Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Agenda Item No: 6

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 4th March 2008

Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND ENVIRONMENT

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

Telephone Number(s) (01902) 555610

Title/Subject Matter PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Recommendation

That Members determine the submitted applications according to the recommendation made in respect of each one. PLANNING COMMITTEE (4th March 2008)

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

Blakenhall

07/01762/FUL 40 Bromley Street 4 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV2 3AS

Bushbury North

07/01764/OUT Former IMI Sports Ground 9 Wobaston Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

Bushbury South and Low Hill

07/01739/RC Peel Retail Park 16 [report to follow] Stafford Street Whitmore Reans Wolverhampton West Midlands

East Park

08/00008/DWF 14, 16, 18 Eastfield Road 18 & 08/00009/DWF 22 Eastfield Road & 08/00010/DWF 26, 28, 30, 32, Eastfield Road & 08/00011/DWF 40,42,44,46,48,50, Eastfield Road & 08/00015/DWF 39 Eastfield Road & 08/00026/DWF 21, 23 Eastfield Road & 08/00027/DWF 31 Eastfield Road & 08/00031/DWF 51 Eastfield Road & 08/00032/DWF 54, 56 Eastfield Road & 08/00066/DWF 55 Eastfield Road & 08/00067/DWF 2 & 4 Eastfield Road

2 & 08/00112/DWF 3, 5 Eastfield Road & 08/00113/DWF 8, 10 Eastfield Road & 08/00123/DWF 33 Eastfield Road & 08/00126/DWF 47 Eastfield Road & 08/00179/DWF 36 Eastfield Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV1 2RG

Heath Town

06/01300/FUL Land At Horseley Fields/Union Mill 22 Street Horseley Fields Eastfield Wolverhampton West Midlands

07/01087/FUL Land Bounded By Culwell Street 26 Lock Street Wednesfield Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

Merry Hill

07/01727/FUL The Bunglalow 35 Wenlock Avenue Wolverhampton West Midlands

Park

08/00063/OUT 73 And Land Rear Of 69 To 77 40 Compton Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9QH

Wednesfield North

07/01733/FUL True Briton 49 Snape Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV11 2NP

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 07/01762/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 17-Jan-08 TARGET DATE: 13-Mar-08 RECEIVED: 17.12.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 40 Bromley Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV2 3AS PROPOSAL: Change of use from dwelling house Use Class C3 to permanent office Use Class A2.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mohammad Nazier 40 Bromley Street Wolverhampton West Midlands WV2 3AS

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Application Site, Findings and Background

1.1 The subject property forms one of six terraced dwelling houses located within Bromley Street which is part of the All Saints and Blakenhall Community Development Partnership (ABCD) Regeneration area and just outside of the Dudley Road/Blakenhall Local Centre. The houses in this terrace row appear to have been constructed during the 1960’s or early 1970’s and all of the properties are three storeys and have paved driveways to the front. To the rear of the application premises is the Guru Nanak Sikh temple.

1.2 This retrospective proposal follows two previous applications which were granted temporary permissions to change the use of the subject property from a dwelling house (C3) to office use (A2). The premises have operated as an office, on a temporary basis, since approximately March 2006 and since that time the Council has not been made aware of any complaints of disturbance or other nuisance caused by the change of use. The applicant now seeks permission to change the use of this dwelling house to an office use on a permanent basis.

1.3 The offices are used by BME United Limited, a community organisation that has in recent years provided a crucial role in contributing towards the regeneration of Blakenhall and the surrounding ABCD regeneration area. From its base at 40 Bromley Street, the community service group has been able to provide a range of key support services for black minority and ethnic groups in the ABCD Regeneration Area. The nearby Sikh Temple currently allows BME United staff and service users to park vehicles in their large car park.

1.4 Originally, a six month temporary permission was granted in July 2006 for the out-of- centre office use of the subject property. It was considered that because the proposed use was for an organisation involved in the regeneration of the surrounding area a temporary permission for the proposed change of use could be granted. The applicant was however advised that they should seek alternative premises in a nearby local centre. As BME United had failed to relocate within the time frame of the temporary permission, a further six month temporary permission was granted on 15 February 2007. That temporary permission expired on 15 August 2007.

4 2. Constraints

2.1 New Deal for Communities ABCD Area. Authorised Process and Sites and Monuments.

3. Application Details

3.1 A proposed change of use from residential dwelling house (C3) to office use (A2). The BME United organisation provide a community service group, specifically providing assistance and support services for black minority and ethnic organisations within the ABCD Regeneration Area.

4. Planning History

4.1 06/01652/FUL for Retrospective. Change of use from residential to office use, Granted Temporary six month permission on 15.02.2007. Temporary permission expiry date 15.08.2007.

4.2 06/0516/FP/C for Change of use from residential to office use. Granted, six month temporary permission 03.07.2006. Temporary permission expiry date 03.01.2007.

5. Relevant policies

Central Government Planning Policy

PPS 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPG 13: Transport

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 D13 - Sustainable Development EP1 - Pollution Control EP5 - Noise Pollution B5 – Design Standards for Employment Sites B6 – Offices B9 – Defined Business Areas B12 – Access to Job Opportunities SH1- Centres Strategy SH8 – Local Centres SH9 – Local Shops and Centre Uses outside Defined Centres AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision

6. Publicity and neighbour notifications

6.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site and neighbour notifications. No reply or response received.

5 7. Internal consultees

7.1 Authorised Process – No observations.

7.2 Planning Policy – Object to the proposed change of use which is contrary to UDP Policy B6. This policy says that office development in Wolverhampton will be encouraged within the City Centre, identified key sites within the Stafford Road Corridor, Wednesfield Village Centre or Bilston Town Centre or within local or district centres. Office development in other locations will only be permitted where;

1. The development is compatible with adjacent uses and is compatible with UDP Policy B5; 2. It is ancillary to an existing or proposed production or storage/distribution use; or 3. Development will result in the retention of a building or group of buildings of architectural or historic interest; 4. A need has been identified and a sequential approach to site selection has been shown that an edge of centre or out of centre site is the sequentially preferred location; or 5. There are no other suitable locations in or adjacent to a defined centre and the proposal will meet an identified local need as set out in Policy SH9. In such circumstances the site should be accessible by a choice of modes of travel including public transport, walking or cycling.

7.3 To allow permission for the proposed change of use, it must be shown by the applicant that there are no other suitable locations in or adjacent to a defined local centre and that the proposal would meet an identified local need as set out in Policy SH9.

7.4 Transportation – Response awaited.

7.5 ABCD Regeneration

• It is advised that ABCD are working with BME United to help them have a possible long term future as an organisation that could represent the views of the BME community not just within ABCD but to act on a citywide basis. This is part of ABCD succession strategy and mainstreaming activity. This process is likely to take a while and in the meantime the organisation will require a base. It may be appropriate to allow a further 2 years, at which point their future is likely to be resolved. There is also a proposal to provide a new Blakenhall Neighbourhood Centre on the site of the former Glassy Inn (nearly opposite their existing premises). Should that proposal proceed, the new centre, which would be completed in late 2009/early 2010, could provide accommodate for the organisation.

8. External consultees

8.1 None

9. Appraisal

9.1 The main issues to be considered in respect of this proposal for change of use to community service and office use from residential use are the policy issues, implications for residential amenity and implications for traffic generation and car parking provision.

9.2 In regard to the policy context, UDP Policy B6 says that community services and office development should be located in the City Centre, identified key sites within the Stafford Road Corridor, Wednesfield Village Centre or Bilston Town Centre or within local or district centres. Office development in predominately residential areas, such as

6 Bromley Street, will not generally be acceptable due to the impact that such uses have on the character and appearance of an area, and the effect upon residential amenity of surrounding occupiers.

9.3 In addition, Policy B6 also says that community and office uses in other locations will only be permitted where the development is compatible with adjacent uses and is compatible with UDP Policy B5; it is ancillary to an existing or proposed production or storage/distribution use; or the development will result in the retention of a building or group of buildings of architectural or historic interest; a need has been identified and a sequential approach to site selection has been shown that an edge of centre or out of centre site is the sequentially preferred location; or there are no other suitable locations in or adjacent to a defined centre and the proposal will meet an identified local need.

9.4 The proposed change of use to community service and offices from residential accommodation in this out of centre location has the potential to detract from the amenities that occupiers of adjacent residential properties can reasonably expect to enjoy. The general workings of the community service and office use, the additional traffic generated and the lack of on-site parking would create unacceptable disturbance and detract from the residential character of the area. It is also a concern that a precedent would be set in the locality for similar inappropriate changes of use that could cumulatively signal a balance in the shift of uses.

9.5 To allow further permissions for this proposed change of use, a justification for treating the proposal as an exception to normal policy is necessary. In essence the justification for treating the proposal as an exception to normal policy is that the applicant BME United is playing a crucial role in the regeneration of the Blakenhall and wider ABCD area and that its success is dependent upon having a suitable base in the area that it serves. The proposed change of use of the residential property would ensure that the community group are able to continue to operate effectively within the ABCD area. It is also noteworthy that there has been no recorded complaints from neighbouring residents and that the parking facilities provided by the nearby Sikh Temple means that there has been no detrimental impact upon the free flow of traffic or pedestrian and highway safety as a result of the change of use.

