TO:- Planning Committee Councillor Terry Mason , Councillor Matt Ewart , Councillor Penny Allen , Councillor Len Bates B.E.M. , Councillor Chris Benton , Councillor Barry Bond , Councillor Mike Boyle , Councillor Jo Chapman , Councillor Bob Cope , Councillor Brian Cox , Councillor Isabel Ford , Councillor Rita Heseltine , Councillor Lin Hingley , Councillor Diane Holmes , Councillor Janet Johnson , Councillor Michael Lawrence , Councillor Roger Lees J.P. , Councillor Dave Lockley , Councillor Robert Reade , Councillor Robert Spencer , Councillor Christopher Steel

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held as detailed below for the purpose of transacting the business set out below.

Date: Tuesday, 21 April 2020 Time: 18:30 Venue: Virtual meetiing

D. Heywood Chief Executive

A G E N D A

Part I – Public Session

1 Minutes 3 - 8

2 Apologies

To receive any apologies for non-attendance.

3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

4 Determination of Planning Applications 9 - 76 Report of Development Management Team Manager

5 Monthly Update Report 77 - 88 Report of the Lead Planning Manager

Page 1 of 88

RECORDING Please note that this meeting will be recorded.

PUBLIC SPEAKING Please note: Any members of the public wishing to speak must confirm their intention to speak in writing or e-mail to Development Management no later than 1 working day before the Committee i.e. before 12.00 p.m. on the preceding Monday.

E-mails to [email protected]

Please see Speaking at Planning Committee leaflet on the website for full details. Failure to notify the Council of your intention to speak may mean you will not be allowed to speak at Committee.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO AGENDA AND REPORTS

Spare paper copies of committee agenda and reports are no longer available. Therefore should any member of the public wish to view the agenda or report(s) for this meeting, please go to www.sstaffs.gov.uk/council-democracy.

A paper copy is available for inspection at the Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire WV8 1PX.

Page 2 of 88 26 March 2020

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee South Staffordshire Council held in the Council Chamber Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire, WV8 1PX on Tuesday, 17 March 2020 at 18:30

Present:- Councillor Penny Allen, Councillor Len Bates, Councillor Barry Bond, Councillor Bob Cope, Councillor Brian Cox, Councillor Matt Ewart, Councillor Rita Heseltine, Councillor Lin Hingley, Councillor Janet Johnson, Councillor Michael Lawrence, Councillor Roger Lees, Councillor Dave Lockley, Councillor Terry Mason, Councillor Robert Reade, Councillor Christopher Steel

OFFICER IN ATTENDANCE Sue Frith, Amanda Willis, Manjit Dhillon and Kelly Harris

52 MINUTES RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 18 February 2020 be approved and signed by the Chairman

53 APOLOGIES Apologies for non-attendance were submitted on behalf of Councillors C Benton, M Boyle, J Chapman and R Spencer

54 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor R Reade declared an interest in application 19/00883/FUL and left the chamber for consideration of this item

55 DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Committee received the report of the Chief Planning Officer, together with information and details received after the agenda was prepared.

18/00921/FUL – THE ROYAL BRITISH LEGION, HIGH STREET, KINVER, STOURBRIDGE, DY7 6ER – APPLICANT – MR IAN MALYAN – PARISH - KINVER

This application had been deferred to seek further environmental guidance. The Emergency Planning Officer had expressed severe reservations about the preponderance of the site to flooding.

Councillor Hingley supported the officer’s recommendation for refusal.

RESOLVED: that the application was refused as recommended for the following reason:

The proposed development is located within Flood Zones 3,2 and 1 of the flood map for planning for the River Stour. The application has failed to show that the proposed development would be safe and that any residual flood risk can be overcome contrary to the advice given in paragraphs

Page 3 of 88 26 March 2020

038, 039 and 040 of the National Planning Policy Guidance and paragraph 163 of the NPPF.

18/00789/COU – LAND AT THE JUNCTION OF BURSNIPS ROAD AND HOBNOCK ROAD, ESSINGTON – APPLICANT – MR WAYNE CLEE – PARISH - ESSINGTON

This application referred to the change of use of land to provide two additional pitches adjacent to existing gypsy and traveller site.

Councillor Steel confirmed that he had received no adverse comments from local residents and was happy to support the officer recommendation.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved with conditions as recommended.

19/00407/FUL – SAD SITE 119 SAREDON ROAD, CHESLYN HAY – APPLICANT – MR CHRIS LOIZOU, PARTNER CONSTRUCTION LTD – PARISH - CHESLYN HAY

Andy Williams (agent) spoke for the application.

Councillor Steve Hollis spoke against it.

The application was for a residential development of 60 dwellings and public open space with associated highways and drainage infrastructure, landscaping and other accommodation works and construction of a car park.

Councillor Hollis was satisfied with the number and mix of dwellings proposed but still had concerns about sewerage and drainage; the proximity of the SUDS basin to the school and delivery of materials on the narrow lane.

Councillor Boyle had concerns about sewerage system as Cheslyn Hay continued to encounter subsidence disturbance caused by former mining in the area. He felt the sewerage system in the village was archaic and no longer fit for purpose.

These matters were addressed in the site allocations document and proposed additional conditions listed in the late list. Severn Trent had plant upgrades scheduled in their strategic plan

The County Flood Risk Officer and Severn Trent had raised no objections.

Councillor Allen asked that Severn Trent share their Sewage System Improvement Plan with the District and Parish Councils.

RESOLVED: that approval be delegated to the Team Manager to issue a decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 agreement and a unilateral undertaking. If this has not been achieved by 21 July 2020, this application is to be referred back to the Planning Committee.

With an alteration to condition 12:

12. Prior to first occupation of the new dwellings secure cycle storage shall

Page 4 of 88 26 March 2020 be provided and maintained in accordance with details first to be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority

And two additional conditions:

CONDITION 19: The development permitted by this planning permission shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment (Patrick Parsons Ref: B20046, Rev 7, 13/03/20) and supporting details including the following mitigation measures: • Development levels to direct surface water away from dwellings towards the positive drainage system, with safe exceedance routes and; • Construction and maintenance of a swale within the western site boundary to maintain an exceedance flow route from Saredon Road and direct runoff into the existing ditch.

REASON 19: To reduce the risk of flooding to the development and prevent increased flood risk by the obstruction of an existing flow path.

CONDITION 20: No development shall begin until a detailed surface water drainage design has been submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority in consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority. The design must be in accordance with the overall strategy and key design parameters set out in the Drainage Strategy (Patrick Parsons Report Ref: B20046, Rev C, 13/03/20 and Drawing Ref: B20046-205 Rev P9).

The design must demonstrate: • Surface water drainage system(s) designed in accordance with national and local standards, including the Non-statutory technical standards for sustainable drainage systems (DEFRA, March 2015). • SuDS design to provide adequate water quality treatment, which can be demonstrated using the Simple Index Approach (CIRIA SuDS Manual 2015). • Limiting the discharge rate generated by all rainfall events up to the 100 year plus 40% climate change critical rain storm to 9.4l/s to ensure that there will be no increase in flood risk downstream. • Detailed design (plans, network details and calculations) in support of any surface water drainage scheme, including details on any attenuation system, and the outfall arrangements. Calculations should demonstrate the performance of the designed system for a range of return periods and storm durations inclusive of the 1 in 1 year, 1 in 30 year, 1 in 100 year and 1 in 100 year plus climate change return periods.

• Plans illustrating flooded areas and flow paths in the event of exceedance of the drainage system. Site layout and levels should provide safe exceedance routes and adequate access for maintenance. • Provision of an acceptable management and maintenance plan for surface water drainage and exceedance swale to ensure continued performance of the system for the lifetime of the development. This should include a plan showing features to be maintained, access arrangements, schedule of required maintenance activities and frequencies, and contact details for the organisation responsible for carrying out these duties.

Page 5 of 88 26 March 2020

REASON 20: To reduce the risk of surface water flooding to the development and properties downstream for the lifetime of the development.

19/00702/FUL – LAND AT STAFFORD ROAD, PENKRIDGE, STAFFORD ST19 5AX – APPLICANT – TAME HOMES LTD – PARISH – PENKRIDGE

RESOLVED: that approval be delegated to the Team Manager to issue a decision on completion of a satisfactory Unilateral Undertaking. If this has not been achieved by 16 June 2020 the application to be referred back to the Planning Committee.

19/00709/FUL – KINVER HIGH SCHOOL, ENVILLE ROAD, KINVER, STOURBRIDGE, DY7 6AA, KINVER – APPLICANT – INVICTUS EDUCATION TRUST – PARISH - KINVER

Councillor Hingley raised no objections and acknowledged the need to upgrade sports facilities at Kinver High School.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended.

19/00775/FUL – UNIT 4E, STATION ROAD, FOUR ASHES, WOLVERAMPTON WV10 7DG – MR ALISTAIR WALKER – PARISH – BREWOOD AND COVEN

A dispensation in the Councils constitution enabled the Planning Committee to determine their own application.

Councillor Holmes supported the officer’s recommendation for approval.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to the conditions as recommended.

19/00800/VAR – FAIR HAVEN, SHAW HALL LANE, COVEN HEATH – APPLICANT – MR J CUNNINGHAM – PARISH – BREWOOD AND COVEN

Councillor Holmes asked if the proposal could be conditioned to prevent the temporary permission from being extended beyond 2nd December 2023. Kelly Harris and Manjit Dhillon confirmed that this would not be possible, as such a condition would not meet the ‘5 tests’ set out in the NPPF.

Councillor Cope asked why sites are not coming forward. Kelly Harris confirmed that there are a number of planning applications currently under consideration

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended.

19/00818/FUL – LONGVILLE, PATTINGHAM ROAD, PERTON, WV6 7HD – APPLICANT – MR AND MRS HOLLINSHEAD – PARISH –

Page 6 of 88 26 March 2020

PERTON

Councillor Allen supported the application

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended.

19/00835/FUL – BISHOPSWOOD HOUSE, KIDDEMORE GREEN ROAD, BISHOPS WOOD, STAFFORD ST19 9AA – PARISH – BREWOOD AND COVEN

Councillor Cox and Councillor Allen supported the Planning Officers recommendation.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended

19/00852/FUL – CODSALL AND WERGS GARDEN CENTRE LTD, WERGS HALL ROAD, CODSALL, WOLVERHAMPTON WV8 2HJ – APPLICANT – MR FULLWOOD – PARISH - CODSALL

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended.

19/00883/FUL – THE LINDENS, PENSTONE LANE, LOWER PENN, WOLVERHAMPTON, WV4 4XE – APPLICANT – MR DOUGLAS BOWATER - PARISH - LOWER PENN

Councillor Bond supported the Planning Officer’s recommendation.

RESOLVED: that the application be approved subject to conditions as recommended

56 MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT The Committee received the report of the Lead Planning Officer informing the committee on key matters including training; changes that impact on National Policy; any recent appeal decisions; relevant planning enforcement cases (quarterly); and latest data produced by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government

The Meeting ended at: 19:55

CHAIRMAN

Page 7 of 88

Page 8 of 88 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 21 APRIL 2020

DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM MANAGER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

To determine the planning applications as set out in the attached Appendix.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the planning applications be determined.

3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives? The reasons for the recommendation for each POLICY/COMMUNITY Yes application addresses issued pertaining to the Council’s IMPACT Plan. Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed? Determination of individual planning applications so No not applicable- see below for equalities comment. SCRUTINY POWERS No APPLICABLE KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ N/A DELIVERY DATE Unless otherwise stated in the Appendix, there are no FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct financial implications arising from this report.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 LEGAL ISSUES Yes Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 Planning and Compensation Act 1991 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Page 9 of 88 Equality and HRA impacts set out below. OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & Yes OPPORTUNITIES

IMPACT ON SPECIFIC As set out in Appendix Yes WARDS

PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4. INFORMATION

All relevant information is contained within the Appendix.

Advice to Applicants and the Public

The recommendations and reports of the Development Management Team Manager contained in this schedule may, on occasions, be changed or updated as a result of any additional information received by the Local Planning Authority between the time of its preparation and the appropriate meeting of the Authority.

Where updates have been received before the Planning Committee’s meeting, a written summary of these is published generally by 5pm on the day before the Committee Meeting. Please note that verbal updates may still be made at the meeting itself.

With regard to the individual application reports set out in the Appendix then unless otherwise specifically stated in the individual report the following general statements will apply.

Unless otherwise stated any dimensions quoted in the reports on applications are scaled from the submitted plans or Ordnance Survey maps.

Equality Act Duty

Unless otherwise stated all matters reported are not considered to have any adverse impact on equalities and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 has been considered. Any impact for an individual application will be addressed as part of the individual officer report on that application.

Human Rights Implications

If an objection has been received to the application then the proposals set out in this report are considered to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation to approve the application aims to secure the proper planning of the area in the public interest. The potential interference with rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol has been considered and the recommendation is considered to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the occupants of neighbouring property and is therefore proportionate. The issues arising have been considered in detail

Page 10 of 88 in the report and it is considered that, on balance, the proposals comply with Core Strategy and are appropriate.

If the application is recommended for refusal then the proposals set out in the report are considered to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation to refuse accords with the policies of the Core Strategy and the applicant has the right of appeal against this decision.

Consultations Undertaken

The results of consultations with interested parties, organisations, neighbours and Councillors are reported in each report in the Appendix.

CONSULTEES

CH – County Highways CLBO – Conservation Officer CPO – County Planning Officer CPRE – Campaign to Protect Rural England CPSO – County Property Services Officer CA – County Archaeologist CS – Civic Society EA – Environment Agency EHGS – Environmental Health Officer ENGS – Engineer FC – The Forestry Commission HA – Highways Agency LPM – Landscape Planning Manager HENGS – Engineer NE – Natural England PC – Parish Council OSS – Open Space Society STW – Severn Trent Water SWT – Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

N/A

6. PREVIOUS MINUTES

Details if issue has been previously considered

7. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Background papers used in compiling the schedule of applications consist of:-

Page 11 of 88 (i) The individual planning application (which may include supplementary information supplied by or on behalf of the applicant) and representations received from persons or bodies consulted upon the application by the Local Planning Authority, and from members of the public and interested bodies, by the time of preparation of the schedule.

(ii) The Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, as amended and related Acts, Orders and Regulations, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Practice Guidance Notes, any Circulars, Ministerial Statements and Policy Guidance published by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government.

(iii) The Core Strategy for South Staffordshire adopted in December 2012 and Supplementary Planning Documents

(iv) Relevant decisions of the Secretary of State in relation to planning appeals and relevant decisions of the courts.

