND ENFORCEMENT APPEALS
...... DATES...... Written Public Form of Reps. Proof Inquiry Appeal and Planning Appeal or of (Venue) Application Inspectorate Site and Statement Evidence or Number Reference Appellant (Proposal) (Start Date) Required By Required By Site Visit Decision ------
WFA.1094 APP/R1845/A/ Hyperion Homes Ltd. Wagon and Horses Hearing 1.4.04 - Hearing WF.1140/03 04/1140816 Public House (19.2.04) 12.10.04 Bewdley (Town Hall, (Six apartments and Kidderminster) three bungalows, associated parking and access)
WFA.1097 APP/R1845/A/ Mr. and Mrs. J. Payne Hobro Barn W.R. 13.5.04 - Site Visit DISMISSED WF.1237/03 04/1146442 Bodenham Lane (1.4.04) 27.9.04 13.10.04 Wolverley (Conservatory)
WFA.1098 APP/R1845/A/ Morbaine Ltd. Elgar House P.I. 17.5.04 14.12.04 Public Inquiry WITHDRAWN WF.842/03 04/1145881 Green Street (5.4.04) 11.1.05 1.11.04 Kidderminster (Town Hall, (Change of use to Kidderminster) fifty apartments and associated works) ...... DATES...... Written Public Form of Reps. Proof Inquiry Appeal and Planning Appeal or of (Venue) Application Inspectorate Site and Statement Evidence or Number Reference Appellant (Proposal) (Start Date) Required By Required By Site Visit Decision
WFA.1102 APP/R1845/A/ Mrs. D. B. Perks The Lodge W.R. 29.6.04 - Unaccompanied WF.49/04 04/1150019 Fairfield Lane (18.5.04) Site Visit Wolverley (Garage and pitched roof to existing garage)
WFA.1103 APP/R1845/A/ Orion Property Former Telephone P.I. 3.8.04 - Public Inquiry WF.1268/03 04/1151411 Services Ltd Exchange, (22.6.04) 8.3.05 Sion Gardens (Civic Hall, Stourport on Severn Stourport on Severn) (Conversion of part to 12 apartments, external alterations, new access and associated parking)
WFA.1104 APP/R1845/A/ Mr. C. Maxim 1 Roxall Close W.R. 6.8.04 - WF.141/04 04/1152572 Blakedown (25.6.04) (Erection of 3 dwellings, demolition of existing dwellings and garage)
WFA.1105 WMR/P/5250/ Mr. S. Davies 12 Greenfinch Close, W.R. 9.8.04 - WF.185/04 147/20 Kidderminster (28.6.04) (TPO: Fell Sycamore Tree in rear garden)
WFA.1106 APP/R1845/A/ Mr. P. Terrana Kimberley Cottage W.R. 11.8.04 - WF.207/04 04/1153358 Worcester Road (30.6.04) Harvington (Two storey side extension with balcony to rear) ...... DATES...... Written Public Form of Reps. Proof Inquiry Appeal and Planning Appeal or of (Venue) Application Inspectorate Site and Statement Evidence or Number Reference Appellant (Proposal) (Start Date) Required By Required By Site Visit Decision
WF.1107 APP/R1845/A/ Mr. & Mrs. C. Syner 58 Belbroughton Road W.R. 11.8.04 - WF.286/04 04/1153411 Blakedown (30.6.04) (Erection of double garage to front and new entrance/lobby extension)
WFA.1108 APP/R1845/A/ David Wilson Homes 113–114 Sutton W.R. 23.9.04 - WF.121/04 04/1155080 Park Road (12.8.04) Kidderminster (Demolition of existing houses, erection of 10 apartments, 4 houses and parking)
WFA.1109 APP/R1845/A/ Mr. A. Stratham River Cottage W.R. 29.8.04 - WF.209/04 04/1155151 Northwood Lane (15.7.04) Bewdley (Part demolition/part replacement timber building)
WFA.1110 APP/R1845/A/ Gemini Properties 13 Park Lane W.R. 15.9.04 - WF.174/04 04/1157465 Bewdley (4.8.04) (Three storey extension)
WFA.1111 APP/R1845/C/ Mr. C. Vincent Land at Sandy Lane W.R. 27.9.04 - ENF.170/3348 04/1158547 Stourport on Severn (16.8.04) (Unauthorised erection of a building) ...... DATES...... Written Public Form of Reps. Proof Inquiry Appeal and Planning Appeal or of (Venue) Application Inspectorate Site and Statement Evidence or Number Reference Appellant (Proposal) (Start Date) Required By Required By Site Visit Decision
WFA.1112 APP/R1845/E/ Mr. M. Solimanifar 15 Bridge Street W.R. 29.9.04 - WF.397/04 04/1158884 Stourport on Severn (18.8.04) (Extraction grille to replace existing fan)
WFA.1113 APP/R1845/A/ West Bromwich 23 High Street P.I. 6.10.04 20.5.05 Public Inquiry WF.295/04 04/1159240 Building Society Kidderminster (25.8.04) 21.6.05 (Change of use from (The Earl Baldwin Suite A1 (Retail) to A2 Duke House, (Financial and Kidderminster) professional services))
WFA.1114 APP/R1845/X/ M. Pound Yew Tree Farm P.I. 28.10.04 28.12.04 Public Inquiry WF.83/02 04/1160509 Pound Bank (16.9.04) 25.1.05 Far Forest (The Earl Baldwin Suite (Use of land as Duke House, caravan site) Kidderminster)
WFA.1115 APP/R1845/A/ Mr. and Mrs. A. Seager 1 Gerainium Cottage W.R. 1.11.04 - WF.351/04 O4/1161738 New Road (20.9.04) Caunsall (Two storey extension)
WFA.1116 APP/R1845/A/ Executors of the late Unit 1 Greenacres Lane W.R. 23.11.04 - WF.654/04 04/1164302 J. Francois off Dowles Road (12.10.04) Bewdley (Demolition of garage/ car/vehicle spraying unit and erection of two detached bungalows with garages) ...... DATES...... Written Public Form of Reps. Proof Inquiry Appeal and Planning Appeal or of (Venue) Application Inspectorate Site and Statement Evidence or Number Reference Appellant (Proposal) (Start Date) Required By Required By Site Visit Decision
WFA.1117 APP/R1845/A/ Wyre Forest Golf Club Land off Kingsway W.R. 25.11.04 - WF.689/04 04/1164602 Stourport (14.10.04) (Modification to condition No.16 of planning permission WF.370/03 to complete fill period by 5.10.05 and restore site by 5.10.06)
WFA.1118 WMR/P/5250/ Mr. M. Rose 11 Barnetts Close W.R. 1.12.04 - WF.756/04 147/23 Kidderminster (20.10.04) (Tree Preservation Order: Fell conifer)
WFA.1119 WMR/P/5250/ Mrs. C. Napier 7 Threlfall Drive W.R. 25.11.04 - WF.825/04 147/22 Bewdley (14.10.04) (Tree Preservation Order: Fell Beech tree)