9.6 ABCD are working to help BME United have a long term future as an organisation that could represent the views of the BME community not just within ABCD but to act on a citywide basis. This is part of ABCD succession strategy and mainstreaming activity. It may therefore be appropriate to allow a change of use of the property for a further two years, at which point it is expected that the future of the community service group is likely to be resolved. There is also a proposal to provide a new Blakenhall Neighbourhood Centre on the site of the former Glassy Inn (nearly opposite their existing premises). Should that proposal proceed, the new centre, which would be completed in late 2009/early 2010, could provide accommodate for the organisation.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Grant temporary two year permission for change of use from residential (C3) to office (A2) use.

Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 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: 07/01762/FUL Location 40 Bromley Street, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV2 3AS Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391442 297232 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 132m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 07/01764/OUT WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 19-Dec-07 TARGET DATE: 19-Mar-08 RECEIVED: 17.12.2007 APP TYPE: Outline Application

SITE: Former IMI Sports Ground, Wobaston Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Development of site for B2 (general industrial) / B8 (storage and distribution) development and ancillary office accommodation; together with associated car parking, service yard, loading bays and landscaping.

APPLICANT: AGENT: INVISTA REAL ESTATE PLC MR DAVID GREEN MR DAVID GREEN TURLEY ASSOCIATES C/O TURLEY ASSOCIATES 9 COLMORE ROW 9 COLMORE ROW BIRMINGHAM BIRMINGHAM B3 2BJ B3 2BJ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The site has an area of approx. 4.5ha. It is located to the north of Wobaston Road, approximately 400m west of the junction with Stafford Road, 5km north of the City Centre. Immediately to the east is an employment site (Antar). The Waterhead Brook forms the northern site boundary. To the west are long established factory premises and beyond them the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal. To the west of the canal is the i54 employment site that is largely in South Staffordshire.

1.2 The site was formerly the sports pitches for IMI, who occupied the buildings to the west. The pitches have not been used for some years and are overgrown. The clubhouse and other ancillary buildings have been demolished.

1.3 The site slopes downhill from south to north. There is an existing vehicular access that serves the site and the factories to the west.

2 Application details

2.1 The application is outline, with all matters but ‘access’ to be reserved. Nevertheless, the application includes plans and illustrative material which is sufficient enough to establish whether the scale of the proposal can be accommodated satisfactorily on the site and the principle of the use is acceptable.

2.2 The application proposes one large building, rectilinear in layout and orientated north- south, approximately 200m x 80m generating a total floorspace of approximately 17,000sqm. The layout illustrates the building as being separated into two self- contained units each with its own office accommodation. However, due to the speculative nature of this proposal the building could be potentially used by a single tenant or sub-divided into more than two units. The height of the building would be approximately 18m.

9 2.3 The majority of car parking spaces are located to the rear, north, of the units whilst servicing and delivery facilities are located along the west side of the units.

3 Planning History

3.1 In 2000 outline planning permission (00/01163/OP) was granted for 17, 100 square metres of industrial/warehousing floorspace including and 1,710 square metres of offices. The reserved matters were approved in 2004 (04//0492/RM/M), but the scheme was not implemented.

3.2 In 2006 an application (06/0860/W) was submitted to vary condition 4 of the outline permission to extend the life of the permission. However, by this time the current UDP had been adopted and policy B8 introduced which specifically seeks to restrict the amount of warehousing. It was therefore considered that due to the change in circumstances, the development previously permitted was no longer acceptable and it was not appropriate to extend the life of that earlier permission.

4 Relevant policies

4.1 National Guidance

PPS1 Delivering sustainable development PPG4 Industrial, commercial development and small firms PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPG13 Transport PPG17 Planning for open space, sport and recreation PPG24 Planning and noise PPS25 Development and flood risk

4.2 UDP Policies

D1 Design quality D4 Urban grain D5 Public realm D7 Scale – Height D8 Scale – Massing D9 Appearance D12 Nature conservation and natural features D13 Sustainable development D14 Public art EP1 Pollution control EP3 Air pollution EP4 Light pollution EP5 Noise pollution EP6 Protection of groundwater, watercourses and canals EP7 Protection of floodplains N1 Promotion of nature conservation N9 Protection of wildlife species B1 Economic prosperity B3 Business development allocation B5 Design standards of employment site B6 Offices B8 Warehousing B9 Defined business areas B11 Ancillary uses in employment areas and premises B12 Access to job opportunities R3 Protection of open space, sport and recreation facilities R5 Sports grounds

10 AM6 Transport assessments AM7 Travel plans AM10 Provision for cyclists AM12 Parking and servicing provision AM15 Road safety and personal security.

4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG1 Business, Industrial and Warehouse Development SPG16 Public Art

5 Publicity and Neighbour notification

5.1 The application was publicised by press and site notices and letters to neighbouring occupiers.

5.2 One letter of objection has been received. The writer is concerned with the loss of view from their property and also indicates that the proposal would devalue their property. These issues are not considered to be material to the determination of the application.

6 Internal Consultees

Environmental Services 6.1 The proposal is located opposite an existing housing estate. Due to the speculative nature of the application, there are limitations to the accuracy of any impact-prediction.

6.2 They have some reservations over the granting of unrestricted consent close to residential properties. Whilst it is recognised that the site is within a designated employment area, it has previously been unused for industrial purposes.

Transportation 6.3 Request that the detailed engineering design for the access is agreed with the City Council prior to development commencing and as part of the S278 negotiations.

6.4 Servicing and manoeuvring are considered acceptable. Request condition to ensure the gates to the servicing areas remain open during operation to discourage vehicles from parking on the access road. Clarification is required as to whether the applicant requires the service road to be adopted.

6.5 The quantum of parking is within City Council guidelines for industrial and warehouse employment. However, the exact level of car park provision should be reviewed and adjusted in the light of the Travel Plan and associated measures. It is unclear what exactly is proposed for the ‘overspill’ parking and it is preferable to see the area properly laid out and appropriately surfaced to ensure it is available to meet demand.

6.6 The level of disabled parking provision is acceptable, however, some spaces located in the ‘overspill’ area would benefit from being better located in relation to the building entrances.

6.7 The Travel Plan Framework is considered acceptable. The timescale for the adoption of the Framework can be conditioned with any approval.

6.8 Trees – Comments Awaited

6.9 Nature Conservation – Comments Awaited

11 7 External Consultees

Sport England 7.1 Although the principle of this development is agreed, there is a need to make sure that facilities which were previously available on the site are sufficiently compensated for.

7.2 In order to provide compensatory provision in accordance with UDP Policy and PPG17 it is important that replacement provision is equal or better than that which has been lost. Previous file notes suggests that the following facilities were available at this site:

o Bowling Green o Changing rooms o 2 football pitches o 1 cricket wicket

7.3 It is estimated that the satisfactory level of compensatory provision for these facilities would be £745, 000.

7.4 Until further details are provided to clarify what facilities have been lost as a result of the proposal and more details are provided above the compensatory payment, Sport England object to the proposal.

Severn Trent 7.5 Have no objection in principal subject to drainage details, incorporating sustainable drainage principles and an assessment of hydrological and hydrogeological, are submitted and approved by the local planning authority. They also confirm that there is a public sewer which crosses the site. No buildings shall be erected with 2.5m of this sewer. Alternatively the sewer can be diverted.

Environment Agency 7.6 No objection subject to conditions to cover drainage, compensatory flood storage, finished floor levels and to prevent development in the vicinity of the watercourse.

Natural England 7.7 No objection subject to conditions to cover, up-to-date surveys of badger setts, reptile survey and creation of and the enhancement of the area to the north of the development for wildlife purposes.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The key issues are:

• Acceptability of the proposed use • Loss of Sports Facilities • Design and Appearance. • Access, car parking, loading and unloading • Noise and Environmental Impact • Flood Risk • Ecology

Proposed Use 8.2 This site falls within the allocation B3.5 of the UDP which designates the site as being a ‘sub-regional business development allocation’ site and should therefore make an important contribution to the high quality employment land portfolio, of which there is limited supply in Wolverhampton. It is therefore essential to ensure that development should maximise its potential.

12 8.3 In addition to the above allocation, the unit is located within a Defined Business Area (DBA) and therefore the proposal to use the site for B employment uses, is supported in principle. Policy B9 permits unlimited B2 (General Industrial) development, but B8 (Storage & Distribution) development is subject to Policy B8 ‘Warehousing’.

8.4 Policy B8 seeks to restrict the amount of large-scale warehousing that is allowed within a DBA, unless those criteria set out in the policy can be achieved. This is because uncontrolled large scale warehouse development is not considered appropriate in an urban area like Wolverhampton, with a limited supply of good quality employment land.

8.5 No evidence has been provided to illustrate that the proposed use achieves the criteria of policy B8 and it is therefore considered that the amount of B1 ‘office’ and B8 ‘warehousing’ should be restricted.

Loss of Sports Facilities 8.6 Although located within a Defined Business Area, the specific allocation of this site within the UDP states that compensatory provision will be required for the loss of recreational open space facilities which were previously available at the site prior to the approval in 2000.

8.7 As stated in paragraphs 7.1-7.4, Sport England currently object to the proposal unless satisfactory compensation is received. Policy R3 states that appropriate compensatory provision will be determined in consultation with Sport England and other relevant bodies. However, providing that an adequate amount of compensation is secured, there is no objection to the development of the site.

Design & Appearance 8.8 Appearance and scale are reserved for subsequent approval. However, the illustrative drawings show new units with materials and a design similar to those of the existing units adjacent to the east. The building would have a fairly standard industrial design although this is in keeping with the existing units and is appropriate given the nature of the use.

8.9 It is not considered that the proposal would adversely affect the visual amenity of this area, which has a large number of similar units in close proximity to the application site.

