Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Agenda Item No: 6

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 19th May 2009

Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND ENVIRONMENT

Contact Officer(s) Stephen Alexander (Head of Development Control)

Telephone Number(s) (01902) 555610

Title/Subject Matter PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Recommendation

That Members determine the submitted applications according to the recommendation made in respect of each one.

1 PLANNING COMMITTEE (19th May 2009)

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

09/00209/FUL 64 Wergs Road Tettenhall Regis Page 4 Wolverhampton WV6 8TD

Application Type Minor Dwellings

09/00178/FUL 28 Rosemary Crescent West Blakenhall Page 9 Wolverhampton WV4 5AP

Application Type Householder

09/00138/FUL 22 Wynchcombe Avenue Penn Page 13 Wolverhampton WV4 4JQ

Application Type Householder

09/00242/DWF Bowmans Harbour Wednesfield Page 17 Land Bounded By Planetary South Road Wednesfield Way Wolverhampton

Application Type Largescale Major All other developments

09/00200/DWF Open Space Rear Of Bushbury Bushbury North Page 23 Crematorium And Cemetery Bushbury Lane Wolverhampton

Application Type Largescale Major All other developments

09/00226/FUL Timmins Waste Services Graiseley Page 31 Mander Street Wolverhampton WV3 0JZ

Application Type Smallscale Major General Industry

2 09/00098/FUL Stowheath Industrial Estate East Park Page 38 Monmore Road Wolverhampton

Application Type Smallscale Major All Other Development

09/00268/FUL 184 Stafford Street St Peter's Page 43 Wolverhampton WV1 1NA

Application Type Smallscale Major Dwelling

08/01363/FUL Site Of Former Hare And East Park Page 50 Hounds Stowheath Lane Wolverhampton WV1 2QN

Application Type Smallscale Major All Other Development

09/00144/FUL 106 Birmingham Road Blakenhall Page 64 Wolverhampton WV2 3NH

Application Type Change of use

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00209/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 28-Mar-09 TARGET DATE: 23-May-09 RECEIVED: 13.03.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 64 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 8TD PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing bungalow and erection of 1No. 4 bedroom detached dwelling and detached garage.

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

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 No. 64 Wergs Road is a detached bungalow set well back from Wergs Road. It is partly visible from the road and has well established trees and bushes on the front boundaries. Access is from the parallel service road to Wergs Road. It has been vacant for approximately 2 years.

2. Application Detail

2.1 Detached 4 bedroom house with a separate double garage close to the Wergs Road frontage.

3. Planning History

3.1 Two previous applications were received in 2008 for similar but larger detached houses. One was withdrawn and the other, 08/1220, was refused following a report to Planning Committee on 3 February 2009. Reasons were overbearing and obtrusive impact on No. 62 Wergs Road and 24 Birchfield Avenue and loss of privacy to No. 24.

4. Constraints

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

5. Relevant Policies

Unitary Development Plan Design Policies: D4: Urban Grain D6: Townscape and Landscape D8: Scale - Massing D9: Appearance

4 D12: Nature Conservation and Natural Features

Housing Policy: H6: Design of Housing Development

Wolverhampton Council Supplementary Planning Guidance on Housing Development.

6. Publicity

6.1 Responses have been received from Nos. 62 Wergs Road, 22 and 24 Birchfield Avenue. The residents of Nos. 22 and 24 request to speak to the Planning Committee. Views are summarised as:-

y Request from No. 62 for a small alteration to the position of the south-east end of the house (stepped out to the rear) to reduce possibility of overlooking from the rear first floor rooms to the front elevation of No. 62.

y Proposed second floor rear windows will overlook the rear of Nos. 22 and 24 Birchfield Avenue.

y The objections from No. 24 remain as before. Five first floor windows will overlook No. 24. The rear of No. 24 is not presently overlooked. It would have an overbearing impact and adversely affect outlook from the rear.

7. Internal Consultations

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

7.2 Trees Officer - Tree protection measures necessary prior to works on site. Deletion of the proposed additional drive reduces risk to the beech tree. If the existing driveway under the canopy of the beech is to be relaid, surface specifications will be required to protect the roots. Also details of surface and edging to garage access area are required.

7.3 Transport Strategy - No objections, minor alteration to access area to garage required to improve vehicle manoeuvring space.

8. Appraisal

Key issues:

y Principle of development. y Alterations to this scheme compared with the previous refusal. y Impact on surrounding properties. y Design and streetscene. y Impact on TPO trees.

Principle of development 8.1 The existing bungalow is of no particular significance for this location in terms of its design and layout. Whilst Unitary Development Plan Design Policy D13: Sustainable Development, comments on the desirability of retaining and re-using existing buildings, it’s demolition cannot be prevented. In principle, a new dwelling is acceptable.

5 Alterations to this scheme compared with previous refusal 8.2 The floor area has been reduced from a five bedroom to a four bedroom house. The width at front and rear has been reduced by 1.4 metres to 14.5 metres. The height to eaves and roof ridge is unchanged. At the rear first floor, the room and window arrangement has been altered resulting in two relatively small bedroom windows of 1.1 metre by 1.1 metre and three obscured glazed bathroom and ensuite windows. The previous scheme had two large and two smaller bedroom windows from three rear bedrooms. The appearance and proportion of the front elevation has been improved from previous schemes and window detail has improved. The two storey element is now 7.6 metres away from the line of the side wall of No. 62 Wergs Road (previous scheme was 6.1 metres).

Impact on Nos 22 and 24 Birchfield Avenue 8.3 At the rear, the two bedroom windows would overlook No. 24 and to a lesser extent, No. 22, with a window to window interface distance of 31 metres and 32 metres respectively. This is sufficient distance to maintain room to room privacy. The Council’s guideline, when considering this relationship in new residential layouts, is for a minimum of 22 metres window interface distance to be achieved.

8.4 The previous refusal cited overlooking down into the rear garden of No. 24. Whilst this could still occur, the amendment to two small windows is considered to reduce the possibility and perception of overlooking when assessed from No. 24. The bedroom windows would be 13 metres and 16.5 metres away from the rear boundary with No. 24. Bearing in mind the relationship between adjacent Wergs Road and Birchfield Avenue houses, it is considered that this is now acceptable.

8.5 The previous refusal also considered the overbearing impact of the proposed house on the rear of No. 24 Birchfield Avenue compared with the existing bungalow. The reduction in width of the rear elevation makes a small difference to this impact. The rear outlook and view for the residents of Nos 22 and 24 will change in that they will look out onto a two storey house rather than the existing bungalow. However the relationship between the new house and it’s neighbours would be similar to that occurring between adjacent properties in Wergs Road and Birchfield Avenue, and within housing areas in general. A recent appeal at 3 Cherrington Gardens in Wolverhampton considered similar matters, and the Inspector, in acknowledging that surrounding residents’ views from their houses and gardens would alter, considered that a change from a bungalow to a house was acceptable. On balance it is now considered that this impact on the rear of Nos 22 and 24 is acceptable.

Impact on No. 62 Wergs Road 8.6 The previous refusal referred to an obtrusive impact on the setting of this house and on outlook from the front lounge window and front garden area. The position of the two storey element, now 7.6 metres away from the line of the side wall of No. 62, is considered acceptable. It now represents a reasonable spatial relationship between these two houses.

8.7 The resident at No. 62 has concerns about overlooking and privacy loss from one of the rear bedroom windows of the proposed house, towards the front of No. 62. On his behalf it has been suggested that part of the house nearest No. 62 be stepped back by up to one metre to reduce the possibility of overlooking. This issue was not mentioned in the previous refusal. The angle between the two windows, at 10 degrees, is very acute and would offer very limited scope for overlooking into each room. It is not advised therefore that part of this house is stepped back as suggested.

Design and street scene 8.8 The existing bungalow is relatively unobtrusive when viewed from Wergs Road and the adjacent houses. The proposed house would be more prominent especially when viewed from the service road. The adjacent detached houses in Wergs Road form a

6 fairly regular line up to No. 62. In streetscene terms, a replacement detached house at No. 64 is not considered to be out of character.

8.9 As referred to above, the reduction in size of this latest scheme improves its relationship to the site and No. 62 Wergs Road, and improves it’s front appearance. Window to wall proportion is better and window design and layout has been simplified and improved. It remains a somewhat plain design but is satisfactory in the context of the adjacent Wergs Road houses. The detached garage at the front of the site will be well screened by existing trees and bushes. It is positioned 2.4 metres and 3 metres away from front and side boundaries to avoid conflict with the tree and hedge screen at the front.

Impact on TPO trees 8.10 The fine beech tree at the front of this site is 10 metres away from the new house measured from the edge of the tree canopy, which is the same as the present bungalow. This is satisfactory. The Tree Officer’s advice and requirements on surface specifications and tree protection measures will be conditioned. There will be no increase in hard surfacing under the beech tree. The TPO Corsican pines in the rear garden of No. 24 will be no closer to the new house than the existing bungalow. They are not considered to be at risk.

9. Recommendation

9.1 Permit. Conditions will include submission of materials, tree protection measures, drive surface specification and boundary of vehicle access area, removal of PD rights with respect to hard surfacing at the front of the house and two storey extensions at the rear, maintenance of obscured glazing to bathroom and ensuite windows.

Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 01902 550141 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

DO NOT SCALE Reproduced from the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Wolverhampton CC Licence No 100019537. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Planning Application No: 09/00209/FUL Location 64 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV6 8TD Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387851 300645 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 1311m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00178/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 06-Mar-09 TARGET DATE: 01-May-09 RECEIVED: 04.03.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 28 Rosemary Crescent West, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV4 5AP PROPOSAL: Partially retrospective two storey and single storey side extension and single storey rear extension.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr S Rattu Mr M Edwards 28 Rosemary Crescent West 63 Finchfield Road West Wolverhampton Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 8BB WV4 5AP

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The area is predominantly residential, comprising semi-detached and detached houses. The application site comprises a typical interwar semi-detached house located on the northern side of Rosemary Crescent West. The neighbouring property to east is the other half of the pair of semis.

2. Application details

2.1 In 2006 the applicant obtained building regulation approval for a similar scheme in the position of the partially completed lounge extension only. Although no advice was sought from the planning department at this time, the applicant believes that the extension would have been permitted development. However, the applicant was not aware of the changes to the General Permitted Development Order that occurred on 1st October 2008 and commenced work on a somewhat larger, but still believed to be permitted development, rear and side extension. During the course of the Officers site visit it was identified that the works being carried out were not permitted development, by virtue of the rear extension projecting beyond 3m from the rear wall of the original house. This amended planning application is the result of negotiation with the applicant.

2.2 The application seeks planning permission to erect a two and single storey side extension and single storey rear extension. The rear and ground floor elements are partially completed and therefore the application is semi-retrospective.

3. Constraints

3.1 None relevant recorded.

9 4. Relevant policies

4.1 UDP Policies D1 - Design Quality D4 – Urban Grain D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance

4.2 Supplementary Planning Documents SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 Six neighbour letters were sent. No observations received.

