PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 4Th November 2008

Agenda Item No: 6

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 4th November 2008

Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND ENVIRONMENT

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

Telephone Number(s) (01902) 555610

Title/Subject Matter PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Recommendation

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

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

08/01148/FUL Crown Inn Blakenhall Page 5 10 Cartwright Street Wolverhampton West Midlands WV2 3BT

Application Type Minor Retail

08/00351/FUL 16 Copthorne Road Graiseley Page 12 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 0AB

Application Type Householder - Article 4

08/01081/OUT Fordhouses Cricket Ground Bushbury North Page 16 Taunton Avenue Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 6PW

Application Type Major Dwellings

07/01764/OUT Former IMI Sports Ground Bushbury North Page 24 Wobaston Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

Application Type Major General Industry

08/01080/FUL Land Between Addison Place Bilston East Page 35 And Lunt Road Boswell Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

Application Type Major Dwellings

2 08/00665/DWF Wolverhampton City Council St Peter's Page 41 & Town Hall And Magistrates 08/00690/LBC Court North Street Wolverhampton West Midlands WV1 1RE

Application Type Minor Development & Listed Building Consent (alter-extend)

08/00911/FUL Bilston Town Bowling Club Bilston North Page 45 Villiers Avenue Wolverhampton West Midlands WV14 6AU

Application Type Minor Dwellings

08/00355/FUL 20 Lawley Road Ettingshall Page 53 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV14 0NB

Application Type Minor Dwellings

08/00016/FUL Industrial Units Bounded By Blakenhall Page 58 Thomas Street Pountney Street Bell Place Dobbs Street Wolverhampton West Midlands

Application Type Minor All Other Development

08/00904/FUL Three Pines Tettenhall Page 68 28 Grove Lane Wightwick Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8NJ

Application Type Minor Dwellings

3 08/01130/FUL 56 Wergs Road Tettenhall Regis Page 74 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8TD

Application Type Change of use

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/01148/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 23-Sep-08 TARGET DATE: 18-Nov-08 RECEIVED: 10.09.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Crown Inn, 10 Cartwright Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Proposed function room and ground floor extensions

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Mangoo Mal Sueshire Services Crown Inn 46 Lingfield Drive 10 Cartwright Street Great Wyrley Parkfield Walsall Wolverhampton WS6 6LS West Midlands WV2 3BT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is located approximately 600m south of Wolverhampton City Centre and is approximately 0.09Ha in area. It comprises of land located at the corner of Cartwright Street, Birmingham New Road and Grove Street.

1.2 The site is occupied by The Crown Inn public house and its car parking area which is adjacent to another public house: ‘The Foresters’. The Crown Inn parking area is shared with ‘The Foresters’ car park.

1.3 The application site is located in a Defined Business Area in accordance with Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan and it is located in between two of the main arterial routes into Wolverhampton: Birmingham Road and Dudley Road.

1.4 The existing building faces onto Cartwright Street. Advertisement hoardings are located immediately adjacent to the rear of the application site facing onto Grove Street. According to the applicant, the land where the advertisement hoards are sited belongs to Wolverhampton City Council.

1.5 The plot has an irregular shape, with a 38m wide frontage onto Cartwright Street and 20m wide rear wall facing onto Grove Street.

2. Application details

2.1 This planning application is for two large extensions onto the existing pub which would include an additional bar facility and a lounge area to be used as a function room. Access to the function room would be gained through the car parking area and through the existing public house.

2.2 The proposed extensions would be located at the north and north-west sides of the existing building.

2.3 The extension would be of single storey and would comprise a bar area, large toilet area and a function room. The proposed toilets and function room would occupy the whole of the rear/private amenity space of the existing public house.

2.4 The car parking area would accommodate 13 parking spaces including one disabled.

2.5 Amended plans showing proposed external materials and a new Design and Access Statement (D&A) were submitted on the 3rd October 2008.

2.6 In accordance with the new D&A the footprint of the existing building is 184sqm. The area for the proposed extension would be 278sqm.

2.7 The proposed external materials include: • Facing brick work • Grey/black asphalted fined roof

3. Planning History

3.1 Application No. 07/00929/FUL for a function room and ground floor extensions. The application was withdrawn on the 17.01.2008, concerns were raised relating to design, planning policy and transportation issues.

3.2 A/C/1700/83 for Car Park. Granted, dated 22.07.1983.

4. Constraints

4.1 Policy: Defined Business Area

4.2 Policy: Strategic Regeneration Area

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

5.2 UDP Policies

D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D3 - Urban Structure D4 - Urban Grain D5 - Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part C3 - Community Meeting Places B4 - Expansion of Existing Businesses B5 - Design Standards for Employment Sites B9 – Defined Business Area AM1 - Access, Motability and New Development

6 AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM14 - Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Com. AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security B13 – Business Tourism, Hotel and Conference Facilities SH2 – Centre Uses SH3 – Need and the Sequential Approach SH4 – Integration of Development into Centres

6. Publicity and Neighbour notification

6.1 A petition in support of the planning application, with 260 signatures was submitted with the application.

7. Consultees

7.1 Environmental Services – the following is recommended:

• The existing plans do not indicate the small kitchen and BBQ room currently in existence located further in front of the current toilet facilities. • The attached access statement does not indicate the proposed numbers intending to use the establishment and in particular the function room. • The ventilation system currently installed may not be sufficient for the intended use of the ‘new’ kitchen. A system for the effective control of cooking odours, to be designed and approved by competent person. A copy of the scheme for odour control should be submitted to Food and Environmental Safety. • Plans currently submitted do not indicate facilities/equipment to be incorporated. • Refuse store details not provided. • No indication of opening hours in the application. • The information regarding capacity and seating provisions is not available in the application to determine the adequacy of catering facilities and sanitary accommodation.

7.2 Transportation Officer – Recommend refusal for the following reasons:

• Inappropriate level of parking provision for the proposed development/use, which is likely to lead to inappropriate on-street parking on Cartwright Street and nearby roads • Unacceptable parking layout which would make parking of vehicles impractical/difficult • Unacceptable disabled bay dimensions • Unacceptably high boundary treatments which would affect visibility for vehicles exiting the site onto Cartwright Street • Lack of motorcycle and cycle parking provision

7.3 Building Control – Comments as follows:

• Fire-hydrant and additional hydrants to be provided. • Insufficient details have been provided with regards to disabled people access.

7 8. Appraisal

8.1 The following key issues are:

• Principle of the development • Layout and Siting • Design & appearance • Parking

Principle of the development 8.2 The application site is located in a Defined Business Area out side the Town Centre as defined on the Inset of the UDP. Due to the scale of the function room it can not be considered to be ‘ancillary’ to the public house. It is also considered that due to the scale, the function room has the ability to cater for a larger catchment that would be provided by a nearby local centre or possibly from a City Centre location.

8.3 No information has been submitted to establish how many people the function room will cater for and does not demonstrate that there are no alternative locations within the nearby retail centres which would be of a scale that would cater for this scale of function room as specified on policy SH3 of the UDP.

8.4 The proposed development would involve the loss of the existing rear open ‘beer garden’ to the public house.

8.5 Due to lack of information, loss of open space at rear and scale of the proposed development it is considered that the proposed development is not acceptable in principle and contrary to policies D1, B13, SH2, SH3, SH4 and B9 of the Wolverhampton’s UDP.

Design & Appearance 8.6 The design of the proposed extension is very poor with no particular architectural character. Elevation details are bland and do not address the street scene.

8.7 The applicant argues that the elevations would not be visible from the street scene due to the presence of a row of leylandi trees to the Grove Street elevation and the public house on the Cartwright Street elevation. However, this is not an excuse for very poor design and the scheme should be an opportunity to improve the street scene onto Grove Street by the removal of the leylandi trees and the large advertisements boards presently on the boundary.