Access, car parking, loading and unloading 8.10 As discussed in paragraphs 6.3-6.10, there are no objections in principle, subject to conditions/S106 requiring:-

• Approval of a detailed engineering design for the Wobaston Road junction. • gates to the servicing areas to remain open during operation (to discourage vehicles from parking on the access road). • Implementing the Travel Plan Framework

Noise and Environmental Impact 8.11 The site is located within a predominantly industrial area and the nearest residential accommodation is approximately 160m from the proposed building. Furthermore, indicative plans illustrate the inclusion of offices at the front of the building and also the HGV loading bays are situated towards the rear, northern end, of the units.

8.12 It is considered that this degree of separation would limit the impact of the development on neighbouring residents to an acceptable level.

Flood Risk 8.13 A significant proportion of the site falls within Flood Zones 2 and 3. The proposal is acceptable subject to conditions as recommended by the Environment Agency,

Ecology 8.14 Although the site has no special designation for ecological importance, the site and Waterhead brook is known to provide a habitat for a variety of species. An Ecological Assessment was provided with the application and a response is awaited from Nature Conservation to assess the impact of the proposal and whether any mitigation strategies are required.

9 Conclusion

9.1 The site is an important one in terms of its size, prominent location and its role as a regionally important employment generating site in the region’s portfolio of employment sites as a whole.

9.2 The proposal would have benefits in terms of bring back into productive use a redundant site and contributing towards economic investment and job creation.

10 Recommendation

10.1 To give delegated authority to grant permission subject to:

• No adverse comments from outstanding consultees

• Resolution of outstanding matters referred to above

• Signing of a S106 to secure public art, compensatory sports facilities contribution, travel plan and necessary highways works

• Conditions to include: • Submission of reserved matters • Restrict use of ancillary B1 offices to no more than 865sqm • Restrict amount of B8 warehousing to no more than 4,000sqm • Submission of drainage details • No outside storage without prior approval • Cycle/Motorcycle Parking Facilities • Facilities for cyclists (shower, changing space, lockers) • Boundary Treatment • Gates to the servicing areas to remain open during operation • Tree protection • Implementation of landscaping • Floodplain compensation • No buildings, structures, gates, wall, fences or increase in ground levels within 5m of the Waterhead Brook without prior approval • no storage within area liable to flood • Finished floor levels minimum of 600mm above 106.46 o.d • No gates, fences, walls etc, in front of the building without prior approval

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

Planning Application No: 07/01764/OUT Location Former IMI Sports Ground, Wobaston Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 391230 303610 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 45737m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 07/01739/RC WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill DATE: 08-Jan-08 TARGET DATE: 08-Apr-08 RECEIVED: 12.12.2007 APP TYPE: Removing Condition from Previous Approval

SITE: Peel Retail Park, Stafford Street, Whitmore Reans, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Application to carry out development without complying with condition 27 (restricting 1,421m to sale of sports and recreation goods) and condition 28 (restricting goods to be sold) attached to planning permission 07/01170/OUT (for redevelopment and extension of retail park)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Peel Holdings Mr Mark Saunders C/O Agent NJL Consulting Adamson House Towers Business Park Manchester Greater Manchester M20 2YY

COMMITTEE REPORT:

REPORT TO FOLLOW

Case Officer : Marcela Quiñones Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 07/01739/RC Location Peel Retail Park, Stafford Street,Whitmore Reans,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 391568 299575 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 41276m2

17 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 WARD: East Park

APP NO: VALID DATE: TARGET DATE: DATE REC’D: 08/00008/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00009/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00010/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00011/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00015/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00026/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00027/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00031/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00032/DWF 10-Jan-08 06-Mar-08 03.01.2008 08/00066/DWF 24-Jan-08 20-Mar-08 14.01.2008 08/00067/DWF 24-Jan-08 20-Mar-08 14.01.2008 08/00112/DWF 24-Jan-08 20-Mar-08 24.01.2008 08/00113/DWF 24-Jan-08 20-Mar-08 24.01.2008 08/00123/DWF 31-Jan-08 27-Mar-08 28.01.2008 08/00126/DWF 31-Jan-08 27-Mar-08 28.01.2008 08/00179/DWF 18-Feb-08 14-Apr-08 07.02.2008

APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: 14, 16, 18 Eastfield Road – (08/00008/DWF) 22 Eastfield Road – (08/00009/DWF) 26, 28, 30, 32 Eastfield Road – (08/00010/DWF) 40, 42, 44, 46, 48, 50 Eastfield Road – (08/00011/DWF) 39 Eastfield Road – (08/00015/DWF) 21, 23 Eastfield Road – (08/00026/DWF) 31 Eastfield Road – (08/00027/DWF) 51 Eastfield Road – (08/00031/DWF) 54, 56 Eastfield Road – (08/00032/DWF) 55 Eastfield Road – (08/00066/DWF) 2, 4 Eastfield Road – (08/00067/DWF) 3, 5 Eastfield Road – (08/00112/DWF) 8, 10 Eastfield Road – (08/00113/DWF) 33 Eastfield Road – (08/00123/DWF) 47 Eastfield Road – (08/00126/DWF) 36 Eastfield Road – (08/00179/DWF)

PROPOSAL: Provision of 1200mm high bow top fencing.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Steve Boyes Mrs C Marples Director of Sustainable Communities Property Services Civic Centre Civic Centre St. Peter's Square St. Peter's Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV1 1RL WV1 1RL

18 COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The area is a predominantly residential one, comprising of a mixture of privately and Council owned semi-detached and town houses. Typically the type of boundary treatments in the general vicinity varies between either similar 1200mm high railings, low wooden fencing, dwarf walls or no boundary treatment at all.

2. Application details

2.1 Sixteen deemed consent planning applications have been submitted for new fencing at the above properties along Eastfield Road. The schemes comprise the provision of 1200mm high bow top fencing.

3. Planning History

3.1 No relevant planning history recorded.

4. Constraints

Mining Area Authorised Processes

5. Relevant policies

Unitary Development Plan Polices D1 - Design Quality D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

6. Neighbour notification and publicity

6.1 Neighbour notification letters were sent out. One response received, no objection to the proposed fencing.

6.2 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement nor did it require a site notice to be posted.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation Development were consulted, no objections to the proposed bow top fencing. The Transportation Officer did however comment that the size of the proposed driveways did not meet with the minimum driveway size parameters recommended previously.

The agent has responded stating that they have considered the comments of the Transportation Officer and have also, in the past, discussed the proposals with representatives from Transportation Development. However, due to the nature of this work it is not intended to implement larger driveway sizes. The drives and adjoining paths have a total width of 3.7m which complies with the Disabled Access

19 requirements of the Building Regulations. Also they have installed approximately 700 drives across the City to this design in consultation with Neighbourhood Renewal and tenants, and have received no complaints from tenants or users. In addition they have completed several phases of similar work in the Eastfield area and they believe it would be inconsistent to change specification at this point.

7.2 Applications 08/00066/DWF & 08/00067/DWF – Property Services were consulted, no observations.

7.3 Application 08/00067/DWF – Environment Services were consulted, no observations.

8. External consultees

8.1 The Police were consulted. A summary of their comments follows: No objections to the proposed development. It is considered the fences will provide a robust boundary defence for the dwelling houses and be capable of withstanding attacks on it. The boundary fences will provide a defensible space where the actions of intruders can be challenged and should reduce the fear of crime for the residents.

9. Appraisal

9.1 These applications are identical to a number of previously approved schemes in the general vicinity. It is considered that the ‘bow top’ style of the boundary treatment is of a visually acceptable design.

9.2 It is also considered that the proposed fencing will improve safety, and the appearance of the estate. The proposed fencing is also acceptable in the street scene and on visual amenity.

10. Recommendation

Grant deemed consent subject to standard conditions and the following: • The proposed fence and gates are powdered coated black in colour and maintained to the satisfaction of the LPA.

Case Officer : Andrew Johnson Telephone No : 555604 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

08/00032/DWF

08/00011/DWF

08/00066/DWF 08/00179/DWF

08/00010/DWF

08/00009/DWF

08/00008/DWF 08/00031/DWF 08/00067/DWF 08/00126/DWF

08/00015/DWF

08/00123/DWF

08/00113/DWF 08/00027/DWF 08/00026/DWF

08/00112/DWF

Planning Application Nos: 08/00008/DWF, 08/00009/DWF, 08/00010/DWF, 08/00011/DWF, 08/00015/DWF, 08/00026/DWF, 08/00027/DWF, 08/00031/DWF, 08/00032/DWF, 08/00066/DWF, 08/00067/DWF, 08/00112/DWF, 08/00113/DWF, 08/00123/DWF, 08/00126/DWF, 08/00179/DWF Location 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 30, 31, 32, 33, 36, 39, 40, 42, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 54, 55, 56 Eastfield Road, Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) NTS National Grid Reference sj 393019 298655 Plan Printed 19.02.2008 Application Site Area

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 06/01300/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 14-Mar-07 TARGET DATE: 13-Jun-07 RECEIVED: 22.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land At Horseley Fields/Union Mill Street, Horseley Fields, Eastfield, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of 57 houses and 44 flats with associated parking and infrastructure.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Cala Homes (Midlands) Ltd Elmdon House 2291 Coventry Road Sheldon Birmingham West Midlands B26 3PD

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 26th June. The Committee report and minutes are appended.