6. Consultees

6.1 None required.

7. Appraisal

The key issues are: • Neighbour amenity • Design & appearance

Neighbour amenity 7.1 In order to protect neighbour amenity the guidance in SPG4 – ‘Extension to Houses’ limits projection on common boundaries to no more than 2.5m. The rear extension significantly exceeds this, with a rear projection of 3.6m on the common boundary with the attached neighbour at 26 Rosemary Crescent West. It is considered that this excessive rear projection, the overall mass of the single storey element and its siting on this common boundary, detrimentally affects neighbour amenity by virtue of its overbearing impact and the resulting loss of sunlight/daylight to that neighbour.

7.2 On the opposite side, the extension is located adjacent to the common boundary with the neighbour at 30 Rosemary Crescent West. In terms of neighbour amenity, the nearest affected neighbouring window serves a non-habitable room. At first floor the neighbouring premises has a side facing obscurely glazed window in its facing flank wall. The window is to a landing, a non-habitable room. It is therefore considered that the amenity of No.30 is not unduly affected by the proposed extensions.

Design & appearance 7.3 With respect to the side extension, it incorporates a first floor front set back of 0.75m and a matching hipped roof style. This set back ensures that the extension appears subservient to the main dwellinghouse and therefore the proposed first floor side extension is satisfactory in terms of its design and appearance in the streetscene.

8. Conclusion

8.1 The extension detrimentally affects neighbour amenity and is therefore recommended for refusal.

10 9. Recommendation

Refuse for the following reason:

1. The proposed single storey rear extension would, by reason of its height, bulk rearward projection and siting relative to the house/garden on the adjoining property at 26 Rosemary Crescent West, have an unacceptable overbearing impact and unacceptably reduce the amount of light/sunlight and outlook presently enjoyed by that property.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D7, D8 & SPG4

Case Officer : Andy Johnson Telephone No : 01902 551123 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00178/FUL Location 28 Rosemary Crescent West, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV4 5AP Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390927 296370 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 387m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00138/FUL WARD: Penn DATE: 06-Mar-09 TARGET DATE: 01-May-09 RECEIVED: 19.02.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 22 Wynchcombe Avenue, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV4 4JQ PROPOSAL: Two storey side, single storey rear extension, ground floor front porch extension and outbuilding to rear.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr S Singh Mr Ken Bradley 22 Wynchcombe Avenue Woodhouse Croft Wolverhampton Woodhouse Lane West Midlands Albrighton WV4 4JQ Wolverhampton WV7 3JW

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The property concerned is a traditional semi detached property, with a drive and garage to the side, and an average sized private rear garden.

1.2 The street scene consists of similar properties and the surrounding area is predominantly residential.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal consists of a porch to the frontage, two storey side extension providing a garage, and kitchen extension to ground floor and additional bedroom and bathroom to first floor. There will be a ground floor extension to the rear, being a kitchen extension, and a detached structure to the bottom of the garden being a storage area.

2.2 The porch measures 1.7m wide, and projects out by 0.80m. The two story side extension measures 2.5m wide, set back from the existing from elevation at first floor by 0.75m, and remaining flush with the existing rear elevation at first floor. The ground floor element at the rear of the property at 2.812m, with a width of 3.252m. The proposed detached structure to the bottom of the garden measures 6.6275wide and 3.590m deep.

3. Constraints

3.1 Mining Areas

4. Relevant Policies

4.1 AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality

13 D4 - Urban Grain D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance EP18 - Mineral Extraction SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Publicity

5.1 There has been one letter of objection to the proposal, concerning lack of parking to the frontage for a property of this size, concerns that the outbuilding could be used as sleeping accommodation, loss of privacy from the outbuilding, drainage problems due to the extension and outbuilding, and the size of the outbuilding is not in character with the local environment and its visual impact is unacceptable.

5.2 Request to speak at Planning Committee.

6 Appraisal

6.1 Key Issues:

• Design/Street Scene • Private Amenities – Parking and Garden Space • Neighbouring Amenities – Outlook, light, sunlight and privacy

Design/Street Scene 6.2 The design of the two storey/single storey extension is in keeping with the existing property and those surrounding in the street scene. There is a sufficient set back at first floor, therefore, it is considered that there is no detriment to the character and appearance of the existing property or the street scene.

6.3 The detached structure, is nearly completed. However, the detached building is not consistent with the submitted plans, appearing larger and with a different roof design.

6.4 A further visit to the property confirmed that the retrospective outbuilding was built to a larger scale and design, and planning permission would still be necessary.

6.5 The design of the retrospective outbuilding appears unsightly, and overbearing in relation to its surroundings, due to the high mono pitched roof height, and canopy frontage, and the materials used.

Private Amenities 6.6 The property has ample parking to the frontage and there is a garage proposed, which would support the extension and the increased number of bedrooms.

6.7 The garden area to the rear is also of a sufficient size to support both the extension and its usage, along with the detached structure (for storage) to the bottom of the garden.

Neighbouring Amenities 6.8 Whilst assessing the two storey side extension, and single storey rear extension, it is considered that there would be no detriment to the neighbouring property at No. 20. The property at No. 24 would be affected, as this property is set at a lower level and the projection of the single storey structure to the rear, would be visible.

14 6.9 However, No. 24 has extended to the rear of the garage, including changes to the layout, converting the existing kitchen into a dining area and extended directly to the rear of the garage to form a kitchen area.

6.10 Therefore, although the proposed single storey rear extension would project out approximately 2.5m past the kitchen window, with an approximate level difference of 1/2m, the proposed extension would be consistent with SPG4 Extensions to Houses, and it is considered that the impact to outlook and light/sunlight would not be significant enough to warrant a refusal of permission.

6.11 The retrospective outbuilding does have a detrimental impact on the outlook from the neighbouring properties, due to the overall size and height, with a structure which appears overbearing, and unsightly especially from the neighbouring property at No. 21 Fancourt Avenue.

6,12 However, for the basis of this application and the submitted plans, the outbuilding is set in away from the boundary, with a dual pitch roof, which would be less obtrusive to the neighbouring properties, and more in keeping with its surroundings. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed outbuilding (as submitted on the plans) would be acceptable having no significant detriment to the neighbouring amenities.

7. Conclusion

7.1 On the basis of the application and submitted plans, it is considered that the two storey side extension, single storey rear extension and the proposed outbuilding shown on the plans, are acceptable.

7.2 However, once the application is decided, the case should be forwarded to the Enforcement Team for further investigation. If the application is granted, it will be necessary to ensure that the outbuilding is constructed to the requirements of the planning application, and if not enforcement action should be considered.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Grant subject to the following conditions:

8.2 Matching materials Confirmation of the usage of the outbuilding, which is to be ancillary to the existing property only.

8.3 Note for Information – Coal Mining Area

Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 01902 555641 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00138/FUL Location 22 Wynchcombe Avenue, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV4 4JQ Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388886 295811 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 300m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00242/DWF WARD: Wednesfield South DATE: 31-Mar-09 TARGET DATE: 30-Jun-09 RECEIVED: 23.03.2009 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Bowmans Harbour, Land Bounded By Planetary Road, Wednesfield Way, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Installation of a drainage scheme including pond

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Philip Adams Mr Martin Dye Regeneration & Environment Regeneration & Environment Environmental Services Environmental Services Civic Centre Civic Centre St Peter's Square St Peter's Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton West Midlands West Midlands WV1 1DA WV1 1DA

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site includes a landscaped waste repository, known as Bowmans Harbour, which is located approximately 2 miles to the north-east of the City Centre.

1.2 The site is an irregular shape, and has an area of 18 hectares. It is bounded by Planetary Road to the north-east, Wednesfield Way to the north-west and a railway line to the south.

1.3 Immediately adjoining the north-east of the site is a modern swimming and fitness facility. Along the north-east and south east of the site is vacant land allocated for business uses. On the northern side of Planetary Road are industrial and commercial premises. On the opposite side of Wednesfield Way is modern housing development. There is also housing development to the south of the railway line, along Helming Drive, Sigmund Close, Friesland Drive and Deans Road.

1.4 The site includes substantial landscaped embankments and a pond. A private footpath runs north to south through the centre of the site. There is currently no access into the site for the public and the site perimeter is enclosed by mesh fencing and landscaped planting.

1.5 The development site has been allocated as open space and the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) identifies a proposed “greenway” route running across the site roughly north-south from Wednesfield Way at its junction with New Cross Avenue and Planetary Road towards another proposed greenway route running alongside the railway line and eventually linking towards Moseley Village, further to the south-east. The UDP makes it clear that such greenways will be protected to allow for the provision of a network of pleasant routes for pedestrians and cyclists.

17 2. Application Details

2.1 The application seeks permission for a drainage scheme for the waste repository site. The site is subject to a permit issued by the Environment Agency. The proposed works are required to comply with the conditions of the permit.

2.2 In recent years the site has suffered from flooding during times of heavy rainfall which particularly affects the flat areas to the south-eastern corner of the site.

2.3 In addition, there is also evidence of small quantities of leachate (polluted water) from the landfill escaping from the clay cap seal and contaminating the surface water run- off. The existing deep leachate drainage system no longer functions effectively and as a consequence, leachate levels within the landfill site are higher than desirable, resulting in seepages into the surface water system. It has also been found that the surface water drainage system originally constructed for the site was not fully completed and as a result, there is no defined outfall for surface water run-off, which results in the flooding now experienced.

2.4 A leachate system is proposed to collect the leachate outbreaks that occur on site. The leachate level is nearest the surface in the area between the footpath, that runs north to south through the centre of the site, and the eastern drainage ditch, and it is here where most of the leachate seepages occur. Testing the leachate has found that the concentration is relatively weak and not particularly hazardous. The proposal is to place carrier drains adjacent to the footpath and a drainage ditch and run filter drain spurs into areas that have had recorded outbreaks. This will collect the majority of the leachate that escapes the capped system and provide a system in which appropriate monitoring of the strength and composition of the leachate can be achieved.

2.5 A surface water drainage system is also proposed, which would include a combination of existing and proposed drainage measures to collect surface water that falls on the site, therefore removing flood risk during times of heavy rainfall. There is an existing perimeter ditch around the site which is designated to take the run off from the area drained. However, the ditch is in need of de-silting as the bed levels have been raised and the concrete weirs on the ditch have become blocked. The application includes proposals to de-silt the ditch.

2.6 In addition to these remedial works, a proposed filter drain would be installed adjacent to the footpath to collect water that runs off the higher area of the site before discharging into the existing drainage ditch. This drain will intercept the water that usually ponds into the south eastern corner of the site and convey it to the drainage ditches where it will have a defined outfall.

2.7 Both the leachate and the surface water systems will outfall into a proposed dilution pond near to the entrance of the site in the south eastern corner. The purpose of the pond is two fold; it provides a wetland amenity on site that can be used by the Council in the future and it is a mixing pond that dilutes any leachate that is collected with surface water generated by the site’s run off. Part of the pond’s surface area will be covered by reed beds to act as a means of ‘polishing’ the outflow and reduce further the contaminants present. This dilution and ‘polishing’ will ensure that the run off from the site is suitable for discharge into the surface water sewerage system.

3. Planning History

3.1 BCX/0128 – Reclamation and stabilisation of land including recovery of shallow coal reserves by means of opencast methods. Granted - 5.06.1992.