8.8 The proposed development has only three small windows on the west elevation and a small duo-pitched entrance on the south elevation. The presentation of the proposed plans and elevations offers little detail. Policy D5 and D6 of the UDP highlights the importance of legible buildings that contribute to a distinctive identity and create points of orientation.

8.9 The submitted D&A statement only outlines the design considerations for the proposed development. It fails to justify the chosen design solution, the loss of the open space and how the proposed development has taken into account Wolverhampton’s design policies in other to achieve high quality development.

8.10 Policy D6 emphasises that proposals should preserve or enhance qualities of townscape and landscape character that are of value. In addition policies D1 and D9 highlight the importance to demonstrate a high standard of design and contribute towards the creation of a strong sense of place through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing and materials. It is clear from the submitted detailing; proportions; materials, etc. that the scheme would not be convincing.

8 8.11 The character and appearance of the proposed development does not have a high standard of design that would contribute towards creating a strong sense of place and it is contrary to policies from the Design Chapter of the Wolverhampton’s UDP.

Layout & Siting

8.12 The layout and siting of the proposed development is considered poor quality, cramped and inadequate.

8.13 The proposed development is considered to be a cramped form of development that results in the loss of open space/garden area of the present use of the land and fails to accommodate appropriate parking provision.

8.14 The information provided with the planning application is insufficient with regards to the number of people that the function room would accommodate.

8.15 The submitted plans do not indicate facilities or the equipment to be incorporated.

8.16 Refuse store details have not been provided.

8.17 The application does not provided sufficient details with regards to the disabled access and the disabled parking bay is substandard.

8.18 The layout and siting of the proposed extensions is considered to be out of scale, out of character and in detriment to the loss of open space.

Parking

8.19 The parking provision is inadequate for the size of the function room proposed.

9. Recommendation

10.1 Refuse, for the following reasons:

1. It is not possible to make a full assessment of the scheme due to insufficient information that support the proposed form of development in respect of potential capacity and lack of a sequential test. Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D11, AM1, B13, SH2, SH3 and SH4.

2. The scale of the proposed extension relative to that of the existing building would be out of scale and therefore visually to its detriment and would result in the loss of the existing open rear beer garden which is a significant area of open space in this locality. Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D3, D4, D6 and D9.

3. The application is not accompanied by an adequate design and access statement setting out the basis upon which the proposal has been designed, without which it is difficult for the Local Planning Authority to fully assess the design and access elements of the scheme and its impact on the site and the environment of the locality. Relevant UDP Policies: D2.

4. The appearance of the proposed development would not demonstrate a high standard of design would be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area. Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D5, D6 and D9.

9 5. Due to the inappropriate level of parking provision, unacceptable parking layout, unacceptable disabled bay dimensions, unacceptably visibility for vehicles exiting the site onto Cartwright Street and lack of motorcycle and cycle parking provision, the proposed development would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic. The proposal is therefore, contrary to policies AM1, AM12, AM14 and AM15.

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

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

Planning Application No: 08/01148/FUL Location Crown Inn, 10 Cartwright Street,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391612 297705 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 825m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/00351/FUL WARD: Graiseley DATE: 24-Sep-08 TARGET DATE: 19-Nov-08 RECEIVED: 10.03.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 16 Copthorne Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 0AB PROPOSAL: Replacement of 4 windows on the south elevation of the house with 'PVCu type'

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr A R Preston 16 Copthorne Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 0AB

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The application site is located within a street scene of varying properties, and area which is predominantly residential. The property is also within the Copthorne Road Conservation Area, and covered by an Article 4 Direction, which requires planning permission for replacement windows.

1.2 The applicant has written in requesting to speak at Planning Committee, regarding this proposal.

2 Application details

2.1 The proposal is for the removal of 4 No. existing white painted metal windows, located in the southern (front) elevation, which faces the highway, and replacement PVCU double glazed windows.

3 Constraints

3.1 Article 4 Directions - : Copthorne Road Conservation Area Authorised Processes Conservation Area - : Copthorne Road Conservation Area: UDP Polices HE3-HE11

4 Relevant policies

4.1 HE3 - Preservation and Enhance. of Con. Areas HE4 - Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 - Control of Development in a Con. Area HE10 - Removal of PD Rights in a Con. Area D9 – Appearance

12 5 Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 No objections at time of writing.

6 Internal consultees

6.1 Conservation The proposed use of UPVC windows will neither preserve nor enhance the character/appearance of the conservation area.

7 Appraisal

7.1 The key issue is whether the proposal preserves and enhances the character and appearance of the Conservation Area.

7.2 In March 2001 the Local Authority received a request for an additional conservation area within the area of Graiseley. The request took form of a petition signed by citizens of the area, and was forwarded by the Copthorne Road Millennium Group which is made up of residents of Copthorne Road, and aims to promote ‘community’ and the environment within the road and the surrounding neighbourhood.

7.3 Residents of Copthorne Road signed the petition requesting a designated Conservation Area. A thorough assessment took place, and the request was forwarded to Committee on 26/11/01, and a Conservation Area was designated. An extension to the Copthorne Road Conservation Area was requested by the Millennium Group, and again reported to Committee 4 March 2002, where an extension was agreed.

7.4 The detailed features to existing properties within Copthorne Road, all contribute to the quality of the area. Windows are a particular characteristic which we aim to maintain within Conservation Areas, especially when Article 4 Directions have been issued. It is essential to enhance and maintain the character and appearance of both the existing property and the street scene.

7.5 The design statement submitted with the application outlines the reasons ofr the proposed replacement windows. However, the removal of the metal framed windows and replacement of double glazed UPVC windows, especially to the principle elevation, will have a detrimental impact on the existing property and the street scene by neither preserving nor enhancing the character/appearance of the existing property or the conservation area.

7.6 The conservation officer advised the applicant on suitable forms of replacements, prior to the submission of this application, however, the applicant still wishes to install UPVC which has been confirmed by conservation as being unacceptable.

8 Conclusion

8.1 Recommend that Committee refuse due to the detrimental impact on the character /appearance of the conservation area.

13 9 Recommendation

9.1 Refuse, for the following reason:

1. The proposed UPVC windows would be out of character and detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling and therefore also detract from the character and appearance of the Copthorne Road Conservation Area.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1/D8/D9/HE3,4,5,10.

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

Planning Application No: 08/00351/FUL Location 16 Copthorne Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV3 0AB Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390448 297113 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 462m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/01081/OUT WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 21-Aug-08 TARGET DATE: 20-Nov-08 RECEIVED: 21.08.2008 APP TYPE: Outline Application

SITE: Fordhouses Cricket Ground, Taunton Avenue, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Outline application. Residential redevelopment of cricket ground including area of public open space

APPLICANT: AGENT: Countrywide Homes Ltd Norwich House 45 Poplar Road Solihull West Midlands B91 3AW

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The application site is located approximately 5km from the City Centre and less than a kilometre from junction 2 of the M54. In total the site covers an area of approximately 2 hectares. Half a hectare of this comprises Springfield Cottage and its associated outbuildings and grounds. The remainder of the site is the former ground of Fordhouses Cricket Club.

1.2 The site lies within a predominantly residential area, with the majority of the houses dating from the 1950/60s, although there are examples of more recent development. St James’s Church, which adjoins the site is an attractive example of place of worship designed in a modern architectural style.

1.3 The former cricket ground is served by a relatively narrow tarmac driveway off Taunton Avenue, between St James’s Church and Springfield Cottage. There are no longer any buildings within the former cricket ground after the demolition of the former pavilion following vandalism.