WFA.1120 APP/R1845/A/ Mr. J. Salter Hillview, Fernhalls W.R. 2.12.04 - WF.702/04 04/1165391 Bungalow, Greenway (21.10.04) Rock (Extension to front) WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE 16TH NOVEMBER 2004
Proposed Waste Treatment and Recycling Facility including the Construction of a New Building and Associated Infrastructure on Land at Hartlebury Trading Estate, Worcestershire Town and Country Planning Act 1990 County Matter Application
1. Purpose of Report
1.1 Wyre Forest District Council has been notified as a neighbouring authority with respect to the above application submitted by Estech Europe Limited. The site lies within the district of Wychavon and the purpose of the report is to explain the content of the application and make a recommendation to the County Council who will be determining the application in December 2004.
2. Recommendation
2.1 To advise Worcestershire County Council that Wyre Forest District Council raise no objections to the planning application but would advise stringent conditions relating to the following:
• Noise Emissions - From within the building and on site from the HGV deliveries and vehicles • Noise from Construction Work - Conditions to prevent unacceptable odours, dust and to maintain acceptable levels of air quality • Condition to ensure all incoming deliveries of waste are sheeted • Condition to ensure that there is no storage or handling of waste or recyclates outside the building • Conditions to ensure that there are no unacceptable levels of dust – by restricting speeds of vehicles and ensuring all hard surfaces within the site are swept regularly • Land contamination and remediation condition if considered necessary due to the former use of the site • Details of all external lighting
2.2 The County Council should also be advised that the hours of operation of the plant give rise to some concern as the planning application indicates that there is scope for some discretion on behalf of the planning authority as to whether the plant will receive solid municipal waste arising on Bank Holidays. Wyre Forest District Council has a policy of collecting on all Bank Holidays except for Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Years Day and therefore it is essential that this is reflected in the operation and any planning consent granted for the proposed facilities. 2
2.3 There is some mention of the plant being capable of taking commercial waste arisings but no detailed information on how those will be treated if they are not delivered to the proposed Estech plant. Assuming that they will be delivered to the plant, there is a possible under estimation in the amount of vehicle movements from Wyre Forest, as they have only allowed two deliveries per day form each of the domestic collection vehicles which is below our current usage rates.
3. Background
3.1 Site Description The application site of approximately 3.6 hectares in area is located within the Hartlebury Trading Estate which lies within the northern part of the Wychavon District. The Trading Estate is located about 1.6 km to the east of the village of Waresley and about 2.2 km to the south-east of the village of Hartlebury. Kidderminster is 7 km to the north-west and Stourport on Severn is 5 km to the west.
Immediately to the north of the site is the Waresley Landfill site operated by Biffa Waste Services. A private sewage works for the estate adjoins the north-west corner and existing industrial units within the estate lie to the south and west.
The nearest residential properties to the site are approximately 275m to the south-east.
3.2 Site History Hartlebury Trading Estate has developed from the original RAF base and currently covers an area of over 75 hectares.
An application for Class B1, B2 and B8 Industrial Units with ancillary office accommodation was approved on the application site in December 1999.
The application has been submitted to the County Council together with an Environmental Impact Assessment and an assessment known as the Best Practicable Environmental Option (BPEO). A strategic level BPEO of waste management options was completed for Worcestershire County Council in 2003. This established the BPEO for managing municipal solid waste in the County and is an approved document. Prospective developers for waste management facilities must demonstrate that their proposal is compliant with this strategic BPEO. 3
3.3 The Proposed Building The proposed waste treatment and recycling facility would be undertaken in a building with a footprint of 120m x 60m with a height of 12m to the eaves and a maximum height of approximately 15m. A three storey office including viewing gallery and visitors facilities with a footprint of about 22.5m x 8m would be located at the southern end of the process building.
The development of the building footprint would result in the loss of 5 trees protected by a Tree Preservation Order. The application offers compensation planting as part of the landscaping works to mitigate the loss.
3.4 Process Description The applicants, Estech Europe Limited has developed an integrated waste treatment and recycling process known as the “Fibrecycle” process for the processing of municipal solid waste collected from households by Local Authorities. The wastes are treated in an autoclave by high temperature steam under low pressure. This process breaks the waste down into organic and non-organic fractions. The “Fibrecycle” process does not involve any combustion of the wastes.