18 3.2 BC/0195 – Repository modification to accommodate additional waste encountered on site, amendment to BCX/0128. Granted 12.05.1994.

3.3 BC/0213 – Revision to restoration of contours. Granted 19.04.1994.

3.4 BC/0235 – Variation of conditions 2 and 38 attached to BCX/0258. Granted 29.06.1995.

3.5 BC/0236 – Variation of conditions 3 and 19 of BCX 0213. Granted 29.06.1995.

3.6 BC/0250 - Importation of subsoil and topsoil. Granted 31.08.1995.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Process Open Space Drainage Network (Bowmans Harbour Brook) Landfill Gas Zones Millenium Urban Forest Mining Area Public Right of Way

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 National Guidance PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPG13 Transport

5.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies

19 N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation N5 Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and Landscape Features of Value for Wildlife or Geology N7 The Urban Forest N9 Protection of Wildlife Species R3 Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities R6 The Greenway Network AM1 Wolverhampton – The Accessible City AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site notice and letters to neighbours. No reply or response had been received at the time of writing this report.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Environmental Services – no objections

7.2 Transportation – no objections

7.3 Nature Conservation and Access – comments awaited

8. External consultees

8.1 Severn Trent Water - no objection subject to conditions requiring no built development or trees being planted within 5 metres of public sewers which cross the site; and the submission of sustainable drainage details and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context.

8.2 Environment Agency – No objections subject to a condition relating to sustainable drainage principles.

9. Appraisal

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

• Principle of the proposed development • Design and layout • Ecological implications

Principle of the proposed development 9.2 Unitary Development Plan policy, EP6 ‘Protection of Groundwater, Watercourses and Canals’ seeks to ensure that development does not adversely affect the quality or quantity of water in groundwater and watercourses.

9.3 The application proposals would secure the safe management of both the quality and quantity of surface water run-off and mitigate against any potential risk of flooding. The proposals are considered to be in keeping with UDP policy EP6.

20 9.4 UDP policy B3 identifies the south east part of the application site as part of Business Development Allocation B.3.7. Policy B3 states that such land is reserved for Use Class B employment uses. The application proposals would result in development of a part of the allocation for purposes other than employment uses, the creation of a balancing pond. However, this is the only practicable position for the balancing pond and the proposed drainage works are essential to ensuring that the remainder of the business allocation can be developed for future employment uses. Therefore, as enabling development the proposal would not conflict with UDP policy B3.

Design and layout 9.5 The design and layout of the proposed drainage scheme is considered acceptable.

Ecological implications 9.6 Comments are awaited. Conditions may apply.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The proposal is broadly acceptable, subject to no overriding objections from outstanding consultees.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant subject to no overriding objections from outstanding consultees, with conditions as necessary

Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 01902 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00242/DWF Location Bowmans Harbour, Land Bounded By Planetary Road,Wednesfield Way,Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:7500 National Grid Reference SJ 393762 299458 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 214774m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00200/DWF WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 11-Mar-09 TARGET DATE: 10-Jun-09 RECEIVED: 11.03.2009 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Open Space Rear Of Bushbury Crematorium And Cemetery, Bushbury Lane, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Extension to Bushbury Cemetery and Crematorium to allow for additional burials including new landscaping works.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr C Huddart Mr D Purdie Wolverhampton City Council Wolverhampton City Council Civic Centre St Peter's Square St Peter's Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV1 1RP WV1 1SJ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is situated 3 miles to the north-east of Wolverhampton City Centre and within the Green Belt and Bushbury Hill Conservation Area.

1.2 Bushbury Crematorium to the north of the site is recorded on the Council’s local list of buildings of architectural and historical importance. The building is a high quality 20th century development. The surrounding site is very attractive being well landscaped and maintained with significant numbers of good quality mature trees of a variety of species.

1.3 The subject land includes two open fields which are occasionally used for cattle grazing. The land is immediately to the south of the existing Bushbury Cemetery and Crematorium and a bridle path (reference number 025) runs between the two sites. The land has a frontage onto Underhill Lane to the east. There is residential development to the south of the site, along Wildtree Avenue and Keats Road.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application seeks permission to extend the existing burial facilities at Bushbury Cemetery and Crematorium into the open fields to the south.

2.2 The upper field which runs westwards up to the ridge of Bushbury Hill would be allocated for natural burials and would be maintained as an open meadow with no grave markers.

2.3 The lower field, adjacent to Underhill Lane and Wildtree Avenue, would be used for conventional burials and include grave markers of no more than 900mm high.

2.4 Access into the new burial site would be from the existing road and footpath system within Bushbury Cemetery. A new access road and pathway would be provided to

23 allow access through the lower open burial field. A series of timber steps would be constructed between the upper and lower fields.

2.5 The existing bridleway which separates Bushbury Crematorium and Cemetery sites from the open fields would be diverted to the southern boundary of the site running from the Underhill Lane junction with Wildtree Avenue, up to the ridge line of Bushbury Hill. The diverted bridleway would have a stone surface and access would be controlled by new horse stiles and an access gate which has been designed to prevent motorcycles passing through.

2.6 An access track would be provided along the lower eastern end of the upper field to allow for access by hearses. Access along the track would be controlled by the provision of collapsible wooden bollards.

2.7 The majority of the existing trees and hedgerows around the site boundaries will be retained. There would be new fencing and additional trees and hedges planted to secure the site and provide natural screening from the public realm.

2.8 A public art feature is proposed to be placed within the cemetery on the ridge line of Bushbury Hill. A detailed design of the public art feature has not been provided alongside the application but this can be conditioned.

3. Planning History

3.1 03/0866/DW/C - Extension to existing public car park. Granted 03.11.2004.

3.2 02/0671/DW - Extension to crematorium to provide reception facilities and washing facilities for ethnic groups. Granted 02.08.2002.

3.3 95/0331/DW - Increase height of the crematorium chimney by 1.5m as required by the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Screen new waste gas ducts. Granted 26.05.1995.

3.4 D/2085/88 for Crematorium Office/Reception with a unisex disabled toilet facility. Granted - 15.09.1988.

3.5 A/D/1204/82 - Provision of prefabricated toilet block for cemetery staff. Granted 24.06.1982.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Conservation Area Listed Building Curtilage Public Right of Way Sites and Monuments Entry Green Belt

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG2 Green Belts PPG13 Transport PPG15 Planning and the Historic Environment PPG24 Planning and Noise

24 5.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies

D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part D12 Nature Conservation and Nature Features D13 Sustainable Development D14 The Provision of Public Art EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Protection of Groundwater, Watercourses and Canals EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness HE2 Historic Resources and Enabling Development HE3 Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 Control of Development in a Conservation Area HE6 Demolition of Buildings or Structures in a Conservation Area HE7 Underused Buildings and Structures in a Conservation Area G1 Protection of the Green Belt G2 Control of Development in the Green Belt G3 Control of Development Conspicuous from the Green Belt G5 Access to the Green Belt G6 Northycote Farm Country Park N7 The Urban Forest C9 Cemetery Provision R4 Development Adjacent to Open Space R6 The Greenway Network AM1 Wolverhampton – The Accessible City AM7 Travel Plans AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG16 Provision of Public Art

6. Publicity / Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site notice and neighbour letters. At the time of writing this report one letter of objection had been received from a local farmer and Councillor Val Evans and Councillor Steve Evans have submitted the results of a survey. The survey contains 22 supporting representations and 3 representations objecting. The comments are summarised as follows:

• There is a need to extend the existing Crematorium

25 • Support the layout of the proposed site and landscaping proposals • The proposals are likely to stop the use of motorcyclists on the land • The application land is tenanted by a local farmer for cattle grazing. Negotiations are on-going for the surrender of part of this holding to allow for the extension of the Cemetery and Crematorium. • The proposals include for use of land to the south of the open fields as the diverted bridle path. The loss of this land from agricultural purposes would be unacceptable. It is requested that the bridle path be realigned within the curtilage of the open fields. • The area should be kept as Green Belt • Recommend that the land be used for alternative uses possibly orientated towards children

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Planning Policy – In principal the proposal constitutes appropriate development in the Green Belt. It has been demonstrated that there is a need to provide additional burial facilities at this site.

7.2 Archaeology- No objection.

7.3 Landscape - No objection.

7.4 Transportation – No objection in principle subject to the submission of proposals for cycle storage.

7.5 Conservation – Recommend that boundary treatments between existing cemetery and proposed extension (including bridleway) are retained. Dense hedgerows should be provided around the perimeter of the proposed extension.

7.6 Environmental Services - The development is within 250m of Bushbury Crematorium which has a permit. The permit issued by this Authority covers the cremation of human remains and controls emissions to air from the process. There are currently no outstanding issues relating to the Permit.

7.7 Nature Conservation – No objection to the proposals subject to a condition requiring a management plan to cover the maintenance of the hedgerows and the proposed habitat creation areas.

7.8 Trees – No objection.

7.9 Access – Make detailed comments in relation to Part M of the Building Regulations and recommend that one of the proposed flights of steps be a ramp instead.

7.10 Property Services – Comments awaited.

8. External consultees

8.1 Severn Trent Water - No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of sustainable drainage details and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context.

8.2 Environment Agency – No objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of a long term monitoring and maintenance plan for groundwater protection.

8.3 English Heritage provided pre-application comments. They had no objection to the proposals subject to suitable landscape design and boundary treatment.

26 8.4 South Staffordshire District Council – No objection

8.5 Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society and The Ramblers Association – Comments awaited.

9. Appraisal

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

• Green Belt issues • Impact on public bridleway • Need for additional cemetery facilities • Design and layout • Environmental issues • Access and parking

Green Belt issues 9.2 The whole of the application site is within the Green Belt, where policies are designed to restrain the encroachment of urban activities into the open countryside. UDP policy G1 ‘Protection of the Green Belt’ states that within areas designated as Green Belt inappropriate development will not be permitted except in very special circumstances, where the harm caused is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

9.3 Under Planning Policy Guidance Note 2, section 3.4 – 3.6, it is stated that the construction of new buildings inside the Green Belt is inappropriate unless it is “…essential facilities for…cemeteries…which preserve the openness of the Green Belt and which do not conflict with the purposes of including land in it”. Therefore, the proposal is not inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

9.4 UDP policy G2 ‘Control of Development in the Green Belt’ states that within the Green Belt, appropriate development, as defined in PPG 2, will only be permitted where the siting, scale, materials and design of the proposed development will be in keeping with the purposes of the Green Belt and its openness. There are a number of measures that the applicant is proposing to ensure that the proposed development complies with UDP policy G2 and PPG2.

9.5 The proposal to use the lower field for conventional burials and upper field for natural burials is considered to be acceptable and would retain the openness of the Green Belt given the more prominent location of the upper field on the landscape. Restricting headstones to a maximum of 0.9m will also help to maintain the openness.

9.6 Boundary treatments and landscaping would be in keeping with the existing character of the area, and will provide screening to lower field proposals to preserve the openness of the Green Belt.

9.7 There is an issue about the impact of the public art element of the proposal and the lack of details provided in the application. Careful consideration needs to be given to this as the public art will need to relate positively to the visual amenity and character of the area and retain openness in line with policy G3. Further details of the public art proposals should be conditioned.