1.4 The site is generally flat. There are several groups of trees along the driveway and some other significant clusters of trees around the perimeter of the site.

1.5 Springfield Cottage is a detached house which appears to date from the 19th century. It is a relatively simple, but attractive example of a rural dwelling which has survived the 20th century expansion of the City in this area. It has its own private access from Taunton Avenue.

2 Application details

2.1 The application seeks outline permission to demolish Springfield Cottage and erect 50 dwellings. The mix would comprise 4 two-bedroom apartments, 14 two-bedroom, 10 three-bedroom and 22 four-bedroom houses, positioned around a central area of open

16 space. Approval is sought for the means of access, scale and layout of the development.

3 Constraints

3.1 Mining Area Tree Preservation Order Flood Zone 2 & 3 Private Sports Ground

4 Relevant policies

4.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPG25 Development and flood risk

4.2 UDP Policies

D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy EP1 Pollution Control EP2 Environmental Impact Assessments EP3 Air Pollution EP4 Light Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP6 Prot of Ground Water, Watercourses, Canals EP7 Protection of Floodplains EP8 Water Supply Arrangements for Development EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Dev HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist N1 Promotion of Nature Conservation R1 Local Standards for Open Space, Sport R3 Protection of Open Space, Sport and Rec. R5 Sports Grounds R7 Open Space Requirements for New Develop. H1 Housing H3 Housing Site Assessment Criteria H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 Housing Density and mix H10 Affordable Housing AM1 Access, Motabaility and New Development

17 AM6 Transport Assessments AM7 Travel Plans AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 Residential Development SPG16 Provision of Public Art SPD Affordable housing

5 Publicity

5.1 Letters of objection have been received from 6 neighbours.

5.2 Several raise the possibility of a restrictive covenant preventing the redevelopment of the site. Although a covenant is material consideration, it is not something which should be given significant weight. If there is a covenant on the land, it is the responsibility of the developer to go through the proper processes to seek its removal.

5.3 Other concerns relate to the future management of boundaries and retained trees. These matters will primarily be private matters between the relevant landowners. In addition, if permission is granted, then further details with regard to these issues will be received as part of reserved matter submissions.

5.4 Further issues which are raised included; the possible impact which the increase in vehicular traffic may have on the relatively narrow, existing, roads, the loss of views and also the loss of an important green space and wildlife area.

5.5 Another concern is the inclusion, on the submitted layout plan, of a sewer. On the submitted plan, it is illustrated as passing through the garden of number 55 Milldale Crescent. The applicants have confirmed that the illustrative path of the sewer was shown in error. The proposed sewer does not form part of this application and there is no guarantee that any future sewer works would pass through number 55 Milldale Crescent. Amended plans will be provided which omit the sewer.

6 Internal consultees

6.1 Landscape - No objection in principle. Detailed hard and soft landscaping proposal will be required at a later date.

6.2 Access – Make detailed comments that relate to Building Regulations, highway adoption and the layout of the open space.

6.3 Transportation Development - Support the principle of residential development at this location, although there a number of detailed concerns. These include localised widening of the loop road, traffic calming, refuse strategy for affordable housing plots, parking provision, provision of cycle storage, bays suitable for the disabled and motor cycle parking.

6.4 Environmental Services - Due to proximity to housing commercial vehicle movements during the development should be restricted. A geo-environmental investigation report was submitted with the application and discussions are ongoing between the

18 developers consultants and Environmental Services. Any necessary work can be dealt with by condition.

6.5 Tree Officer – Comments awaited

7 External consultees

7.1 Environment Agency - No objection to the proposed development.

7.2 Sport England (West Midlands) – Consider the compensation for the loss of the site should include the cricket pitch, changing rooms and outdoor practice nets. This generates a sum of £700,000 (£325,000 for the cricket pitch, £350,000 for the changing room and £25,000 for the practice nets) which should be spent on the Wobaston Road cricket ground. If this is not secured then they object to the proposal.

7.3 Police - No objection to the proposed development.

7.4 Local And Neighbourhood Arrangements – Comments awaited.

7.5 Severn Trent Water - No objection to the proposed development subject to a condition requiring the submission of a drainage plan, incorporating sustainable drainage principle and a hydrological and hydrogeological assessment of the site.

7.6 Centro - The site does not meet the minimum standards for accessibility to public transport. The nearest bus services are located over 400m from the development site on Stafford Road. As the proposal is for significant number of dwellings and the site does not meet the minimum standards for public transport accessibility the applicant should complete a Residential Travel Plan to demonstrate how reliance on the private car can be reduced and sustainable travel choices promoted.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues are:

• Loss of Sports Ground • Development of a Greenfield site • Density • Layout • Scale & appearance • Parking & access • Residential amenity • Planning obligations

Loss of Sports Ground / Recreational Open Space 8.2 This site is designated as a Private Sports Ground in the UDP, and is subject to Policy R5: Sports Grounds. It is also defined as Recreational Open Space in UDP policy and therefore is subject to Policy R3. The recently published Wolverhampton Playing Pitch Study (PPS) was carried out on the basis that the Taunton Avenue cricket ground was no longer in existence. The PPS concludes that there is currently a shortfall of 1.9 cricket pitches across the whole City, and that, if growth in participation continues, this may rise to a shortfall of over 5 pitches by 2012.

8.3 Regarding the Taunton Avenue cricket ground in particular, the PPS concludes that: "While the reinstatement of this facility would provide an opportunity to offset unmet demand, this would require investment, and investment in the improvement of new facilities at the club’s Wobaston Road site offers more long-term benefits for cricket in

19 the city, as plans focus on the development of multi sport opportunities. Should the loss of the facility at Taunton Avenue be considered justified due to the long-term benefits, it is essential that any receipt is reinvested into increased and improved facilities. The investment should ensure that increased pitches are provided to meet long term deficiencies. Prior to the loss of the site at Taunton Road, the need for this site to fulfil other open space functions should be considered."

8.4 The compensatory provision proposed by the applicants for the loss of the cricket pitch (£325,000) is considered acceptable, as it is approximately the amount it would cost to create a new cricket pitch elsewhere. A S106 agreement is required to ensure that this money is secured prior to implementation works and can only be spent to improve the capacity of cricket facilities in the City.

8.5 It is not considered that compensation should be sought for the changing rooms which were demolished prior to submission of the application. This approach is consistent with that taken on the Former IMI Sports Ground, Wobaston Road (07/01764/OUT). The applicants indicate up to £500,000 from the sale of the site will return to the Fordhouses Cricket Club and be reinvested in the Wobaston Road site, however this would be a private matter between the two parties and would not be under planning control.

8.6 Since the closure the Fordhouses cricket ground, the City has not been able to provide sufficient cricket facilities to meet demand. The compensation from this development will go someway to improving this situation.

8.7 In the proposed layout, 0.28ha of the sports ground is shown retained as recreational open space with a toddlers’ play area to serve new and existing residents. This is important as the local area is deficient in open space and play facilities.

8.8 The Departure Directions 1999 (Circular 07/99) require that development (which the planning authority is minded to approve) which ‘by reason of its scale or nature or the location of the land would significantly prejudice the implementation of the development plan’s policies and proposals’ shall be referred to the Secretary of State. The loss of playing fields is given as an example of the sort of development which it might be appropriate to refer. However, in this case, providing that an adequate compensatory payment is made for the loss of the cricket ground, it is considered that the development plan’s policies and proposals would not be significantly prejudiced and so there would be no need for a referral to the Secretary of State.