These documents are available for inspection by Members or any member of the public and will remain available for a period of up to 4 years from the date of the meeting, during the normal office hours. Requests to see them should be made to our Customer Services Officers on 01902 696000 and arrangements will be made to comply with the request as soon as practicable. The Core Strategy and the individual planning applications can be viewed on our web site www.sstaffs.gov.uk

Report prepared by: Sue Frith, Development Management Team Manager

Page 12 of 88

App no Applicant/Address Parish and Recommendation Page Ward Councillors 19/00036/OUT Seisdon Uk Limited TRYSULL AND REFUSE 15 - 30 MAJOR SEISDON Seisdon Landfill Site Ebstree Road Councillor Seisdon Victoria Wilson South Staffordshire

19/00777/FUL Mr S Sankey KINVER APPROVE 31 - 48 NON MAJOR The Paddocks Councillor Brian Mile Flat Edwards Greensforge KINGSWINFORD Councillor Lin DY6 0AU Hingley

Councillor Henry Williams

19/00908/FUL Ms E Wray HATHERTON APPROVE 49 - 60 NON MAJOR West Wing Councillor Chris Shore Croft Benton Sandy Lane Hatherton Councillor David CANNOCK Williams WS11 1RF

20/00001/FUL Mr John Michell CODSALL APPROVE 61 - 70 NON MAJOR Charlesfield Councillor John Oaken Lane Michell Oaken WOLVERHAMPTON Councillor WV8 2BD Robert Spencer

20/00161/COM Severn Trent Water PERTON APPROVE 71 - 76 NON MAJOR Ltd Councillor Philip Pump House Davis Dippons Lane Perton

Page 13 of 88

Page 14 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

19/00036/OUT Seisdon UK Limited TRYSULL & SEISDON Councillor Victoria Wilson MAJOR

Seisdon Landfill Site, Ebstree Road, Seisdon

Restoration of part of landfill site to provide up to 49 retirement homes with associated parking and landscaping

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 The application relates to a site used for landfill (incinerator ash) on the west site of Ebstree Road. The site covers an area of around 3.4 hectares. The site is accessed off Ebstree Road from an established formally laid out access which leads into the site and down a marginal slope to where two static caravans are used as an office and respite area for staff and a number of shipping containers are stored.

1.1.2 The site was used for dumping of incinerator ash from a site owned and run by Wolverhampton Council. Permission was originally refused in 1971 and subsequently won on appeal with none (or very few) of the suggested planning conditions by the County Council. Tipping at the site ceased in 1996 when the incinerator was decommissioned and a temporary cap installed. In 1997 the Licence conditions were changed by the EA allowing only inert waste to be deposited on site. Once the Wolverhampton incinerator was re-commissioned by Martin Environmental Systems, the incinerator residue was disposed of at an alternative commercial landfill site, and as a result the Seisdon site continued to lie dormant. Lengthy discussions were had with the Environment Agency (EA) about whether tipping could be continued at the site however Wolverhampton Council took the decision that the site was no longer required and subsequently put up for sale.

1.1.3 The site was acquired by the applicants around 2003 with the intention that the site was considered closed for the purposes of the Landfill Directive and a closure plan submitted to the Council in 2009. The proposal was refused by the County and no appeal was made. The applicants then submitted a certificate of lawful development which was refused by County and won on appeal that the use of the site could continue as the original permission had been implemented and the conditions needed to require it's restoration after the use ceased were never pursued (if the Council considered the use had ceased). It is worthy to note that in her decision she does comment that the appeal did not take the matter of abandonment into account. The Inspector at the time concluded:

It could no longer be regarded as expedient to take enforcement action in respect of any failure to comply with the WS (working scheme) in that respect. The underlaying

Page 15 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 purpose in commencing enforcement action would be to stop any further tipping on the site and not to control it in compliance with the WS…….. It would be irrational and an abuse of power for Council now to commence enforcement action for the purpose of preventing tipping on the site under the guise of a complaint that the operators had many years ago failed to comply with the WS. I agree with the appellant that it would be entirely wrong to refuse the certificate on the basis of a technical breach of the WS committed so long ago about which the Council have done little until the refusal of the certificate in 2010, save for granting or resolving to grant permission on the basis that the 1973 permission was valid.

1.1.4 The Council did not choose the challenge the Inspectors decision, nor did it look to pursue an enforcement case based on whether the use of the land had ceased. It is not my place to comment on these matters now.

1.2 Planning History

1971, Landfill site, 1979, Landfill site, withdrawn (79/01017) 1981 The Disposal By Controlled Landfill Of Domestic Commercial And Industrial Wastes Earth Hardcore And Similar Excavated Materials And Restoration For Agricultural Use On 1.76 Ha (4.35 Acres) Of Land, approved (81/00988) 1988, Storage Building For Earthmoving And Compaction Equipment, approved (88/00108) 1991, Recycling Of Incinerator Residue, referred to County 2009, Restoration of landfill site, referred to County (refused by County) (09/00093/COM) 2010, Filling of site with incinerated refuse [Lawful Development Certificate application], referred to County (refused by County and won on appeal) (10/00033/COM)

There have been a number of Enforcement cases that have all be closed with no action.

Permit for tipping granted by the Environment Agency:

I have discussed the matter at some length with the case officer who confirmed that according to Seisdon (UK) Ltd’s Annual report there is 31,200m3 of void space left to fill however there does not appear to any limit in capacity in the permit (nor is it time limited). After this the site will need to be restored in line with an agreed restoration plan. There is one on record from 2017. This states a further 42,500m3 of inert material will need to imported to cover the site with 700mm of subsoils and 300mm of topsoil. This includes the reseeding of the site and planting of hedgerows and trees. It will also state an aftercare plan for 5 years after the restoration to manage the planting and to replace any areas that fail to take e.g. re-seed, weed control. Table S1.2 of the permit refers to restoration contours and profiles set in supplied plans from 2012. An application to surrender the permit in-line with current legislation (attached) will also be needed along with the required fee. There is an estimated 31,200m3 inert material

Page 16 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 needed to fill the remaining void. The main material imported on to site over the last few years has been …soils and stone with a small amount of street sweepings...

1.3 Pre-application Discussions

There were discussions in 2017 with respect of the site being used for tourism purposes.

1.4 Agents submission

A number of supporting statements have been received.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The application is in outline form with all detail matters reserved. Illustrative details have been provided showing the layout of the dwellings with a later submission of a community type building to be located in the centre of the development.

2.1.2 The development would comprise of up to 49 dwellings for retired people with associated private gardens, parking, roads and visitor parking. It would appear from the site plan that the site would be gated. There was talk of submitting log cabins, but this was never advanced by the applicants.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Within the Green Belt

3.2 Adopted Core Strategy

Strategic Objective 1 - To protect and maintain the Green Belt and Open Countryside in order to sustain the distinctive character of South Staffordshire Core Policy 1 - The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire GB1 - Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2 - Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment EQ4 - Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 4 - Promoting High Quality Design EQ11 - Wider Design Considerations EQ12 - Landscaping Core Policy 4 - Housing delivery H1 - Achieving a balanced housing mix H2 - Provision of affordable housing H3 - Affordable housing - rural exception sites Core Policy 11 - Sustainable Transport EV12 - Parking Provision

3.3 National Policy

Page 17 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

National Planning Policy Framework

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillor Wilson would like to call the application to committee for full discussions on Green Belt matters

Ward members [expired on 27/11/19] - No comments received.

Trysull & Seisdon Parish Council [Received 19/05/19] - Objects. The Parish Council have submitted two comprehensive objection statements. One statement highlighted various inconsistencies and inaccuracies in the submitted Design and Access Statement and the Planning Statement and highlighted conflicts with the Core Strategy. The other statement outlined the Parish Councils strong objection to the proposed development.

In summary. The Parish Council consider the proposal to be a significant overdevelopment and unnecessary intrusion into the Green Belt.

Landfilling itself is the restoration process returning previous workings to green field and this site has not been previously developed in any ordinary sense and does not require any further development for restoration purposes.

There are no exceptional circumstances to consider any alteration of Green Belt boundaries. A 49-house development would represent a very significant and inappropriate increase in housing volume in an 'Other Village or Hamlet'- the lowest category of sustainability not considered appropriate for any development.

The Parish Council views the village has already provided additional housing far exceeding that demanded or indeed desired by the Core Strategy. The proposal would serve only to isolate an elderly community. This unsustainable development would lie at a considerable distance outside the recognised development boundary. There are no footpaths.

The village has no public or healthcare services with the nearest Post Office being 5 km away. There are no footpaths along Ebstree Road that access the village from the proposed site and the highway is narrow with a hill to climb. There is no public transport into Seisdon or through which to access any other Main, Service or small Village facilities. Again, contrary to the Core Strategy cars would remain the only feasible mode of transport to and from the site adding to already existing local road safety issues. The site access is dangerous, on a blind summit of a narrow 'c' road only two or three metres into a speed restricted area.

There has been no proven need for this type of development in this location and no Parish Needs Survey, robust or otherwise has been undertaken.

Page 18 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

The proposed elevated site location on the periphery of the village would be visually intrusive to the settlement in the lower valley setting and to the surrounding wider landscape. This entirely inappropriate encroachment into greenbelt would dramatically alter the existing distinctive environment.

The proposed development for the over-fifties will not help support any economy, existing businesses or jobs, or provide for any new employment prospects in the Parish.

Conservation Officer [received 28/05/19] - No objection. It would be useful to get some further information on the potential visual impact upon the setting of Lanes Farmhouse, which is designated at Grade 2. Whilst it is felt that the proposed landscaping would provide a sufficient boundary towards the listed buildings, clarification of this will be needed.

County Ecologist [received 05/06/19] - requests further information in relation to securing Biodiversity enhancement and recommends conditions in relation to Reasonable Avoidance measures detailed within the submitted protected and priority species survey.

Environmental Health [Received 18/10/19] - No objection, recommend conditions in relation to ground contamination and remediation.

Housing Strategy Officer [received 31/07/19] - The development is not supported by Housing Strategy due to noncompliance with Policies H1 and H5. The applicant has not been clear on the intended housing mix for the development, the Council would require the housing mix to be secured by condition at this stage. The applicant has also not indicated how the occupancy of the properties would be age restricted and managed in practice. The proposal would create an isolated community of a single tenure, property type and resident group. The applicant should provide further information and clarity on the intended mix and tenure of properties for the site for further consideration and comment.

County Council Archaeologist [received 28/05/19] - Raises no concerns. There are no designated heritage assets (e.g. listed building, conservation area, scheduled monument) nor known undesignated heritage assets within the proposal site. Historic mapping shows that the proposal site was formerly utilised as a sand quarry and subsequently a landfill, and these are likely to have impacted upon any archaeological remains which may be been present

Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) [received 14/06/19, 19/09/19 & 11/11/19] - Initially objected as the submitted Flood Risk assessment and Attenuation Assessment did not provide sufficient information and analysis to assess flood risk. Following receipt of further information, the LLFA raise no objection. LLFA are satisfied with the proposals and recommend condition in relation to the design of the surface water drainage design.

County Highways [received 24/05/19] - No objection and recommend conditions

Page 19 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

County Council Planning Department [received 24/05/19] - No objection subject to the requirement to reinstate all land within the applicant's control. It is reasonable to conclude that the proposal will not adversely affect any important mineral resources or unduly restrict permitted mineral or waste operations at existing sites.

County Council School Organisation Team [received 09/05/19]- As the development consists purely of retirement homes, the School Organisation Team can confirm that no request will be made towards school provision.

Environment Agency (EA) (Planning) [Received 30/05/19 & 08/08/19] - Initially objected as the proposal involved the use of a non-mains foul drainage system but no assessment of the risks of pollution to groundwater had been provided by the applicant. The EA withdrew their objection and recommended conditions on the 8th August following their review of amended proposals to discharge foul waters form the site via the public mains sewer on Ebstree Road.

Natural England [Received 23/05/19] - No comments to make on the application.

Ramblers Association [Received 22/05/19] - No objections, details that Public Rights of ways pass near the development site which must not be obstructed by the development.

Severn Trent Water [Received 30/05/19] - No objection subject to conditions in relation to the approval of drainage plans.

Staffordshire Badger Society [Received 13/05/19] - No objection. No evidence of Badgers on the application site in the Report dated March 2019 however, if Planning Permission is to be granted please will the Council seek a further site visit by the Ecologist to confirm whether or not Badgers have occupied the site between the date of his Report and immediately prior to commencement of any development.

Staffordshire Police [Received 09/02/19] - No objection, recommends a number of security measures which can be incorporated into the design including boundary treatments, landscaping and lighting.

Neighbours 45 letters of representation were received on the application -

Objections received on the application related to Green Belt, no facilities for residents, traffic, contamination and wildlife (received May and June 2019)

Site notice and advert expired (June 2019)

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application has been called to committee by Councillor Wilson, who has requested that the Green belt matters be fully considered and debated by Members

Page 20 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of development - Impact on openness - Case for very special circumstances - Impact on landscape - Clearance of landfill - Impact on highway - Impact on ecology - Representations

5.3 Principle of development

5.3.1 The site is within the Green Belt, where under local policy GB1 the construction of new buildings other than for agricultural or forestry purposes is generally considered to represent inappropriate development. It is evident that GB1 is silent on the issue of sites within the Green Belt that are previously developed (brownfield land); i.e. land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole curtilage should be developed). However, the supporting text to policy GB1 states that development within the Green Belt will normally be permitted where it is acceptable "within the terms of national planning policy". It therefore follows that for any development to be acceptable, any proposal must comply with the provisions of the NPPF.

5.3.2 Paragraph 145 of the NPPF lists a number of exceptions to inappropriate development; part g) states:

Limited infilling or the partial or complete redevelopment of previously developed land, whether redundant or in continuing use (excluding temporary buildings), which would:

- Not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or - Not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority.

Does section g) of paragraph 145 therefore apply?

5.3.3 The NPPF offers a definition of previously developed land in the glossary stating:

Land which is or was occupied by a permanent structure, including the curtilage of the developed land (although it should not be assumed that the whole of the curtilage should be developed) and any associated fixed surface infrastructure. This excludes: land that is or was last occupied by agricultural or forestry infrastructure; land that has been developed for minerals extraction or waste disposal by landfill, where provision

Page 21 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 for restoration has been made through development management procedures; land in built-up areas such as residential gardens, parks, recreation grounds and allotments; and land that was previously developed but where the remains of the permanent structure or fixed surface structure have blended into the landscape.

5.3.4 The matter of the requirement for the site to be restored was dealt with by the Inspector who granted a lawful development certificate for the use of the site. The Inspector considered that a permission granted in 1973 was implemented and it would be 'irrational and an abuse of power for the Council now to commence enforcement action for the purpose of preventing tipping on the site under the guise of a complaint that the operators had many years ago failed to comply with the Working scheme'.

5.3.5 The description of the certificate reads:

At the date of the Lawful development certificate application, planning permission ref SSR 10641 dated 15 June 1973 had been lawfully implanted. Furthermore, even if the requirements of the working scheme agreed pursuant to conditions (i) of that permission had not been satisfied, it would be irrational and an abuse of power to deny that the planning permission had been fully lawful.

5.3.6 The wording of this certificate was tested and agreed at a public inquiry and I am therefore not going to discuss the matter further. The Council have investigated a number of Enforcement complaints at the site since 2010, all of which have been closed with no action. It is regrettable, therefore, that I can only conclude that the site can function indefinitely without a restoration plan and as such it satisfies the definition of ‘Previously Developed Land’ as defined in the NPPF.

5.3.7 It is, therefore, time to turn to the impact that the proposal would have upon the openness of the Green Belt.

5.3.8 The agent contends in a letter sent to the Authority on the 24th March that the site can operate and continue to tip indefinitely. There are no planning conditions limiting closure or the number of HGV’s accessing the site. The EA permit limits tipping to 222,000 tonnes per year.