Impact on Public Bridleway 9.8 UDP policies G5 ‘Access to the Green Belt’ and R6 ‘The Greenway Network’ seek to ensure that existing public accesses to, through and within the Green Belt and Greenway network will be protected and, wherever possible, enhanced, giving reasonable access for all sections of the community to the amenities provided by the Green Belt and the Greenway network, subject to the need to protect nature conservation areas from disturbance.

9.9 To improve linkages between the existing and proposed burial areas, the application proposes to divert the existing bridle path to the south of the application site. It is considered that the proposed diversion of the bridle path is acceptable and not contrary to policies G5 and R6.

Need for Additional Cemetery Facilities 9.10 UDP policy C9 ‘Cemetery Provision’ states that consideration will be given to the provision of additional cemetery facilities where there is an identified need, subject to:

1) Appropriate protection of nature conservation value and preservation of features which contribute towards area of special character interest; 2) Appropriate ground conditions; and 3) Good accessibility

9.12 With regard to the issue of need, the applicant includes with the application two relatively recent reports (2007) complied by the Council’s Bereavement Services, for Scrutiny Panel and Cabinet, relating to “Sustaining Burial Capacity in Wolverhampton”. The reports indicate that the existing Bushbury Crematorium is running out of space for cremated remains burials. It is expected that once capacity is reached the viability of the Crematorium would be significantly harmed. To avoid the likelihood of this happening, the reports recommend that it would be prudent to seek an expansion of the existing site to allow for more cremated remains burials. It is pointed out that Bushbury is the only burial site in Wolverhampton with crematoria facilities.

9.13 The reports also contain an overall assessment of burial capacity in Wolverhampton which shows that the majority of the seven existing burial sites were about to close or had closed for full earth burials. There was some capacity for cremated remains burials at all sites apart from Merridale of between four and twenty years with only vaults available at Bilston.

9.14 The reports state that full earth burials could be carried out at Danescourt and Beacon Hill for a further fifteen years. This was expected to reduce more quickly once the other burial sites closed later in 2007.

9.15 The applicant states that it is prudent to seek planning consent for an extension to Bushbury Cemetery and Crematorium to; reduce pressure on the other two remaining full burial sites at Danscourt and Beacon Hill thereby maintaining some neighbourhood related choice of burial sites within the City; to provide additional full earth burial capacity allowing for burials to continue within the City beyond 2022 and; to provide the Bushbury Crematorium site with more cremated remains capacity beyond 2012.

9.16 In view of the above information, it is considered that there is a need for the proposed extension to the existing burial facilities at Bushbury Cemetery and Crematorium.

Design and Layout 9.17 The extension of the Cemetery into the open fields to the south of the existing site would affect the character and appearance of the Bushbury Hill Conservation Area. At present the agricultural use of the land offers a pleasant urban-fringe aspect.

9.18 The proposed extension of the existing Cemetery site into the open fields would result in a change to the character and appearance of the area. However, the retention of an area of meadow, restricting the height of headstones and the proposed landscaping and boundary treatments would result in an acceptable change.

Environmental Issues 9.19 With regards to compliance with the other criteria of policy C9, the applicant has demonstrated that there are appropriate ground conditions. This point of detail has

28 been confirmed by the Environment Agency. An assessment of the impact of the proposals on ecology and accessibility are addressed under paragraphs 9.22 and 9.23-9.24 of this report.

9.20 The proposals include for adequate ecological protection measures and subject to a condition requiring the submission of a long-term ecological management plan.

Access and parking 9.21 The proposals include alterations to the existing south eastern access into the site, in the form of widening of the access and new gates/railings, the design of which is satisfactory.

9.22 The proposed new internal road layout is also acceptable. The proposed 6 metre wide loop road serving the new burial site, proposed as a “one way system”, will provide ample tandem parking for visitors to the graves whilst enabling through traffic to pass. The proposals do not include provision of cycle stores but this can be conditioned.

9.23 The proposals include stepped access between the upper and lower fields, but this would not provide satisfactory means of access for disabled people. The agents have been requested to amend the layout to include a ramped access.

10. Conclusion

10.1 There is a demonstrated “need” for additional burial space within the City. The design and layout of the development will preserve the openness of the Green Belt and respect the character and appearance of the conservation area.

11. Recommendation

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

1. No further overriding objections from consultees

2. Conditions to include: • Ground conditions and drainage • Provision of a disabled ramp • Materials • Landscaping scheme and tree protection • Lighting scheme • Provision of boundary treatment • Provision of road and pedestrian routes • Details of hard surfacing • Cycle stores and parking • Public art • Diversion of bridle path • Ecological management plan

Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 01902 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00200/DWF Location Open Space Rear Of Bushbury Crematorium And Cemetery, Bushbury Lane,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 392871 302602 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 58333m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00226/FUL WARD: Graiseley DATE: 19-Mar-09 TARGET DATE: 18-Jun-09 RECEIVED: 19.03.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Timmins Waste Services, Mander Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Modification and extension of waste transfer/recycling centre.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Timmins Waste Services Limited Mr A J McGlue Mander Street The Westlands Wolverhampton 132 Compton Road West Midlands Wolverhampton WV3 0JZ WV3 9QB

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The application site is situated 1 mile to the west of the City Centre and within a Defined Business Area.

1.2 The site is in a small commercial and industrial area, in Mander Street, which runs between Retreat Street to the east and Upper Zoar Street to the west. The western end of Mander Street is closed off to vehicles.

1.3 Timmins Waste Services Ltd. occupy land on either side of the Mander Street. The land on the northern side is approximately 50 metres wide and 40 metres deep and the land on the southern side is approximately 20 metres wide and 30 metres deep. Planning permission was granted in 1998 for a waste transfer and recycling centre on the northern area.

1.4 To the north of the northern area is the Fire Station, which fronts onto Merridale Street. To the west is a disused commercial premises at 30 Mander Street and beyond that is the Gujarati Centre which fronts onto Upper Zoar Street. To the east is a commercial premises. The nearest residential development is 100m away, on the north side of Russell Street.

1.5 The front boundary is defined by a high tube metal fence, which allows views into the site. The other boundaries are formed by brick walls and mesh fencing with part of the northern and western boundaries enclosed by concrete retaining wall structures.

1.6 The land, on the southern side of Mander Street, was previously used by Timmins Waste Services as a waste transfer / recycling centre, but a condition on the 1998 permission, required that use to cease. Since that time, the site has been used as office and staff parking areas, in association with the waste / recycling centre on the opposite side of the road. This area has commercial uses on all sides.

1.7 An unauthorised building has recently been constructed within the southern area. The applicant’s agent has stated that it is intended to submit a separate retrospective application for the building.

31 2. Application Details

2.1 The application site comprises the land on both sides of Mander Street. The application seeks permission: • to extend the existing waste transfer and recycling centre to the west, to incorporate 30 Mander Street, and • for new operational works in association with that use.

2.2 The proposals include the installation of a five bay picking station and dedicated waste storage areas. New office facilities, parking and vehicular manoeuvring areas would also be provided.

2.3 A new two metre high brick wall boundary treatment is proposed along the site frontage on the northern side of Mander Street.

2.4 An existing building which fronts onto the northern side of Mander Street is to be re- modelled.

2.5 Opening hours would be 07.00 – 18.30 hours Mondays to Fridays, 08.00 – 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays.

2.6 There are currently ten staff employed at the site. The proposals would result in fourteen staff being employed at the site.

3. Planning History

3.1 95/0404/FP – Creation of a vehicle and skip storage yard – Granted 01/08/1995

3.2 97/0729/FP – Proposed waste transfer and recycling centre – Granted 27.04.1998

3.3 03/0181/FP – Erection of a weighbridge office – Granted 07.04.2003

4. Constraints

4.1 Defined Business Area Authorised Process

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 National Guidance PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management PPG13 Transport

5.2 UDP Policies

D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance

32 D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy D14 The Provision of Public Art EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP14 Waste Management Facilities AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM14 Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Communities AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security R7 Open Space Requirements for New Development

6. Publicity

6.1 Two letters of objection received and the following comments were raised:

y The site results in regular complaints about environmental nuisance. y Mander Street is difficult to clean and appears untidy because of rubbish and debris falling out of skips and onto the highway. y £9 million has been spent on the regeneration of the Graiseley Estate and this facility undermines the aspirations for the area. y Increase traffic congestion in Mander Street y Detrimental to the users of the adjacent community centre. y Proposals would discourage use, and result in a lack of income, for the adjacent community centre y Increase risk of pests y Vehicles cause damage to the road and deposit mud, which in dry weather causes a dust problem y Drainage problems y Fire risk y Substandard visibility for vehicle drivers entering and exiting the site

7. Internal Consultees

7.1 Transportation Development - no objection, subject to conditions relating to the provision of covered cycle and motorcycle parking.

7.2 Environmental Services – no objections in principle subject to appropriate conditions and notes for information relating to the restriction of hours of use to those proposed by the applicant, suitable dust, litter and noise control measures.

7.3 Access and Building Control – no objections.

7.4 Archaeology and Property Services – comments awaited.

8. External Consultees

8.1 Severn Trent Water - no objection subject to a condition requiring the submission of sustainable drainage details and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context.

33 8.2 Environment Agency - no objection.

9. Appraisal

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

y The principle of the proposed use y Design, layout and appearance y Environmental issues y Access and parking y Unauthorised building

The Principle of the Use 9.2 The proposal is for the extension of an existing waste management and recycling facility and associated operational works, and therefore Unitary Development Plan policies on waste and national guidance contained within PPS10 apply.

9.3 UDP policy EP14 ‘Waste Management Facilities’ states that proposals for the establishment or extension of waste management facilities will be permitted where it can be demonstrated that the proposal represents the best practical environmental option and the risk to residential amenity and highway safety is acceptable.

9.4 It is considered that the existing waste management facility represents a sustainable waste management option. Therefore, the proposals to extend this facility and associated works are acceptable in principle, subject to no adverse implications upon residential amenity and highway safety.

Design, layout and appearance 9.5 The design, layout and appearance of the extended site and the proposed development works are satisfactory.

9.6 The design and appearance of the proposed waste storage bays is acceptable.

9.7 The existing tubular metal fence allows views into the unsightly interior of the site. The application proposes to replace this boundary treatment with a 2 metre high brick wall, which will improve significantly the visual appearance of the site and street scene.

9.8 An existing building at 30 Mander Street has been partly demolished. The remaining part of the building fronts immediately onto Mander Street and has a poor appearance in the street scene. The application proposes to re-model the building. The appearance of the re-modelled building is considered acceptable.

Environmental issues 9.9 The transfer and recycling of waste can often impact on local amenity. Due to the limited space available on site the large loaded vehicles have to turn and wait in the adjoining highway causing damage to the road and deposition of mud, which in dry weather can cause a dust problem.

9.10 However, the extended facility would provide for a layout which would allow the large vehicles to turn and discharge their loads within the site. As such the associated nuisance from mud disposition would be significantly reduced. It also proposes dedicated spaces for staff and visitor parking and for the storage of skips. The imposition of suitable conditions would secure the layout illustrated and ensure its retention thereafter.