Development of a Greenfield Site 8.9 The majority of the site is classified as greenfield rather than previously developed land. Policy H3 places preference on previously developed land (PDL) for the delivery of housing, and the Regional Spatial Strategy (2004) sets Wolverhampton a target of 99% housing to be built on PDL by 2021. However, Wolverhampton has very few greenfield housing sites in the planning pipeline. It is also relevant that the housing market is currently weak at a time when increasing housing delivery is now of key importance to Wolverhampton and the Black Country as a whole. Greenfield sites such as this will be far quicker to bring forward than many other housing sites in Wolverhampton which have numerous constraints. It is therefore considered that in this particular case the proposal meets Policy H3.

Density 8.10 The proposed net density is 26 dwellings per hectare, which is slightly below the 30 dwellings per hectare minimum threshold set out in PPS3 and the UDP (Policy H9). However, given the significant provision of on-site open space, the presence of trees, the number of larger family houses and the appropriate layout, the density is considered acceptable.

20 Layout 8.11 The proposal seeks to continue the suburban character of the surrounding area. The houses would be set back behind relatively spacious front gardens. The proposed houses would be positioned around the perimeter of the site, facing onto a central area of open space. This ensures that the vulnerable rear boundaries of existing properties are secured, whilst the area of open space, which forms the focus of the development, will have a high level of natural surveillance.

8.12 Although the proposed area of open space is not large enough to provide much in the way of a recreational facility, it will provide space for casual recreation as well as a breathing space and aesthetic relief for the scheme. It will be important that the highway, which encircles the area of open space, is designed as a street and not a road in order that the open space does not feel segregated from the houses which will surround it.

8.13 The proposed parking layout is generally acceptable although there a number of detailed concerns. The applicants have been made aware of these and amended plans are awaited.

8.14 It is proposed to demolish Springfield Cottage and replace it with a new house. However, it is considered that Springfield Cottage is a locally distinctive building of historical interest and architectural merit. It makes a positive contribution to the character of the local area. The building reflects the rural history of this area in a very tangible way. It is considered that its demolition would be regrettable and therefore, if practicable, the refurbishment should be encouraged.

8.15 The applicants consider that the building is of poor structural and physical condition, however no evidence was initially provided to support this. A condition survey has now been received. Nevertheless, the report is rather superficial and does not contain any information which would justify the demolition of the building, rather than its refurbishment.

Scale & Appearance 8.16 Details of the scale of the development is submitted for approval. The submitted design & access statement indicates that the height of the houses will be two storeys. This is considered acceptable.

8.17 Appearance is reserved for subsequent approval. However, the submitted design & access statement states that the development will seek to balance traditional built forms and a high quality design that ‘is of its time’. This approach is considered acceptable.

Access 8.18 Transportation officers support the proposal in principle but have a number of detailed concerns. The applicants have been made aware of these and amended plans are awaited.

Residential amenity 8.19 The illustrative layout respects the privacy, daylight and outlook of occupiers of adjacent dwellings as well as providing potential occupiers with a satisfactory level of private amenity space.

Planning Obligations 8.20 For this scheme there is a requirement for a compensatory payment (BCIS indexed) for the loss of the existing sports facility, a financial contribution towards the off-site provision or enhancement of public open space and play facilities (BCIS indexed), affordable housing, public art, targeted recruitment and training, a travel plan,

21 management of communal areas and management of the central area of open space in the event that it is not adopted.

9 Conclusion

9.1 The cricket ground is no longer considered necessary for sport and recreation purposes. The funds secured through a S106 agreement could provide for alternative sports facilities in the city.

9.2 The general principles and layout of the proposal are considered appropriate. The proposal would help provide enclosure, defensible space, definition of public and private realms and a layout with secure private amenity space. The residential amenities of existing residents, in terms of outlook, privacy and daylight, are preserved. It is considered that the amenity of the future occupiers of the scheme will be good

10 Recommendation

10.1 Delegated authority to grant subject to:

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees, submission of amended plans with regard to highway issues and retention of Springfield Cottage (unless it can be demonstrated that the property is structurally unsound and it is financially unviable to retain) and any necessary minor amendments

2. Negotiation of a S106 to secure affordable housing, public art and open space play contribution (BCIS indexed), targeted recruitment & training, adequate financial compensation (BCIS indexed) for the loss of sports facility management of communal areas, Travel Plan, management of communal areas, management of the open space (if it is not adopted).

3. Conditions to include:

• Submission of materials sample panel • Landscaping implementation • Drainage • External lighting • Details of cycle/motorcycle stores • Remote control gates to communal parking • Construction management plan • Amenity space provided as shown • Site investigation • Noise attenuation scheme • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. • Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation

4. Note for Information – Mining area.

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

Planning Application No: 08/01081/OUT Location Fordhouses Cricket Ground, Taunton Avenue,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 391830 303666 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 22250m2

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

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

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

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 To update Committee and make a recommendation.

2 Background

2.1 This application was reported to Planning Committee on the 4th of March 2008. The report is appended.

2.2 Committee resolved to defer the application to allow for:

(a) The applicant to submit a financial viability study in respect of the compensatory facilities contribution.

(b) Members to undertake a site visit to the application site.

3 Updating

3.1 Members visited the site on the 18th of March and 19th of August 2008.

3.2 Since the 4th of March, the applicant has submitted a financial viability appraisal and this has been independently assessed.

3.2 The applicant has offered a compensatory sports facility contribution of £350,000. This is the same amount as was agreed in 2001 in connection with the expired permission. The applicant has also offered £50,000 for the provision of public art and has agreed to fund essential highway works.

24 4 Appraisal

4.1 The Council’s financial advisor has concluded that the land value produced in the appraisal is significantly below the land value that might be expected to be produced for a good quality industrial/warehousing development. However, the specific allocation of this site within the UDP, states that compensatory provision will be required for the loss of recreational open space facilities which were available at the site prior to the previous approval for development of the site in 2000. This requirement for compensation should have been taken into account in the price paid for the land.

4.2 The applicants state that they purchased the site in 2001 for £1.89 million (£180,000 per acre). They also state that this was the 'market price' at that time for a site with unrestricted B1/B2/B8 permission in this location. It is considered that the price paid was reasonable.

4.3 Using the BCIS index, £350,000 in 2000 is now equivalent to £518,163. The offer of £350,000 therefore worth £168,000 less now than it was in 2000 and is significantly below the £745,000 which Sport England consider appropriate to replace the sports pitches which previously occupied the site. However, given the current economic climate it is considered to represent a reasonable offer. A clawback clause should be included in the S106 agreement to secure additional compensation should financial viability improve.

4.4 Because the proposed floorspace would exceed 5,000 sq.m. then if Committee are minded to grant, the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State as a departure from the development plan if a less than adequate compensatory payment for the loss of sports facilities is secured. The offer of £350,000 would not provide adequate to compensate for the loss of the sports pitches which previously existed on the site. Therefore, if members are minded to grant, the application will have to be referred as a departure.