5.3.9 At the time of my site visit the land sloped gently away from the road and access point at the south of the site. When walking on the material, it has the appearance of soil. Whilst it has larger bits of other material in it, if one were to walk on the site, or see it from a distance, (unless one were an expert) it has the appearance of agricultural land. It is not and cannot be used to tip household waste, it is inert waste only.

5.3.10 It is not disputed that currently trucks etc can use the site and waste can be tipped on it. The frequency of these movements is not detailed in the submission and I did not witness any, although I was on site for some time. The EA have confirmed that the site currently operates from May to October only. The Agents’ supporting letter details that operations related to landfill sites include largescale plant vehicles, noise and dust generation and HGV transport movements. The coming and goings of HGVs in the Green Belt and their impact on openness has been a matter of debate

Page 22 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 over the years and almost always it is concluded that they are of a transient nature and any resulting harm is therefore limited. If they are parking up for considerable periods of time, such as at a truck stop or being stored at a depot, then the harm on openness becomes greater. However, that is not the case here.

5.3.11 Once the inert waste is tipped, it is levelled by the agent claims, 'largescale plant vehicles'. No further information was received and no such vehicles were on site at the time of my visit. How often these machines are on site or how long they need to be on site is unclear. It is acknowledged that some form of machinery will be needed to level the waste once tipped. However, it is likely that this is a process that would be needed but undertaken in a timely and effective manner due to costs; without any further evidence or answers to the questions above I can add little weight to this matter.

5.3.12 Reference is also made to the sites Permitted Development rights in the supporting submission. However, no certificate of lawful development has been submitted to the Council, detailing what this would include and as such I afford the matter very little, if any weight in the balance.

5.3.13 I have concluded that the existing use is currently having a limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt. Looking at the first part of section g) paragraph 145 in the NPPF, it requires that for development to be seen as an exception to inappropriate development in the Green Belt, there is to be no greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt than the existing development; or not cause substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt, where the development would re-use previously developed land and contribute to meeting an identified affordable housing need within the area of the local planning authority. I will look at these matters in turn.

5.4 Impact on Openness

5.4.1 There has been much dispute in recent years in case law in defining openness. Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 466 cites:

“This was disapproved (rightly in my view) in Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 466; [2017] 2 P & CR 1 , para 18. This concerned an inspector's decision refusing permission for a proposal to replace a mobile home and storage yard with a residential bungalow in the Green Belt. In rejecting the contention that it was within the exception for redevelopment which "would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt", the inspector had expressly taken account of its visual effect, and that it would "appear as a dominant feature that would have a harmful impact on openness here".

5.4.2 The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. Sales LJ said:

"The concept of 'openness of the Green Belt' is not narrowly limited to the volumetric approach suggested by [counsel]. The word 'openness' is open-textured and a number of factors are capable of being relevant when it comes to applying it to the particular

Page 23 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 facts of a specific case. Prominent among these will be factors relevant to how built up the Green Belt is now and how built up it would be if redevelopment occurs … and factors relevant to the visual impact on the aspect of openness which the Green Belt presents." (para 14)

“Before us there was no challenge to the correctness of this statement of approach. However, it tells one nothing about how visual effects may or may not be taken into account in other circumstances. That is a matter not of legal principle, but of planning judgement for the planning authority or the inspector.”

5.4.3 The National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) has been updated (July 2019), with guidance on factors to be taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. These include, but are not limited to: o openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects - in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume; o the duration of the development, and its remediability - taking into account any provisions to return land to its original state or to an equivalent (or improved) state of openness; and o the degree of activity likely to be generated, such as traffic generation.

5.4.4 R (on the application of Samuel Smith Old Brewery (Tadcaster) and others) (Respondents) v North Yorkshire County Council (Appellant) (2020) states:

“ The concept of "openness" in para 90 of the NPPF seems to me a good example of such a broad policy concept. It is naturally read as referring back to the underlying aim of Green Belt policy, stated at the beginning of this section: "to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open …". Openness is the counterpart of urban sprawl and is also linked to the purposes to be served by the Green Belt. As PPG2 made clear, it is not necessarily a statement about the visual qualities of the land, though in some cases this may be an aspect of the planning judgement involved in applying this broad policy concept. Nor does it imply freedom from any form of development. Paragraph 90 shows that some forms of development, including mineral extraction, may in principle be appropriate, and compatible with the concept of openness. A large quarry may not be visually attractive while it lasts, but the minerals can only be extracted where they are found, and the impact is temporary and subject to restoration. Further, as a barrier to urban sprawl a quarry may be regarded in Green Belt policy terms as no less effective than a stretch of agricultural land."

5.4.5 The application is for outline consent only, however, an indicative layout has been provided that shows a gated development of 49 bungalows, all of which sit on generous plots with associated off-road parking with ample amenity space. I have discussed the impact on openness from the existing situation.

5.4.6 With that in mind, the erection of 49 dwellings would take on the appearance of the mini isolated village, detached from the existing village boundary of Seisdon. The proposal would be permanent with the dwellings and community centre being in situ

Page 24 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 in perpetuity. Whilst the application is for outline only, the indicative site plan shows dwellings providing a floor area of around 3678 sqm, with all associated amenity space with boundary treatments and associated domestic paraphernalia. The proposal would also involve the movement of vehicles to and from the site on a regular basis, not only from the residents, but visitors and delivery drivers.

5.4.6 Equally, as in the 2020 Supreme Court case quoted above, a minerals operation could be considered to be an effective barrier to urban sprawl and therefore its removal and replacement with housing would be likely to have a significant effect on the openness of the Green Belt. When all of these factors combined are taken into consideration, it is my opinion as case officer that this would lead to greater harm to openness than the existing development contrary to part g) of paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

5.4.7 Turning to the second element of g); in the same regard as the conclusions drawn for the first element of part g) above, I consider the proposal would lead to substantial harm to the openness of the Green Belt. Whether the scheme satisfies the identified affordable housing need within the area this is discussed in greater detail in the very special circumstances of the report.

5.5 Case for very special circumstances

5.5.1 When considering planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

5.5.2 An attempt has been made by the Agent to show that the proposal will meet an identified housing need, but this only stretches to a paragraph and no further details are given. However, it was agreed verbally at a meeting that the applicants would only provide 30% affordable housing in accordance with the Core Strategy, but no draft section 106 has been provided to secure this.

5.5.3 The Council is clear in policy H3, for the provision of affordable housing on rural exception sites, that a number of criteria must be met for this to be considered as acceptable. These criteria include: a) the site lies immediately adjacent to the existing village development boundary; b) a housing need has been identified in the parish, or in one or more of the adjacent parishes for the type and scale of development proposed; c) the proposed development is considered suitable by virtue of its size and scale in relation to an existing village and its services, and its proximity to public transport links and key infrastructure and services; d) the initial and subsequent occupancy is controlled through planning conditions and legal agreements as appropriate to ensure that the accommodation remains available in perpetuity to local people in need of affordable housing;

Page 25 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 e) the development is in accordance with design principles set out in the adopted Village Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (or subsequent revisions) or other local design documents, and respects the scale, character and local distinctiveness of its surroundings.

5.5.4 Addressing these points: a) the site sits well away from the existing development boundary; b) no housing needs survey has been submitted in support of the application c) the proposal extends to 49 dwellings and a meeting centre which is disproportionate in scale to the hamlet of Seisdon, that provides no facilities or services for residents, d) is irrelevant given the failure to meet criteria a to c e) the proposal is outline and no details have been submitted.

5.5.5 The Council has identified that there is a need for homes for the aging population of the District. However, the provision of these homes shall be considered through the plan making process and the site allocations document has just been adopted by the Council. I believe that the site was put forward for consideration, however, again it is disassociated with the hamlet of Seisdon which has not been identified for growth.

5.5.6 49 bungalows with 30% affordable would go some way to meeting the needs of the Council's ageing population. However, the site is not considered appropriate for such development, it is disassociated from the village with no walkway or regular bus service providing access. Notwithstanding this Seisdon has virtually no facilities for its existing residents, providing only a very small shop and garage. The proposal is to provide a 'community centre' but no further details have been received, residents would rely solely on a car for trips into Wombourne for doctors, shops, social outings to cafes and pubs etc.

5.5.7 Whilst the applicants agreed verbally that the development would be able to provide 30% affordable housing, there is currently no mechanism in place for this to be secured, nor that the market housing would be secured for the over 55's only. This may be resolved as part of an appeal however, as there is not draft Section 106 on the table.

5.5.8 The Council do welcome the provision of homes for the over 55's. However, policy H1 of the Core strategy requires that sites provide a range of homes that meet the needs of all members of the community, thus widening the range of property sizes available in response to future needs and demand, to support the Council's strategic aim of delivering more affordable housing and contributing to the development of mixed and sustainable communities. Paragraph 91 of the NPPF states that decisions should aim t achieve healthy and safe places which promote social interaction, including opportunities for meetings between people who might not otherwise come into contact with each other through mix used developments, strong neighbourhood centres and street layouts that allow for easy pedestrian and cycle connections within and between neighbourhoods and active street frontages and which do not undermine community cohesion. It is recognised that development's specifically for

Page 26 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 the over 55's are given planning permission throughout the district (McCarthy & Stone schemes for example). However, these are located within main service villages where access to a range of facilities is readily available, as well as the provision of other ranges of housing to allow for suitable integration and mix within the local community. This proposal would create an isolated development, where occupiers may feel excluded from the local community, which will be compounded if the development is gated contrary to policy H1 of the Core Strategy. Equally, isolated residential growth in the countryside is contrary to Core Policy 1 of the Core Strategy. This is also discouraged by the NPPF (paragraph 79), which indicates planning decisions should avoid isolated homes in the countryside except in a specific set of circumstances, which do not apply in this instance.

5.5.9 I do not consider in light of the above that the proposal is able to satisfy f) of paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

5.5.10 No other considerations have been advanced by the Agent. In conclusion therefore, it is not considered that there are very special circumstances that clearly outweigh the harm caused to the Green Belt from the erection of 49 dwellings and community building.

5.6 Impact on landscape

5.6.1 Policies EQ4 and EQ12 state that the intrinsic character and local distinctiveness of the South Staffordshire landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced. Paragraph 17 of the NPPF sets out 12 core land use planning principles, which amongst others include the provision to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside. Paragraph 79 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should avoid the development of isolated homes in the countryside unless a number of circumstances apply, none of which are relevant to this proposal.

5.6.2 The site is currently in effect a large mound of earth that has started to grass over in part and takes on the appearance of agricultural land from a distance. Notwithstanding the fact that to some extent it already has the appearance of agricultural land, it will all become so once it has reached its capacity for landfill and is closed (it must be noted here that there is no specific time limit on this however). The permit with the EA has a requirement to restore from the EA and as such I am working on this basis, regardless of whether or not there are no planning conditions attached to the site. Even if the applicants were to renege on their permit and not carry out the restoration plan, due to the nature of the materials being tipped there, it would naturally scrub over from self-seeded plants/trees etc. The surrounding area is given up to agricultural land with the exception of the quarry site directly to the east. The site is generally well screened to Ebstree Road. No landscape appraisal has been submitted as part of the application and it is for outline consent only. However, it is considered that a large development of dwellings, set away from the development boundary will have detrimental degree of harm to the landscape from long distance views contrary to policies EQ4 and EQ12 of the Core Strategy.

5.7 Clearance of the landfill

Page 27 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.7.1 The site has a long history of being used as inert waste landfill. As such the Environment Agency have been consulted and after lengthy discussions between the parties and additional studies being submitted, the EA and Environmental Health team have withdrawn their objection subject to the inclusion of planning conditions. This however does not overcome the Green Belt objection to the scheme.

5.8 Impact on highway

5.8.1The proposal is outline only with all matters reserved. The County Highways team have offered no objections subject to additional details being submitted for approval either by conditions or at reserved matters stage. This however does not overcome the Green Belt objection to the scheme.

5.9 Impact on ecology

5.9.1 Paragraph 170 of the NPPF states that planning decisions should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by a number of recommendations that include remediating and mitigating despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated and unstable land, where appropriate. Further information was requested regarding the details of how the biodiversity enhancement to the south of the site will be secured. However, this was not pursued as the recommendation is for refusal, notwithstanding this is would be via the usual method such as conditions or a Section 106 agreement. It is acknowledged that, after negotiations with the EA and the County Ecologist, who both require mitigation to be carried out via planning conditions, net gains in ecology could be made from the remediation of the landfill site along with the creation of the woodland and some weight is attached this matter. However, this does not outweigh the Green Belt objection; this mitigation will occur once the lifetime of the site ends in line with the permit issued from the Environment Agency.

5.10 Representations

5.10.1 45 objections to the scheme were received from the local residents. The majority of these points were in relation to the impact on the Green Belt, detachment from the village, lack of services, impact on highways, lack of need, lack of public transport, dangerous road with no footpath to the village. These points have been addressed in the report. The Conservation officer also queried about the potential impact of the proposal on nearby listed buildings, but had already commented that it was likely that there was sufficient landscaping on the boundaries of the site. The scheme is for outline consent only and was a clear refusal from Green Belt grounds from the offset, as such further details were not requested from the applicants.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposed development is inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Harm by reason

Page 28 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 of inappropriateness should be given substantial weight in the decision-making process.

6.2 The applicant has advanced considerations, but it is not considered that these matters clearly outweigh the substantial weight that must be attached to the Green Belt harm identified above. The provision of bungalows for the over 55's with 30% affordable provision in a location disassociated from the village boundary that has no facilities and has not been identified for growth can only be afforded limited weight. I have attributed some weight to the gains to be made from remediation of the landfill, however this does not outweigh the Green Belt objection and would not amount to very special circumstances. The proposal would therefore conflict with the Green Belt objectives of GB1 and Part 9 of the NPPF. As such I recommend the application be refused.

7. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

Reasons

1. The site is within the Green Belt and the proposed development is considered to be inappropriate development as set out in policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy. The development is therefore harmful to the Green Belt, contrary to policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

2. The considerations advanced (provision of 30% affordable housing and homes for the over 55's) have been considered. However, it is not considered that these amount the very special circumstances needed to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt. The site is disassociated from the existing village of Seisdon which has not been identified for housing growth, as it has limited facilities.

3. The proposal provides dwellings for the over 55's only, is gated and does not provide a range of homes for the local community or create, contrary to policy H1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 91 of the NPPF.

4. The proposed development would have an adverse effect on the pleasant and open character of the area, contrary to policy EQ4 and EQ12 of the adopted Core Strategy.

5. The proposal would result in isolated homes in the countryside contrary to Core Policy 1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 79 of the NPPF.

Proactive Statement - Whilst paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2018) requires the Local Planning Authority to work with applicants in a positive and proactive manner to resolve issues arising from the proposed development; in this instance a positive solution could not be found and the development fails to accord with the adopted Core Strategy (2012) and the National Planning Policy Framework (2018).

Page 29 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

Seisdon Landfill Site, Ebstree Road, Seisdon, South Staffordshire

Page 30 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

19/00777/FUL Mr S Sankey KINVER Councillor Brian Edwards NON-MAJOR Councillor Lin Hingley Councillor Henry Williams

The Paddocks Mile Flat Greensforge Kingswinford DY6 0AU

Proposed replacement dwelling

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 The application site relates to a modern two-storey dwelling set back from along the eastern side of Mile Flat. The dwelling is set within a substantial plot and comprises of the dwellinghouse and a single-storey detached triple garage block to the north east and swimming pool.