9.11 The facility is governed by the licensing conditions of the Environment Agency and these include restrictions on the amount of waste processed at the site.

9.12 Environmental Services raise no objections subject to a condition requiring that the waste transfer/recycling facility only operates within the hours proposed by the application, these are 07.00 – 18.30 hours Mondays to Fridays, 08.00 – 13.00 hours on Saturdays and at no time on Sundays and Public Holidays.

9.13 Environmental Services also recommend that suitable conditions be imposed to ensure that systems are provided to control noise, dust and litter.

9.14 A condition should require the provision of a screen of a suitable height and specification around the loading hopper and crane to prevent material (dust and litter) from escaping into neighbouring premises.

9.15 The application includes proposals for a 2m high brick wall along the Mander Street frontage. This wall will reduce the visual impact of the waste transfer facility and the likelihood of litter and dust leaving the site. The extra space at the application site would enable the provision of a picking bay and improved facilities for the storage of waste, these new facilities would reduce the likelihood of disturbance to neighbours.

Access and parking 9.16 The layout of the extended application site includes satisfactory vehicular turning facilities, which would be adequate to accommodate the turning manoeuvres of the large vehicles that would visit the site and the one way operation of the site would improve access and egress.

9.17 The applicant has provided amended plans demonstrating adequate space within the main site for two vehicles at any one time. Based upon the additional information provided by the applicant relating to trip generation for the site, it is considered that the proposed waiting area for one vehicle whilst another is unloaded would be appropriate.

9.18 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed layout would mean that the present problems of vehicles waiting and turning on the adjacent road would not arise. Therefore the flow of traffic along Mander Street would be improved.

9.19 The cycle parking proposed is not covered. The agent has been asked to show covered cycle parking.

Unauthorised building 9.20 The unauthorised building was discovered during a site visit and does not form a part of this application, although its position is shown on the amended layout plan. It is described on the layout plan as a ‘vehicle maintenance workshop’. The applicant’s agent has advised that a separate application for this development will be submitted shortly.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The proposed extension and development works at the site are generally acceptable and would be beneficial to local amenity and the free flow of traffic on Mander Street. However, there is an outstanding matter of detail to be addressed, relating to;

y provision of covered cycle parking

35 11. Recommendation

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

1. Satisfactory resolution of outstanding matter,

2. Conditions to include: • Materials • Landscaping, including hard surfaces and boundary treatments • Parking and turning areas to be provided and retained • Maximum height for skip storage • Suppression of noise, dust and litter measures • Drainage • No buildings or other structures or machinery without agreement by the local planning authority • The land on the south side of Mander Street shall not be used as a waste transfer and recycling centre and shall be used only for the purposes ancillary to the waste transfer and recycling centre on the north side of Mander Street • Hours of use • Cycle storage • This permission does not give consent for the unauthorised building within the land on the south side of Mander Street

Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 01902 555632 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00226/FUL Location Timmins Waste Services, Mander Street,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390852 297938 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 3281m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00098/FUL WARD: East Park DATE: 24-Feb-09 TARGET DATE: 26-May-09 RECEIVED: 04.02.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Stowheath Industrial Estate, Monmore Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Change of use to end of life dismantlers, including portacabin, cycle store and workshop.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr R Singh Mr Peter Tyler Unit 10 Seven Design New Enterprise Centre 20 Bridgnorth Road Monmore Road Wombourne Wolverhampton South Staffordshire WV5 0AA

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is located within the Stowheath Industrial Estate, off Monmore Road, approximately 2km south-east of the city centre. The site itself covers an area of just over 0.12 hectares and is currently used to store commercial vehicles, the boundary of which is defined by a 1.8m high metal chain fence. The rest of the estate is characterised by a mix of other waste transfer stations and other small industrial uses.

1.2 Adjacent to the site, on the south-east side, is a former railway cutting ,which is now a designated SINC (Site of Importance for Nature Conservation), area of public open space, Greenway and a frequently used pedestrian route.

2. Application details

2.1 The applicant proposes to use the site for ‘end of life’ dismantling of motor vehicles. A relatively small proportion of the site would be used for the outside storage of vehicles. The majority of the site would be a yard area, with the remainder occupied by a quite large workshop and a relatively small portcabin. The perimeter of the site would be secured with a 2.3m high galvanised fence of an unspecified type.

2.2 The workshop would be approximately 9m wide and 16m in length. The highest part of the roof would be almost 9m high, with the lowest point being approximately 6.1m above ground level.

2.3 The portacabin would accommodate a small office and a staffroom/wc. It would be approximately 3m wide, 7.5m in length and approximately 2.8m high.

38 3. Planning History

3.1 None directly for this site, but two other applications (09/00075 & 08/00874) have been recently approved for the use of the site on the opposite side of the access road for ‘end of life dismantlers’. The most recent of these was presented to committee on the 7th of April where members were minded to recommend delegated authority to grant subject to resolution of outstanding matters. These have now been resolved and the application was approved on the 28th of April 2009.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zone Mining Area Smoke Control Zone

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG4 Industrial, commercial development and small firms PPG13 Transport PPS23 Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 Planning and noise

5.2 UDP Policies

D1 Design Quality D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP11 Development on Contaminated Unstable Land EP13 Waste and Development EP14 Waste Management Facilities B1 Economic Prosperity B5 Design Standards for Employment Sites B9 Defined Business Areas B11 Ancillary Uses in Employment Areas AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security N3 Protection of Sites of importance for Nature Conservastion R4 Development Adjacent to Open Spaces R6 The Greenway Network

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG1 Business, Industrial and Warehouse Development

39 6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised by press and site notices. No response has been received.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Environmental Services - This site formerly comprised a number of very small yards, which have been used for a variety of recycling uses and have periodically given rise to complains, especially with regard to unattended fires. Against, this background the application is welcomed as the proposals create a workable area.

7.2 Whilst it would be preferable to have an enclosed workshop, the proposals are still welcome, and are considered unlikely to give rise to complaints from existing housing, given the heavily industrialised nature of this location.

7.3 Transportation Development - Have no objections in principle to the proposed use, but it is requested that they provide swept path analysis demonstrating that larger vehicles can enter the site and that the cycle and motor cycle parking area should have a securing bar or other securing facility provided.

8. External consultees

8.1 Environment Agency - They have no objections to the proposed scheme and confirm that the necessary Environment Permit for the proposed use is already in place.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key considerations in determining this application are:

• The acceptability of proposed use • Design & appearance • Residential amenity • Transportation.

Acceptability of the proposed use 9.2 The site is currently used to store commercial vehicles and is located within an existing industrial area, which is allocated as a Defined Business Area identified under Policy B9 of the Wolverhampton UDP. In general terms the Defined Business Area is suitable for waste management facilities, as supported by Policy B9 and EP14. Policy EP14 specifically requires the local minimisation and mitigation of any adverse impacts on the environment, local wildlife.

9.3 There is a SINC, Greenway and dedicated area of public open space contained within the former railway cutting adjacent to the site. As a result policies N3, R4 and R6 which seek to protect the integrity of the SINC and ensure that development does not have an adverse impact on it, apply. It is not considered that the type of use proposed, or the proximity of the proposal to the SINC, Greenway and area public open space, will be to the detriment of nature conservation or public use of the space.

Design & appearance 9.3 The new workshop would have a design and materials similar to those of the existing units within the industrial estate. Although, the building would have a fairly standard industrial design, it would be appropriate given the nature of the use and would not adversely affect the visual amenity of the area.

9.4 From the submitted plans it is not possible to assess the quality of the proposed boundary treatment. A high quality treatment will be needed, particularly along the railway cutting.

Residential Amenity 9.5 Policy EP14 requires the minimisation and mitigation of any adverse impacts on the general wellbeing and amenity of local people. Amenity is also a specific consideration of Policy B5(1). Environmental Services advise that the proposal is unlikely to give rise to complaints from existing housing given the industrial nature of the area. The nearest houses are approximately 200m from the site.

Transportation 9.6 Transport Officers have no objection in principle to the proposed use. However, swept path analysis demonstrating that larger vehicles can enter the site should be provided and the cycle and motor cycle parking area should have a securing bar or other securing facility provided.

9.7 The applicants have been asked to submit this information and it is currently awaited.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle, subject to the above points being addressed

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant delegated authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to grant if the requested information is received and considered acceptable, subject to:

1. Satisfactory amended plans to demonstrate that larger vehicles can enter the site.

2. Conditions to include:

• Submission of materials • Boundary Treatment • Cycle/Motorcycle storage details • Refuse Storage details • Operational hours • Lighting scheme and details • Restrict the height of vehicle storage • Vehicle Sheeting

Note for Information

• Landfill Gas • Mining Area

Case Officer : Richard Pitt Telephone No : 01902 551674 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00098/FUL Location Stowheath Industrial Estate, Monmore Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393369 297584 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 1266m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00268/FUL WARD: St Peter's DATE: 30-Mar-09 TARGET DATE: 29-Jun-09 RECEIVED: 30.03.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 184 Stafford Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV1 1NA PROPOSAL: Refurbishment of upper floors to create 12 residential apartments.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Start Estates Ltd Mr James Bavin 29 Homer Road Harborne Court Solihull 67-69 Harborne Road West Midlands Birmingham B91 2QG B15 3BU

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 Stafford Street is one of the main routes into the north-east of the city centre. The last occupants of 184 Stafford Street were Wolverhampton University. However, they moved out several years ago and the building has been left unoccupied since.

1.2 To the rear (east) of the site is the Good Shepherd Centre which provides accommodation and support for homeless people. To the south of the site is the Hogshead public house, whilst to the north of the site is 182 Stafford St. Last year, permission was granted to the same applicant to convert 182 Stafford Street into 12 apartments and work is due to be completed later this year.

1.3 The application site is within the Wolverhampton City Centre Conservation Area. More specifically, it lies within ‘Area 3: Broad Street and Stafford Street’. This area is characterised by 19th century buildings predominately built with red brick, stone bandings and Welsh slate roofs.

1.4 The Conservation Area Appraisal describes the building thus:- “Victorian Gothic Territorial Army building in two sections. Principal block is of three storeys beneath a pitched roof: first floor single large hall, very finely decorated internally. Seven bay façade; central bay emphasised with an oriel window at first floor and a squat tower and spire over. Four bay subsidiary block to the north matches lower two floors of the main block.

1.5 The building was built c.1890 as a headquarters building for the South Staffordshire Yeomanry Regiment of the Territorial Army, whose device appears in two stone panels on the façade. Originally connected to a drill hall on a site in Thornley Street, now redeveloped (Good Shepard Centre).

1.6 Fine Victorian military architecture with an excellent range of interior features, extant notable terracotta details. The first floor mess hall and formal stairs and approach to it are of real quality. A building of architectural, townscape and social history value.”

1.7 Recently some minor strip-out works have taken place within the building and existing ‘modern’ cellular offices and suspended ceilings have been removed.

2. Application details

2.1 It is proposed to sympathetically refurbish and repair the external envelope of the building. These works are described and covered in a separate Planning permission 07/01793/FUL. The ground floor of the premises benefits from a planning permission for A3/A4 uses (08/00377/FUL).