5 Conclusion

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

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

5.3 The S106 offer is acceptable taking account financial viability.

6 Recommendation

6.1 Delegated authority to grant subject to:

o Signing of an S106 to include public art, sports facilities contribution (and clawback provision), transport plan, travel plan, highways works. o Referral of application to the Government Office for the West Midlands as a departure from the UDP. o Conditions to include:

• Submission of reserved matters • Restrict use of offices ancillary and no more than 865sqm • Restrict amount of B8 warehousing to no more than 4,000sqm

25 • Submission of drainage details • No outside storage • Cycle/motorcycle parking facilities • Facilities for cyclists (shower, changing space, lockers) • Gates to servicing areas to remain open during operation • Tree protection • Floodplain compensation • No buildings, structures, gates, walls, fences or increases in ground levels within 5m of the Waterhead Brook without prior written approval • No storage within area liable to flood • No gates, fences, walls etc in front of the building, without prior approval • Exterior of building to be completed in accordance with approved plans prior to occupation. • Details of ecological enhancement/habitat creation • Ground and floor levels as plan, unless otherwise agreed in writing. • Detailed engineering design for the Wobaston Road junction to be agreed with the City Council prior to development commencing and as part of the S278 negotiations. • gates to the servicing areas to remain open during operation • adoption of travel plan • details of ecological enhancement/habitat creation • tree protection

26 APPENDIX 1

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Mar-08

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

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

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

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

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

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

2 Application details

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

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

27 2.3 The majority of car parking spaces are located to the rear, north, of the units whilst servicing and delivery facilities are located along the west side of the units.

3 Planning History

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

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

4 Relevant policies

4.1 National Guidance

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

4.2 UDP Policies

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

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

4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG1 Business, Industrial and Warehouse Development SPG16 Public Art

5 Publicity and Neighbour notification

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

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

6 Internal Consultees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.8 Trees – Comments Awaited

6.9 Nature Conservation – Comments Awaited

7 External Consultees

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

8 Appraisal

8.1 The key issues are:

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

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

8.3 In addition to the above allocation, the unit is located within a Defined Business Area (DBA) and therefore the proposal to use the site for B employment uses, is supported

30 in principle. Policy B9 permits unlimited B2 (General Industrial) development, but B8 (Storage & Distribution) development is subject to Policy B8 ‘Warehousing’.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ecology

31 8.14 Although the site has no special designation for ecological importance, the site and Waterhead brook is known to provide a habitat for a variety of species. An Ecological Assessment was provided with the application and a response is awaited from Nature Conservation to assess the impact of the proposal and whether any mitigation strategies are required.

9 Conclusion

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

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

10 Recommendation

10.1 To give delegated authority to grant permission subject to:

• No adverse comments from outstanding consultees

• Resolution of outstanding matters referred to above

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

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

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

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

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

Planning Application No: 07/01764/OUT Location Former IMI Sports Ground, Wobaston Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 391230 303610 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 45737m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/01080/FUL WARD: Bilston East DATE: 21-Aug-08 TARGET DATE: 20-Nov-08 RECEIVED: 21.08.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land Between Addison Place And Lunt Road, Boswell Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Residential redevelopment. Creation of 44 new houses and associated landscaping and highway works

APPLICANT: AGENT: Heantun Housing Association Latham Architects 3 Wellington Road St Micheals Church Bilston Queen Street West Midlands Derby East Midland DE1 3SU

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The site covers an area of just under 2 hectares and is located approximately 4.5km south-east of the city centre, but less than 1km from Bilston town centre. The site forms part of the Lunt Estate which was initially constructed in the 1920/30s. The houses are mostly semi-detached with relatively spacious gardens.

1.2 The site is bounded by Lunt Road to the east, Boswell Road to the south, the north and west boundaries are defined by the rear gardens of the properties facing Darlaston Lane and Willenhall Road. Between Chantery Crescent and Addison Place there is an area of grassland with a few scattered trees. This was previously used as a Council depot and has a main sewer pipe running under it.

1.3 At the time of visting the site, the demolition of a number of the properties was underway. Prior to demolition, the site was occupied by 50 three bedroomed houses.

2 Application details

2.1 The application is for a ‘full’ permission. The majority of the properties within the application site will be demolished. The 20 houses which are located on the northern side of Chantery Crescent will be retained and refurbished. The houses occupying the ‘island’ site between Chantery Crescent and Boswell Road, will be replaced by an area of open space.

2.2 In total 44 new houses are proposed, consisting of 12 two bedroom and 1 two bedrooms bungalows and 21 two-bedroom, 6 three bedroom and 4 four-bedroom houses. The mix of house types would comprises houses with ground floor accommodation only (1), two floors of accommodation (33) and three floors of accommodation (10). Twelve of the houses providing two floors of accommodation would have the facilities of a one-bedroom bungalow on the ground floor but would also have a bedroom and second bathroom at first floor level. These house types and

35 the bungalow would be located in a new cul-de-sac and Addison Place with an area of communal garden in between.

2.3 The applicants state that all of the houses will be ‘affordable’, 31 are proposed for social housing rent and 14 will be social housing on a shared ownership basis.

2.4 The layout of the existing highway is largely unaffected although, a new, relatively short, cul-de-sac is proposed off Boswell Road.

2.5 A small (0.068ha) of allotments are proposed off Addison Place.

3 Constraints

3.1 Landfill Gas Zone Mining Area

4 Relevant policies

4.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 Housing

4.2 UDP Policies

D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy EP1 Pollution Control EP7 Protection of Floodplains EP8 Water Supply Arrangements for Development EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Dev R7 Open Space Requirements for New Develop. H1 Housing H3 Housing Site Assessment Criteria H5 Housing Renewal and Nbrhood Renewal H6 Design of Housing Development H8 Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 Housing Density and mix H10 Affordable Housing AM1 Access, Motability and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

36 4.3 Supplementary Planning Documents

SPG3 Residential Development SPD Affordable Housing

5 Publicity

5.1 One letter expresses concern that a back would be affected and that the proposal would intrude on privacy.

6 Internal consultees

6.1 Parks & Contracts (Leisure) & Transportation Development – Comments awaited.

6.2 Environmental Services – No objections in principle however as the site is within a predominantly residential area the hours of operation for construction should be restricted. Furthermore the previous use of the land, may have led to unacceptable levels of contamination. A site investigation and remediation strategy should therefore be conditioned on any approval.

7 External consultees

7.1 Environment Agency - The site is in excess of one hectare and situated in Flood Zone 1. Sites in excess of 1 Ha can produce significant volumes of surface water. As no Flood Risk Assessment has been provided, they currently object to the proposal..

7.2 Local And Neighbourhood Arrangements – Comments awaited

7.3 Severn Trent Water - No objections in principle subject to the submission of a sustainable drainage strategy and which includes an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the site.

7.4 Centro – No objection in principle, but they are concerned that the installation of traffic islands along Boswell Road would be detrimental to the effective operation of bus services.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The main issues are:

• Layout • Scale & Appearance • Parking & Access • Residential Amenity • Planning Obligations

Layout 8.2 The proposed development largely respects the established pattern of development. The proposed houses are set back from the highway, with enclosed front garden/parking areas, and private rear gardens of a similar depth and width to those surrounding them. Along Lunt Road, the proposed houses respect the established building line.

37 8.3 The orientation of habitable rooms helps provide a more active frontage with overlooking of the public realm and allows the main living spaces to take advantage of southerly aspects in accordance with the Council’s UDP design policies.

8.4 The main intervention into the existing layout is the introduction of the cul-de-sac, on the northern side of Boswell Road, between Chantrey Crescent and Lunt Road. This would directly serve 9 houses and complements the existing layout of the area whilst also making for a more efficient use of the existing land.

Scale & Appearance 8.5 The elevations show a mixture of house types, which is considered acceptable.

8.6 The overall design approach to the properties is a contemporary one. This is considered acceptable in principle. The proposed elevational materials are a mixture of yellow brickwork and render. Although, materials will be conditioned on any approval, the use of yellow brick is not considered acceptable in principle. Materials should respect the indigenous or traditional materials of the area in order to help create a sense of place and aid local distinctiveness.

Residential amenity 8.7 The proposed redevelopment would improve the general environment for surrounding properties in that the site is currently vacant and in a state of disrepair and would be replaced by buildings in a landscaped setting.

8.8 The positioning of the dwellings respects the privacy, daylight and outlook from adjacent dwellings as well as providing a satisfactory level of amenity for future occupiers.