2.2 Committee resolved to delegate authority to the Director to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues, the imposition of conditions and a Section 106 agreement to secure:

• 20% affordable housing – 50% Housing Association to rent and 50% HA shared ownership. • Contribution (BCIS indexed) towards off site provision and enhancement of POS. • Contribution towards new bridge over canal (BCIS indexed) and its maintenance. • Residential travel plan, to include support for a car club. • Unrestricted public access along the new road through the site, from Horseley Fields to Union Mill Street. • Unrestricted public pedestrian and cycle access along the canalside path and the other designated pedestrian/cycle routes and through the plaza. • Provision and management of canalside path and other public and communal areas. • Future links to adjacent site to the north-west to be provided on implementation of the redevelopment of that site. • Public art. • Targeted recruitment and training.

22 3 Updating

3.1 Since the 26th June, the applicant has made an offer of 10% affordable housing (shared equity), rather than the 20% required in compliance with the Council’s policy and a 50:50 split between shared equity and rented housing, to meet local need.

3.3 The affordable housing offer is conditional on the local planning authority accepting a contribution of only £130,000 towards off-site public open space and a footbridge over the canal. The public open space requirement is for £329.536. A 50% contribution towards a footbridge (the Crane Foundry development opposite would contribute the balance) is likely to be in excess of £100,000. Their offer is therefore in the region of £300,000 short in this regard.

3.4 The applicants have submitted a financial viability appraisal in support of their offer. They emphasise costs and constraints involved in developing the site, specifically:

• The loss of the site frontage to facilitate road widening (this is required to provide a right turn lane into the site). • Provision of a road linking to Union Mill Street, to enable access to adjacent land (Cheese and Butter Warehouse). • Provision of a signalised junction on Horseley Fields.

3.5 The Council’s financial advisor considers that the submitted financial viability appraisal demonstrates that the development is not sufficiently viable to support the full provision of affordable housing because the land price is too high. The applicants have not yet bought the land.

3.6 The application has been deferred from the last 2 Committees to allow the applicant to submit further financial information but this has not yet been received.

4. Appraisal

4.1 UDP policy H10 ‘Affordable Housing’ allows that the amount sought may be reduced or waived, where it can be proved that the requirement would genuinely threaten the overall viability of the development.

4.2 The SPD on Affordable Housing states (para 8.11):

“ Wolverhampton City Council expects that any ‘abnormal development costs’ and ‘unforeseen circumstances’ will have been fully taken into account by the developer in the land price they pay for the site, including provision for contingencies. If a developer has unwisely paid a high price for a site, which does not fully reflect any ‘abnormal development costs’ or a price which is above normal market value, this would not be a good reason for the Council to mitigate the provision of affordable housing.”

4.3 It would therefore not be appropriate to allow an inflated land value to be subsidised at the expense of affordable housing.

4.4 UDP policy H8 ‘Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments’ requires any housing development of 10 dwellings or more to contribute towards the provision and/or enhancement of open space, sport and recreation facilities sufficient to serve new residents. There is no provision for this requirement to be waived or relaxed.

4.5 A canal bridge is required to provide connectivity within the canalside quarter. This requirement is supported by UDP policies D3 ‘Urban Spaces’, AM9 ‘Provision for Pedestrians’ and AM10 ‘Provision for Cyclists’.

23 5. Recommendation

Refuse:

1. The applicants have declined to make full provision for affordable housing, public open space contribution and a contribution towards the provision of a bridge over the canal, without adequate justification, contrary to policies H8, H10, D3, AM9 and AM10, of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan.

Case Officer : Ian Holliday Telephone No : 555630 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01300/FUL Location Land At Horseley Fields/Union Mill Street, Horseley Fields,Eastfield,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 392359 298585 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 13605m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 07/01087/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 22-Aug-07 TARGET DATE: 21-Nov-07 RECEIVED: 01.08.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land Bounded By Culwell Street Lock Street, Wednesfield Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of student accommodation.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Victoria Hall Ltd AIMS Ltd 9 Clifford Street Epic House London 4 Barling Way W15 2LD Nuneaton CV10 7RH

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The application relates to an elongated, rectilinear, piece of land situated to the north- west of the City centre, approximately 0.7hectares in size (175m long and 38m wide).

1.2 Located to the north of this site is Springfield Brewery, with the Low level station redevelopment to the south, although this is separated from the site by the Wednesfield Road, which is a major arterial route in the City. To the East of the site are Culwell St and a Council depot facility. Lock St and the railway line form the west boundary of the site.

1.3 The site is bi-sected by a footbridge which links Culwell Street and Lock St. It is well used by pedestrians as it provides a relatively direct link for individuals in Heath Town who wish to access the City Centre via Broad St Basin and visa versa. Bollards are positioned at the junction of Lock St and Wednesfield Road thus preventing access by general vehicular traffic.

1.4 The site previously formed part of the track bed for trains arriving at and departing from the low level station. Since the closure of the low level station and the removal of the tracks, the site has remained vacant. Due to the previous use of the site, some parts are significantly below that of the surrounding street levels. In particular, Lock St is approximately 10m above the ground level of site.

2 Application details

2.1 The scheme was initially received in August 2007 but there were significant concerns regarding this submission. In particular, there was a lack of justification for the proposed design including an explanation of how it had evolved from an understanding of the local character and historic context of the area. It was also considered that proposal did not sufficiently improve the pedestrian routes through and surrounding the site.

26 2.2 The proposal which is now under consideration is significantly amended and follows extensive discussions with the developers and their architectural advisors.

2.3 The proposal is for a scheme of student accommodation with ancillary office and management facilities. The residential units would primarily be arranged in 4-5 person flats with en-suite study bedrooms, shared lounge and kitchen facilities.

2.4 The proposal takes the form of four blocks. Block A, situated nearest to Wednesfield Road, is the tallest of the four blocks at 25 storeys high (76.5m).

2.5 Block B would contain ten storeys and have a maximum height of 31.5m.

2.6 Block C would be eight storeys with a maximum height of 25.m. The ground floor of block C would contain the management office, reception, security office and communal launderette.

2.7 Block D would be erected to the far east of the site and would contain a small retail unit and 102 residential units intended for postgraduate/nursing accommodation. The building would be five storeys and a maximum height of 16 metres.

2.8 Due to the changes in levels across the site, the proposal is designed to ‘front’ both Culwell St and Lock St. The integration with Lock St is generated through the introduction with a deck platform, underneath which parking would be provided. In total, 26 spaces including 2 disabled spaces would be included.

3 Relevant policies

3.1 National Guidance

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS 3- Housing PPS6 – Planning for Town Centres PPG13 – Transport PPG15 – Planning and the Historic Environment PPG17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPG24 – Planning and Noise

3.2 UDP Policies

D1 – Design Quality D3 – Urban Structure D4 – Urban Grain D5 – Public Realm D6 – Townscape and Landscape D7 – Scale – Height D8 – Scale – Massing D9 – Appearance D10 – Community Safety D11 – Access for people with disabilities D13 - Sustainable Development D14 – Public Art EP1 – Pollution Control EP3 – Air Pollution EP4 – Light Pollution EP5 – Noise Pollution EP9 – Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP11 – Development on Contaminated or Unstable land

27 EP14 – Waste Management Facilities HE1 – Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness HE4 - Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE13 – Development Affecting a Listed Building HE22 – Protection and Enhancement of the Canal Network R1 – Local Standards for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities R7 – Open Space Requirements for New Development H1 – Housing H6 – Design of Housing Development H8 – Open Space and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments. H9 – Housing Density and Mix H10 – Affordable Housing AM1 – Access, Mobility and New Development AM5 – Protection of Highway Improvement Lines AM 7 – Travel Plans AM9 – Provision for Pedestrians AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 – Parking for Servicing Provision AM15 – Road Safety and Personal Security CC3 – City Centre Housing CC4 – City Centre Environment CC5 – City Centre Access and Mobility CC12 – Canalside Quarter

3.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG16 – Public Art

3.4 Other Documents

Wolverhampton Canalside Quarter Implementation Plan 2000 CABE/English Heritage – Guidance on Tall Buildings 2007

4 Publicity and Neighbour notification

4.1 The application was advertised via Press and Site Notices and direct notification was sent to neighbouring properties. No letters of objection have been received.

5 Internal Consultees

5.1 Building Control – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

5.2 Leisure Services – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

5.3 Environmental Services – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

5.4 Conservation – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

5.5 Transportation – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

5.6 Conservation – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

5.7 Planning Policy – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

28 6 External Consultees

6.1 Severn Trent – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

6.2 Network Rail – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

6.3 MADE – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

6.4 Police – Comments awaited on amended proposal.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The key issues in determining this application are:

• The acceptability and need of the proposed use • Height, massing, design and external appearance • Transportation and movement • Environment matters • Planning contributions

The acceptability and need of the proposed use 7.2 This site forms part of the wider Canalside Quarter plan, which intends to improve the image of that area, linkages to and within it and introduce sustainable, mixed-use schemes.

7.3 Within this overall framework the application site has a particular allocation in the UDP – Policy CC12(i). This relates to Springfield Brewery and the adjoining land. The aim of this policy is to create a residential led, mixed-use scheme, with some small scale retail use which relates to a local need.

7.4 It is considered that the proposal for student accommodation with ancillary office/management facilities and a small retail unit, accords with the adopted policy for the site.

7.5 In total the scheme proposes approximately 240 apartments with a total of 870 bedspaces. The applicants state in their supporting documents that, “most of the student housing in Wolverhampton is limited, and ageing. Much of the purpose built stocks lack en-suite facilities. Many students occupy multi-occupation homes around the city.”

7.6 The proposals are therefore aimed at meeting the apparent higher expectations for accommodation which are now sought by students and their families. The scheme also has the potential of releasing existing student accommodation into the general market.