1.1.2 A hedgerow characterises the front of the site with the boundary with the main road. There are a number of mature trees across the site.

1.1.3 There are a small number of residential properties set along Mile Flat within the immediate vicinity. The surrounding context is made up of farm and equestrian uses.

1.1.4 There are a number of heritage assets in the immediate vicinity. To the south of the site lies Ashwood Marina and the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area. To the south of the site beyond the neighbouring property at Greensforge Stables lies the Scheduled Ancient Monument Roman Fort and Roman Camps at Greensforge.

1.2 Planning History

611/4874 - The erection of a detached brick agricultural dwelling house at Greensforge Road, Greensforge - Approved subject to conditions dated 5.04.1951.

19/00767/LUP – Proposed two-storey rear extension approved 10th January 2020.

Wider Context

78/01074 - Outline permission for the erection of a 2 Bedroomed Bungalow Approved 4.10.1978 - land adjacent to dwelling (east).

04/00065/FUL - Retrospective application for ménage permission - subject to conditions 10.09.2004

Page 31 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

14/00893/OUT - Demolition of existing stable building and erection of 2no. detached single-storey dwellings - subject to conditions 10.12.2014 - land adjacent to dwellinghouse in question (east).

17/00758/REM - Demolition of existing stable block and erection of 2no. detached single-storey dwellings. Reserved matters conditions 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 - Permission granted subject to conditions 9.11.2017 - land adjacent to dwellinghouse in question(east).

18/00325/LUE - Planning Permission ref. 14/00893/OUT and Reserved Matters Permission ref. 17/00785/REM relating to the erection of 2no. detached single- storey dwellings, have been lawfully commenced 7.06.2018 - land adjacent to dwellinghouse (east).

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

2.1.1 Full planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling. The replacement dwelling would be a four-bed dwelling.

2.1.2 The proposed replacement dwelling would be contemporary in style and sited on the same footprint as the existing dwelling.

2.1.3 The roof height of the proposed replacement dwelling would be the no taller than the existing maximum roof ridge height.

2.1.4 Parking provision for the replacement dwelling will remain as existing with a triple garage within the residential curtilage alongside hardstanding which can incorporate parking for additional vehicles.

2.1.5 The existing access arrangements will be retained and utilised for the development and the scheme will not create any additional vehicles or trips on to the local road network than currently exists.

2.2 Agent’s Submission

2.2.1 The Agent has provided a Planning Design and Access Statement and an Archaeological Assessment. Each document is summarised below.

2.2.2 Planning Design and Access Statement undertaken by RCA Regeneration Ltd. The key points are summarised as:

• The proposals are of a contemporary, but strongly domestic design. • The existing dwelling has recently been granted consent for a two-storey rear extension (19/00767/LUP). The total floorspace of the existing property together with the extant permission for the extension constitutes a ‘fall back’ position, which is an important material consideration as a very special circumstance.

Page 32 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

• The existing dwelling (plus permitted extension) has a total floorspace of 353.5sqm. The proposed replacement dwelling would extend to 387.2sqm. This represents a total increase 9.5% which we consider to be acceptable in planning terms, having regard to the size of the plot. • There will be a minimal increase in ridge height of the proposed dwelling. • As shown on the Proposed Elevations and Floorplans, it confirms the existing footprint areas for the existing dwelling along with the approved lawful development certificate alongside the proposed replacement dwelling. • The proposal will not cause harm to the living conditions of residents living in neighbouring properties. This is due to the substantial curtilage of The Paddocks and significant separation of the proposed dwelling from neighbouring properties.

2.2.3 The Archaeological Desk Based Assessment has been prepared by Orion Heritage. The Assessment is summarised with the key points as follows:

• The application is supported by a detailed Archaeological Desk-based Assessment (ADBA) which has made use of a Historic Environment Record (HER) search, as required by the NPPF, and has been produced in accordance with relevant Chartered Institute for Archaeologists’ Standards and Guidance. • The Assessment identifies that there is a designated archaeological heritage asset immediately to the south of the site comprising the Roman Camps at Greensforge. • Within a 3km radius of the site there are also the designated assets of Two Roman Camps near Greensforge, a Roman Camp 550m WSW of Swindon Iron Works and a Cross in St Mary’s Churchyard. • There is a theoretical high potential for Roman remains being present on the site, however the impact of historic cultivation and 20th century build is noted. • It is acknowledged that there are two discrete areas within the site where there have been no previous known impacts, it is anticipated that there will be a requirement for archaeological mitigation excavation and recording during demolition groundworks and prior to construction groundworks to ensure that any archaeological deposits (should they be present) are appropriately excavated and recorded. • This requirement will apply to all below-ground disturbance within the site. This could be covered by an appropriately worded planning condition.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 The site lies within the West Midlands Green Belt.

3.2 South Staffordshire Core Strategy, adopted 2012

• NP1: The Presumption in favour of sustainable development

• Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire

Page 33 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

• Policy GB1: Development within the Green Belt

• Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment

• Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets

• Policy EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets

• Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape

• Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change

• Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity

• Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design

• Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations

• Policy EQ12: Landscaping

• Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport

• Policy EV12: Parking Provision

• Appendix 5: Car Parking Standards

• Appendix 6: Space About Dwellings Standards

3.3 Adopted local guidance

• Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD (2014)

• South Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018)

• Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Document (2018)

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (the - ‘NPPF’).

• Section 12 – Achieving well-designed places • Section 13 – Protecting Green Belt land • Section 16 - Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

National Planning Policy Guidance, updated 2019 (the - ‘NPPG’).

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

No Councillor comments (Expired 13.02.2020)

Kinver Parish Council Object: “This development is next to the Ancient Scheduled Monument (Roman Fort), the increased bulk, mass and materials proposed for the building would have a

Page 34 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 detrimental effect on this area. The proposed building is much larger than the existing which would impact the view of the monument and this design change will change how you experience the scheduled ancient monument. There is no setting assessment included in the proposed application, this should be completed before the application is considered, and the County Archaeologist should be advised of this application.”(11/02/2020)

County Highways - No objection subject to conditions (07/02/2020)

Staffordshire County Council (Archaeology) “Taking into consideration the demonstrable potential, the scale of the proposed works, and the developmental history of the site, which has been impacted by historic cultivation and the current 20th century building, it is advised that an archaeological watching brief be carried out upon any groundworks associated with the development. This should pay particular attention to the two discrete areas (i.e. on the eastern and southern elevations) that have not previously been impacted by the construction of the current building, but also groundworks within the footprint of the current building where pockets of archaeology may survive, and indeed any other groundworks such as service runs which may form part of the development. Given the proximity of the proposed development site to the Scheduled Roman fort, it is recommended that you consult with Historic England as to whether they would wish to comment on the proposals in terms of their potential impact on the nearby designated heritage assets. The County recommend a pre-commencement condition for a written scheme of investigation (WSI).” (12/02/2020)

Historic England - No Objection subject to following comments: “Whilst there would be an impact upon the setting of the adjacent scheduled monument, steps have been taken to minimise that impact and ensure any harm to significance would be low. An appropriate programme of archaeological work is required, and we would recommend you follow the advice of the Staffordshire County Council County Archaeologist on this matter” (18/03/2020)

Conservation Officer No Objection with the following comments: “The new building will have no greater impact upon the setting of the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area than the existing dwelling. The materials will be key in ensuring that the new building fits well with context of its surroundings. Details of the materials to be used on the new dwelling will be needed, and these can either be submitted prior to the determination of the application or covered by a condition at the time of determination. Whilst there are no conservation objections to the proposals, it is noted that a detailed archaeological desk-based assessment has been submitted alongside the application. It would be beneficial to consult Staffordshire County Council Archaeology in order to fully ascertain whether any more in-depth archaeological investigation will be needed in respect of the proposed works.” (17/03/2020)

Page 35 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

Neighbours Expiration 13/02/2020.

Site Notice Expiration expires 27/02/2020.

No third-party comments have been received.

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is to be heard at Planning Committee as the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to GB1 of the Core Strategy.

5.2 Key Issues

5.2.1 The site is located within the Green Belt. The key issues in the determination of this proposal would be:

• Principle of development and Green Belt; • Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt; • Very Special Circumstances; Design and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area

• Impact on Neighbouring Amenity;

• Impact on Heritage Assets • Space about Dwellings Standard; • Impact on Trees; and • Highways and Parking Implications.

5.3 Principle of Development and Green Belt

5.3.1 The site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. However, there are exceptions to this position as set out within Paragraphs 145 & 146 of the NPPF. Point d) of Paragraph 145 states that the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces, is an exception to inappropriate development.

5.3.2 This is re-iterated in point d) within policy GB1 of the Core Strategy, 2012 which states where the replacement of an existing building is not materially larger than the building it replaces, is considered acceptable development within the Green Belt.

5.3.3 Therefore, the key issue in ascertaining the principle of the proposal, is whether the replacement dwelling is ‘materially larger’ than the existing dwelling.

5.3.4 The gross internal floor area of the existing dwelling house measures approximately 246.2m2. The accommodation is split over two floors.

Page 36 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.3.5 The floor area of the proposed new dwelling measures approximately 321.9m2. The proposed dwelling would sited on the same footprint and would be split over two floors.

5.3.6 Section 3 ‘Replacement of existing buildings’ within the Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, 2014 uses 10-20% increase in floor area as guidance as to what constitutes materially larger than it replaces.

5.3.7 The proposal constitutes approx. a 30% increase in floorspace of the original dwelling.

5.3.8 The SPD is specific with the parameters for the increase in floor area and what constitutes materially larger and thus inappropriate development. If using this guidance, the proposal of the replacement dwelling would be deemed inappropriate development and as such there is a presumption of refusal.

5.3.9 As such, it is considered that the proposal for the replacement dwelling is deemed inappropriate development within the Green Belt and is contrary to Policy GB1 and the guidance set out within the Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, 2014. In order for inappropriate development to be acceptable, material considerations amounting to very special circumstances must be advanced to justify a grant of planning permission.

5.4 Impact on the openness of the Green Belt

5.4.1 It is pertinent to establish the ‘actual’ harm to the Green Belt caused by the proposed replacement including the proposed detached garage.

5.4.2 There has been much dispute in recent years in case law in defining openness. Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 466 cites:

“This was disapproved (rightly in my view) in Turner v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [2016] EWCA Civ 466; [2017] 2 P & CR 1 , para 18. This concerned an inspector's decision refusing permission for a proposal to replace a mobile home and storage yard with a residential bungalow in the Green Belt. In rejecting the contention that it was within the exception for redevelopment which "would not have a greater impact on the openness of the Green Belt", the inspector had expressly taken account of its visual effect, and that it would "appear as a dominant feature that would have a harmful impact on openness here".

5.4.2 The Court of Appeal upheld the decision. Sales LJ said:

"The concept of 'openness of the Green Belt' is not narrowly limited to the volumetric approach suggested by [counsel]. The word 'openness' is open-textured and a number of factors are capable of being relevant when it comes to applying it to the

Page 37 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 particular facts of a specific case. Prominent among these will be factors relevant to how built up the Green Belt is now and how built up it would be if redevelopment occurs … and factors relevant to the visual impact on the aspect of openness which the Green Belt presents." (para 14)

“Before us there was no challenge to the correctness of this statement of approach. However, it tells one nothing about how visual effects may or may not be taken into account in other circumstances. That is a matter not of legal principle, but of planning judgement for the planning authority or the inspector.”

5.4.3 In assessing whether the proposal has an impact on the openness of the Green Belt, the overall width and heights of the existing dwelling and resulting dwelling are taken into consideration. The existing dwelling measures approx. 8.2m to maximum ridge height and approx. 16.6m in width, omitting the side conservatory. In comparison, the proposed replacement dwelling would measure 8.2m to maximum ridge height and would measure approx. 18.0 in width. For clarification there is no increase in height over what is existing.

5.4.4 The existing form comprises various two-storey elements, with a side addition at first floor, resulting in a catslide roof to the rear and a conservatory to the side. The replacement dwelling is designed with a number of projecting gables to split up the form.

5.4.5 The property is set back from the main road in a substantial plot. The ground level here and within the immediate vicinity are relatively flat and is open in nature. A small copse of mature trees characterises the western boundary of the site.

5.4.6 Overall in assessing the harm to the Green Belt, the replacement dwelling together with the proposed detached dwelling would be materially larger than the existing dwelling (30% increase). This presents 10% over the 10-20% guidance set out within the Council’s SPD. By reason of the inappropriateness of the proposal, the proposal carries default harm to the Green Belt. In assessing both the visual and spatial aspects of the proposal within the landscape, the design of the proposed dwelling would consolidate a number of additional forms but also use projecting gables as extensions to reduce the overall bulk of the proposed form. For clarification, the proposed dwelling would not be any taller than the existing dwelling. Set back on the same footprint as the original dwelling, it is not considered that there would be any visual intrusion as a result of the proposal.

5.4.7 Whilst there would be a small degree in the reduction to the openness of the Green Belt as a result of the consolidated form of the proposed dwelling, it is considered overall that there would be only a limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt caused only by the default harm of the increase of 10% over the Council’s SPD Guidance.

Page 38 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.5 Very Special Circumstances

5.5.1 The NPPF states that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. These will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness together with any other identified harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

5.5.2 The Agent makes reference to a recent determination of a lawful development certificate for a two-storey rear extension under planning reference 19/00767/LUP. The two-storey extension created internal floor area of 9.8m in width and projected 3.0m in depth. The extension presents as 58.8m2 additional floor space.

5.5.3 The concept of a ‘fall-back position’ being a material consideration is well established through case law. The defining case law within Mansell v Tonbridge And Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 – Judge Lindblom LJ sets out that PD- fallback is an established material planning consideration proving there is a ‘real prospect’ of the works being undertaken. In this case, it is considered that the PD- Fallback of the two-storey extension has a real prospect of being undertaken and has had a lawful development certificate confirmed prior to the application proposed.

5.5.4 The additional floor space offered by the fall-back position offered by the lawful development certificate for the two-storey rear extension would equate to a total floor space of 305.0m2. The floor area of the proposed new dwelling would measure approx. 321.9m2. In light of the permitted development fall-back it is considered that the replacement dwelling would be only 14.0m2 larger than the original dwelling which equates to 4.5%.

5.6 Design and Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area

5.6.1 Policy EQ4 seeks for development to respect the intrinsic rural character and local distinctiveness of the South Staffordshire landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced.

5.6.2 Core Strategy policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations states that development proposals must seek to achieve creative and sustainable designs that take into account local character and distinctiveness, and reflect the principles around use, movement, form and space.

5.6.3 The site is relatively well screened from wider views by mature vegetation and trees. The dwellighouse would be set back from the main road.

5.6.4 Overall it is not considered that the replacement dwelling on the same footprint would result in an intrusive form within the landscape. The dwelling would be commensurate in scale to the plot available.

Page 39 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.6.5 The proposal is therefore considered to accord with Policies EQ4 and EQ11 of the Core Strategy, 2012.