In more detail, wastes are delivered and tipped within the reception hall. It is not proposed that there would be any storage of waste outside the process building. The waste is then tipped into two autoclave vessels of approximately 3.5m in diameter and 20m in length. The autoclaves are capable of containing approximately 20 tonnes of waste. The wastes are sealed within the vessel and treated with steam at 160°C under low pressure. The autoclaves rotate clockwise at around 10 rpm. Initial steam injection takes around 15 minutes and steam is injected on a constant basis during processing to maintain temperature and pressure. After steam injection, the pressure is maintained for a period of around 35 – 45 minutes. In effect it is sometimes described that the waste is “cooked”.
It is estimated that the waste treatment process will operate for 16 hours per day – 2 shifts 6.00 am to 2.00 pm and 2.00 pm to 10.00 pm.
When the autoclave treatment is completed, the products are discharged onto a conveyor system and sorted.
The process takes 90 minutes per batch and with 10 cycles per day the building can process approximately 400 tonnes per day or 100,000 tonnes of municipal solid waste per year.
It is estimated that the end products will be divided as follows:-
20% Ferris and aluminium metals and mixed plastics for recycling 60% homogenous organic fibre; and 20% waste for landfill 4
The applicants state that the 60% fibre can be used in other industries to produce artificial slate tiles, bricks, kerb stones, street signage and used as an assimilated wood product in the manufacture of decking, and post and rail fencing. It is anticipated that it could also be used in the production of building materials for agricultural buildings and as a soil enhancer. The applicants estimate that there would be a market for the above products within 12 months of first operation. This is estimated to be in April 2006.
The hours of operation are proposed to be between 7.00 am – 6.00 pm Monday to Saturday with no vehicular movement or waste treatment on Sundays or Bank Holidays. It is intended that the waste facility would be able to accommodate the estimated 36,000 tonnes per annum from Wyre Forest District Council.
3.5 Traffic Movements It is estimated that there would be 49 vehicle movements in and 49 vehicle movements out of the proposed site per day including 17 vehicles in 17 vehicles out from Wyre Forest District Council. However, the potential traffic increase on the A449 is only estimated to be 0.5%.
3.6 Planning Policy Context The applicants assert that the proposals conform with European, National and Regional Planning Policy objectives by seeking to reduce the environmental impacts associated with waste management by diverting waste away from landfill and increasing the recycling of waste materials.
At a County level it is considered that the proposal is acceptable in the light of the relevant Sustainable Development, Landscape, Development, Transport and Waste Management policies of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan.
3.7 Consultations The County Council have notified Wyre Forest District Council due to its proximity to the application site. A six day consultation exercise has also been undertaken on site to demonstrate the waste treatment process on a small scale to local people, Members, statutory consultees and officers.
Comments have also been received from the following:
Head of Cultural Leisure and Commercial Services Having read the planning application and supporting documentation for the Estech Municipal Waste Treatment Plant at Hartlebury Trading Estate, I would make the following comments:-
i) The plant is in keeping with the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy for Herefordshire and Worcestershire which has been endorsed and supported by Wyre Forest District Council. 5 ii) I cannot comment on the technology, as to the best of my knowledge, there is not a fully operational plant of the type proposed within the British Isles. No doubt other experts will make comment on the suitability or otherwise of this emerging technology. iii) The proposals in the planning application will have little or no effect on the current method of waste collection in Wyre Forest as currently all the solid municipal waste arisings from this District are transported to the landfill site at Hartlebury. iv) The hours of operation of the plant do give rise to some concern as the application indicates that there is scope for some discretion on behalf of the planning authority as to whether the plant will receive solid municipal waste arisings on Bank Holidays. Wyre Forest does have a policy of collecting on all Bank Holidays except for Christmas Day, Boxing Day and New Year’s Day and therefore it is essential that this is reflected in the operation and any planning consent granted for the proposed facilities. v) It should be noted that dry recyclates collected within Wyre Forest will not be transported to the proposed plant at Hartlebury and therefore there will be a need for the continued operation of the dry recyclate transfer facility currently operating at Hoobrook. Also the Joint Municipal Waste Strategy allows for the single collection of dry recyclates and transfer to the proposed sorting and processing plant in North Worcestershire. Recycling facilities for Wyre Forest are not contained within the current proposals and therefore it can only be concluded that these will be the subject of a further application on a site yet to be identified. vi) there is some mention of the plant being capable of taking commercial waste arisings but no detailed information on how those will be treated if they are not delivered to the proposed Estech plant. Assuming that they will be delivered to the plant, there is a possible under estimation in the amount of vehicle movements from Wyre Forest, as they have only allowed two deliveries per day form each of the domestic collection vehicles which is below our current usage rates.
In general we would support the location of the plant as it would avoid increasing vehicle journey time in order to transport waste arisings collected from Wyre Forest. Also, subject to clarification of the technology to be used, it will support the Council’s requirements to divert its waste arisings from landfill in order to comply with the European directives. 6
Environmental Health Licensing Manager I have contacted colleagues at Hereford Council who I understand dealt with an almost identical application in March of this year.
As the application site is within the neighbouring district of Wychavon and staff at Hereford have carried out such a detailed critique, I do not think it necessary to analyse the reports submitted in depth.
I would not object to the proposal in principle but would suggest that Wychavon District Council confer with Hereford Council to ensure that if approval is granted suitably robust conditions are applied to cover the following:
• Noise • Air Quality • Odour • Dust • Flies and vermin • Land contamination • Lighting
4. Conclusions
4.1 Members should be aware that there are no waste treatment facilities using steam autoclave technology up and running in this country. Planning permission for a facility in Hereford has been granted however the decision has gone to judicial review due to alleged insufficient information on emissions.
4.2 Worcestershire County Council have also raised concerns with respect to whether there is a potential market for the proposed 60% fibre output and therefore there may be a higher percentage of the waste product sent to the existing landfill site.
4.3 It should however, be recognised that this new technology is moving towards European, National and Local objectives to reduce the landfilling of waste and to increase the recovery and recycling of municipal waste.