Design, massing, design & external appearance 7.7 As previously mentioned the application follows extensive discussions with the developers and their architectural advisors.

7.8 The site occupies a prominent position, adjacent to the Wednesfield Road which is a main arterial route in the City. It is also highly visible by those travelling along the West Coast mainline which a major national transport route. This strategic location means that any development of the site must be of a high quality and size suitable for such a gateway into the City Centre.

7.9 The proposal would result in a series of buildings of significant size and height. Policy D7: Scale-Height states that, “Buildings should be of a height which helps achieves a strong sense of place, relates positively to its surroundings and the local topography

29 and does not detract from important views and landmarks”. The developers are currently working on 3-d massing proposals which illustrate the proposals in relation to their context and also justify the chosen massing.

7.10 Guidance from English Heritage and CABE on tall buildings state the importance of the silhouette of a building and in particular the design of the top of the tall when considering the effect of a proposal on the skyline. Preliminary sketches illustrate the proposed scheme as it would appear in relation to the existing cityscape and also in relation to indicative proposals for the nearby interchange scheme.

7.11 A significant alteration from the initially submitted proposal is the decision to split the scheme into individual blocks, rather than one homogenous mass. This has the benefit of allowing for views, from the east of the site, of the listed viaduct and city centre behind it to the west, to be largely retained.

7.12 The overall architectural appearance of the proposals is a contemporary one and this is welcomed. The proposed materials will be crucial in achieving a high-quality build. At this stage the final treatments of the elevations are being explored. Although the use of sto render, various forms metal cladding and grey brick are, amongst others, suggested. It will necessary to demonstrate that the chosen materials are satisfactorily robust, ease to maintain and will weather appropriately. It is also felt the materials should provide a subtle contrast to the dark blue engineering brick of the railway viaduct.

7.13 In addition, a key aspiration for the successful redevelopment of this site is the meaningful integration of Lock St. With regard to this issue it is considered the design proposal responds well. The introduction of a deck platform to Lock St means that the street will have social functional as opposed to solely dealing with pedestrian movement. The deck has the additional benefits of increasing the amount of open space which is available on the site and also hiding the car park from view.

7.14 A primary concern with this proposal is the street level experience for people moving around and through the site. Although the building does not provide a continuous built frontage to Culwell St, it is considered that the uses which do front it, namely the management suite/reception and retail unit, coupled with a high quality landscaping scheme, would provide a satisfactory level of animation and vitality to the street. The position of the management suite and retail unit, on the corner of the pedestrian route joining Culwell St and Lock St, will also allow for a good level of natural surveillance to this route.

Transportation and movement 7.15 Another key aspiration for this site is the creation of an improved link between Culwell St and Lock St. As previously mentioned the existing route is popular, but due to the nature of the footbridge it makes access for the disabled and cyclists extremely challenging. The scheme offers the possibility to improve the existing, unattractive passage, into the city centre.

7.16 The proposed link is relatively direct and would allow individuals a clear view of their destination. The change is levels between Lock St and the site would be dealt with by a relatively shallow flight of steps. In addition, a ramp would also be provided to aid movement.

7.17 Formal assessment of the transportation matters of the proposal are to be received. However, due to proximity of the site to the city centre, university, train and bus stations and the nature of the occupiers of the scheme, it is not considered that a substantial level of car parking would need to be provided. In addition, although Lock St would remain closed to vehicular traffic for the majority of the time, it could be used to ease parking pressure on peak days, for example at the start and end of terms.

Environment Issues 7.18 Although the area is likely to change significant over the coming years, the site is currently located within an area of mixed industrial and commercial uses.

7.19 There are particular noise issues surrounding the proposed location of bedrooms and their proximity to Culwell St depot and the high level station. A noise report accompanied the initial proposal assessed noise from the Wednesfield Road, together with the elevated aspect of the railway viaduct and glazing specifications, based on closed windows. However, the report should also include an assessment with the windows open. If the level of disturbance of noise when windows are open is considered unacceptable, then mechanical ventilation solutions should be investigated.

7.20 The submitted report also makes no mention of special measures which may be necessary to reduce levels of structure borne noise and vibration. 7.21 Furthermore, due to the proposal scale of the development is also important to consider the microclimatic impacts of the scheme. Reassurance is still being sought on this matter and the developers have stated that information will be provided shortly.

7.22 Additionally, the site is located within the vicinity (approx 100m to the west) of the Cavers Depot, which is classified as a Hazardous Premises. All applications which are located in such proximity are to be referred to the Health and Safety Executive for comment. An electronically generated response from the Heath & Safety Executive website, states that they advise against the proposal in this location. Although, this advice is not mandatory, it should not be overridden without careful consideration.

7.23 Taking the above matters into account it clear that more detailed surveys and assessments are required.

Planning contributions

Open Space & Recreation 7.24 With such an expected level of student accommodation included in this application, there will a demand on the open space within the area. The nearest open space to the site is the Broad Street basin, approx 1ha in size. This is a pocket park which serves the recreation needs of employees, visitors and shoppers within the city centre. However, it is not considered that this space, on its own, could accommodate the recreational needs of the future occupants and therefore additional on-site provision needs to be created.

7.25 The proposed design has resulted in the built form occupying a relatively minor footprint of the overall site. This coupled with the deck to Lock St means that a significant amount of open space is provided on the site. The concept behind the illustrated space is that is should be as flexible as possible in order to respond the needs of the student population. It will be essential that a high quality landscaping scheme is implemented which includes the creation of sports facilities. It is likely that this will be predominantly hard landscaping to reflect the urban and previously industrial nature of the site.

Affordable Housing 7.26 UDP Policy makes it clear that the Council will seek to negotiate the provision of an element of affordable housing on all suitable private sector housing developments larger than one hectare or comprising 25 dwellings or more.

7.27 The proposals for accommodation within Blocks A-C are unlike traditional forms of student accommodation and more akin to a serviced apartment schemes with 4-5 bedrooms and communal kitchen and bathrooms facilities forming self-contained units.

7.28 The national picture with regard to whether a contribution towards affordable housing on this type of scheme is unclear. Some authorities regard student accommodation as serving a specific need and something which is regulated by other services. Additionally, students, tend to be far more transient and often need accommodation for a temporary period only. Thus the need for student accommodation can be assessed separately to other housing needs.

7.29 Other authorities state that where student accommodation units, are self-contained, they will be treated as normal housing and expected to contribute to affordable housing provision. Advice is still being sough on this matter.

7.30 With regard to the type of accommodation within Block D the situation appears clearer. The units are self-contained ‘micro-flats’ with en-suite and kitchen facilities aimed at post-graduate students and nurses. There are no shared communal facilities. In these circumstances it is considered that a requirement for a contribution towards affordable housing will be necessary.

Other Matters 7.31 In addition to the above issues, the scale of the scheme means that it falls within the policy requiring a per-cent-for-art provision. Financial assistance will also be required for alterations to the highway network which are deemed necessary as a result of the scheme.

8 Conclusion

8.1 The site is located in a prominent position, at an entrance to the City Centre, and adjacent to an important national transportation route. It also occupies a strategic location within the canalside quarter redevelopment, with the potential to integrate the schemes at Springfield Brewery and low level station schemes.

8.2 The redevelopment of the site offers the potential for a distinctive new building on the Wolverhampton skyline and also the improvement of existing links through and beyond the site. The scheme proposed has the potential to be a landmark scheme but it is important that this is not to the detriment of future occupiers of the proposal or those which surround it, either now or in the future. Further investigation with regard to this matter is still required. It is also recognised that tall buildings are expensive to build, and it is important that a high standard of architectural quality is required and that is not diluted through the detailed design and construction processes.

8.3 The applicants state that the project will represent an investment of circa £45 million by Victoria Halls Limited (VHL) over the next three years. It will directly employ over 500 people during the construction of the development, with further employment for local suppliers and ancillary service companies during construction.

8.4 Following completion of the build twelve full time jobs will be created, with the equivalent of a further 20 full time employees needed for off-site support functions.

8.5 Overall, it is considered that the proposal has the potential to continue the regeneration of the City Centre and is welcomed. However, despite being acceptable in general terms, there are a number of points of detail – including environmental matters, materials, architectural treatment and highway issues which require further information to be provided

32 9 Recommendation

9.1 Grant delegated authority subject to:

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees

2. The satisfactory resolution of those outstanding issues raised in this report

3. The signing of a S106 agreement to include:

• Targeted recruitment and training • Restriction of occupancy of the scheme • Contribution towards open space and recreation • Affordable housing • Highway works • Public art

4. Conditions are recommended to cover:

Conditions to include:

• Submission of materials • Submission of architectural details • Exterior of building to be completed in accordance with plans before occupation • No additions to exterior of the building • Cycle/Motorcycle storage details • Refuse Storage details • Scheme for the lighting of exterior of the buildings • Landscaping Strategy • Public Art Strategy • Drainage • Car Park Management Plan • Management plan for servicing the development including • Details of management plan agreement, including the supervision and welfare support/provision for the student occupiers, and also a strict system of control over the keeping of motor vehicles by the occupiers of the development , • Security/CCTV measures • Methodology for assessing television reception • Methodology for dealing with contamination of the site • Details of improvement to public highway (278 Agreement) • No A3, A4, A5 uses.

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

Planning Application No: 07/01087/FUL Location Land Bounded By Culwell Street Lock Street, Wednesfield Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 391891 299080 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 6804m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 07/01727/FUL WARD: Merry Hill DATE: 18-Dec-07 TARGET DATE: 12-Feb-08 RECEIVED: 07.12.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: The Bunglalow, Wenlock Avenue, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of 2No dwellings.