2.2 The current application focuses on the change of use of the upper floors of the building and alterations to the internal layout of the premises, to provide 12 apartments, 4 with one bedroom and 8 two bedroom.

2.3 Between the ground floor retail units is proposed the main communal entrance from Stafford Street and a circulation area. At the rear of the site would be a service yard accessed through gates from Whitmore Street. Cycle parking and bin storage is proposed in the yard.

2.4 The first floor would accommodate nine apartments. Five of those apartments would face onto Stafford St and include the insertion of mezzanine floor areas to take advantage of the volume of the existing rooms and create more ‘usable’ space, including a second bedroom. The second floor would provide three one-bedroom apartments.

2.5 In order to provide as much natural light as possible to the apartments, it is proposed to demolish a relatively small modern extension at the rear of the existing building, adjacent to 182 Stafford Street.

3. Planning History

3.1 07/01793/FUL - Repair and refurbishment of buildings [THI grant aid works]. Granted the 3rd of April 2008.

3.2 08/00377/FUL - Change of use to drinking establishment and restaurant [Use Class A3 and A4). Granted the 3rd of July 2008.

4. Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Wolverhampton City Centre Conservation Area

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG3 Housing PPG15 Planning and the historic environment PPG24 Planning and noise

5.2 UDP Policies

D1 Design Quality D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D9 Appearance

44 D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist HE3 Preservation and Enhance. of Con. Areas HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 Control of Development in a Con. Area HE6 Demolition of Buildings Structures in Conservation Area HE7 Underused Buildings Structures in Conservation Area HE8 Encouragement of Appropriate Residential Development in CA HE9 Relaxation of Normal Standards in a Conservation Area HE10 Removal of PD Rights in a Con. Area HE11 Shopfronts and Advertisements in a CA H7 Conversion of Buildings from Non-Residential to Residential AM1 Access, Motabaility and New Development AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security CC3 City Centre Housing CC5 City Centre Access and Mobility CC7 Cultural Quarter

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 - Residential Development SPG16 - Provision of Public Art

6. Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 No representations have been received.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation Development - This is a City Centre location and is highly accessible by public transport in accordance with UDP policy AM12. For this location it would be acceptable to provide no residents parking.

7.2 Parking in the rear service area should not be permitted as this is required for access to both 182 and 184 Stafford Street for servicing.

7.3 The application includes cycle parking and bin storage in the lower level of the building. Both the amount and location of the cycle parking is considered acceptable.

7.4 Conservation - 184 Stafford Street is a Locally Listed building in the Wolverhampton City Centre Conservation Area. The proposed conversion of the upper floors to create 12 residential apartments is welcome as it brings a vacant property, in a significant City location, back into productive use.

7.5 The proposed conversion of the uppers floors of 184 Stafford Street is sympathetic to the internal spaces, in particular the room height and window arrangement. The honest approach being proposed to deal with partitions where they meet the ornate cornice detail in the former mess hall on the first floor is acceptable.

45 7.6 The proposed demolition of part of the existing building at the rear does appear reasonable in order to create a means of escape route and service access route for the property. Therefore there is no objection to the proposed demolition works provided conditions relating to new external materials and joinery details are met.

7.7 Environmental Services - The site is subject to road traffic noise. In addition the site may be subject to late night disturbance from noise associated with the use of adjoining retail and restaurants and those others which are in close proximity. The applicants should therefore submit a detailed acoustic insulation scheme for those habitable rooms facing onto and perpendicular to Stafford Street. This should include a written scheme of sound insulation between the retail outlets and residential accommodation.

7.8 In addition, current levels of nitrogen dioxide in Stafford Street do not meet those objectives set in the National Air Quality Strategy. It is therefore necessary that a mechanically acoustically attenuated ventilation system is installed.

7.9 There appears to be adequate storage for bins in the plans for 12 flats at 184 Stafford Road. One 1100 bin will serve 4 properties and 3 bins have been illustrated.

8. External consultees

8.1 Police - Have no objections in principle but offer some detailed Secured by Design guidance. This information has been passed onto the applicants.

8.2 Fire - Have concerns about access to some of the proposed apartments. There should be vehicle access for a pump appliance to blocks of flats within 45 metres of all points within each dwelling.

8.3 This can be overcome through the provision of a domestic sprinkler system to British Standard 9251 in all the above apartments, or the installation of a dry riser in the staircase leading to the upper floors provided that the fire main inlet connection point is within 18metres of the fie appliance and the inlet is visible from the appliance.

8.4 The applicants have responded stating that they would consider installing a dry riser. This matter is covered by Building Regulations.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues in determining this application are:

• The acceptability of the proposed use • Effect on Conservation Area • Residential Amenity • Transportation • Public Open Space and Play Provision

Acceptability of the proposed use 9.2 Despite numbers growing in recent years, the City Centre still has a relatively low residential population. Policy CC3, City Centre Housing, states that the authority will continue to promote new and refurbished housing schemes as part of a sustainable mix of uses. Although this application is entirely for residential purposes, it should be seen in conjunction with the extant permission for the use of the ground floor of the building for a drinking establishment and restaurant use, as supporting the promotion of a wider mix of uses within the Cultural Quarter.

46 Effect on Conservation Area 9.3 Number 184 Stafford Street is located within the City Centre Conservation Area. It is also designated as a ‘Locally Listed Building’. This application proposes no alterations to the external envelope of the building. Improvements to facades and replacement windows have already been approved and awarded Townscape Heritage Initiative grant aid funding.

9.4 The subdivision of the Mess Hall is unfortunate. It would have been preferable if a use could have been found which would have retained the space. However, the applicants have confirmed that they have been marketing the property for a variety of commercial uses, both "For Sale" and "To Let" over the course of the last 18 months. Unfortunately, whilst they had a few expressions of interest these have not come to fruition and over the last few months commercial occupier demand has dried up.

9.5 In the light of the lack of commercial occupiers, who may be able to occupy significant parts of the building including the Mess Hall, and in view of the way the residential units were progressing in 182 Stafford Street, the decision to convert the upper floors of 184 whilst retaining the retail/commercial units at ground floor seems the best way of securing the re-use of an important building of townscape merit.

Residential Amenity 9.6 Policy H7 states that proposals for conversion of non-residential to residential use will be encouraged subject to, amongst other things, compatibility with adjacent uses.

9.7 The ground floor of the building has permission for use as a restaurant or drinking establishment. There is therefore the potential for this causing disturbance to occupiers of the flats above. Environmental Services advise that a scheme for noise insulation can mitigate this problem to an acceptable level. Such a scheme can be required by condition.

9.8 The proposal does not propose any private amenity space. However as this proposal is to bring an historic city centre building back into use, it is considered acceptable.

9.9 All the flats would be single-aspect, which is not normally encouraged. However, in this instance, it is considered an inevitable consequence of converting the building into residential use. It is felt that the relatively large size of the original windows, combined with the enlargement of the ‘lightwell’ to the rear of the property and the insertion of new rooflights will insure an adequate level of natural daylight for future occupants.

Transport 9.13 The site is located within the City Centre and therefore the occupants would have very good links to public transport. Therefore, no on-site car parking is provided. Although cars will be discouraged from the development, vehicular access to the building would be available for some servicing purposes. This would be provided from Whitmore Street. The submitted details of, secure, cycle storage is considered acceptable.

Public Open Space and Play Provision 9.14 There will be a requirement for a financial contribution towards the off site provision or enhancement of public open space and play facilities (BCIS indexed) secured through a Section 106 agreement.

10. Conclusion

10.1 This £1,250,000 development is welcomed as it would help bring this attractive property back into use, provide quality city centre living and continue the regeneration of the area.

47 11. Recommendation

11.1 Delegated authority to the Director for Sustainable Communities to grant permission, subject to:

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees

2. A S106 to secure open space/play contribution (BCIS indexed)

3. Conditions to include:

• Noise survey & mitigation including noise attenuated ventilation • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. • Works approved by application 07/01793/FUL to be completed prior to occupation. • External materials and joinery details to be used should be submitted and approved in writing by the Council before any works are commenced. • Details of the mezzanines

Case Officer : Richard Pitt Telephone No : 01902 551674 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00268/FUL Location 184 Stafford Street, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV1 1NA Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391570 298882 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 616m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 08/01363/FUL WARD: East Park DATE: 03-Nov-08 TARGET DATE: 02-Feb-09 RECEIVED: 24.10.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

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

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

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Purpose of Report

1.1 To update Committee and make a recommendation.

2. Background

2.1 This application was reported to Planning Committee on the 6th of January 2009 [Appendix A] and 3rd of February of 2009 [Appendix B]. Those reports are annexed to this report.

2.2 Committee resolved to allow the Director for Sustainable Communities delegated authority to grant the application as set out in paragraph 10.1 of the report to Committee on the 3rd of February 2009. Namely:-

i) No overriding issues being raised as a result of publicity regarding the public footpath ii) Issues raised by Transport being satisfactorily addressed iii) Negotiation of a S106 agreement to compensate for the loss of recreational open space, provide pedestrian refuge(s) on Stowheath Lane, public art and targeted recruitment and training iv) Relevant conditions

2.3 With reference to the compensatory payment for the loss of recreational open space and pedestrian refuges(s) on Stowheath Lane, the report states that the compensatory payment required for the loss of the recreational space is £277,603 but that this sum should be reduced by the cost of providing the pedestrian refuge(s) on Stowheath Lane.

50 2.4 No overriding issues have been raised by outstanding consultees. 3. Updating

3.1 Since the 3rd of February, the applicant has submitted correspondence to state that they consider the required level of compensation to be excessive given the nature of the site and also questioned the appropriateness of the designation of this private land as recreational open space.

3.2 They have offered a sum of £67,000 for the loss of the open space plus £40,000 for the pedestrian refuges. They have also agreed that if the full £40,000 is not required for refuges, the balance can be spent on the provision or enhancement of recreational open space.

4. Appraisal

4.1 In determining this application, the main issues are:

• The legitimacy of designated private land as recreational open space • The appropriate level of compensation of the loss of such space

Legitimacy of designated private land as public open space 4.2 With the exception of the former public house and its associated car park, the site is designated as ‘recreational open space’ in the UDP. This is despite the ownership of the site being private; with public right of access restricted to the public footpath which passes along the southern boundary of the site.

4.3 In the last report to Committee, it was accepted that an alternative route to the existing public footpath would be considered appropriate. If the existing public footpath were to be diverted, there would be nothing to prevent the owners of the site from securing the entirety of the site and thus preventing any public access.

4.4 The Annex to PPG17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’, in defining what constitutes ‘open space’, states that it, “should be taken to mean all open space of public value” and that this can include land which acts as a, ‘visual amenity’.

4.5 It then goes on to clarify some of the various functions which open space, when acting as a visual amenity, can accommodate. It explains that, “even without public access, people enjoy having open space near them to provide an outlook, variety in the urban scene, or as a positive element in the landscape”.

4.6 In addition, it goes on to say that, ‘open space’ can include areas which act as, “havens and habitats for flora and fauna: sites may also have potential to be corridors or stepping stones from one habitat to another and may contribute towards achieving objectives set out in local biodiversity action plans”.