4.4 The site at Hartlebury Trading Estate was chosen following the consideration of 68 sites within northern Worcestershire, of which 5 were in Stourport on Severn and 24 were within Kidderminster. The proposed site was the preferred option as it totalled the highest score with respect to: 7
i) Plot size/availability and site preparation required ii) Access iii) Proximity to waste sources iv) Proximity to a facility for residue disposal v) Proximity to human receptors vi) Environmental designations/sensitivities vii) Floodplain viii) On-site features of interest
6. Financial Implications
6.1 It is not anticipated that there would be any implications with respect to domestic waste.
6.2 Whilst the supporting information makes reference to the suitability of the facility to take commercial wastes no further detail however is given.
Contact Officer: Julia Summerfield (Extension 2517) WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16TH NOVEMBER 2004
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) – Planning Performance Statistics
1. Purpose of the Report
1.1 To inform Members of the published performance statistics relating to Development Control.
2. Background
2.1 The O.D.P.M produce quarterly statistics relating to numbers, types and speed of decision reached by Local Planning Authorities. At the Committee meeting in August 2004, Members were advised of the statistics for the period January to March 2004, published in the Information Bulletin released on 25th June 2004. This report provides the statistics for the period April to June 2004 and is based on the latest Information Bulletin released on 24th September 2004.
3. Performance
3.1 Against a background of 77% of all planning decisions nationally being determined within the statutory 8-week period, I have reproduced below the figures for the Worcestershire Districts. Members will note that the Authority continues to perform well and in line with the Government's target.
3.2 In the second quarter of 2004 the number of planning applications received nationally was the largest number of applications received for that quarter since 1989 and is 6% higher than in the corresponding period last year.
ST Total Major % < 13YEAR ENDINGTotal 31 Minor MARCH 2004% < 8 Total other % < 8 Decisions weeks Decisions weeks Decisions weeks Bromsgrove 45 53 379 71 1013 86 Malvern Hills 21 62 401 53 1107 72 Redditch 24 21 101 36 488 57 Worcester 30 87 172 95 640 99 Wychavon 29 38 531 76 1491 84 WYRE FOREST 30 73 278 74 856 83 2
JANUARY – MARCH 2004 Total Major % < 13 Total Minor % < 8 Total other % < 8 Decisions weeks Decisions weeks Decisions weeks Bromsgrove 9 22 77 86 308 91 Malvern Hills 5 80 79 51 231 74 Redditch 9 44 30 33 149 68 Worcester 7 100 49 96 167 98 Wychavon 6 33 124 68 401 78 WYRE FOREST 3 67 56 75 229 84
SUMMARY BY MAIN CLASS OF DEVELOPMENT Total in this Quarter % of Decisions within 8 Weeks Major Development 3 0 Minor Development 56 75 Other Development 229 84 ALL CLASSES 288 82
3.3 At the meeting in August 2004, it was noted that the performance for major, minor and other applications had dropped slightly for the period ending March 2004, even though the figures still exceeded the national targets. The new figures for the period ending June 2004 however show that performance has improved significantly for all categories of applications since the previous quarter. The figures for all categories continue to exceed the national targets.
3.4 In addition to the figures set out above, the figures for the period 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2004 which is the period assessed for the next Planning Delivery Grant are as follows:
• Major Decisions - 63.64% within 13 weeks against ODPM Target of 60% • Minor Decisions - 75.43% within 8 weeks against ODPM Target of 65% • Other Decisions - 84.32% within 8 weeks against ODPM Target of 80 These figures show that the national ODPM target has been exceeded for all categories within that period.
4. Recommendation
That this Report be noted.
Consultees: None
Background Papers: None
Appendices: None
Contact Officer: Clare Eynon (Extension 2515) PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE COUNCIL CHAMBER, DUKE HOUSE, KIDDERMINSTER TUESDAY, 19th OCTOBER 2004
PRESENT:-
Councillors: S J Williams (Chairman), Mrs L Edginton (Vice-Chairman), Mrs M B Aston*, J-P Campion, S J M Clee, P Dyke, P B Harrison, M J Hart, Mrs S M Hayward, M A W Hazlewood, C D Nicholls, Mrs F M Oborski, ,Mrs Pat Rimell, Mrs J L Salter, M J Shellie, J A Shaw, J C Simmonds, and K J Stokes.
CM.328 APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors N J Desmond, Mrs H E Dyke, Mrs J Fairbrother-Millis and A D Williams.
*Councillor Mrs M B Aston had sent a message to say that she would be arriving late to the meeting.
CM.329 APPOINTMENT OF SUBSTITUTES
Councillor P Dyke was appointed as a substitute for Councillor Mrs H E Dyke. Councillor Mrs Pat Rimell was appointed as a substitute for Councillor Mrs J Fairbrother-Millis.
CM.330 COUNCILLOR MRS J FAIRBROTHER-MILLIS
Members noted that Councillor Mrs J Fairbrother-Millis was unable to attend the meeting due to the fact that her husband was recovering from a recent operation. It was suggested that a letter should be sent to her from all the members of the Planning (Development Control) Committee wishing her husband a speedy recovery.