APPLICANT: AGENT: George Fairburn Lucy Wilson Doric Homes Drivers Jonas 23 Springhill Park 4th Floor Lower Penn 19 Cornwall Court Wolverhampton Birmingham WV4 4TS B3 2DY

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The application site is located within a predominantly residential neighbourhood. The site is L-shaped and gently slopes upwards towards the rear, it is approximately 82m deep and 13m wide for the majority of the site, and this extends to about 25m at the north of the site.

1.2 The site is currently occupied by an existing two bedroom bungalow dwelling. This bungalow is set back approximately 40m from the highway.

1.3 The surrounding area is characterised predominantly by two storey residential development forming flats and single occupation dwellinghouses. There is an exception to this forming a three storey development along Minsterley Close. The surrounding buildings are sited with fairly spacious plots with rear garden amenity areas varying from approximately 11m to 18m in length.

2 Application details

2.1 The application is for full planning permission for the erection of a pair of semi- detached dwellinghouses.

2.2 The proposed semi-detached pair would be located to the front of the site adjacent to No.8 and 8A Wenlock Avenue. The existing detached bungalow would remain, although the access drive would be relocated to the opposite side of the site. This access drive would extend parallel with the proposed semi-detached dwellings and their rear gardens.

2.3 The rear amenity space for the proposed dwelling immediately adjacent to the access drive would measure approximately 4.6m by 10m and the adjacent dwelling would be 5m by 10.5m. It is not indicated what if any boundary treatment is proposed to the rear of the dwellings.

35 2.4 The pair of semi-detached houses would provide two bedrooms per dwelling with ground floor lounge, kitchen and toilet.

2.5 It is proposed to provide four parking spaces for the two dwellings; these would be located to the rear of the proposed garden areas.

3 Planning History

3.1 06/01307/OUT for Erection of 10 No. residential flats - Refused, dated 19.12.2006.

3.2 07/01728/OUT for Erection of 6 No. dwellings – Refused. Dated 12.02.2008

4 Relevant policies

4.1 UDP Policies

D1 - Design Quality 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 H1 - Housing H3 - Housing Site Assessment Criteria H6 - Design of Housing Development AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision

4.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 - Residential Development

5 Publicity

5.1 The application was advertised via Site notice and direct notification was sent to neighbouring occupiers. Six letters of representation were received.

5.2 Objections were raised on the following ground;

- Additional traffic and on street parking - The site is too narrow and not wide enough for emergency vehicles to access - Bungalow development would be more appropriate - Overbearing impact and loss of privacy

6 Internal consultees

6.1 Transportation Development

6.2 The site is within walking distance of frequent bus services and shops. Therefore, in numerical terms, the parking provision is adequate.

6.3 The applicant should indicate vehicular visibility splays for the proposed access point.

36 6.4 The access drive should be a minimum of 4.1m wide to allow two way traffic. The proposal would mean that any vehicle entering the site would have to travel more than 25m from the highway before a passing place was reached. However, as the access would only serve three properties conflicts are likely to be occasional.

6.5 The parking spaces for the two semis are remote from the properties and likely to lead to parking on Wenlock Avenue.

6.6 Building Control

6.7 Access for Fire - Satisfactory

6.8 Access for Disabled People - Part M applies.

6.9 Environmental Services

6.10 Requires a condition constraining operational hours and vehicular movement during the construction period

7 Appraisal

7.1 The application is for full planning permission to erect a pair of semi-detached dwellings.

7.2 It is considered that the following issues are relevant in the determination of this application. - Principle of residential development - Design and layout - Street scene appearance - Private amenities (car parking, private garden amenity area) - Neighbouring Amenities (outlook, light/sunlight, Privacy)

7.3 The subject plot of land is occupied by an existing bungalow property; this building is set back from the streetscene and has an access drive up to the house from Wenlock Avenue. The surrounding area is predominantly residential and therefore the principal of residential development on this land is acceptable.

7.4 Policy H6 of the adopted UDP in fundamental to ensure a high standard of design is achieved throughout the whole of the development.

7.5 It is considered that the proposed location of the pair of semi-detached dwellings to the front of the site would form an appropriate type of dwelling given the setting of the streetscene and the design and appearance of the adjacent dwelling. To ensure that a quality streetscene appearance is achieved with the adjacent dwellings, a streetscene plan should be submitted to ensure the scale and design of the proposal is compatible with the existing streetscene.

7.6 The proposed dwellinghouse would provide two bedrooms per dwelling and therefore would be able to accommodate a small family. It is considered that this should be reflected in the size of the proposed private amenity space. The proposed rear garden amenity space is not acceptable in terms of meeting the needs of a small family dwelling and would not be in accordance with the minimum standards as stipulated in the guidance provided in SPG 3 ‘Residential Development’. It has been requested that the plans are amended to provide adequate rear garden amenity space.

7.7 In accordance with Policy H6 and AM12 residential development should provide appropriate access and parking arrangements. It is recognised that the access drive,

37 off Wenlock Avenue is narrow and would not provide a passing space for two vehicles. This drive would only serve three dwellings and therefore conflicts would only be occasional and therefore it would be unreasonable to request a wider access. It has been requested that vehicular visibility splays are provided for the proposed access point, due to the close proximity existing trees located on the pavement. It is considered that the parking provision proposed to the rear of the dwellings is adequate.

8 Conclusion

8.1 The proposal for the erection of a pair of semi-detached dwellings is acceptable subject to receiving satisfactory amended plans and additional information addressing the following

- A streetscene plan - Amended plans to provide adequate rear garden amenity space - Vehicular visibility splays for the proposed access point

9 Recommendation

9.1 Grant or delegated authority to grant subject to receiving satisfactory amended plans and details, with conditions to include:

- Submission of sample materials - Landscape and boundary details - Remove p.d (extensions) - Operational hours during construction phase

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

Planning Application No: 07/01727/FUL Location The Bunglalow, Wenlock Avenue,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389354 297662 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 501m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 08/00063/OUT WARD: Park DATE: 11-Jan-08 TARGET DATE: 11-Apr-08 RECEIVED: 11.01.2008 APP TYPE: Outline Application

SITE: 73 And Land Rear Of 69 To 77 Compton Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 9QH PROPOSAL: Demolition of No.73 Compton Road and erection of 14No. houses, access road and associated works. Outline Application.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Bently Homes Mr David Onions Third Floor West Pegasus Planning Group Coniston House 5 The Priory Chapel Ash Old London Road Wolverhampton Canwell WV3 0UD Sutton Coldfield B75 5SH

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The site consists of approximately 1.45 ha of land situated off the Compton Road, on land behind 69 to 77 Compton Road, close to the Wolverhampton Grammar School. It consists largely of a sloping area of rough grassland at the bottom of which runs Graiseley Brook. Wolverhampton Grammar School is understood to be the owner of the site, much of which is sandwiched between the 'higher' and 'lower' Grammar School playing fields and is in part adjoined by the new gymnasium buildings of the school and in part by the rear gardens of nos. 69, 71, 75, 77 and 79 Compton Road.

1.2 The Grammar School appears to own 69 and 71 Compton Road, which are in use as school offices and 73 and 75, which appear to be in use as rented residential accommodation. No 73 (also owned by the school) is proposed for demolition in the scheme to enable a vehicular access to be provided from Compton. The scheme also takes some of the rear garden of No. 75 and part of the grounds of the school presently occupied by a timber storage hut.

1.3 Most of the site, outside of the past and present curtilage of houses, is vacant grassland described by the applicant as former agricultural land. It contains several fine trees, shrubs and hedges, mostly around the boundaries but not exclusively so. It contains a small man-made pond which is used by the school for education purposes.

1.4 The part of the site on which it is proposed to build is approximately 0.85 ha, is situated towards the Compton Road end and includes the parts of the rear gardens of 75 and 73 Compton Road and the Grammar School grounds. The remainder of the site consists of approximately 0.6h and is to remain undeveloped and managed for wildlife and amenity use as open space.

40 2 Application Details

2.1 The application seeks outline permission with all matters reserved except for access and layout. Elevations and landscaping are illustrative only. Fourteen large detached houses in gardens, each with two parking spaces, are shown. They would be reached by a new vehicular access road to be formed by the demolition of No. 73. This roadway reaches into the site and has two turning heads from each of which short private driveways are taken, each to serve two and three of the 14 house respectively. The houses would tumble down the slope towards the Graiseley Brook and are likely therefore to include split-level designs. They are arranged in an apparently haphazard manner, said to be determined by the intention to retain important trees, many of which are protected by TPO's.

3 Planning History

3.1 The site was partly included in an earlier planning application in 1984 for 11 houses with access between No's. 77 and 79 Compton Road. This was granted on 24 April 1985 but was not implemented.

3.2 The site was subsequently allocated in the first Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan 1993 as suitable for up to 30 houses of a mixture of types.

3.3 In 2005 outline planning application 05/0473/OP was received for residential development comprising 11 detached houses on the site. This was refused by Committee in March 2005 for the following reasons:- premature pending the new UDP then being prepared; out of character with the frontage form of the existing development in this part of Compton Road; loss of open aspect; loss of trees; forming a gap in the Compton Road frontage; effect on the setting of the school listed building; lack of information in respect of effect of noise from nearby playing-fields; lack of information re affordable housing; poor access and road safety.