4.7 In relation to the application site, it is considered that the open space acts as a visual amenity for the neighbouring occupiers and as a haven for flora and fauna. The site is also a designated Greenway in the UDP. A Greenway is a linear feature of mostly open character, which acts as a wildlife corridor and also an attractive, safe off-road route between different areas. It is therefore considered that the site meets the criteria as ‘open space’ as defined by PPG17.

Calculating the appropriate level of compensation of the loss of such space 4.8 As it was legitimate to designate the area as recreational open space, it is also legitimate that the UDP Policies relating to the loss of open space should be applied. Policy R3 requires compensatory provision, normally secured through a compensatory payment.

4.9 The area of recreational open space to be lost amounts to 5470sqm. Using the formula for the cost of new open space creation and maintenance for 10 years, a compensatory payment of £277,603 would normally be required. However, it was previously agreed that if a suitable alternative to the existing public right of way, which helps link Stowheath Lane and Green Park Avenue public space, was provided the amount would be reduced to £138,000 (BCIS indexed linked). This figure excludes the cost of providing the pedestrian refuges.

4.10 The land is currently of relatively low usability for recreation, being largely covered in dense undergrowth. In addition, it is agreed that once the public footpath is stopped up, its value would be largely limited to visual amenity, to neighbouring occupiers and as a wildlife habitat.

4.11 As a visual amenity and wildlife habitat, the full benefit of the land would not be lost. The redevelopment would leave a significant area of garden which would still be of visual amenity to some neighbouring residents and, if appropriately managed, could be of significant wildlife benefit (possibly of greater benefit than the land in its existing state). A habitat management regime could be required by condition.

4.12 For the reasons above it would seem that in this case, a reduction in the normal compensatory sum is justified and the applicant’s offer should be accepted.

5. Conclusions

5.1 Despite the site being in private ownership, it is considered that it was appropriate to designate the land as recreational open space. However, in this instance, it is considered that there are exceptional circumstances to justify a reduction in the normally required levels of compensation and acceptance of the applicant’s offer.

6. Recommendation

6.1 Delegated authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to grant permission, subject to:

1. Negotiation of a S106 agreement to compensate for the loss of recreational open space, funding of two pedestrian refuges in Stowheath Lane (in accordance with the applicants offer as set out in paragraph 3.2), targeted recruitment & training, public art.

2. Conditions are recommended to cover:

• Use as a care home for the elderly only • Protective fencing for public footpath • Submission of Materials • Architectural Details • Report to demonstrate that culvert can take vehicle traffic with strengthening as necessary • Landscaping Scheme • Details of Boundary Treatment • Drainage • Car Parking • External lighting • Workplace Travel Plan • Details of cycle/motorcycle stores

52 • External lighting • Bin stores • Construction management plan • Amenity space provided as shown • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. • Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation • Public house to be demolished and site cleared prior to commencement of development • South-west corner of pub site which is omitted from application site to be landscaped and maintained in accordance with details to be agreed by the local planning authority. • Site and building security • Wildlife management plan, approved and implemented.

Note for information

• Mining area • A public footpath crosses the site. It is an offence to illegally obstruct a public footpath

Case Officer : Richard Pitt Telephone No : 01902 551674 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 08/01363/FUL Location Site Of Former Hare And Hounds, Stowheath Lane,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 393703 297508 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 6261m2

54 Appendix A

60 Appendix B

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 19-May-09 APP NO: 09/00144/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 19-Feb-09 TARGET DATE: 16-Apr-09 RECEIVED: 19.02.2009 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 106 Birmingham Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV2 3NH PROPOSAL: Change of use to banqueting and function facility with ancillary restaurant

APPLICANT: AGENT: Hawkstone Properties (Wolverhampton) LLP Mr J Mumby C/O Agent 5 The Priory Old London Road Canwell Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B75 5SH

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is occupied by the former Vono building and associated 90 parking (5 disabled) spaces. It was used as a furniture retail outlet by Vono, but has been unoccupied now for some time. Before Vono, the site was occupied by the curtain manufacturer ‘Yarnolds’. The site consists of approximately 0.55 hectares. Adjacent to its south west corner is a small retail outlet, originally used by Yarnolds as its retail outlet. This building shares the car parking and the access of the site onto Birmingham Road.

1.2. Immediately to the west are a small group of factory/commercial buildings which gain access to Dudley Road via Cousins Street. These have a separate parking area from the application site.

1.3. Adjoining the site to the north and south are the rear gardens of houses in Curzon Street and Elm Farm Road. A high brick wall separates the site from the rear gardens of the Elm Farm Road houses. The site is separated from the rear gardens of the houses in Cuzons Street, in part by a high wall, erected as part of the Vono scheme to shield the rear of the houses from the service area vehicles, and in part by a concrete 1.8m high wall. On the opposite side of the Birmingham Road are a row of terraced houses.

2. Application details

2.1. The application seeks full planning consent to change the use of the site and building from retail (restricted by condition to the sale of non food items only) to a ‘banqueting and function facility for weddings and other celebrations, with a restaurant which would be ancillary to the main function of the unit’. Such a use would fall within Use Category D2 ‘Assembly and Leisure’ of the Use Classes Order and as such any planning consent would also permit all the other (related) ‘assembly and leisure’ uses within D2.

64 2.2. The applicant has stated that he is willing to restrict the numbers using the facility to 250 in order to be able to comply with car parking standards and Fire Officer limitation on numbers. It is also stated that the hours of use would be limited to 09.00 to 00.0 hrs (midnight) Monday to Sunday. The expected peak hours of use are likely to be between 17.00 and 23.00 hrs when functions with music are likely to take place. The closure of the building at midnight would reflect the latest time of night when traffic would be entering and leaving the site. It is expected that visitors would leave the site at varying times of the evening

2.3. The applicant states that if the use commences then it is the intention that the Public Art feature secured under the planning permission for Vono’s would be put back in place.

2.4. In order to facilitate the change of use, it is proposed to construct an ‘inner acoustic- skin within which the applicant proposes to contain the noise generated by the use. A technical noise report by a noise engineer, setting out some options for the design of this feature, has been submitted with the application. This concludes that construction will provide an effective noise barrier such that there will be no disturbance to adjacent residences.

2.5. The application is also accompanied by the results of a ‘sequential test’ setting out what other sites have been looked at for this use in the vicinity and why all have been dismissed. It also includes information in respect of the ‘need’ for this scale and nature of use and ‘impact’ on existing centres.

3. Planning History

3.1. 97/0836 Consent granted for part demolition of existing factory and replacement with non-food retail unit. Not implemented.

3.2. 01/1625/FP. Yarnolds Factory Site. Approval for recent building. Retail unit subject to condition that goods sold from this site shall be restricted to non-food goods: furniture, carpets, wall coverings, electrical goods & domestic appliances, fabrics, floor coverings, tools, hardware, light fittings, garden and leisure products, homecare and DIY, auto part, spares and accessories.

3.3. 07/00415 Application for change of use to banqueting and function facility.This was withdrawn before determination.

4. Constraints

4.1. Location: New Deals ABCD Area Policy: Strategic Regeneration Area

5. Relevant policies

5.1 AM1 - Access, Motabaility and New Development AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM4 - Strategic Highway Network SH1 - Centres Strategy SH2 - Centres Uses SH3 - Need and the Sequential Approach EP5 - Noise Pollution

PPS24 - Government Guidance on Planning and Noise

6 Publicity and Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 The application was advertised on site and by letters to surrounding residents.

6.2 A petition of 46 signatures has been received. This opposes the application on the grounds that it is felt that it would result in an unacceptable use in a residential area.

6.3 Letters have also been received from Councillors Johnson, Dass, Jones, Judith Rowley and John Rowley concerned about the potential for noise disturbance to neighbours from within the building and from traffic comings and goings and because it is felt the use fails the ‘sequential policy test’ and is best located on a city centre or edge of centre site in this respect.

7. Internal consultees

Environmental Services 7.1 The scheme proposes to deal with the noise anticipated from the entertainment element of the proposed use by building a new internal sound insulating ‘inner skin’ to the existing structure and using sound-sealing locks to all entrance doorways. This is technically very specialised and the structures’ acoustic performance is designed around criteria set by a draft standard only, as no approved standard is known to exist in respect of noise from entertainment uses such as this. A full technical appraisal is not therefore possible using the expertise within the Council. Independent verification of the findings in the acoustic report submitted with the application is therefore needed before any assurance can be given as to the efficacy of its findings.

7.2 Additional observations are provided as follows:

a) The proposed entertainment venue is situated in a primarily residential neighbourhood. There are 11 dwellings within 30m of the north building wall, the closest of these being within 5m. There are at least 40 dwellings within a 60m radius of the south and east wall of the building. The closest of these are within 35m.

b) It is understood that the applicant proposes to operate a function room within the D2 planning use class. The primary use is given as a banqueting suite and function room hence there is a presumption that all D2 activities inclusive of live performances, singing and dancing (including discotheques) would be permitted should any approval be granted.

c) Entertainment noise from activities such as discotheques, DJ acts and occasionally live bands is often characterised by repeated low frequency pulse or ‘beat’. To a potential complainant this might be manifest as a pulsating effect with the problem often exacerbated by the low frequency components of music noise being more transmissible over distance and through building structures.

d) It is understood that should approval be granted, the number of attendees will be restricted by condition to 250, though Council Officers have advised that a building of this size is capable of supporting significantly higher numbers, well in excess of 500.

e) Following further assurances from the Applicants noise consultant that the noise prediction software used to design the mitigation measures is robust enough for the Council to rely upon, the Environmental Services Officer has not altered his findings as set out above.

66 Transportation Development 7.3 Information submitted in respect of the proposed usage, internal arrangement and the transport Statement has been very limited. However the applicant is willing to accept a condition restricting limiting the maximum capacity of the building for a banqueting use to 250 for which the parking provision should be adequate.

7.4 However, from previous interest in this site it was obvious that the building could accommodate considerably more than 250 persons. Permission was recently granted for a function hall for 900 persons at a site off Pountney Street which had a gross floor area 8% smaller than the former Vono building.

7.5 The fire officer, who would have an input to the licensing of the building, considered that the current layout would be suitable for up to 220 persons but the building would have a potential for up to 600 if the interior was redesigned.

7.6 Therefore, if a condition to limit numbers to 250 could not be adequately enforced then the parking provision may not be adequate for a D2 use if the latent potential of the building was developed.

7.7 The site at Pountney Street (which is approx 600m from this site) could in theory hold more people and yet has a similar size car park. However, the Pountney Street site is surrounded by an industrial area and overspill parking would be available on-street during evenings and weekends when the site was conditioned to operate.

7.8 In contrast the former Vono site offers very little suitable overspill parking due to its location on the A4123 Birmingham Road and the predominantly residential streets in the vicinity. Overspill parking could be exacerbated by the proposed opening hours of 09.00am to 00.00 midnight Monday to Saturday.

7.9 The transportation officer therefore cannot support the application due to insufficient information on likely usage and the possibility of insufficient on site parking. This could lead to inappropriate parking on Birmingham Road close to the site and in nearby residential streets to the detriment of highway safety and causing disruption for residents.