CM.331 DECLARATION OF INTERESTS
Councillors Mrs F M Oborski, M J Shellie and J C Simmonds declared a prejudicial interest in application no. WF.0840/04 as they are board members of Wyre Forest Community Housing. Councillor M A W Hazlewood declared a personal interest in application number WF.0840/04 as he had received some letters concerning the application but he came to the meeting with an open mind. Councillor Mrs L Edginton declared a personal interest in application number WF.0840/04 as she had received quite a few letters concerning the application but she came to the meeting with an open mind. Councillor M J Hart declared a prejudicial interest in application no. WF.(T) as he is a member of the executive body of Kidderminster Scout Council who 1 are landowners of the site. He also declared a personal interest in application no. WF.1007/04 as he had spoken to various people about the application but he came to the meeting with an open mind. Councillor Mrs J L Salter declared a personal interest in application no. WF.0840/04 as she had received a lot of letters about this application but she came to the meeting with an open mind. Councillor J-P Campion declared a personal interest in application no. WF.1007/04 as he had spoken to residents and WF.(T)092 as he had spoken to two local residents but he came to the meeting with an open mind. He also declared a personal interest in application no. WF.0981/04 as he had spoken to several residents but he came to the meeting with an open mind. Councillor K J Stokes declared a personal interest in application no. WF.0840/04 as he had received correspondence regarding the application but he came to the meeting with an open mind.
CM.332 MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on the 21st September 2004 were confirmed as a correct record and were signed by the Chairman.
CM.333 APPLICATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
The Committee considered those applications for determination (now incorporated in Development Control Schedule No. 410 attached).
DECISION: that the applications now submitted be determined, in accordance with the decisions set out in Development Control Schedule No. 410 attached, subject to incorporation of any further conditions or reasons (or variations) thought to be necessary to give full effect to the Authority's wishes about any particular application.
CM.334 APPLICATIONS PENDING DECISION
The Committee received a schedule of planning and related applications that were pending decision.
DECISION: that the schedule be noted.
CM.335 PLANNING AND RELATED APPEALS
The Committee received details of the position with regard to planning and related appeals still being processed together with particulars of appeals that had been determined since the date of the last meeting.
DECISION: that the details be noted.
CM.336 TREE PRESERVATION ORDER NO. 85 (1979) LOWER HEATH, STOURPORT-ON-SEVERN
2 Councillor Mrs S M Hayward left the meeting at 7.30 pm before consideration of this item.
A report was considered from the Development Control Manager that asked the Planning (Development Control) Committee to determine whether Tree Preservation Order No. 85 relating to trees at Lower Heath Caravan Park, Stourport-on-Severn should be revoked or not.
Two members commented that they felt that the report did not give sufficient information. Trees were very important and added to the amenity of an area.
DECISION : that the Tree Preservation Order (TPO), be revoked in view of the lack of suitable amenity trees on site.
(Councillor J Simmonds wished it to be recorded that he had voted against revocation of this TPO).
CM.337 AMENDMENT TO SECTION 106 AGREEMENT RELATING TO APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF USE OF FIRST TO THIRD FLOORS (INCLUSIVE) TO 36 RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS AT ELGAR HOUSE, GREEN STREET, KIDDERMINSTER
A report was considered from the Development Control Manager that advised Members of a request for a variation in the Committee resolution relating to the Section 106 Agreement which sought to secure the affordable housing within the scheme at Elgar House, Kidderminster.
It was noted that since the meeting of the Planning (Development Control) Committee held on 24th August 2004 when the original Section 106 Agreement was made, there had been further discussions with the applicants. They had requested that the Committee’s resolution be varied. Rather than identifying a partner RSL (Registered Social Landlord) at the time of signature of the Section 106 Agreement, it had been suggested that a clause be inserted into the Section 106 Agreement that required the developer to contract with a RSL (Registered Social Landlord) before works on the development were commenced.
DECISION : that the form of the proposed Section 106 be varied so that it includes requirements that before any development is commenced, the Developer will enter into an agreement with one of the Council’s partner Registered Social Landlords for the acquisition of an interest (freehold or on a long lease) in the affordable units rather than require an RSL to be a party to the agreement. In all other respects that agreement will remain as agreed by the Planning (Development Control) Committee on 24th August 2004.
CM.338 SECTION 106 OBLIGATION MONITORING
Members considered a list of the most ‘current’ Section 106 Obligations, which required monitoring.
3 DECISION : that the list of the most current Section 106 Obligations that required monitoring be noted.
The meeting finished at 7.33 pm.,
J/Committee/Devcontl/Minutes/2004/19.10.04.doc
4 PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE MEETING 19TH OCTOBER 2004 SCHEDULE 410 DEVELOPMENT CONTROL DECISIONS
The Schedule frequently refers to various standard conditions and notes for permission and standard reasons and refusals. Details of the full working of these can be obtained from the Head of Planning, Health and Environment, Duke House, Clensmore Street, Kidderminster. However a brief description can be seen in brackets alongside each standard condition, note or reason mentioned.
WF.840/04 Site A Pair of two bedroom semi-detached houses at rear of 82 Queensway; SITE B: Pair of two bedroom semi-detached houses and three two bedroom terraced houses at rear of 102 Queensway; SITE C: Pair of three bedroom same-detached houses at Cordle Marsh Road, Bewdley
Councillor Mrs M B Aston arrived at the meeting at 6.15 pm during consideration of this application.
APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:- 1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters) 2. A11 (Approved plans) 3. B1 (Sample/details of materials) 4. B11 (Details of enclosure) 5. B13 (Levels details) 6. C6 (Landscaping – small scheme) 7. C8 (Landscape implementation) 8. E2 (Foul and surface water) 9. E9 (No development within <> metres of a public sewer) 10. F13 (Control of dust) 11. Hours of construction work 12. J1 (Removal of permitted development – residential) 13. J9 (Open plan frontages) 14. Highway 15. Environment Agency A SN1 (Removal of permitted development rights) B Highway
Reason for Approval
The proposed dwellings are well designed and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The scheme is also acceptable in terms of highway safety. The impact of the dwellings upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies H.2, H.6, H.10, D.1, D.3, D.9, D.10, D.11, D.13, TR.9 and TR.17.