5.7 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

5.7.1 Policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy requires that new development should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents. There are adequate separation distances between the proposal and the nearby dwellings and as such there is no prospect of this proposal reducing the daylight or privacy, so there is no conflict with Policy EQ9.

5.8 Impact on Heritage Assets

5.8.1 Policy EQ3 states that the Council will consider the significance of and setting of all proposed works to heritage assets. In particular Point f) states:

“The Council will require all works proposed to heritage assets, or sites with the potential to include assets, to be informed by a level of historical, architectural and archaeological evidence proportionate to their significance. Where appropriate, the Council may also require historical research and archaeological recording to be undertaken before works to a heritage asset commence.”

5.8.2 Within the Annex 2 of the NPPF, the definition of ‘Heritage Assets’ include buildings and monuments. Section 16 of the NPPF recognises that intelligently managed change may sometimes be necessary if heritage assets are to be maintained for the long term.

5.8.3 Paragraph 189 states that planning decisions should be based on the significance of the heritage asset and that level of detail supplied by an applicant should be proportionate to the importance of the asset and should be no more than sufficient to understand the potential impact of the proposal upon the significance of that asset.

5.8.4 Paragraph 197 states that the effect of a proposed development on the significance of non-designated assets should be taken into account and where such an assets are directly or indirectly affected, a balanced judgement is required that has regard the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the assets.

5.8.5 The key test in the NPPF paragraphs 193-196 is whether a proposed development will result in substantial harm or less than substantial harm. However, substantial harm is not defined in the NPPF.

5.8.6 Paragraph 196 of the NPPF outlines that where a proposed development results in less than substantial harm to the significance of a heritage asset, the harm arising should be weighed against the public benefits arising from the proposed development.

Page 40 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.8.7 There are a number of heritage assets within close proximity of the application site. There is a designated archaeological heritage asset immediately to the south of the site, comprising Roman Camps at Greensforge (List Entry Number 1006118). Within a 3km radius of the application there are also the designated assets of Two Roman camps near Greensforge (NHLE 1006080; southwest of the site), a Roman camp 550m WSW of Swindon iron works (NHLE 1006079; northwest of the site) and a Cross in St. Mary’s Churchyard (NHLE 1016434; east of the site).

5.8.8 An Archaeological Assessment was submitted as part of the proposal and concludes that it is likely that the existing modern build on the application site will have significantly reduced the archaeological potential of the study site in all except for two discrete areas on the eastern and southern elevations. It is it is anticipated that there will be a requirement for archaeological mitigation excavation and recording during demolition groundworks and prior to construction groundworks to ensure that any archaeological deposits, should they be present, are appropriately excavated and recorded. This requirement will apply to all below-ground disturbance within the study site.

5.8.9 In line with the NPPF, each heritage asset is assessed identifying the significance of the heritage asset and whether the proposal would result in substantial harm or less than substantial harm.

5.8.10 Roman Camps at Greensforge (List Entry 1006118) lies immediately south of the application site. The significance of this designated asset lies with its buried archaeological remains which will contain important archaeological and environmental evidence relating to the Roman military strategy and occupation of the period. It is noted that if the study site contains contemporary archaeological remains, it may be considered to form one small part of the designated asset’s wider contextual setting. Overall the proposed replacement dwelling is not considered to result in a material change to the significance of the designated heritage asset. The replacement dwelling will be on the same footprint and the landscaping to the boundaries of the site will be retained. Historic England have been consulted on the proposal and have no objections. In their comments it is acknowledged that there would be an impact upon the setting of the adjacent scheduled monument, steps have been taken to minimise that impact and ensure any harm to significance would be low.

5.8.11 The Archaeological Assessment at Paragraph 4.32 states that should the application site contain contemporary archaeological remains, there is potential for the wider setting of the Roman Camps to be better understood through archaeological methods.

5.8.12 With regards to the ‘Two Roman camps near Greensforge’ (NHLE 1006080; southwest of the site) and ‘Roman camp 550m WSW of Swindon iron works’ (NHLE

Page 41 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

1006079; northwest of the site), the Archaeological Assessment states that the listing descriptions states that the significance of these designated assets lie with their buried archaeological remains which will contain important evidence about the occupation and use of the sites as well as Roman military strategy and organisation during the Romano-British period of occupation.

5.8.13 The application site does not form part of the heritage assets immediate physical settings. The Assessment summarises that the proposal would not result in a material change to the significance of the assets or the ability to appreciate them. The replacement dwelling will be on the same footprint and the landscaping to the boundaries of the site will be retained. However, should the application site contain contemporary archaeological remains, there is potential for the wider setting of the Roman camps buried archaeological remains to be better understood.

5.8.14 The Cross in St. Mary’s churchyard (List entry 1016434) is located 2.9km north east of the application site. The significance of the designated asset lies with it Medieval origins and position within St. Mary’s churchyard. By way of proximity and intervening built forms, there would be no physical impact on this designated archaeological heritage asset and there will be no impact on the setting of this heritage asset.

5.8.15 As it is anticipated that there will be a requirement for archaeological mitigation excavation and recording during demolition groundworks and prior to construction groundworks to ensure that any archaeological deposits, should they be present, are appropriately excavated and recorded. This requirement will apply to all below-ground disturbance within the study site.

5.8.16 As previously stated, Historic England were also consulted on the proposal and have no objections to the proposal subject to an appropriate programme of archaeological work and consultation on the matter with the County Archaeologist.

5.8.17 The County Archaeologist (CA) has been consulted on the proposal and Assessment and has no objections the proposal. However, the CA suggests a Written Scheme of Investigation to be undertaken prior to the commencement of the development.

5.8.18 Finally to the south of the site lies Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area. Because of the intervening boundary landscaping, buildings and distance, it is not considered the replacement dwelling on the same footprint as the existing dwelling would result in any significant impact on the setting of the Conservation Area.

5.8.19 Overall it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policy EQ3 and Section 16 of the NPPF subject to appropriate conditions concerning archaeology and retaining existing landscaping features.

Page 42 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.9 Space about Dwellings Standard

5.9.1 Policy EQ11 sets out the Council's Space about Dwellings (SAD) Standards in Appendix 6. For a 4-bedroom dwelling or above, the standards set out that a minimum of 100m2 and a minimum length of 10.5m would need to be required. The dwelling would benefit from a large plot with a long sloping garden and ample amenity standards to the sides of the new dwelling. As such it is considered that the proposed dwelling would accord with Policy EQ11 together with the standards set out within Appendix 6.

5.10 Impact on Ecology and Trees

5.10.1 Policy EQ12 seeks to protect and enhance key landscape features. The site is characterised by a number of mature trees along the southern and south eastern parts of the site. A low hedgerow characterises the front of the site between the main road.

5.10.2 It is considered that these mature trees contribute to the character of the landscape and as noted above are vital landscaping screening protecting the context of the Ancient Scheduled Monument.

5.10.3 The proposal seeks for the replacement of a dwelling on the same footprint as the existing dwelling. It is considered that a Tree Survey should be a condition along with methods to safely protect Root Protection Areas of the mature trees to ensure the proposal would accord with Policy EQ12 and retain the important landscape features across the site.

5.11 Highways and Parking Implications

5.11.1 Core Strategy policy EV12 parking provision requires that adequate parking be included with schemes for new housing. Appendix 5 Parking Standards provides guidance on the recommended number of vehicle parking spaces to be provided.

5.11.2 The proposal seeks for a 4- bedroom property as such two-off street parking spaces would be required to accord with the Parking Standards. The Design and Access Statement states that an existing detached triple-bay garage would be used. There is ample parking space to the front of the property and the proposal would therefore accord with Policy EV12 of the Core Strategy.

5.12 Other Matters

5.12.1 The recommendation below includes the use of pre-commencement conditions (this is a condition imposed on a grant of planning which must be complied with before any building or operation comprised in the development is begun or use is begun). The Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 provide that planning permission for the development

Page 43 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 of land may not be granted subject to a pre-commencement condition without the written agreement of the applicant to the terms of the condition. In this instance, the Agent has been notified in writing and has responded in agreement in writing with an amendment to the GPDO limiting condition and agrees the remainder dated 6.04.2020.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposal is concluded to be materially larger as defined by the Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, which defines materially larger as between 10-20% larger than the existing building. The proposal presents as a 30% increase of the original dwelling. Policy advises that replacement buildings that are materially larger are inappropriate development and carry the presumption of refusal. There has been an assessment of the actual harm on the openness of the Green Belt of the replacement dwelling. It was summarised that there was limited harm to the Green Belt.

6.2 There is a PD fall-back position in the form of a two-storey rear extension confirmed by a lawful development certificate which was determined prior to the submission of this proposal (Planning Reference 19/00767/LUP). The replacement dwelling would result in a 4.5% increase in the combined floorspace of the existing dwelling with the floor space created by the two-storey extension. As such the proposal would be considered acceptable in Green Belt terms when considered in view of this very special circumstance. The proposal would comply with other relevant development management policies as such the proposal is recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.

7. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the plans referenced 1257-200 entitled ‘Block Plan- Existing’, 1257-400 entitled ‘Site Layout Plan’, 1257-300 entitled ‘Block Plan -Proposed’ received by the Local Planning Authority dated 15th October 2020 together with plan referenced 1257-500 Rev D entitled ‘Proposed Floor Plans and Elevations’ and 1257-600 entitled ‘Existing Floor Plans and Elevations’ received by the Local Planning Authority dated 7th November 2020 and the amended plan reference 1257-100 Rev B entitled ‘Location Plan’ received by the Local Planning Authority dated 6th April 2020.

Page 44 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

3. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, before development commences, details of the facing materials to be used on the wall and roof of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out in the approved materials

4. A scheme of hard and soft landscaping of the site shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority before development commences. The scheme shall include a tree survey and methods to safely protect Root Protection Areas of the mature trees. The scheme shall also include the retention of any existing trees, shrubs, hedgerows and planting of additional The scheme shall include the retention of any existing trees, shrubs, hedgerows and planting of additional trees and shrubs; proposed finished levels or contours; all ground surface treatments and materials; new means of enclosure or details of retained boundary treatments; car parking layouts and proposed and existing functional services above and below ground and shall be implemented as approved within 12 months of the commencement of the approved development or as otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority and thereafter be maintained in accordance with the approved scheme. In the event of any of the trees or shrubs so planted dying or being seriously damaged or destroyed within 5 years of the completion of the development, a new tree or shrub of equivalent number and species, shall be planted as a replacement and thereafter properly maintained.

5. Prior to the commencement of any development hereby permitted, a written scheme of archaeological investigation ('the Scheme') shall be submitted for the written approval of the Local Planning Authority. The Scheme shall provide details of the programme of archaeological works to be carried out within the site, including post-excavation reporting and appropriate publication.

6. The archaeological site work shall thereafter be implemented in full in accordance with the written scheme of archaeological investigation approved under Condition 5.

7. The development shall not be occupied until the site investigation and post- excavation assessment has been completed in accordance with the written scheme of archaeological investigation approved under Condition 5 and the provision made for analysis, publication and dissemination of the results and archive deposition has been secured. Any subsequent archaeological mitigation must be the focus of a separate WSI produced after the monitoring stage and following detailed discussions with the LPA's archaeological advisor.

8. The replacement dwelling hereby approved shall not be occupied until the vehicular access, driveway, car parking spaces and turning areas have been provided in accordance with the approved plans

Page 45 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

9. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any other subsequent equivalent order, no development within the following classes of development shall be carried out to the dwelling, the subject of this approval, without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority: a. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A - enlargement, improvement or other alteration b. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B - addition or alteration to the roof c. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class C - any other alteration to the roof d. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class D - porches f. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A - gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

4. To safeguard the amenity of the area and protect the setting of heritage assets in accordance with Policies GB1, EQ3 and EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

5. To protect items or identify areas of archaeological significance in accordance with Policy EQ3 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF, 2019.

6. To protect items or identify areas of archaeological significance in accordance with Policy EQ3 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF, 2019.

7. To ensure any items identified with archaeological significance from the study are adequately recorded in accordance with Policy EQ3 of the Core Strategy and the NPPF, 2019.

8. In the interests of highway safety and to ensure that there is adequate parking to support the dwellings in accordance with Policy EQ12, Core Strategy, 2012.

9. The site is within Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy, 2012, there is a presumption against inappropriate development.

Page 46 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

Informatives

1. In dealing with this application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner through suggesting additions to overcome planning issues. As such it is considered that the Council has implemented the requirement set out in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2019.

2. All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is thus an offence, with certain exceptions. It is an offence to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine of up to £5,000, and/or six months' imprisonment. You are advised that the official UK nesting season is February until August.

3. When you carry out the development, the Developer is reminded that they must not intentionally kill, injure or take a bat, or intentionally or recklessly damage, destroy or block access to any structure or place that a bat uses for shelter. These would be offences under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, the Habitats Regulations 1994 and the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.

Page 47 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

The Paddocks, Mile Flat, Greensforge, KINGSWINFORD DY6 0AU

Page 48 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

19/00908/FUL Ms E Wray HATHERTON Councillor Chris Benton NON MAJOR Councillor David Williams

West Wing Shore Croft Sandy Lane Hatherton Cannock South Staffordshire WS11 1RF

New private driveway to access existing stable, horse yard and adjacent field.

1.SITE DESCRIPTION, BACKGROUND AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1Site description

1.1.1 Shore Croft is a large detached building situated on the northern side of Sandy Lane. It has been subdivided to form 3 separate properties known as West Wing, Middle Wing and East Wing. I understand that the applicant owns the former, together with the adjacent stable block, yard and surrounding fields. Currently vehicular access is shared between West Wing, Middle Wing and the stable yard. East Wing benefits from its own independent access.

1.1.2 It is understood that part of the ground floor of Middle Wing operates as a commercial chiropody/beauty treatments room and waiting area, following the grant of planning permissions 11/00520/COU and 12/00683/VAR. This includes commercial parking which is served by the shared vehicle access and turning area with the residential use of Middle Wing, West Wing and its associated stable yard and agricultural land.

1.1.3 A planning application was submitted for a new driveway to access the existing stable block, yard and land associated with West Wing last year (Ref: 18/00910/FUL). However, this application was withdrawn following concerns regarding the potential impact on existing trees, ecology, and the absence of the necessary visibility splays for the proposed new access. A stable block and yard have been in situ at West Wing for some time, with permission granted and subsequently implemented for a replacement brick stable block in 2018 (Ref: 18/ 00910/FUL).

1.1.4 The site lies within the West Midlands Green Belt and Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

1.2 Relevant planning history

18/00910/FUL – New private driveway to access existing stable, horse yard and adjacent field - Withdrawn 16/00992/FUL – Permission for existing timber stables to be replaced with brick stables - Approved

Page 49 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

12/00683/VAR – Deletion of condition 3 of application 11/00520/COU - The use hereby approved shall be discontinued on or before 31st December 2012. In connection with the use of part ground floor as chiropody/beauty treatment room and waiting area – Approved. 11/00520/COU - Use of part ground floor as chiropody/beauty treatment room and waiting area – Approved. 00/00249/COU – Demolition of garage and conservatory and change of use, alterations and extensions of 1 dwelling to form 3 dwellings - Approved

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

2.1.1 This application seeks permission to provide a private driveway to access the existing stables, horse yard and adjoining fields. It is understood that there is Japanese Knotweed in these fields, with the proposal allowing direct access for vehicles and equipment required to treat this land – currently the existing fencing needs to be removed between West Wing and the fields to provide access.