8.9 The private amenity areas are of a sufficient size to support the proposed dwellings.

Parking & Access 8.10 Detailed highway comments are awaited. The concern by Centro with regard to traffic islands along Boswell Road can be dealt with through highway agreements.

Planning Obligations 8.11 For a development of this nature there will be a requirement for a financial contribution towards the off-site provision or enhancement of public open space and play facilities (BCIS indexed), affordable housing, public art and targeted recruitment and training.

9 Conclusion

9.1 The general principles and layout of the proposal are considered appropriate. The proposal would help provide enclosure, defensible space, definition of public and private realms and a layout with secure private amenity space. The residential amenities of existing residents, in terms of outlook, privacy and daylight, are preserved. It is considered that the amenity of the future occupiers of the scheme will be good. The contemporary design and scale of the houses is considered appropriate, although the palette of materials needs further work.

9.2 For these reasons the proposal is considered acceptable. This proposal is an important piece in the regeneration of this part of Wolverhampton.

38 10 Recommendation

10.1 Delegated authority to grant subject to:

1. Submission of a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment 2. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees and any necessary amendments 3. Negotiation of a S106 to secure affordable housing, public art and open space play contribution (BCIS indexed), Targeted Recruitment & Training 4. Conditions to include:

• Submission of materials sample panel • Landscaping • Drainage • External lighting • Construction management plan • Amenity space provided as shown • Site investigation • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. • Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation

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

Planning Application No: 08/01080/FUL Location Land Between Addison Place And Lunt Road, Boswell Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 395971 297225 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 19149m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/00665/DWF WARD: St Peter's & 08/00690/LBC DATE: 13-May-08 TARGET DATE: 08-Jul-08 RECEIVED: 13.05.2008 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC) & Listed Building Consent

SITE: Wolverhampton City Council, Town Hall And Magistrates Court, North Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Alteration to existing basement door to install 4No steel louvred panels. Replacement of existing first floor window with new vertically boarded wooden door.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Asset Management Mr Graham Beddows Wolverhampton City Council Property Services Civic Centre Civic Centre St Peter's Square St Peter's Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV1 1RP WV1 1RL

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description and Background

1.1 The site includes the Grade II Listed Wolverhampton Town Hall. The Town Hall building (now home to the Magistrate Service) is situated within Wolverhampton City Centre Conservation Area and in North Street directly opposite the Civic Centre. The building was opened in 1871 and is built in the French Renaissance style with a sandstone facade and rusticated plinth.

2. Application details

2.1 The application proposes to alter the basement wooden timber door along the southern elevation of the building fronting onto Blossom’s Fold. The alterations would involve the installation of four small steel louvred panels within the fabric of the existing wooden door.

2.2 The application also seeks permission for the replacement of an existing timber casement window at first floor on the Corporation Street elevation. The proposal is to install a new fabricated timber window with side hung opening lights to allow for improved access to the roof for maintenance works.

3. Relevant Planning History

3.1 None relevant

41 4. Constraints

4.1 Conservation Area Listed Building Grade: II Sites and Monuments Shopping Quarter Cultural Quarter

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG 24 Planning and noise

5.2 Relevant UDP Policies: D1 Design Quality D3 Urban Structure D4 Urban Grain D5 Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 Townscape and Landscape D7 Scale - Height D8 Scale - Massing D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part 1 D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinction HE3 Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 Control of Development in a Conservation Area HE13 Development Affecting a Listed Building HE14 Alterations and Extensions to a Listed Building AM9 Provision for Pedestrians

6. Publicity/neighbour notifications and representations

6.1 Any responses received will be reported orally at Planning Committee

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Conservation – • No objection to the proposed changes to the existing basement door. • A simple, traditionally detailed, vertically boarded timber door would be preferred to a replacement window. • Recommend conditions requiring submission of external joinery details • The application relates to a Listed Grade II Building. The application will therefore have to be referred to the Secretary of State (in due course) for their determination.

8. External consultees

8.1 English Heritage – comments awaited and will be reported verbally.

42 9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issue for consideration is the implications for the Listed Building and the Conservation Area;

The implications for the Listed Building and the Conservation Area 9.2 The Town Hall building is of significant historical interest and is extremely prominently located within the City Centre Conservation Area. In accordance with the key historic urban design policy considerations, as set out within Wolverhampton UDP and government guidance within PPS1 and PPG 24, any proposed alterations to this building should preserve and enhance its character and appearance.

9.3 The existing wooden door along the southern elevation fronting onto Blossom’s Fold is of historic interest, with provision for ventilation and in reasonably good condition.

9.4 This proposal allows for the retention of much of the original basement door whilst allowing for improved ventilation of internal rooms. Small sections of the door would be cut out and four steel louvred grills carefully pieced in place. It is considered that this proposal is satisfactory and would preserve the character and appearance of the door and not be detrimental to the building itself and the surrounding Conservation Area.

9.5 The first floor window along the Corporation Street elevation does not appear to be original and there is no objection in principle to its replacement. However the proposed new window is not of sufficient design quality and would be inappropriate in terms of its relationship with the surrounding historic architectural fabric of the building. In order to allow satisfactory access to the roof and also to comply with the design requirements of the Unitary Development Plan, a simple, traditionally detailed vertically boarded door would be a preferred alternative. The applicant has been requested to submit satisfactory revised details showing this change and an oral update will be provided at planning committee.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The proposals suitably amended as suggested, would preserve the character and appearance of the Listed Building and Conservation Area.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Delegated authority to refer the Listed Building Consent application to the Secretary of State, recommending approval and to issue the approval thereafter, subject to the receipt of satisfactory proposals for the replacement of the first floor window.

11.2 Delegated authority to grant planning permission for Full Application subject to standard conditions, and receipt of satisfactory amended plans for replacement of first floor window

Case Officer: Phillip Walker Telephone Number: 555632 Head of Development Control: Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 08/00665/DWF & 08/00690/LBC Location Wolverhampton City Council, Town Hall And Magistrates Court,North Street,Wolverhampton Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391266 298713 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 4166m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/00911/FUL WARD: Bilston North DATE: 09-Jul-08 TARGET DATE: 03-Sep-08 RECEIVED: 09.07.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Bilston Town Bowling Club, Villiers Avenue, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of 5No. bungalows and provision of new practice bowling green.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Bilston Town Bowling Club Mr Dave Truran Villiers Avenue Enterprise Planning Services Wolverhampton House By The Square West Midlands 10 - 12 Wood Road WV14 6AU Codsall WV8 1DB

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Introduction

This application was deferred at the Planning Committee meeting on 23 September 2008 to enable further discussions to be held between the applicant and planning officers.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application site is the grounds of the Bilston Town Bowling Club, which occupies a considerable area of land between Villiers Avenue and Eleanor Road. The club grounds have boundaries with houses in Villiers Avenue to the east and south and with houses in Green Lanes to the west.

2.2 The club house is at the Villiers Avenue end of the site and is set well back from the road behind a substantial shaled car park. To the north of the club house are two bowling greens, comprising the main green and a practice green, the latter being at the northern end of the site next to Eleanor Road. There are several protected trees within the club grounds, these being concentrated mainly at the southern end of the site and along the eastern boundary with the gardens to Villiers Avenue properties.

2.3 At present there is a concrete panelled screen fence, with barbed wire strands above, built along the Eleanor Road frontage and there are five houses on the opposite side of that road. There are several Lombardy Poplars located immediately behind the screen fence along the Eleanor Road boundary.