Councillors Mrs L Edginton and C D Nicholls wished it recorded that they had abstained from voting on the above application. WF(T)093 Erection of 15m tower, three antennas, two 600mm dishes, equipment housing and ancillary development at Low Habberley Farm, Low Habberley
REFUSED for the following reasons:
1. The siting of the proposed mast is in an area designated as part of the West Midlands Green Belt and Landscape Protection Area in the Development Plan. The development, by virtue of its size, position and style, would be unduly prominent and would detract from the function of these designations. As such, the proposal would be contrary to Policies TR.20, GB.1, GB.2, GB.6 and LA.2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan and Policies D.39, D.44 and CTC.4 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan.
WF.1007/04 Erection of detached dwelling with integral garage at 6 Southgate Close, Kidderminster
APPLICATION DEFERRED FOR A SITE VISIT TO BE HELD PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING OF THE COMMITTEE.
WF.689/04 Proposed modification to Condition 16 of Planning Permission WF.370/03 to complete fill period by 5th October 2005 (formerly 23 March 2005) and restore site by 5th October 2006 (formerly 23 March 2006) on land off Kingsway, Stourport on Severn
The Development Control Manager advised that this was now the subject of an appeal for non-determination. She asked members to indicate whether they were minded to approve or refuse the application so that this could be included in the Council’s case at Appeal.
MINDED TO REFUSE for the following reason:
1. On the basis of the information provided by the applicant and the results of the Council’s survey, more than 123,000 cubic metres of material has been imported to the site. The Local Planning Authority therefore considers that there is sufficient material on site to be re-contoured to create the Academy Golf Course. As such it is considered that the further extension of time for the tipping of material and restoration of the site, as proposed by the applicant is unnecessary.
Referred to Enforcement
WF(T)092 Erection of 8.15m high wooden telegraph pole style monopole, three antennas, radio equipment housing and ancillary development at Scout Camp, Kidderminster Road, Bewdley
Councillor M J Hart left the room during consideration of this item.
REFUSED for the following reasons:-
Notwithstanding the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance 8 (PPG8 Telecommunications), Policy TR.20 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan, the submission of ICNIRP Certificate and a Radio Frequency Assessment, the proposed siting of the development is considered to be at an inappropriate location within the Green Belt, and in view of the perceived health concerns too close to the proximity to the Scout Camp used by young people. WF.605/04 Erection of a new unit (Classes B1b, B1c, B8) to rear with car parking area, extension to Briten Ltd. With car parking area, new access approach to the side of Briten Ltd., Edwin Avenue, Hoo Farm Industrial Estate, Kidderminster
APPROVED subject to condition restricting use to B8 use only in addition to the following conditions: 1. A1 (Standard outline); 2. A2 (Standard outline – reserved matters); 3. A3 (Submission of reserved matters); 4. A11 (Approved plan); 5. Matching materials for extension; 6. B1 (Samples/details of materials); 7. C6 (Landscaping – small scheme); 8. C8 (Landscape implementation); 9. Fencing; 10. Defining Use; 11. Height of building no higher than illustrative plan; 12. Details of any lighting to be submitted; 13. Highway; 14. Severn Trent Water Ltd.
Reason for Approval
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable in terms of land use designation, impact on neighbouring property, visual amenity and with respect to car parking and highway related issues. To approve the development would be consistent with policies contained within the Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.796/04 Conservatory to rear and garage to front at 6 Kingsway, Stourport on Severn to include boundary wall.
APPROVED subject to the conditions below:
1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved plans); 3. J5 (Domestic garages: restriction of residential use)
Reason for Approval
The proposed extensions are considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the main dwelling and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The impact of the extension upon the neighbouring property has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance policies D.1, D.3 and D.17.
WF.836/04 Conversion of Gordon House Hotel into two semi-detached properties, with demolition of rear wings, erection of two bungalows and five dormer bungalows, demolition of 61 Farfield to provide vehicular access to six properties at Gordon House Hotel, Comberton Road and land to the rear accessed off Farfield, Kidderminster
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. A4 (Reserved matters only); 2. 2. A11 (Approved plans) Reason for Approval
The reserved matters which have been submitted are considered to be satisfactory in terms of design and relationship with the surrounding area including neighbouring property. To approve the development would be in accordance with the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan policies D.1, D.3, D.4, D.10, D.11, TR.9 and TR.17.
WF.843/04 Extension to existing retail area for Use Class A1 retail at rear at ground floor and first floor extension to rear to provide additional flat and patio deck area to rear of existing second floor flat (demolition of existing workshop) at 8 York Street, Stourport on Severn
APPLICATION DEFERRED FOR ONE CYCLE to enable further investigation of the potential impact of the neighbouring activities on the proposed residential use.
WF.864/04 Change of use of existing public house to form one domestic dwelling (two dwellings in total) and alterations at The Horsefair Public House, Horsefair, Kidderminster
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B3 (Finishing Materials to Match); 4. B11 (Details of Enclosure); 5. B10 (Window Details). 6. Details of parking layout
Reason for Approval
The proposed change of use is considered to be compatible with the adjoining residential development and will improve the current appearance of this building. The impact of the change of use upon neighbouring properties has been assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact on their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered t0o be in accordance with policies E.6, CY.1, H.2 and D.1.
WF.894/04 Erection of a 12m high monopole mast, 6 panel antenna, 1 x 600mm dish, 1 x 300mm dish and equipment compound at Land at Charlie Brown Auto Centre, off Stourport Road, Kidderminster
REFUSED for the following reasons:
Notwithstanding the guidance in Planning Policy Guidance 8 (PPG8 Telecommunications), Policy TR.20 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan, the submission of ICNIRP Certificate and a Radio Frequency Assessment in view of the perceived health concerns of the public and the psychological harm that may be caused to residents in close proximity to the mast, the proposal is considered to be inappropriate at this location.