4 Constraints

Drainage Network - Name: Graiseley Brook Local Area Neighbourhood Arrangements - Name: Bantock Landfill Gas Zones - 250m buffer around Landfill Gas Site No.23 - Aspen Way Tree Preservation Orders - TPO Ref: 06/00652/TPO & 06/00639/TPO

5 Relevant Policies

5.1 Relevant UDP Policies:

D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D6 Townscape and Landscape D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D14 The Provision of Public Art EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Prot of Ground Water, Watercourses, Canals EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Dev HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist HE13 Development Affecting a Listed Building N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation

41 N9 Protection of Wildlife Species H4 Housing Allocations H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 Housing Density and mix

5.2 National Policy:

PPG3 Housing PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG15 Planning and the historic environment PPS11 Regional Spatial Strategies PPG24 Planning and noise PPG25 Development and flood risk PPS9 Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS7 Sustainable Development in Rural Areas

6 Publicity

6.1 The application was publicised by site and press notices and letters to neighbouring occupiers . 6.2 To date 103 letters have been received,(many are a standard letter but individually signed), one from Bob Marris MP and two petitions (one of 72 signatures and one of 10 signatures). These object principally on the following grounds;

• Out of character/ loss of character • Additional traffic/road safety/noise pollution • Loss of wildlife/trees • Danger to school children from additional people/traffic • Loss of no. 73 Compton Road • Not ‘previously developed’ land • Pressure on drainage system • Setting an undesirable precedent • Light pollution • Adverse effects of noise from nearby school sports facilities • Loss of privacy and outlook • Not a sustainable form of development or location. • Similar to scheme refused in 2005

7 Internal Consultees

7.1 Landscape - Comments awaited

7.2 Environmental Services - Recommend restricted hours of operation during the construction phase and that all windows facing the school buildings or grounds to be fitted with thermal double glazing to protect from noise..

7.3 Conservation - Would adversely affect local character and distinctiveness and openness.. No serious effect on the setting of the listed building if good boundary treatment secured.

7.4 Planning Policy - Only the upper part of the site can be considered developable in policy terms; more of a mixed scheme would be appropriate; there is more than a sufficient housing land supply to meet current RSS housing targets for 2007-12 without

42 relying on windfall sites such as this; public open space contribution may be wholly or partly offset if applicant is willing to develop the part of the site not for development and management as a SLINC..

7.5 Transportation Development - Whilst there are no objections in principle to the location of the proposed access there are significant concerns about the gradient and narrowing of the access road within the existing plot of No.73 Compton Road. It would also be necessary for the applicant to address other issues including; the proximity of the existing driveway of No. 71 Compton Road to the junction, the layout and width of site roads, service access and the lack of promotion for non-car transport within the application. Transport Network Management have raised a number of issues that would have to be resolved before the proposed access road could be considered for adoption.

7.6 Trees - Concern about the accuracy of the positions and canopy spreads of trees shown to be retained and possible conflict with proposed houses; the loss of the large tree at the entrance and possible loss of others shown to be retained, from proposed changes to ground levels.

8 External Consultees

8.1 Fire Officer - comments awaited

8.2 Natural England - comments awaited

8.3 Environment Agency - comments awaited.

8.4 Local Area Neighbourhood - comments are awaited.

8.5 Severn Trent Water Ltd - no objection in principle, recommend standard condition re sustainable drainage details.

9 Appraisal

Key Issues

9.1 The key issues are:

• The principle of development • Urban form/layout • Effect on existing character • Wildlife • Public open space • Flooding • Trees • Access arrangements and traffic generation • Public Art

Principle of Development 9.2 The application site includes land that was originally granted planning consent in 1985 for the erection of 11 houses with access between No’s 77 and 79 Compton Road. This included that part of the site which projects well into the school playing fields, not now proposed for development as part of this application. The same part of the site was later allocated in the first Wolverhampton UDP (1993) as a ‘housing site’ suitable

43 for 30 dwellings. However it is understood that because of difficulties in ownership and gaining vehicular access, it never came forward to be developed.

9.3 In the current UDP approved 2006, the allocation for housing was not included as the site is green-field in nature (outside the rear garden areas) and not required for housing due to the extent of other ‘previously used land’ housing sites then allocated in the plan.

9.4 A planning application was submitted in 2005 for 11 detached houses on land which again extended beyond that now being proposed for building upon. This was refused by Planning Committee in March 2005.

9.5 In support of their application the Agents make the point that approximately 50% of the site is on existing or former garden land, considered as ‘previously developed’ land. However, this is not considered to be an overriding consideration.

9.6 The applicant also claims that the site, being so close to the town centre and a main road and bus route, is therefore in a ‘sustainable’ location, where housing is encouraged by Government guidance and UDP policies. This is however considered of limited weight given that houses of this size and likely value, with ample provision for cars, are highly unlikely to be occupied by persons who will not own cars, or even leave their cars behind for a majority of trips. There are also no pedestrian links to surrounding destinations and no specific cycle links. The scheme is clearly designed for access principally by car. Buses do pass along Compton Road but bus stops are presently in excess of 400m from the proposed houses.

Urban Form/Layout 9.7 The form, pattern and grain of the existing housing development on both sides of Compton Road in the vicinity of this site, is very strong and remains unbroken. It consists of large detached houses set in large plots, along strong building lines front and rear, creating a very spacious setting. All houses are set facing onto the Compton Road, but well back, with well enclosed private spaces to the rear. All have individual vehicular access from Compton Road. Most plots contain mature hedges and trees, front and rear. Many front gardens are raised 1 to 2 metres above road level, with retaining walls and steep drives. Rear gardens are of various shapes, but all are large and back onto an unusually open aspect over the extensive playing fields of the adjacent Wolverhampton Grammar School, an area of allotments and the grass meadow part of the application site. This larger area also contains many trees, shrubs and hedges.

9.8 The application scheme would represent a radical departure from this strong form and grain. It would take a house out of the existing strong frontage development, to enable a new roadway to access land that is presently entirely inaccessible. It would represent the first intrusion into this rear area which is an integral part of a much larger open undeveloped area, close to the centre of the City.

9.9 The proposed cul-de-sac of detached houses, aimed at the higher end of the market only, would be a stand-alone isolated community. The scheme would place houses on the sloping meadow land which falls rapidly away from the comparatively level rear gardens of the Compton Road properties, until it reaches the Graisley Brook. This land is very prominent and the houses would be particularly visually prominent when viewed from the playing fields, the allotments and houses at Richmond Road and Alderdale on the opposite side of the open area.

9.10 The applicant states that in determining the extent of the grassed meadow to be build upon, they related it to the extent of the adjacent Grammar School buildings and assessed the likely visual intrusion and use of the less steep part of the site. In fact the extent of the proposed buildings would project beyond the rear ‘building-line’ of the

44 Grammar School. Buildings would not be well related to existing built form and by extending down to the brook, many of the houses would be very visually prominent from surrounding open areas.

9.11 In the proposed layout, the houses do not respect that of the existing strong and locally distinctive form and layout. It breaks through the frontage development in a way uncharacteristic of the established form. It then shows houses which initially front on to the new access road, but in a much more random and haphazard way than that of the established form. Houses are set at varied angles to the road and have far less space between each other and are not set back from the road nearly as much. Beyond the main access road the remainder of the houses are shown positioned in an even more haphazard way. The pattern appears random in form, but is said by the applicant, to have been dictated by the position and canopy spreads of the trees to be kept. Even so, the result is an urban form and pattern markedly weaker than and having little or no respect for that of the established locally distinctive form and unsatisfactory interrelationships (e.g. units 10 & 11 and unit 13). The units in the cul-de-sacs become even more confused in their pattern and arrangement to the roadway and to each other. These units are set down the slope of the meadow and several will present their rear elevations either to the road ways, or to the open land on the other side of the brook. In either instance, the resulting visual appearance of rear gardens and normal items associated therewith, is not a good design solution.

Wildlife 9.12 The vegetation growth and the relatively undisturbed nature of the site and its surroundings over a considerable length of time, has led to it being colonised by various wildlife. Most notable among these are bats and badgers. There are two badger setts in the vicinity, one actually on the site. This latter would be entirely lost by the scheme. This in itself is not a sufficient reason for refusal, as a license from Natural England would be required before any development could take place requiring a replacement location for an artificial sett, or other acceptable mitigation measures. The application is supported by the results of wildlife surveys and the comments of Natural England on all these wildlife issues are awaited.

9.13 In its submissions in respect of the wildlife value of the site, the applicant’s agents suggest the scheme should include enhanced tree and shrub planting on all its boundaries with open areas with an open run allowed for wildlife, particularly for badgers all around the boundaries of the site. Whilst the submitted scheme retains all existing important boundary trees in such areas, it shows curtilage boundaries reaching right down to the stream edge and other open area boundaries, thus making no provision for these ‘open’ unfenced runs.

Public Open Space 9.14 The scheme for 11 houses does trigger a requirement under the UDP policies for the provision of Public Open Space. The application suggests that the part of the meadow which is not to be built upon would be retained and developed for its wildlife and amenity value. There is no provision for public access or use. Therefore a financial contribution towards off-site provision or enhancement of public open space would be required if permission were to be granted.

9.15 All 14 houses proposed in this scheme are to be large, detached houses with probably four or more, bedroom, in plots which, whilst not as large as those characteristic of this part of Compton Road, are large by modern housing estate standards. On this basis the applicant makes the point in support of the scheme that it will be providing ‘executive’ homes for families in the upper socio economic brackets, thus meeting one of the objectives of the West Midlands Spatial Strategy, namely to reverse the trend of outward migration of such people from the west midlands conurbation. They claim that there are very few sites in Wolverhampton coming forward or indeed suitable for meeting the needs of such people and this should therefore be given much weight in

45 planning terms. The housing land supply as identified in the UDP is however considered to be sufficient to meet all needs without the need to rely upon wind-fall site such as this coming forward. There has also been a proportional supply large family houses in the annual building rates in the City. Other planning guidance (PPS1 &3) and policies of the UDP seek to encourage a mixed community by providing a mix of house types. So little weight can be given to this argument put by the applicant.