3. Application details

3.1 The club is trying to raise finance to refurbish the existing club house, which is in a very poor condition and is in jeopardy of failing to obtain a Fire Safety Certificate. This finance would be raised by selling some of their land, including the practice green, for residential development. In compensation for the loss of the practice green a synthetic surface practice green would be provided within the club grounds.

3.2 The proposed bungalows would be constructed on a rectangular area of land at the extreme north of the complex and immediately to the south of Eleanor Road. This land comprises the practice green and a utility area immediately to its east. It has a maximum length of 58m, of which 35m actually fronts on to Eleanor Road. The site has a depth of 20.4m.

3.3 The bungalows would comprise one pair of semi-detached and three detached dwellings, all with two bedrooms. The two semis and one detached would face directly on to Eleanor Road and back on to the main bowling green. The other two (detached) dwellings would be constructed at right angles to the above mentioned three dwellings and would be accessed from a driveway running at right angles to the closed end of Eleanor Road.

3.4 The three properties fronting Eleanor Road would be constructed on a 3.8m building line and would have rear gardens of approximately 7.1m in length. The other two houses would have rear gardens with an average length of 11m (Plot 1) and 8m (Plot 2). The southern, eastern and western boundaries to the residential development would be marked by 2m high screen fences. Low wrought iron railings would mark the highway boundary of the front gardens facing Eleanor Road. The Lombardy Poplars along the Eleanor Road frontage would be felled but the protected Lime tree would be retained.

3.5 One parking space would be provided within the curtilage of each bungalow, except for Plot 2, which would have two spaces.

3.6 The proposed synthetic green would have dimensions of 14m x 6m and would be constructed on an area to the south of the club house.

3.7 Also proposed is the laying out of a formal car park, incorporating the existing car park area and some adjoining rough land, to provide 24 spaces, including two disabled spaces.

3.8 This application does not include any proposals for the club house. However, following your Committee’s deferral at the last meeting the applicants have provided details of the costs involved in refurbishing or replacing the club house, together with provision of the new car park and the synthetic green. These costs are calculated as:

• Refurbishment Option £168,033 • Rebuilding Option £230,089 Details of the costs breakdown are available for inspection on the planning application file.

3.9 It should be noted that this application is identical to previous application 07/01720 which was refused for the reasons set out at section 4 below. There is currently an outstanding appeal to the Planning Inspectorate against this refusal.

4. Planning History

4.1 0086/82. Extensions and alterations to club premises. Granted 10.3.82.

0905/92. Erection of new floodlights surrounding bowling green. Refused 7.12.92.

0042/93. Erection of new floodlights surrounding bowling green. Granted 4.3.93.

07/00081/FUL. Residential development comprising erection of 5 houses. Withdrawn 18.4.07.

07/00717/FUL. Residential development comprising erection of 5 no. two bedroom bungalows. Refused 12.10.07.

07/01720/FUL. Erection of 5 no. bungalows and provision of new practice green. Refused 3.7.08. for reasons of: • overdevelopment resulting in inadequate length of rear gardens for Plots 2 to 5 and detriment to the appearance and character of the area • inadequate turning space being provided for fire service vehicles An appeal was lodged on 17.7.08.

5. Constraints

5.1 Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Eastfield - Stowlawn - Rough Hills Opencast Mining (areas of interest) - Name: Area of Interest to Open Cast Executive 2

Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00004/TPO

6. Relevant policies

6.1 UDP Policies

D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance H6 - Design of Housing Development R3 - Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities. R5 - Sports Grounds C3 – Community Meeting Places

Supplementary Planning Guidance SPG3 – Residential Development

7. Publicity

7.1 Neighbour letters were sent to 53 properties. Site notices were posted in Villiers Avenue, Eleanor Road and Green Lanes. Two letters have been received as follows: • One neighbour in Villiers Avenue objects to the proposals, expressing concern that insufficient parking would be provided. • Another neighbour in Villiers Avenue welcomes the proposals, stating that she would like to see one of the oldest social and bowling clubs in Bilston survive as so many are being lost.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Access Officer – makes various detailed points regarding access for the disabled.

8.2 Planning Policy Section - the site is appropriate for housing development at a moderate density of 30 to 50 dwellings per hectare. The construction of 5 dwellings would give a density of 46 dwellings per hectare, which is appropriate for this site.

47 The Council’s policy is to protect outdoor sporting facilities from development including bowling greens, however, this club has advised and demonstrated that the future of the remaining bowling green would be protected with the capital receipt if this development was pursued, due to major modernisation (including fire safety measures) being required to the main social club building.

Pursuant to Policy R5 of the Wolverhampton UDP, a planning contribution would be required for the loss of the practice green which would be targeted to create or enhance existing bowling greens in the east of the City. Sport England indicates that a full sized replacement green would cost between £100,000 and £120,000, and as such it is considered that a reasonable contribution for the replacement of the practice green would be a minimum of £80,000. This loss of sports pitch contribution would be subject to a Section 106 Agreement and be subject to annual BCIS increases from March 1st 2008.

The proposed synthetic green is not a suitable replacement for the practice green in terms of size and surface, and as such is not taken into account when calculating the planning contribution.

8.3 Transport Strategy – Requested amendments to the layout, including improvements to drivers visibility at Plot 5 (Amended plans have been requested). There is no objection to the amount of parking provision for the bowling club.

8.4 Trees – no objections. Were permission to be granted, standard tree protection conditions should apply.

8.5 Structures Section – The previous use of the land may have led to unacceptable levels of contamination. A full desk top study, site investigation and report are required regarding site stability and contamination.

8.6 Parks & Contracts (Leisure) – no response.

8.7 Environmental Services - the previous use of the land may have led to unacceptable levels of contamination which could affect the redevelopment strategy of the site. Therefore recommend planning condition on any permission requiring the submission of a methodology for carrying out a site investigation for physical and chemical contamination and implementation of any identified remedial works.

Also recommend a condition restricting hours of construction because of the proximity of residential properties.

9. External consultees

9.1 Sport England (West Midlands) - No objection in principle to the development. However, the proposed development should not: • Impinge in any way on the residual bowling green or its margins as the size is already below the recommended and there is clearly a need to retain this facility in the area. • Reduce the size or quality of ancillary facilities associated with the residual bowling green such as access and car parking. • 80% of the income from the sale of land should be reinvested into the club facilities and maintenance/management to improve the quality of the facility and facilitate increased usage by the community, with 20% being invested into other local bowling greens to contribute to qualitative improvements which would result in increasing match capacity – this should be agreed with the Leisure Department prior to permitting the development to ensure it is practical and deliverable.

48 9.2 Police – Crime Prevention Officer Ian Jones - No objections but makes recommendations on security issues.

9.3 Fire Department - Concern that there would be inadequate turning facilities and inadequate access for pump appliances to within 45m of all points of the dwelling houses at Plots 1 and 2.

10. Appraisal

10.1 I consider that the application can be assessed under the following headings:

Loss of Bowling Green 10.2 The club are trying to raise finance to refurbish the existing club house, which is in a very poor condition and is in jeopardy of failing to obtain a Fire Safety Certificate. This finance would be raised by selling the residential development land to developers. However Policy R5: Sports Grounds of the UDP sets out the presumption that playing fields should be protected from development unless it can be clearly demonstrated, with reference to an up to date assessment that the existing provision is no longer required to meet local demand. To comply with this policy compensatory facilities must be provided if the green is to be lost. The normal way of achieving this would be securing a compensatory payment through a Section 106 Agreement proportionate to the value of the sports facilities to be lost, to be spent on the creation of replacement facilities in the local area: This has been calculated to be £80,000.