7.10 Should the application be approved a new Traffic Regulation Order on Birmingham Road outside the site should be funded by the developer to protect the existing cycle route and to prevent visibility for emerging vehicles being restricted by parking.

Access Team 7.11 Existing disabled spaces need to be brought up to standard by use of 1.2 m access strip at the head of each space. Dropped kerb access needed from parking spaces to the entrance.

Building Control. 7.12 Satisfactory in principle, but insufficient information to fully assess under the building regulations at this stage.

Planning Policy. 7.13 Concerns in respect of the information submitted. (i) Evidence in respect of ‘need’ is not convincing as it does not demonstrate ‘local’ need but suggests that users will be from a wider area. Since 2007, there have been a number of planning permissions for banqueting and function facilities e.g. former Mecca Social Club at Skinner Street, former Industrial Units in Pountney Street and Vulcan Road, and the supporting information accompanying the application needs to take into account these permissions

67 (ii) If the proposal is to serve a wider city-wide catchment, then as part of the sequential test, the sequentially preferable edge-of-centre vacant unit D3 at Bentley Bridge Retail Park needs to be considered and haven’t been. (iii) In qualitative terms it would be preferable to see this large unit return to a viable commercial use, especially due to its prominence on to the Birmingham Road, and that a banqueting facility would remove a potentially more intense A1 retail activity at this location which could undermine the vitality and viability of Blakenhall Local Centre and the retail function of the City Centre. The applicant needs to expand the qualitative argument for this scheme. (iv) It is accepted that a banqueting and function facility would need facilities for the preparation of food. However, would the restaurant be restricted to customers only attending functions at this unit, or would it be open to members of the general public? A stand-alone restaurant that has no linkage to the function of the banqueting suite would be difficult to justify at this location, and being a centre use would independently need to meet the requirements of Policy SH3.

8. External consultees

8.1 Police - Awaited

8.2 Fire Officer - Satisfactory for a maximum of up to 220 persons with the internal arrangements shown. More could be accommodated if the layout was altered.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues in this case are:

(i) Whether in Unitary Development Plan policy terms, this ‘centre’ use is acceptable in this ‘out of centre’ location and whether a sufficient ‘need’ ahs been demonstrated. (ii) The likely impact from noise generated inside the building on nearby residents. (iii) The likely impact of noise generated by users coming and going to and from the events. (iv) The level of car parking available.

Unitary Development Plan policies. 9.2 There are concerns with regard to the information provided in respect of the policy issues. Therefore, the following further information was requested from the applicant: (i) A breakdown of specific floorspace figures for the different elements of the proposal. (ii) Indication of the size of the functions that the facility will cater for in terms of number of guests (If functions of up to 250 guests will be catered for, then this is likely to serve a local catchment area. However, if there is capacity for many more guests, which appears to be the case by looking at the floorspace of the building, then as such a facility would serve a much wider catchment area, requires a robust justification of why there is a need for such a facility at this specific location, particularly in the light of the other recent planning permissions for similar schemes). (iii) Identification of the catchment area that the proposal will serve, updating the sequential test where relevant. (iv) Justification for this facility over and above existing recent permissions e.g. size, meeting a specific niche in the market, role it will play serving the Blakenhall community.

68 (v) To address the qualitative issues more fully. (vi) Explain the rationale, role, function and justification of the restaurant element.

9.3 In response the applicant has replied that:

(i) The facility seeks to serve a local catchment and so no further justification is required to justify ‘need’. And ‘it is difficult to predict what catchment area the facility would serve, as this would be entirely dependent on the circumstances of the function taking place’. (ii) In terms of the sequential test, they feel this site is an ‘edge-of-centre’ site being 200m from the Dudley Road Centre and that they have demonstrated that the site is sequentially preferable to others, including the Bentley Bridge site. (iii) They clarify that the restaurant use would not operate independently of the banqueting facility, except to accommodate smaller functions which may not need use of the main hall.

Noise from inside the building. 9.4 The application has been submitted with an accompanying technical acoustic report detailing a means by which it is intended to insulate the building from the inside so that noise levels do not disturb nearby residents. The means by which this is to be achieved is unusual and the standard by which the measures to insulate from noise has been designed, is not one which has any formal recognition. In addition, it has not therefore been possible for the Councils’ Environmental Officers to effectively evaluate the performance of the proposed sound insulation scheme and the likelihood of residents complaints. The applicant was asked to fund an independent review of the report, but stated that he was only prepared to do so if this remained the only outstanding issue following Committee’s consideration of the application, only after the application has been reported to Committee.

9.5 In an effort to address both the parking standard but also to reduce the likely level of noise from the functions, the applicant has stated that he will accept a condition limiting the numbers using the premises to 250. Notwithstanding this, concern remains that the building is capable of accommodating far more (possibly up to 8 to 900?), some weddings commonly attract far more than 250, that the Fire Officer states that as shown, the internal layout is likely only to attract a Fire Certificate for 220 persons, all lead to the conclusion that enforcing a max use of 250 will not be practical and that to restrict the use in this way would be unrealistic. A condition restricting the maximum use to 250 is not therefore considered as a basis upon which planning consent could be recommended.

External noise 9.6 The use is one that is likely to give rise to degrees of noise generated as participants of the various functions arrive at and leave the venue. As they leave cars or building, to and from and as vehicles move in and out. Noise levels from party goers in particular can be potentially disturbing. The need for an external smoking facility is also likely to give rise to noise. Account would need to be taken of the fact that on one side the building itself will screen houses on Elm Farm Road, the houses in Curzons Street are separated from the site by a high brick wall account would need to be taken of the noise from the traffic on the Birmingham Road between the site and the houses on the other side of Birmingham Road.

9.7 However, it seems likely that noise could well reach such levels as to cause serious disturbance to nearby residential occupiers. But a full assessment would need further information on all these aspects.

69 Car Parking 9.8 The site would have the use of the existing car park of 87 general parking bays plus 5 for the disabled. The layout includes 3 proposed coach parking bays which, if used, would reduce the number of general bays to 77. This is felt to be acceptable for 250 persons. But concern is expressed that the building would have capacity for far more than this and controlling the numbers visiting the site would be very difficult. If more vehicles did arrive to attend a particular function or event, then they are likely to be forced to park on surrounding residential streets and so cause a traffic hazard and reduce available on-street parking upon which local residents rely.

9.9 The existing visibility at the junction with Birmingham Road is considered safe.

10 Conclusion

10.1 The use is one which the relevant policies in the UDP direct to ‘centre sites’ in the first instance and ‘edge of centre’ sites as a second resort. The applicant considers this to be an ‘edge of centre’ site given its location in relation to the Dudley road Local Centre. This is disputed given its access onto Birmingham Road and other physical separation from Dudley Road. The applicant has not submitted a robust ‘sequential test’ to demonstrate that there are no alternative better located sites in existing centres or on the edge of such. The policies also require that there should be a ‘proven need’ for the facility and it is considered that this has not been demonstrated, particularly taking into account the number of recent approvals for similar venues in the vicinity of this site and in the city generally. The applicant claims that the use is aimed principally at local users, but given its location, access on the Birmingham Road and potential capacity, it seems likely that it will attract uses from across the West Midlands.

10.2 This is an application for the use of this non-food retail premises for D2 ‘Assembly and Leisure’ purposes. These include cinemas, music halls, concert halls, dance and sports halls, bingo halls and casinos. It is understood that the applicant has in mind a target use for weddings and related functions but not exclusively and the application does not exclude any of the other potential uses within use class D2. Many of these uses, including the specific use intended here involve potential noise from music and other entertainments. The particular nature of this type of noise makes it difficult to predict its likely effect on adjoining residents, or to set a ‘noise level limit’ not to be exceeded, as is often done with for example industrial sources of noise. There is no officially recognised means of measure for such noise against which the mitigation proposed in the scheme can be designed and judged. The acoustic report submitted with the application uses a means to do this which your Officers are therefore unable to fully assess. The report concludes that the measures proposed will result in there being no disturbance to nearby residents, but Officers are unable to independently verify this claim.

10.3 The level and timing of the comings and goings of those attending functions and outside smokers, is also a likely source of noise for residents. The applicant offers to restrict the maximum number of patrons to 250, and if this was accepted, then the likely level of disturbance would be likewise so restricted. The applicant states that in his view there will not be any significant level of disturbance, because patrons will come and go over extended periods. However, depending on the nature of the event being held, it seems just as likely that comings and especially goings would be concentrated at the start and finish time of an event. The premises is also of such a size as to be capable of accommodating far more than 250 persons and so a condition restricting numbers to this figure would appear to be unsound. Clearly if more than 250 patrons did attend, then there would be a proportional increase in the likely level of potential disturbance to nearby residents. However, it would remain the case that without further acoustic studies relating to this specific noise source measured against

70 background noise levels, the distance to nearby houses and the effect of intervening physical barriers, no firm conclusion can be made in this respect.

10.4 Similarly in respect of the provision of car parking. If the number of patrons was to restricted to 250 then the 82 spaces available are considered to be sufficient. However the difficulty in ensuring that this number was adhered to and the capacity of the building to accommodate a great many more persons, means that the likelihood of the capacity of the car park being exceeded has be considered as a possibility and in these circumstances, it is considered that there is a likelihood that cars will be parked in nearby residential streets causing disruption and disturbance to residents and creating a traffic hazard.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Refuse for the following reasons;

(i) The use is one which has potential to generate a high level of noise and in particular loud low frequency noise to such an extent that, given the close proximity of surrounding houses, it is likely that unacceptable disturbance could be created to residents of these houses especially at unsociable hours. The use proposed is therefore considered contrary to UDP Policies EP5 - Noise Pollution.

(ii) In the absence of quantifiable evidence to the contrary, it is considered that the comings and goings of users and their vehicles and the use of outside smoking areas will give rise to levels of disturbance to surrounding residents particularly at unsocial hours. The use proposed is therefore considered contrary to UDP Policies EP5 - Noise Pollution.

(iii) The proposed use is a ‘centre’ type of use which are directed by Government Guidance and the Councils’ UDP policies to existing centres. The site is not a centre or edge of centre location and is therefore unsuitable for this location. The application has failed to provide sufficient justification as to the ‘need’ for this use, given the availability of other venues in the vicinity for similar uses. The application has failed to demonstrate that a robust ‘sequential test’ has been carried out to reasonably discount all other possible centre or edge of centre sites for this use. The use proposed is therefore considered contrary to UDP Policies SH1 - Centres Strategy, SH2 - Centres Uses and SH3 - Need and the Sequential Approach.

(iv) If as seems probable, the number of patrons at certain functions is likely to exceed 250, the use is likely to give rise to more vehicles than can be accommodated within the existing car park and will therefore give rise to parking in nearby residential roads, creating disturbance and a traffic hazard. The use is therefore contrary to UDP Policies AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision and EP5 – Noise Pollution.

Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 01902 555623 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 09/00144/FUL Location 106 Birmingham Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV2 3NH Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391707 297342 Plan Printed 07.05.2009 Application Site Area 5463m2