WF.913/04 Retention of white double glazed UPVC windows at 11 York Street, Stourport on Severn
REFUSED for the following reasons and in consideration of Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998 1. The design (including the means of opening) and non-traditional UPVC material of the windows as installed is seriously harmful to the character and appearance of this locally significant and interesting building, as identified in the character appraisal for Stourport on Severn Conservation Area No. 2 (October 2001). This is contrary to the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, Policies SD.2, CTC.19 and CTC.20 of the Adopted Worcestershire County Structure Plan, and Policy LB.2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. 2. The design (including the means of opening) and non-traditional UPVC material of the Windows as installed fails to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the Stourport on Severn Conservation Area No.2 as described in the Conservation Area No. Character Appraisal. This is contrary to the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, Policies SD.2, CTC.19 and CTC.20 of the Adopted Worcestershire County Structure Plan, and Policy CA.1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. 3. The design (including the means of opening) and non-traditional UPVC material of the Windows as installed would adversely affect the setting of nearby statutorily listed buildings in York Street, (specifically Nos. 13-16 inclusive). This is contrary to the advice contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note 15, Policies SD.2 and CTC.19 of the Adopted County Structure Plan, and Policy LB.5 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.914/04 Erection of two detached houses (following demolition of existing house), new access arrangements at Millfield, 17 Mill Lane, Blakedown
APPROVED subject to the following conditions. 1. A6 2. A11 3. B1 4. Levels as per plan; 5. C6 6. C8 7. Removed permitted development rights for extensions/side facing windows (Plot 2), side facing windows (Plot 1); 8. Obscure glazing bathroom windows; 9. Severn Trent condition; 10. Highway conditions; Note – SN12 (Neighbours); Highway notes.
Reason for Approval
The proposed dwellings are considered to be well designed and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The impact of the dwellings upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity.
WF.918/04 Retention of bedroom extension and decking to front of property (retrospective) at Millholme, Hill Farm, Northwood Lane, Bewdley
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. A11 (Approved Plans).
Reason for Approval
The extension and decking are considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the chalet and in relation to the site as whole. The impact of the development upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact on their amenity. The development will not harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt or the Landscape Protection Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies GB.1, LA.2, D.1, D.3, D.17 and CH.1.
WF.921/04 Erection of a detached dwelling at Land adjoining 44 Lickhill Road North, Stourport on Severn
REFUSED for the following reason:
1. The proposed dwelling, by reason of its siting and size, would represent an over- development of the site, by creating development which would appear visually cramped in the streetscene and out of character with the pattern of development. Thus, the proposal would be contrary to Polices D.1 and D.3 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan and the Design Quality Supplementary Planning Guidance.
WF.923/04 Two storey rear extension and roof alterations to flat roofed extensions at Studio House, Bridgnorth Road, Shatterford
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
WF.924/04 Retention of rear extension, outbuildings and propane gas cylinder at Meadow View, Hill Farm, Northwood Lane, Bewdley
DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO APPROVE subject to confirmation from the Environment Agency that the cesspit is adequate to cope with additional occupants at weekends and the following conditions:
1. J8 (No Further Windows)
Reason for Approval
The extension and garden buildings are considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the chalet and in relation to the site as a whole. The impact of the development upon the neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact on their amenity. The development will not harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt or the Landscape Protection Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance policies GB.1, LA>2, D.1, D.3, D.17, and CH.1.
WF.925/04 Erection of single storey rear extension following demolition of existing single storey building at 8 Plimsoll Street, Kidderminster
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
WF.927/04 Erection of a 3 bedroom detached house with parking facilities off Belbroughton Road, off street car parking to 44 and 46 with access from the A456 Birmingham Road, and conversion of 44 and 46 to one property Between 7 & 9 Belbroughton Road, and at 44 & 46 Birmingham Road, Blakedown
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials 4. B13 (Levels Details); 5. B11 (Details of Enclosure); 6. J1 (Removal of Permitted Development – Residential); 7. Highway conditions; Notes a) SN12 Neighbours Rights, b) Adjacent cellar, c) Highway notes.
Reason for Approval
The proposed dwellings are well designed and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The scheme is also acceptable in terms of highway safety. The impact of the dwellings upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity.
WF.944/04 Retention and revision to existing car park lighting and installation of additional 6 No. low level light bollards at Winterfold House School, Chaddesley Corbett
APPROVED subject to conditions.
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. Existing lighting columns to be reduced in height to 4 metres and reduced to one lamp only (facing in westerly direction) within one month of consent. Reason for Approval
The proposed development is considered to be acceptable because the lighting scheme is designed and oriented in such a way that the openness, visual amenity, and visual character of the Green Belt would not be harmed. Likewise the setting of the nearby Grade II Listed Winterfold House and the amenity of neighbours would not be unduly affected. For these reasons, the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies GB.1, GB.2, GB.6, D.1, D.3, D.5, D.15 and LB.5.
WF.949/04 Advertisement: Internally illuminated fascia signs, canopy signs and pylon sign (re-submission WF.228/04) at Bewdley Hill Service Station, Bewdley Hill, Kidderminster
APPROVED subject to standard Advertisement conditions:-
1. L1 (Standard Advert Conditions) Note: Approved Drawings.
WF.950/04 Site redevelopment to include sales building, forecourt and canopy, service yard and canopy and parking (Resubmission of WF.229/04) at Bewdley Hill Service Station, Bewdley Hill, Kidderminster
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials); 4. B13 (Levels Details); 5. Environment Agency conditions; 6. Highway conditions. Reason for Approval
The proposed re-development of the site is considered to be acceptable in terms of the siting of the sales building and canopy and the impact on highway safety. The impact of the development on neighbouring properties has been assessed, however it is felt that no undue harm will be caused. The proposal is therefore considered to conform with policies D.1, D.3, D.15, NR.2, NR.7, LB.1, TR.9, TR.17 and RT.9.