2.1.2 The new access driveway would be sited within an existing field to the north-east of the existing access, between two existing Oak trees fronting onto Sandy Lane. It would extend across the depth of an existing field adjacent to mature tree planting, with new gated entrances to the stable yard and northern field. The existing access off Sandy Lane would be retained to serve the residential property known as West Wing and the residential and commercial elements of Middle Wing.

2.1.3During the application process amended plans have been received re-positioning the new access slightly further to the south to limit the impact on the existing oak tree fronting onto Sandy Lane, the provision of appropriate visibility splays, clarification on the surfacing materials to be used, and details of the site levels. The relevant statutory consultees have been consulted on the amended details.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

Adopted Core Strategy (CS) Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4 Protecting and enhancing the character and appearance of the Landscape Policy EQ9 Protecting Residential Amenity Policy EQ11 Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: landscaping Core Policy 7: Employment and Economic Development Policy EV2 Sustainable Tourism

Page 50 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

Policy EV7: Equine Related Development Appendix 5 Car parking standards

South Staffordshire Design Guide (SPD) Green Belt and Open Countryside Supplementary Planning Guidance (GBOC SPD) National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) Chapters 6, 12, 13 and 15

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Amended Plans showing revised position of access, visibility splays, landscaping and surfacing materials:

Councillor David Williams has called the application to Committee as he feels it is inappropriate development in the green belt and the removal of trees is unacceptable.

Hatherton Parish Council (03.02.2020) – Raise concerns that the issues raised by the County Ecologist have not been resolved. They also highlight the presence of bats in Heathfield House opposite the site and the potential impact that artificial light associated with the development could have on them. The PC also question why no details of any gates have been provided with the application.

County Ecologist (05.03.2020) – The updated comments I sent on 20 Feb reflected the amended plans which now avoid removal of the tree with most bat potential that originally concerned me (T12.) Trees 10 and 11 have a very low chance of bat occupation, and I had amended my recommendation to the inclusion of an informative note to that effect only.

I take the PC’s point about lighting effects; this depends on whether there is already street lighting. If not, a condition that no lighting be installed without approval of the LPA can be added, or conversely insist that lighting is installed and submitted for approval so that you can ensure poor quality or damaging lighting is not installed in the future.

County Highways (21.02.2020 )– No objections, subject to conditions requiring the access, visibility splays and driveway being constructed in accordance with the submitted details, the first 10m of the driveway adjacent to the highway being surfaced in a bound material, and no gates to be erected within 6m of the highway.

Senior Arboricultural Officer (17.02.2020) – No objections, subject to conditions regarding no further tree removal, works to trees being undertaken in accordance with British Standard BS 3998:2010, and tree protection measures.

AONB Officer (18.02.2020) – The proposal has been revised to indicate a gravel track 3.5 metres wide with one passing place at which point the track would be 5.5m. The track would be sunken below ground level to reduce visual impact. Visibility spays appear to show these are clear of

Page 51 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 existing trees, though the AONB is not able to comment on the adequacy of the splay dimensions. Planting proposals are provided. The AONB withdraws the previous objection.

Cannock Chase District Council (10.02.2020) – No objections.

Site notice expired 13.01.2020

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 Councillor David Williams has called the application to Committee as he feels it is inappropriate development in the Green Belt and the removal of trees is unacceptable.

5.2 Key issues

• Whether the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt;

• The effect of the proposal on character and appearance of the area, including the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty;

• The effect of the proposed development on highway safety/parking;

• The effect of the development on the residential amenities of nearby residents; and

• The effect of the proposal on biodiversity.

5.3 Whether inappropriate development in the Green Belt

5.3.1 The application site lies within the Green Belt and is described by the applicant as a ‘low key access’ which would be constructed from permeable materials. It would therefore represent an engineering operation which paragraph 146 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) and Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy (CS) confirms is not inappropriate development provided that it preserves openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. Paragraph 145 of the Framework and Policy GB1 of the CS also do not regard the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt where they involve, amongst other things, the provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation, as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

5.3.2 The proposed access would serve the stable block and yard which is used for the applicant’s own personal use (i.e. appropriate facility for outdoor sport and recreation). It would be around 85m in length and would be sunken below ground level to reduce its visual impact. Additional information has been supplied during the application process, confirming that the access and driveway would be a gravel track, with a width of 3.5m. A passing bay would also be formed to enable vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass. No new entrance gates or fencing are

Page 52 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 proposed as part of the scheme. Given the ‘low key’ nature of the proposed access track, the absence of any new physical features other than the permeable surfacing itself, and its position adjacent to the existing stable block, the proposal would preserve the openness of the site. For these reasons, it would also not encroach out significantly into the open countryside. As such, the new access track would also not conflict with one of the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, to assist in safeguarding the countryside from encroachment.

5.3.3 For the reasons set out above, the proposal would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt and therefore accord with the Framework and Policy GB1 of the CS.

5.4 Character and appearance, including the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and impact on existing trees

5.4.1 The application site lies within the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). Paragraph 172 of the Framework seeks to ensure that ‘great weight’ is given to conserving and enhancing the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, with the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 (the Act) placing a duty on public bodies to ensure that the afore mentioned objectives are satisfied. Policy EQ2 of the CS closely aligns with both the Framework and the Act in this regard.

5.4.2 The site comprises of an existing field to the north-east of the host dwelling, with several trees along the Sandy Lane frontage of the site. The new access and track would be constructed between these existing landscape features, and although it would require the removal of three of these trees, they are all defined in the submitted Arboricultural Report (AR), as being low- quality trees of limited amenity value. The Council’s Arboricultural Officer agrees with the conclusions in the AR and has no objections to their removal, subject to conditions preventing any further tree removal and the use of various standard tree protection measures during the construction phase.

5.4.3 The AONB Officer initially objected to the proposal on the basis that insufficient information had been provided regarding the surfacing materials to be used, site levels and replacement tree planting to off-set the impact of the loss of existing trees and help assimilate it into the surrounding landscape. The applicant has provided details on all these matters, which can be secured by condition. As such, the AONB Officer raises no objections to the revised scheme.

5.4.4. Consequently, I find that the proposal due to its understated appearance and use of appropriate mitigation planting, the development would preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB. In this respect, it would also comply with EQ2, EQ4, EQ11, EQ12 and EV7 of the CS, chapters 12 and 15 of the Framework, and the expectations of the Act which, amongst other things, seeks to ensure that, amongst other things, equine development does not have an adverse impact on the natural environment and are sympathetic to the character of the area.

5.5. Highway safety/parking

Page 53 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.5.1 The proposal would introduce a new access track off Sandy Lane to serve the existing stable block, yard and adjacent field. It has been suggested by the applicant that it would be impractical to widen the existing access to serve the commercial and residential uses at Middle Wing and West Wing combined with the trailers, horse boxes and maintenance vehicles/equipment that access the stable yard and are required to tend to the adjacent fields. Therefore, whilst the comments of the PC are noted, there appears to be a genuine need for the new access.

5.5.2 Amended plans have been submitted which demonstrate that appropriate visibility splays can be provided in both directions for vehicles exiting the site, together with a passing bay enabling vehicles travelling in opposite directions to pass. This has addressed concerns raised by the PC regarding access to the stable block. A condition can be imposed requiring the visibility splays to be provided in accordance with the approved details before the access is brought into use.

5.5.3 The PC have also raised concerns about the impact of the proposal on Sandy Lane which is a relatively narrow stretch of road However, it is not considered that the modest number of vehicular movements that are associated with the use of the stables would have a significant impact on highway safety. Indeed, the number of movements is unlikely to increase over the present situation as all the applicant is doing is transporting traffic from the existing access to a new location several metres to the north-east. No objections have been raised to the proposed access arrangements by the highway authority.

5.5.4 The PC questions why no details of any gates have been provided. However, this application relates to a new access and driveway serving the stable block and agricultural land only. No gates are proposed as part of this application. The condition recommended by the highway authority is only an advisory condition if any gates were to be erected in the future.

5.5.5 Subject to conditions requiring the access, visibility splays and driveway being constructed in accordance with the submitted details, and the driveway being surfaced in a bound material for the first 10m back from the highway edge, the development would not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety and the residual cumulative impacts of the development would not be severe. As such, the proposal would accord with the Framework in this respect.

5.6 Biodiversity

5.6.1 The Framework seeks to minimise impacts and provide net gains in biodiversity. This is echoed within Policy EQ1 (Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets) which states that permission will be granted for development that does not cause significant harm to sites or habitats of nature conservation.

5.6.2 The County Ecologist has commented that one of the trees along the Sandy Lane frontage of the site, which was originally proposed to be felled, could provide an appropriate habitat for roosting bats. The proposed access has been re-positioned slightly to the south to enable the

Page 54 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 retention of this tree. The County Ecologist therefore does not raise any objections to the application on this basis.

5.6.3 The Parish Council has raised concerns regarding the potential impact from artificial light associated with the development on bat activity at Heathfield House opposite the site. The County Ecologist confirms that this will not be an issue if there is already street lighting in the area.

5.6.4 Given that there are existing streetlights along Sandy Lane, it is not considered that the development would impact on bats that may be present in Heathfield House. Moreover, a condition is recommended confirming that this permission, if granted, does not grant or imply consent for any external lighting on the site or its boundaries. For these reasons, the proposal would not have an adverse impact on biodiversity and accord with Policy EQ1 of the CS and the Framework in this respect.

5.7 Residential amenity

5.7.1 The proposed access lies adjacent to residential properties on the southern side of Sandy lane. Given that the stable block, yard and field is used for the applicant’s own personal use, any potential noise and disturbance from vehicles utilising the new access is likely to be limited and not have a detrimental impact on the residential amenities of these properties. As such, it would accord with Policy EQ9 of the CS and paragraph 127 of the Framework which, amongst other things, seeks to provide a high standard of amenity for existing and future users.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 Accordingly, I find that the proposal would not represent inappropriate development in the Green Belt. It would also preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the AONB, highway safety, biodiversity, and the residential amenities of nearby residents. Therefore, the proposal is in accordance with local and national planning policies set out above and I recommend the application for approval.

7. RECOMMENDATION – APPROVE.

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawing Nos: ‘Site Layout Plan’ 0281-03/02 Rev B, ‘proposed visibility splays plan’ 0281-03/03 Rev A and ‘Tree Planting Plan’ THL-0797-5 received on 5 February 2020.

Page 55 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

3. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access to the site within the limits of the public highway has been completed.

4. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive rear of the public highway has been surfaced and thereafter maintained in a bound and porous material for a minimum distance of 10.0m back from the site boundary.

5. The development hereby permitted shall not be brought into use until the access drive, parking and turning areas and visibility splays have been provided in accordance with drawing nos 0281-03/02 Rev B and 0281-03/03 Rev A received on 5 February 2020. The visibility splays shall thereafter be kept free of all obstructions to visibility over a height of 600 mm above the adjacent carriageway level.

6. Any gates shall be located a minimum of 6.0m rear of the carriageway boundary and shall open away from the highway.

7. This permission does not grant or imply consent for any external lighting on the site or its boundaries.

8. All planting comprised in the approved details of landscaping shown on the ‘Tree Planting Plan’ THL-0797-5 received on 5 February 2020 shall be carried out in the first planting season following the new access and driveway being brought into use; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

9. No existing trees or hedges on the site or its boundaries shall be lopped, topped or cut down without the prior consent of the local planning authority.

10. T07 Tree Protection. In this condition "retained tree" means an existing tree, which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the construction of the access and track: (a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard BS 3998:2010 Tree Work; (b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority; and (c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be

Page 56 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. In the interests of highway safety and to comply with Staffordshire County Council requirements for a vehicular access crossing, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

4. In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

5. In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. In the interests of highway safety, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.

7. To preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in accordance with Policies EQ2, EQ4, EQ11 and EV7 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

8. To preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in accordance with Policies EQ2, EQ4, EQ11 and EV7 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

9. To preserve the landscape and scenic beauty of the Cannock Chase Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, in accordance with Policies EQ2, EQ4, EQ11, EQ12 and EV7 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

10. To safeguard the amenities of the local area and to protect the natural features that contribute towards this and that are important in the appearance of the development, in accordance with Policies EQ2, EQ4, EQ11, EQ12 and EV7 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Page 57 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

Proactive Statement

In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has worked in a positive and proactive manner based on seeking solutions to problems in relation to dealing with the planning application, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Informative:

The new access shall require a Highway Works Agreement with Staffordshire County Council. The applicant is requested to contact Staffordshire County Council in order to secure the Agreement. The link below is to the Highway Works Information Pack including an application Form. Please complete and send to the address indicated on the application Form or email to ([email protected]). The applicant is advised to begin this process well in advance of any works taking place in order to meet any potential timescales. https://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/staffshighways/highwayscontrol/HighwaysWorkAg reements.a spx

Page 58 of 88 Tom Cannon – Planning Consultant: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

West Wing, Shore Croft, Sandy Lane, Hatherton, CANNOCK, WS11 1RF

Page 59 of 88

Page 60 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

20/00001/FUL Mr John Michell CODSALL Councillor John Michell NON-MAJOR Councillor Robert Spencer

Charlesfield, Oaken Lane Oaken WOLVERHAMPTON WV8 2BD

Erection of 3no.stables and tack room

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 Charlesfield is a two-storey residential dwelling located within the village of Oaken, set down a private track from Oaken Lane and enclosed from the street scene and wider views.

1.2 Planning History

08/00008/OUT – Demolition of existing dwelling and erection of 4 no. detached dwellings with access modifications withdrawn 7.02.2008

91/00983 – Stable Block - approved subject to conditions 12.11.1991

2. PROPOSAL

2.1 The Proposal

2.1.1 Planning permission is sought for the erection of a stable block that would comprise of 3 no. stables and tack room in traditional L-shape formation.

2.2.2 The stable block would measure approx. 12.5m in length, 3.8m stables depth and a maximum depth of 7.4m in depth and approx. 2.8m in height.

2.2.3 The stable block would be constructed out of oak timber boarding in a shiplap finish, under a grey fibre cement roof, with black uPVC rainwater goods.

2.2.4 The stable block would be for personal family use.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1. Within Green Belt and the Codsall Conservation Area.

3.2 The Adopted South Staffordshire Core Strategy, 2012

• NP1: The Presumption in favour of sustainable development • Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire

Page 61 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

• Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt • Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment • Policy EQ1: Protecting, Expanding, and Enhancing Natural Assets • Policy EQ3: Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets • Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape • Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design • Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity • Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations • Policy EQ12: Landscaping • Core Policy 9: Rural Diversification • Policy EV7: Equine Related Development

3.3 Adopted Local Guidance

• South Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document, 2018 • Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, 2014 • Codsall and Oaken Conservation Area Management Plan, 2014

3.4 National Planning Policy Framework, 2019 (the ‘NPPF’)

• Section 12 – Achieving well-designed places • Section 13 – Protecting Green Belt land • Section 15 – Conserving and enhancing the historic environment

3.5 Other Legislation

Code of practice for the welfare of horses, ponies, donkeys and their hybrids. DEFRA, December 2017

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

No Councillor comments (Expired 20.02.2020):

Codsall Parish Council: No Comments ‘The Chairman proposes as the applicant is a fellow Parish Councillor and the Parish Council is only a consultee we make no recommendation, but defer the decision to the arbiter. The Councillors unanimously approved. Resolved the Councillors make no comment on this application.” (13.02.2020)

Conservation Officer: No objection subject to recommended conditions (25.02.2020)

Neighbours Expired 21.02.2020 Site Notice Expired 27.02.2020 Press Notice Expired 25.02.2020

No third-party comments have been received.