Flooding 9.16 The site is bounded on one side by the Graiseley Brook. It is set in an open concrete channel along its length adjacent the site. Some of the proposed houses are shown to be positioned close to this brook and the gardens of several run right to its boundary. The applicants have submitted a flood risk assessment. The comments of the Environment Agency are awaited on this.

Trees 9.17 The site contains a large number of trees, many of which are protected. The scheme proposes the removal of only one of the protected trees. This is a large one in the front garden of No. 73 which needs to be removed to form the vehicular access from Compton Road.

9.18 The accuracy of the tree survey, in terms of extent of tree canopies relative to the proposed roads and houses, is in question and more information in respect of changes to ground levels is being sort from the applicant. However even without this further information, it is clear that several of the canopies are significantly larger on the ground than those indicated on plan. The result is that at least one is likely to be adversely affected (T56), and several will be so close to some of the houses as to cast serious shadows and lead to pressure for their removal. (e.g. plots 1, 3, 4, 11, 12). Two trees at the entrance roadway (T60 & T59) shown to be retained, are felt unlikely to survive the change to ground areas indicated.

Access Arrangements and Traffic Generation 9.19 The location of the vehicular access is, according to the Councils policy for highway adoption, too close to Marchant Road but, given the relative positions of the two junctions, is unlikely to cause traffic problems. The additional amount of traffic from the development, even at peak times, is unlikely to be significant compared to the levels already experienced on this stretch of Compton Road. However, the proposed access road would be too steep and the junction too close to the existing drive of No. 71 Compton Road. There is also the concern that the narrowing of the access road, within 15m of the junction could cause queuing onto Compton Road. The internal road layout should be amended to ensure that all traffic, including service vehicles, can manoeuvre safely and without difficulty.

Public Art 9.20 Because of the scale of the development there would be a requirement for public art, should permission be granted.

10 Conclusion

10.1 The site is not allocated for any use in the present UDP.

10.2 The proposed development would be contrary to the established urban grain and would appear as a prominent intrusion of built development into an open landscape. The demolition of a house to create the access would damage the continuous built up frontage to Compton Road.

10.3 The proposed layout would result in a weak and illegible urban structure.

46 10.4 Several houses would have inadequate gardens, in terms of size and /or privacy or because of overshadowing by trees.

10.5 Several plots have major trees on their south side which would heavily overshadow them.

10.6 The application does not adequately addressed wildlife.

10.7 The tree survey is inaccurate. Several of the trees shown to be retained would appear to be seriously compromised.

11 Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons:

1. Inappropriate site for housing development the use of which for this purpose would detract from the present contribution of much of the site to the current spaciousness of its setting and that of existing houses and school.

2. The loss of a dwelling from the existing Compton Road continuous frontage development, and the creation of a divergent urban pattern of development on land to the rear, would detract from the existing locally distinctive character of the established urban form.

3. The design of urban form and layout proposed would not be adequately integrated with, linked to, or reflect that of the existing, locally distinctive form, by reason being less spacious, less well structured and less legible and detracting from the open character of the land and aspect to the rear of the houses on this side of Compton Road. It also lacks communal open space as recommended by SPG 3.

4. The proposed layout is also of a poor design in several detailed respects in terms of the positions of dwellings relative to roads; each other and views from land around; interrelationships between dwellings; the effective useable area of private rear gardens and their relationship with trees shown to be retained.

5. The extent of several tree canopies as shown on the proposed layout appears to be incorrect, making an accurate assessment of the likely effect of the development on these trees not possible. Changes in levels close to trees are also likely to have adverse effects.

6. Inadequate road, detrimental to highway safety.

7. Therefore contrary to the following UDP Policies; H3, H6, H8, D1, D3, D4, D5, D6, D12 & D14,EP5, N1, N7 & N9, R3 & R7, H4, H6 & H8.

Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 555623 Director for Sustainable Communities – Steve Boyes

Planning Application No: 08/00063/OUT Location 73 And Land Rear Of 69 To 77 Compton Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV3 9QH Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 389724 298709 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 14874m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08 APP NO: 07/01733/FUL WARD: Wednesfield North DATE: 11-Dec-07 TARGET DATE: 05-Feb-08 RECEIVED: 11.12.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: True Briton, Snape Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of a timber peregola to side of building for all year around use as a smoking shelter.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Marstons PLC Link Design Consultants Ltd The Brewery 32 Bradford Street Shobnall Road Birmingham Burton-upon-trent B5 6HX DE14 2BW

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The site consists of the True Briton Public House and car park. It appears that the building dates from the 1970s. The building is predominantly two storey with a single storey lounge providing more space in the business area and the second floor providing residential space for the landlord. To the rear of the site there is an area of open space.

1.2 The immediate surroundings are predominantly residential. To the front of the side car park there is a row of garages. To the west there are properties facing Snape Road. To the east there is a row of four properties whose upper floors overlook the car park and the eastern elevation of the public house.

2 Planning History

2.1 08/00029/RP for Retrospective. Erection of smoking shelter for use all year around – Application invalid .

3 Application Details

3.1 The application proposes a timber pergola to the eastern elevation of the Public House to provide an outside covered smoking area due to the smoke free workplace legislation introduced in the Health Act 2006. This will replace an existing unauthorised structure in use as a smoking shelter in the same location.

3.2 The pergola is proposed to be constructed to the outside wall of the lounge which is the single storey section of the building.

3.3 The total floor area of the pergola is proposed to measure 27m2 and will be constructed of an existing dwarf wall which enclose the existing patio area and will be further enclosed by detachable screening with timber joists and it is proposed that the roof material is flat polycarbonate.

4 Constraints

4.1 No constraints

5 Relevant policies

Unitary Development Plan Policies

D1 Design Quality D4 Urban Grain D9 Appearance D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing EP5 Noise Pollution

6 Publicity and neighbour notifications.

6.1 A site notice was posted on 11 January 2008 as the application was considered to be of neighbour interest.

6.2 The neighbour at 20 Snape Road drew attention to the fact that there has already been a smoking shelter erected on the side since the inception of the smoking ban. The neighbour also stated that there have been some noise issues in the past but is not objecting to the shelter.

6.3 The neighbour at 21 Snape Road objects to the construction of the pergola as he has experienced an increase in noise from people using the outdoor patio area of the public house to smoke. The neighbour also believes that the pergola will provide an open view into the bedroom and lounge area of his first floor flat and believes that this will have a detrimental impact on the value of his property.

8 Internal consultees

8.1 No comments from Environmental Protection, Licensing or Property Service,

8.2 Transportation have no objection to the proposal providing that the proposals do not impinge or remove any of the existing parking arrangements.

9 External consultees

9.1 None

10 Appraisal

10.1 The application is for a pergola to the side elevation of the True Briton Public House

10.2 The key issues are - Design - Neighbour concerns

50 Design 10.3 The design policies of the Wolverhampton UDP state that any development should contribute to the character and appearance of the area through consideration of height and scale of proposals in addition to the materials and detailing which are proposed to be used in any scheme. The architectural style of the True Briton is a plain redbrick two storey building with minimal boundary treatments and a large car park to the side and rear. The addition of a covered smoking shelter constructed of wood, brick and with a polycarbonate roof is considered to be sufficiently in keeping with the design of the building and will add detailing to the side elevation of the building. Although the proposal is of a simple design and style it is considered to be discreet enough to be integrated into the existing building.

Neighbour Concerns. 10.4 The proposals will face towards the properties numbering 15,21 and 23 Snape Road. A neighbour letter has been received from the resident of number 21 who has concerns regarding overlooking and increases in the amount of noise that the proposal would bring. The area which is proposed to be enclosed is currently used as a outside patio area and therefore is used by the customers of the Public House generally prior to this application. The proposed pergola is 3.5 metres high and apart from the 2 metre wide x 3 metre high entrance to the pergola there is only proposed to be a 1 metre space above the 2 metre high close boarded bowed screen fence and dwarf wall. As number 21 is approx 34 metres away from this proposal it is considered that overlooking is not an issue and any noise pollution issues are the concern of Environmental Health who have not raised any objections to the proposal.

11 Conclusion

11.1 The application is considered to be in keeping with the design policies of the UDP and is not considered to contravene Policy EP5 Noise Pollution

12 Recommendation

12.1 Delegated authority to Grant, Subject to conditions to include:-

1) Prior to the commencement of the development hereby permitted, details of all materials, including details of the proposed timber joinery for the external smoking shelter, to be used externally shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by, the Local Planning Authority. The development shall be built in the materials approved, unless prior agreement to an alternative has been obtained in writing from the Local Planning Authority.

Reason: - In the interests of visual amenity. Relevant UDP Policies D1 ·& D9

2) Receptacles for the purposes of containing litter will be provided adjacent to the smoking shelter for the use by the patrons of the premises prior to the first use of the shelter, in accordance with details (including type, and location of receptacles) that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Thereafter, the receptacles shall be emptied in accordance with details that have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.

Reason: - In order that the general amenity of the area shall not be affected. Relevant UDP Policy D6

Case Officer : Katie Dickson Telephone No : 551132 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 07/01733/FUL Location True Briton, Snape Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 396291 302484 (approx) Plan Printed 20.02.2008 Application Site Area 2421m2