WF.962/04 Erection of public art sculpture at Ricketts Close, Firs Industrial Estate, Kidderminster
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:-
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans); 3. B6 (External Details - Approved Plan);
Reasons for Approval
The design and position of the sculpture is considered to be acceptable in this location and will not harm the visual amenity of the area. The proposal is thus considered to comply with policies E.2, D.1, D.4 and D.12.
WF.964/04 Retention of garden buildings and decking at Brook-Vale, Hill Farm, Northwood Lane, Bewdley
DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO APPROVE subject to no objections being raised from the Environment Agency (upon receipt of the additional information with regards to the foul sewerage) and subject to the following conditions: 1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) (Full with reserved matters); 2. A11 (Approved Plans).
Approval Reason
The garden buildings and decking are considered to be of an appropriate scale and design to the chalet and in relation to the site as a whole. The impact of the development upon the neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact on their amenity. The development will not harm the visual amenity of the Green Belt or the Landscape Protection Area. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies GB.1, GB.2, LA.2, CH.1, D.1, D.3 and NH.5.
WF.970/04 Two storey rear extension and detached garage at 5 Kylemilne Way, Stourport on Severn
REFUSED for the following reason:
1. The proposed extension by virtue of its scale and design would not be subservient to the original building and would be visually overwhelming. The proposed development would therefore be contrary to Policy D.17 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.971/04 Erection of one detached dwelling with alterations to existing access and associated car parking at 47 Manor Road, Stourport-on-Severn
REFUSED for the following reason:-
1. The proposed dwelling house, by virtue of its siting in relation to the original Listed Building and modern design, would be unsympathetic to and detract from the character of the adjoining Listed Building, adversely affecting its setting and masking views of its principal elevation. The proposal would thus significantly harm the character and setting of the adjacent Grade II Listed Building and would be contrary to Policies LB.1, LB.5 and D.1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.976/04 Construction of garage and workshop after demolition of remains of existing barn at Westcroft, Bank Lane, Abberley
REFUSED for the following reason, and in consideration of Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998:
1. The proposed garage and workshop to replace the existing derelict barn is not considered to be an appropriate redevelopment for the existing remains of the listed curtilage building. This is contrary to the guidance contained in Planning Policy Guidance Note No.15 and Policy LB1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.977/04 Construction of garage and workshop after demolition of remains of existing barn at Westcroft, Bank Lane, Abberley
REFUSED for the following reason.
1. The application site lies within an area designated as a Landscape Protection Area (District Council definition) and an Area of Great Landscape Value (County Council definition). The development proposed is considered in appropriate in this location as it would harm the character of the area by reason of the design, height and massing of the building. No exceptional circumstances have been provided by the applicant to justify a building of this scale on the site selected. This is considered to be contrary to the aims of Planning Policy Statement 7 (2004) and Policies SD2, CTC1, CTC4 of the Adopted Worcestershire County Structure Plan, and Policies D3, D5, LA1 and LA2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
WF.981/04 Erection of four dwellings with associated garages and parking area, following demolition of existing dwelling at 84 Hemming Street, Kidderminster
APPROVED, subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials) 4. B10 (Window Details) 5. B11 (Details of Enclosure) 6. B12 (Erection of Fences/Walls) 7. B13 (Levels Details) 8. C6 (Landscaping – Small Scheme) 9. C8 (Landscape Implementation) 10. E2 (Foul and Surface Water) 11. Environment Agency 12. J1 (Removal of Permitted Development – Residential) 13. J9 (Open Plan Frontages) 14. J8 (No Further Windows) 15. Highways Notes: A) Highways B) Environment Agency Reason for Approval
The proposed dwellings are well designed and will have an acceptable appearance in the street scene. The scheme is also acceptable in terms of highway safety. The impact of the dwellings upon neighbouring properties has been carefully assessed and it is considered that there will be no undue impact upon their amenity. For these reasons the proposal is considered to be in accordance with policies H.2, H.5, D.1, D.3, D.4, D.10, D.13, TR.9, TR.17.
WF.984/04 Conversion of garage to playroom and construction of new car port at Leylands Cottage, Clattercut Lane, Rushock
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN
WF.997/04 Erection of two one-bedroom dwellings with associated parking spaces at 107 Wolverley Road, Kidderminster
Although members resolved to refuse the application for the reasons set out in the Officer's report, a fax was sent to the Division prior to the Committee meeting requesting that the application be withdrawn. However the fax was not received by Officers prior to the meeting.
THE APPLICATION HAS THEREFORE BEEN WITHDRAWN
WF.1005/04 Erection of first floor side/rear extension and car port at Whitehill Cottages, Shenstone
REFUSED for the following reason.
1. The application site is within an area designated as part of the West Midlands Green Belt. The proposed extension, by virtue of its scale and design, would not be subservient to the original building which would lose its visual dominance. Furthermore, the extension and car port when considered with the previous extensions and outbuildings would result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original dwelling. The development is therefore inappropriate development within the Green Belt and contrary to Policies D.17, GB.1 of the adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. There are no very special circumstances to justify why these policies should be overridden.
WF.1010/04 Erection of two storey and single storey extensions at Wheatlands, Broome
APPLICATION WITHDRAWN WF.1011/04 Change of use of ground floor shop to residential at 14 New Street, Stourport on Severn
APPROVED subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans)
Note: Consent does not incorporate any physical changes to the Listed Building.
Reason for Approval
The proposal is capable of implementation without seriously damaging the Council’s expectations for ‘town centre uses’ on a wider scale, or the amenity of neighbouring properties. Also the character and appearance of the Stourport No.1 Conservation Area would be preserved by the development. This can therefore be considered as a minor departure from Council policy as contained in the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
J/Committee/Devcontl/Shedule/2004/19.10.04.doc