Page 62 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is brought before the Planning Committee as the Applicant for the proposal is a Member.

5.2 The application site is located in Green Belt and the Conservation Area. The key issues in the consideration of this application are: • Principle of the Development • Design Impact on the openness of the Green Belt • Impact on the Conservation Area • Impact on Residential Amenity • Ecology and Trees • Other Matters

5.3 Principle and Green Belt

5.3.1 The proposal seeks for the erection of a stable block for personal use. The site lies within the West Midlands Green Belt. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that "inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances". As such new buildings within the Green Belt, carries a presumption of refusal. However, there are exceptions to this position as set out under Paragraph 145 within the NPPF. Point b) relates to the provision of appropriate facilities in connection with the existing use of the land or change of use for outdoor sport or outdoor recreation, as long as the facilities preserve the openness of the Green Belt and do not conflict with the purposes of the land within it.

5.3.2 This is reiterated within Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy, which outlines exceptions to inappropriate development and these include the provision for appropriate small-scale facilities for outdoor sport and recreation, and for other uses of the land which do not conflict with the purposes of the Green Belt. Policy EV7 of the Local Plan outlines the principles where proposals for equine related development wold be supported. Policy EV7 which supports horse related facilities provided that:

a) New buildings are sited within close proximity to existing rural buildings and are of sufficient distance away from dwellings as not to impact on neighbouring amenity; b) The design, materials and siting are sympathetic to the rural character of the area; c) Does not have an adverse impact on the natural environment and the integrity of designated protected sites; d) Menages are sympathetic to the character of the area; and e) Located close to the bridleway network.

5.3.3 Policy GB1 refers to 'small-scale’ facilities for outdoor sport and recreation and is therefore more restrictive than Paragraph 145 of the Framework.

Page 63 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

5.3.4 As such it is considered the development would comply with the criterion for an appropriate small-scale facility for outdoor recreation in accordance with Policies GB1. The conditions attached to Policy ENV7 are assessed in more detail along with the relevant development management policies below.

5.4 Design and Impact on the openness of the Green Belt

5.4.1 Policy EQ4 seeks for development to respect the intrinsic rural character and local distinctiveness of the South Staffordshire landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced.

5.4.2 Core Strategy policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations states that development proposals must seek to achieve creative and sustainable designs that take into account local character and distinctiveness, and reflect the principles around use, movement, form and space.

5.4.3 Both Policy EQ11 and EV7 state that developments should be of the highest quality and should account for local character and distinctiveness.

5.4.4 Within the Code of Practice, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) 2017 document for keeping horses, there are minimum dimensions of stables and width of doors. The proposal has been assessed against these standards and it is considered that the width of the stable doors and the width and depths of the stables themselves would meet the standards for horses. However, the stables would not support the standards for ‘large horses’.

5.4.5 It is considered that the design and scale of the proposal would be sympathetic and reflect the character of the rural area and the use proposed. The materials are commensurate to the building.

5.4.6 Because the proposal would be sited against the boundary with the rear garden of the neighbouring properties to the north of the site, together with the enclosed nature of the site and land level differences of the adjoining paddock, it is considered that the proposal would have a limited impact on the openness of this part of the Green Belt .

5.4.7 There is no information within the Application about illumination of the stables, however any recommendation for approval would be subject to controlling further lighting by condition.

5.4.8 Overall it is considered that the proposal would accord with Policies EQ4, EQ11 and EV7 of the Core Strategy, 2012.

5.5 Impact on the Conservation Area

5.5.1 Policy EQ3 states that the Council will consider the significance of and setting of all proposed works to heritage assets, informed by relevant guidance that is

Page 64 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 supported by English Heritage. In addition, the following principles will be adhered to; minimising the loss and disturbance of historic materials, using appropriate materials and ensuring alterations are reversible. Part 12 of the NPPF and English Heritage offer guidance in relation to development to ensure that the historic environment and its heritage assets should be conserved and enjoyed for the quality of life they bring to this and future generations.

5.5.2 In Appendix 7 (Oaken Townscape Appraisal Map) within the Codsall and Oaken Conservation Area Appraisal, identifies that the paddock land adjoining the application site to the north east as positive open spaces.

5.5.3 The stable block would be sited on land to the rear of an unlisted building and would have a negligible impact within the street scene and wider area. It is noted that there may be distant views afforded to the stable block from the public footpath that runs between Oaken Lane to Oaken Drive. However, by way of scale and the siting of the proposed stable block, it is not considered that the proposed structure will have a detrimental impact on the character of the Conservation Area.

5.5.4 The Conservation Officer has been consulted on the proposal and has no objection to the proposal, subject to a condition imposed for details of facing materials prior to the commencement of the development on any recommendation for approval.

5.5.5 Overall the proposal, would accord with Policies EQ3 of the Core Strategy, 2012.

5.6 Impact on Residential Amenity

5.6.1 Policy EQ9 Protecting Residential Amenity states that all development proposals should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents, particularly with regard to privacy, security, noise and disturbance, pollution, odours and daylight.

5.6.2 The proposal would be sited near to the boundary of the application site with third party neighbouring properties at No. 6 and 7. The semi-detached properties have long rear gardens that abut the application site. There is substantial planting and mature vegetation to the rear of these gardens that present as a buffer.

5.6.3 Due to distance to the siting of the proposed stages together with the intervening landscaping features, it is not considered there would be any adverse harm upon neighbouring amenity. Furthermore, as the use is proposed for private use, it is not considered there would be any unacceptable impact by way of additional vehicular movements along the track to the site.

5.7 Trees

5.7.1 Core Strategy policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations states that development proposals must seek to achieve creative and sustainable designs that

Page 65 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 take into account local character and distinctiveness, and reflect the principles around use, movement, form and space. Policy EQ12 seeks to protect and enhance key landscape features.

5.7.2 Policy EQ1 provides that developments should not cause significant harm to habitats of nature conservation, including woodlands and hedgerows, together with species that are protected or under threat.

5.7.3 There are a limited number of key landscape trees that make a contribution to the area. There are many conifer trees and a substantial holly tree near to the siting of the proposal.

5.7.4 The application has been discussed with the Tree Officer, who agrees that the nature of the structure, together with its limited foundations will mean that there would no detrimental impact to trees within the area.

5.7.5 With regards to ecology, the application site is already in use as part of the dwelling houses’ domestic curtilage. The land is grassed and has limited ecological habitat value.

5.7.5 As such there would no detrimental impact to trees with special amenity value or ecology as a result of the proposal and would accord with Policies EQ11, EQ12 and EQ1 of the Core Strategy, 2012.

5.8 Other Matters

5.8.1 The recommendation below includes the use of pre-commencement conditions (this is a condition imposed on a grant of planning which must be complied with before any building or operation comprised in the development is begun or use is begun). The Town and Country Planning (Pre-commencement Conditions) Regulations 2018 provide that planning permission for the development of land may not be granted subject to a pre-commencement condition without the written agreement of the applicant to the terms of the condition. In this instance, the Agent has been notified in writing and has responded in agreement via email dated 1.04.2020.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 In light of the above observations, the proposal is considered to be an appropriate form of development within the Green Belt as it constitutes a facility for outdoor recreational use. It is considered the proposal would form a compatible use within the rural countryside. The proposal therefore accords with Policies GB1, EQ1, EQ3, EQ4, EQ9, EQ11, EQ12 and EV7 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy, 2012 together with the relevant provisions of the NPPF. Planning permission is therefore recommended subject to appropriate conditions.

Page 66 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plan reference 180:01 A entitled 'Planning Dwg. Of Barns' received by the Local Planning Authority dated 23rd January 2020 together with the plan entitled 'Site Map' received by the Local Planning Authority dated 27th January 2020.

3. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, before development commences, details of the facing materials and external finishes to be used on the external walls and roof of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall then be carried out in the approved materials.

4. The stables hereby approved, shall be solely for the benefit of the occupiers of the dwelling known as 'Charlesfield' and shall not be used for the purposes of a livery, DIY livery, riding school or any other commercial purposes.

5. No floodlighting or other form of external lighting shall be installed unless details have been submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

4. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy GB1 and EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

5. To safeguard the character and appearance of the area.

Informatives

1. There shall be no open burning of materials arising from the keeping and grazing of horses on the land.

Page 67 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

2. All works shall be completed outside of the bird nesting season (March to September).

3. In dealing with this application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner through suggesting amendments to overcome planning issues. As such it is considered that the Council has implemented the requirement set out in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2019.

Page 68 of 88 Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

Charlesfield, Oaken Lane, Oaken, WOLVERHAMPTON WV8 2BD

Page 69 of 88

Page 70 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

20/00161/COM Severn Trent Water Ltd PERTON Councillor Philip Davis NON-MAJOR

Pump House Dippons Lane Perton

Extension to an existing sewage pumping station and relocation of an existing agricultural access track

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site description

1.1.1 The site is located due East of the main service village of Perton, outside of the designated development boundary and in the Green Belt. The site is accessed along Westcroft Road and Wrottesley Road West, although this lane is used to service the site and a small number of dwellings only. It does not serve the development of Perton.

1.1.2 The site comprises an existing access track providing access from Westcroft Road/ Wrottesley Road West to the existing sewage pumping station (SPS) and a second track, providing access to a small outbuilding and grassland field to the west of the site. There is an area of grassland and woodland to the south of the site; whilst to the west, the site opens up to a wider field used to graze horses. There are a good number of mature trees, although none are affected by the proposal. The site is currently used by Severn Trent Water and there is a pumping station on site.

1.2 Relevant Planning History

None relevant to the development.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Proposal

2.1.1 The proposal is being determined by Staffordshire County Council as a waste county matter. The County will therefore be the determining planning Authority and this is a consultation. South Staffordshire Council can only make a recommendation.

2.1.2 The application being considered by County proposes an extension of the site curtilage and the relocation of an existing agricultural access track to the south of the site to allow for this. The application will incorporate around 248 sqm and will be enclosed with security fencing measuring 1.8m in height with an access gate. The track will be around 50m in length, leading to a further area of hardstanding for the other landowners use, in association with the field beyond where horses are kept.

Page 71 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

2.2 Agents Submission

Design and Access Statement

3. POLICY CONTEXT

Within the West Midlands Green Belt

Core Strategy Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environ EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting, Expanding and Enhancing Natural Assets Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Policy EQ12: Landscaping

National Planning Policy Framework [NPPF] 2019

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillor Allen (received 10/03/2020) I wish to call in these plans as we have several concerns as a parish council. A) Work has already begun. B) The new access is visible from the road. C) We are concerned about the hardstanding and existing flooding in this area of Dippons Lane. D) There has been a discharge of effluent in the adjacent brook. E) ASB is associated with this site. The Clerk to Perton Parish Counil will be rising our concerns also and I request a site visit.

Perton Parish Council (received 11/03/2020) made the following comments/observations: It appears that work has already started There is already evidence of effluent being dispersed into the local landscape The area already floods, additional hard standing will increase the flooding There is concern that the ecological report does not adequately take account of the bat population The area is already subjected to anti-social behaviour. The area should be properly planted to minimise vehicle usage What is the process for switching to the new pumps?

County Highways (received 13/03/2020) No objections

Page 72 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

County Council will consult directly with neighbours as required through their own Statement of Community involvement

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is to be determined by Planning Committee at the request of Councillor Allen, who has raised a number of concerns.

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of development - Impact on landscape - Impact on flooding - Ecology

5.3 Principle of development

5.3.1 The site is within the Green Belt, where GB1 of the Core Strategy and paragraph 146 of the NPPF allow for engineering operations, provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it. The proposal involves the incorporation of a piece of land within the curtilage of the existing site and the relocation of the access track and area of hardstanding for the owners of the remaining field. I consider that the incorporation preserves the openness of the Green Belt as there are no above grounds works. The fence would be Permitted Development.

5.3.2 The reasons for including land within the Green Belt are as follows:

To check the unrestricted sprawl of large built up areas; To prevent neighbouring towns margining into one another; To assist in safeguarding the countryside from encouragement; To preserve the setting ad special character of historic towns; and To assist in urban regeneration, by encouraging the recycling of derelict urban land.

I see no conflict with any of the above from the proposal.

5.4 Impact on landscape

5.4.1 Throughout the District, the design and location of new development should take account of the characteristics and sensitivity of the landscape and its surroundings and should not have a detrimental effect on the immediate environment and on any medium and long-distance views. EQ11 states the design of all developments must be of the highest quality and the submission of design statements supporting and explaining the design components of proposals will be required.

5.4.2 The extension of the site will incorporate a piece of land that was already laid to hardstanding. A new access track will be laid south to this and will lead to a further area of hardstanding. I do not consider it would have a material detrimental impact

Page 73 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020 from any long-distance views. Any perceived harm will be from short term views at the site entrance and the field behind. However, the proposal will serve a functional purpose and aid STW to run the site in accordance with relevant safety standards. I consider it acceptable to request the inclusion of a landscape condition should permission be issued, which will aid assimilation back into the landscape.

5.5 Impact on flooding

5.5.1 Core Policy 3 requires development to be designed to cater for the effects of climate change, making prudent use of natural resources, enabling opportunities for renewable energy and energy efficiency and helping to minimise any environmental impacts. This will be achieved by giving preference to development on previously developed land (brownfield land) in sustainable locations.

5.5.2 The County will consult with the EA or flood team as necessary. However, I note the concerns of the Parish Council and consider it reasonable to request that a surface water drainage scheme be secured by condition. If effluent is being discharged, this is a serious public health concern which I hope the Parish have reported to the appropriate body and not just made comment here. It is not a material planning consideration in arriving in a recommendation of this development to the County, however.

5.6 Ecology

5.6.1 Development Policy EQ1 states that permission will be granted for development which will not cause significant harm to sites and/or habitats of nature conservation, geological or geomorphological value and species that are protected. Locally important sites such a Sites of Biological Importance (SBIs) and Local Nature Reserves (LNRs) will be protected and enhanced. Protected species are a material consideration when making a decision with regard to a planning application. I note the concerns raised by the Parish Council, but I would consider any impact on ecology to be limited and do not consider that this area of hardstanding or the access track would adversely impact on the bat population.

5.7 Anti-social behaviour

I appreciate the concerns raised by the Parish Council, however I do not consider that this proposal would have any bearing on this.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The County Council will determine this planning application in accordance with their Local Plan, with the District Council being a consultee. I consider that the proposal satisfies Green Belt policy. The County will seek advice regarding flooding and ecology. I do see some merit however in requesting a surface water drainage scheme if the area is liable to flooding and consider that a landscape scheme be submitted both for approval at a time suitably agreed by the County and the applicant. I see no reason to recommend that the County Council refuse this proposal.

Page 74 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

7. RECOMMENDATION – That Staffordshire County Council be advised that South Staffordshire Council has no objections to the proposal, subject to the imposition of conditions requesting the submission and approval of a surface water drainage scheme and the submission and approval of a landscape scheme, together with any other relevant conditions.

Page 75 of 88 Lucy Duffy – Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 21/04/2020

Pump House, Dippons Lane, Perton

Page 76 of 88 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 21 APRIL 2020

MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT

REPORT OF THE LEAD PLANNING MANAGER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

1.1 A monthly update report to ensure that the Committee is kept informed on key matters including:

 Proposed training  Any changes that impact on National Policy  Any recent Planning Appeal Decisions  Relevant Planning Enforcement cases on a quarterly basis  The latest data produced by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Committee note the update report.

3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives? POLICY/COMMUNITY Yes IMPACT Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed? No SCRUTINY POWERS No – for information report for Planning Committee APPLICABLE KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ 28 January 2020 DELIVERY DATE There are no direct financial implications arising from FINANCIAL IMPACT No this report.

Any legal issues are covered in the report. LEGAL ISSUES No

Page 77 of 88 OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & No other significant impacts, risks or opportunities No OPPORTUNITIES have been identified. IMPACT ON SPECIFIC District-wide application. No WARDS

PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4. INFORMATION

4.1 Future Training – Changes to Planning Committee were approved at the 26 March 2019 meeting of the Council to reduce committee size from 49 potential members to 21 members. As part of these changes an update report will now be brought to each meeting of the Committee. The intention has been that with a reduced size of Committee additional training will be provided throughout the year, namely before each Planning Committee (starting at 5:30pm). The sessions may well change depending on what issues are on the agenda. The future sessions identified are:

 Cannock Chase SAC  Design  Environmental Health matters (including drainage and air quality)  Conditions  Enforcement – what we can and can’t take action against  Gypsy and Travellers Policy  Advertisements

Please note that given the current public health situation, we are investigating how to do training remotely. We will confirm in due course once agreed.

4.3 Changes in National Policy – there are no substantive changes in Government Policy that will impact on any decisions of the Committee.

4.4 Planning Appeal Decisions – every Planning Appeal decision will now be brought to the Committee for the Committee to consider. There have been 2 appeal decisions since the last Committee, a copy of the decisions are attached as Appendix 1 and 2. This relates to:

 Proposed delivery of a single detached over 55’s dwelling at land to the rear of Holly Rock, Astles Rock Walk, Kinver DY7 6QA. The appeal was dismissed as the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and the Conservation Area, and would also have the potential to have a detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety on Astles Rock Walk and at the junction of Astles Rock Walk with Comber Road.  The development proposed is a single storey detached garage at the front of Threeways, Coppenhall, Stafford, ST18 9BW. The appeal was dismissed because of the detrimental effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Page 78 of 88 4.5 The key decision that we are still awaiting is that concerning the 2 Crematoria applied for some time ago, and the decision is still awaited. It was due by 12 September 2019. We are still awaiting this.

4.6 At the time of writing we are still also awaiting the outcome of the West Midlands Interchange (WMI) Development Consent Order (DCO). Officers continue to liaise with PINS to understand when that decision will be made.

4.9 Relevant Planning Enforcement cases on a quarterly basis – No further update since last Planning Committee – Planning enforcement matters concerning individual cases falls within the remit of the Planning Committee. Now that there is a smaller Committee, we will be bringing a quarterly update to the Committee on ongoing enforcement matters. Performance is estimated to be around 95% currently, subject to ongoing ICT checks by the Enforcement team to confirm the precise figure. There has clearly been a significant improvement in planning enforcement as a result of extra staff and a targeted approach to dealing with new cases. The number of planning enforcement complaints has been manageable, and the triage system implemented has been effective in screening out non planning related complaints therefore reducing the number of complaints being logged.

4.10 The latest data produced by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government – As members will recall MHCLG sets designation targets that must be met regarding both quality and speed of planning decisions. The targets are broken into Major and Non major development. If the targets are not met then unless exceptional circumstances apply MHCLG will “designate” the relevant authority and developers have the option to avoid applying to the relevant designated Local Planning Authority and apply direct, and pay the fees, to the Planning Inspectorate. Details can be seen at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attac hment_data/file/760040/Improving_planning_performance.pdf

4.11 We will ensure that the Committee is kept informed of performance against the relevant targets including through the MHCLG’s own data.

4.12 For Speed – the 2020 target for major developments is that 60% of decisions must be made within the relevant time frame (or with an agreed extension of time) and for non-major it is 70%. For Quality – for 2020 the threshold is 10% for both major and non-major decisions. Current performance is well within these targets and the position as set out on MHCLG’s website will be shown to the Committee at the meeting – the information can be seen on the following link tables:

 151a – speed – major  152a – quality – major  153 – speed – non major  154 – quality – non major

The link is here – https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables- on-planning-application-statistics

Page 79 of 88 The latest position is on the MHCLG website and the key figures are below:

Speed majors – target 60% (or above) – result = 89.4% (data up to December 2019) others – target 70% (or above) – result = 86.3% (data up to December 2019)

Quality majors – target 10% (or below) – result = 5.4% (date up to September 2018) others – target 10% or below – result = 1.1% (date up to September 2018)

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

N/A

6. PREVIOUS MINUTES

N/A

7. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Appendix 1 – Appeal Decision – land to the rear of Holly Rock, Astles Rock Walk, Kinver DY7 6QA Appendix 2 – Appeal Decision – land at Threeways, Coppenhall, Stafford, ST18 9BW

Report prepared by: Kelly Harris, Lead Planning Manager

Page 80 of 88 Appendix 1

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 5 February 2020

by M Russell BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 18 March 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/C3430/W/19/3240998 Land to the rear of Holly Rock, Astles Rock Walk, Kinver DY7 6QA • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mrs M Turner against the decision of South Staffordshire Council. • The application Ref 19/00541/OUT, dated 10 July 2019, was refused by notice dated 10 September 2019. • The development proposed is delivery of a single detached over 55’s dwelling.

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matter

2. The proposal is in outline form with all matters reserved, other than layout. The position of the dwelling shown on the submitted plan has therefore been material to my assessment of the proposal.

Main Issues

3. The main issues are the effect of the proposal on:

• the character and appearance of the area including the setting of the Kinver Conservation Area (CA); and

• highway and pedestrian safety.

Reasons

Character and appearance

4. The appeal site sits within the development boundary for Kinver and outside but close to the Kinver CA. The area is characterised by its steeply sloped topography and is predominantly in residential use with dwellings of varying styles positioned within often generous soft landscaped plots. These characteristics result in the area displaying verdant semi-rural qualities to which the site currently contributes.

5. The site is irregular in shape with a significant change in levels between its front and rear boundaries. The ground levels within the site form 2 distinct terraces. The proposed dwelling would sit at a higher level to the dwellings on Comber Road. It would occupy a large proportion of the lower part of the site and would take up much of its width. Even accounting for the gap that would be retained between the dwelling and the boundary with Holly Rock, the

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 81 of 88 Appeal Decision APP/C3430/W/19/3240998

proposed dwelling would be likely to appear cramped within the lower portion of the site. The necessity for the provision of parking space within the site is considered under the second main issue. However, hard surfacing for any such parking would further exacerbate the intensive appearance of the development within the site.

6. The constrained nature of the development would be most notable when approaching the site from the higher end of Astles Rock Walk towards the bend in the road. Matters of scale are a reserved matter and there may be opportunities to retain soft landscaping to the southern boundary with Holly Rock. Even so, the tight positioning of the proposal and its incongruity relative to the prevailing spacious and soft landscaped character of the area would still be discernible from public vantage points along Astles Rock Walk and Comber Road. The close proximity of the proposal to the CA means that the proposal would also be seen in that context and would fail to preserve or enhance the character or appearance of the CA.

7. To conclude, the proposal would have an adverse effect on the character and appearance of the area and the CA. Consequently, in that regard, the development would conflict with Policies EQ3 (Conservation, Preservation and Protection of Heritage Assets), EQ4 (Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape) and EQ11 (Wider Design Considerations) of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2012) (CS).

Highway safety

8. Means of access are reserved for subsequent approval. However, the only feasible way to access the site would be Astles Rock Walk, a narrow single-track road with a steep gradient. Astles Rock Walk is a shared surface road used by pedestrians and vehicles. It has a roughly 90 degree bend next to the boundary with the appeal site.

9. The appellant suggests that on the basis of the dwelling being for occupants over the age of 55 as well as the availability of shops and facilities in Kinver, no off-road parking would be required. However, it would not be reasonable to expect that all occupants over the age of 55 should not have access to a motor vehicle. Equally, the return distance to the nearest shops and services may not be a feasible walk for all potential occupants, particularly those who may be in more advanced years. The Highway Authority have also confirmed that the nearest bus stop is approximately 1 km away. For these reasons, I am not convinced that a condition restricting car ownership would be reasonable. It would also be difficult to enforce given the likely difficulties in monitoring such a condition. Furthermore, no legal agreement is before me to demonstrate that car ownership could be prohibited.

10. Taking the above matters into account, the potential relationship of vehicles associated with the new dwelling on highway safety matters must therefore be considered. The narrow dimensions of Astles Rock Walk combined with its gradient do not allow for vehicles to easily pass one another. Consequently, it is probable that there would be an increased likelihood of vehicles waiting on the public highway on Comber Road in instances where access would be impeded by another vehicle exiting Astles Rock Walk. Additional usage above current levels would also increase the potential for conflict between vehicles and pedestrians on Astles Rock Walk. Furthermore, any increase in traffic to

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 82 of 88 Appeal Decision APP/C3430/W/19/3240998

and from the site would result in additional risk to road safety at the junction with Comber Road where visibility is restricted by the narrow width of Astles Rock Walk and the mature vegetation that exists to either side of the junction. Even if future occupants did not own a car, a new dwelling would increase the potential for visitors to seek vehicular access to the site via Astles Rock Walk. This further compounds the potential for the development to result in highway and pedestrian safety issues.

11. I note the evidence provided to show that the appellant has a legal right of access to the site via Astles Rock Walk. The appellant’s submission also suggests that Astles Rock Walk may be adopted rather than a private road. Whether or not this is the case, the site is currently not developed and current vehicular traffic to the site is therefore likely to be limited. For this reason, the existing situation is not comparable with the level of traffic that would be likely to be generated were the site to be occupied by a dwelling. I have no substantive evidence before me to convince me otherwise.

12. To conclude, the development would have the potential to have a detrimental impact on highway and pedestrian safety on Astles Rock Walk and at the junction of Astles Rock Walk with Comber Road. Consequently, in this particular regard, the development would be contrary to Paragraph 108 of the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) which amongst other things requires development to provide safe and suitable access for all people.

Other Matters

13. The appellant suggests that the development would contribute to the Council’s housing supply and specifically address a need for housing associated with the over 55s. Reference has also been made to several other sites where accommodation for the over 55s and elderly has been approved. However, from the limited information provided, the material considerations in those cases was not identical to those considered under the main issues for this appeal. A single dwelling would only make a limited contribution towards the Council’s requirements. I am not persuaded by the evidence before me that there is a level of need for this type of dwelling such that it should come at the expense of the character and appearance of the area or highway and pedestrian safety.

Conclusion

14. For the above reasons the appeal is dismissed. M Russell

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Page 83 of 88

Page 84 of 88 Appendix 2

Appeal Decision Site visit made on 31 January 2020 by R Cooper BSc (Hons) MCD MRTPI an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State Decision date: 13th March 2020

Appeal Ref: APP/C3430/W/19/3240524 Threeways, Coppenhall, Stafford, ST18 9BW • The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission. • The appeal is made by Mr Lee Bate against the decision of South Staffordshire Council. • The application Ref 19/00670/FUL, dated 30 August 2019, was refused by notice dated 23 October 2019. • The development proposed is a single storey detached garage at the front of the property, 5m wide x 4.5m deep x 4m tall (22.5m2).

Decision

1. The appeal is dismissed.

Procedural Matters

2. The appellant has submitted revised plans with the appeal. Given these did not form part of the application, it would not be in the best interests of fairness to all parties for me to accept these plans, as it would deprive interested parties the opportunity to comment on them. Therefore, the application has been determined on the original plans submitted with the application.

Main Issues

3. The main issue is the effect of the proposed development on the character and appearance of the area; and on the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers with regard to outlook.

Reasons

Character and Appearance

4. The appeal site is located within the village of Coppenhall. The street scene consists of detached dwellings, arranged in a linear pattern along the road, fronting directly onto the street and set back from the road by with well-proportioned front gardens. This contributes to the prevailing open semi- rural character and appearance of the area.

5. The building would be located within the front garden, positioned in between the dwelling and the road, forward of the building line. This would be at odds with the prevailing layout of residential dwellings in the street, not respecting the character and appearance of the area. Due to the building’s proximity to the road, and its scale and appearance, the garage would appear incongruous within the street scene.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate

Page 85 of 88 Appeal Decision APP/C3430/W/19/3240524

6. Whilst there are existing hedgerows, and the appellant proposes additional planting, these are likely to only partially screen the building. Its presence within the street scene would be particularly evident, and this planting is unlikely to overcome the harm caused by the scale of the building and its location, that would be at odds with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

7. The appellant proposes to render the building and use roof tiles to match the existing property. However, this would not overcome the overriding harm caused by the location and scale of the building, which would be out of kilter with the prevailing pattern of development in the area.

8. Consequently, the proposed garage would harm the character and appearance of the area and does not accord with Policy EQ11 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2012) which seeks to ensure that new development respects the context of the site and does not harm the character of the area. The proposal is not consistent with paragraph 127 of the National Planning Policy Framework which promotes quality of design in new development.

Living Conditions

9. The adjoining dwelling at Nome House has an open aspect to the front, provided by its own, and the adjoining front gardens. The building would be positioned in close proximity to the front boundary of the site, and adjacent to the existing low level boundary shared with Nome House.

10. The proposed building’s close proximity to the boundary combined with its scale and height, would create a sense of enclosure to the front garden of Nome House. This would interfere with the occupier’s outlook, and when viewed from the front of the neighbour’s property the building would appear obtrusive and overbearing.

11. I conclude that there would be harm caused to the outlook and living conditions of adjoining occupiers of Nome House. The proposed development does not accord with Policy EQ9 of the South Staffordshire Core Strategy Development Plan Document (2012) which seeks to ensure that new development does not cause harm to the living conditions of neighbouring occupiers.

Other Matters

12. I have considered the examples provided of other garages in the area. However, these differ from the case before me with regards to existing built form, and the presence of these does not alter my findings above. In any event, I am required to reach conclusions based on the individual circumstances of this appeal.

13. The appellant has provided comments and copies of e-mail correspondence from the Council regarding building regulations, the need for a planning application, fees, no amendments were requested, and the time taken to determine the application. However, these are matters between both parties and they do not affect this decision.

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 2

Page 86 of 88 Appeal Decision APP/C3430/W/19/3240524

Conclusion

14. For the reasons given above, the appeal is dismissed. R Cooper

INSPECTOR

https://www.gov.uk/planning-inspectorate 3

Page 87 of 88

Page 88 of 88