10.3 However, the club are reluctant to make the compensatory payment as they feel that the money from the development of the land is specifically needed to essential improvements and up-date facilities at their club and to keep it viable. The applicants therefore put forward a proposal to provide the synthetic surface within the grounds of the club, to be located to the south of the club house.

10.4 There has been some doubt as to the desirability of the synthetic green proposal as it is possible that the different surface may be inappropriate for undertaking practice for subsequent match play on a natural surface. This issue was raised with the applicants during the course of processing the previous application and the applicants then submitted the minute of a special meeting of the Committee and Trustees of the club, at which it was resolved unanimously that the proposed artificial green was an acceptable replacement for the existing practice green.

10.5 Bearing in mind that the club intends to spend the monies raised from the housing development on essential improvements to the club house, provide the synthetic replacement green and improve other club facilities, in order to safeguard the club’s future, it is considered that in these particular circumstances, the compensatory pavement could be waived in this instance. However, it would be necessary for the club to enter into a Section 106 Agreement binding the club to spend the monies raised from the housing development on appropriate improvements to the club identified that will keep it running and ensure its continuing viability.

10.6 It is noted that Sport England are now suggesting that 20% of the proceeds from the residential scheme should be invested into other local bowling greens. However, in refusing the previous application for reasons of concern with the detail of the proposed housing, your Committee did not object to the whole of the proceeds being re-invested in the club.

Assessment of Housing Development 10.7 The proposed development of bungalows would round off the existing residential development in Eleanor Road and would be a sustainable one. Furthermore the provision of bungalows, instead of two-storey houses as proposed in the withdrawn

49 scheme 07/00081, would provide an attractive frontage to Eleanor Road. There should be no problems of privacy for existing residents.

10.8 The provision for private amenity space would be restricted by the short back gardens and would not comply in length with SPG3. They are however, acceptable in their total area in compliance with the SPG guidance. Permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings could be removed to ensure that future reduction of amenity space is controlled.

10.9 There is concern with regard to possible glare, from existing floodlights surrounding the main bowling green, disturbing future residents of the bungalows. This could be addressed by a planning condition.

10.10 It is considered that the proposed access and parking arrangements are now acceptable.

10.11 The matter raised by the Fire Service could, it is considered, be addressed by providing sprinkler systems to Plots 1 and 2.

10.12 Following your Committee’s deferral decision your officers requested the applicants to give full consideration to amending the application to a reduced scheme for four bungalows. This request was made in order to allow the applicants the opportunity to address Members’ concerns in relation to overdevelopment and in relation to emergency service access to Plots 1 and 2. The applicants have responded by stating their belief that there is no justifiable reason for reducing the number of dwellings.

10.13 The applicants also state that it is necessary to maximise the club’s capital receipt from the housing land to enable the club building to be developed satisfactorily. In support of this they now submit estimated details of costs and receipts in respect of the proposed housing development. The submitted figures indicate that a receipt of £164,222 could be obtained from the current five dwelling scheme whereas only £125,569 could be obtained from a scheme for four (three bedroomed) bungalows – a difference of over £38,000. These figures need to be read against the estimated costs (see paragraph 3.8 above) of £168,033 to include refurbishing the clubhouse and £230,089 to include rebuilding it.

Club car park and practice green 10.14 It is considered that the proposed car park proposals would result in a more orderly arrangement of the existing parking area and should therefore increase its effective capacity.

10.15 The details of the proposed practice green are considered to be satisfactory.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Delegated authority to grant permission subject to the applicants entering into a Section 106 Agreement to ensure that all the club’s income from the sale or development of the residential development land is reinvested into the club facilities in accordance with a specification and time-table to be agreed with the council before development commences and subject to conditions relating to the following: • Provision of the synthetic green • Removal of permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings • Approval of external building materials. • Provision of boundary treatment • Landscaping • Protection of trees during construction

50 • A floodlighting report and appropriate remedial measures to protect the amenities of future residents • A sprinkler system being provided for Plots 1 and 2 • Surfacing and laying out of the car park • Hours of construction being limited to between 0800 and 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1200 Saturday, with no such work taking place on Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays • Submission of site investigation report and the carrying out of appropriate remedial measures

Case Officer : Rob Hussey Telephone No : 551130 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 08/00911/FUL Location Bilston Town Bowling Club, Villiers Avenue,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 394614 296840 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 4516m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/00355/FUL WARD: Ettingshall DATE: 13-Mar-08 TARGET DATE: 08-May-08 RECEIVED: 12.03.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 20 Lawley Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV14 0NB PROPOSAL: Residential redevelopment of site comprising the demolition of existing motor vehicle repair works and construction of nine apartments.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr R N Williams Mr. Ian Lewis 53 Waterloo Road East Wing Wolverhampton Wrottesley Hall WV1 4QQ Holyhead Road Codsall Wolverhampton West Midlands WV8 2HT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 This former commercial site is in a quiet residential cul-de-sac. There are several unattractive vacant single storey buildings on the site.

1.2 To the west and opposite the site to the south are two storey houses. To the east is a rear yard then a bungalow (No 30 Lawley Road). The site slopes down from Lawley Road to the two storey residential houses at the rear on Wellington Road.

2 Application details

2.1 The applicant proposes five 2-bedroom apartments and four 1-bedroom apartments in a single building.

2.2 The proposal has three floors of accommodation with two 1-bedroom apartments in the roof space of the central section of the building.

2.3 The front of the building is in line with the adjacent two storey houses. There are twelve car parking spaces to the rear. Access is from Lawley Road through the building.

2.4 The façade is separated into distinct parts by two entrance hall and stair blocks. On the front elevation there are bay windows on the ground floor, sash windows and lead dormers. The proposed materials are brickwork walls at ground floor, render at first floor, a pitched clay tile roof and painted windows/doors.

53 3 Planning History

3.1 05/1364/FP/R - Residential development comprising erection of 5, three bedroom town houses. Refused 10.10.2005.

4 Constraints

4.1 Former mining area.

5 Relevant policies

5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan:

B10 Redevelopment of Business Land and Premises H1 Housing Site Assessment Criteria H6 Design of Housing Development Design Chapter policies

5.2 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note no3 “Residential Guidance”.

6 Neighbour representations

6.1 Two letters from neighbours to the rear object on the grounds of loss of privacy from overlooking, loss of light, overshadowing, noise disturbance from the rear car park, a three storey building not in keeping with two storey buildings in Lawley Road and that there should be a new brick wall on the rear boundary for privacy and noise insulation.

6.2 Following the receipt of amended plans a further round of neighbour consultations was carried out. One letter was received from 204 Wellington Road continuing to object to the application on the grounds of loss of privacy from upper floor windows and balconies and the rear garden area; the scheme at three storeys is out of keeping and that apartments do not have a place in this area.

7 Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation - parking provision acceptable and detailed comments relating to access, visibility splays, bin stores, disabled parking, motorcycle parking and cycle storage facilities, which are dealt with by way of recoomended conditions.

7.2 Building Control – access for fire service satisfactory.

7.3 Environmental Services – recommend condition limiting hours of construction.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The key issues are the principle of the proposed residential use, the design of the proposal and the impact on neighbours’ amenities.

Principle of Residential Use 8.2 The existing site is unattractive and the motor vehicle repair use is inappropriate in this residential area. The principle of the residential use of the site is acceptable.

54 Design 8.3 The position of the building satisfactorily relates to the existing building line along Lawley Road. Whilst the building is deeper than the neighbouring properties the position of the building on the site is acceptable.

8.4 The apartments may all be accessed from front and rear doors. There is adequate private rear amenity space. The level of parking is satisfactory. Amended plans have been received showing provision for disabled parking and cycle storage facilities, the details of which may be controlled by conditions. The applicant has also provided amended plans showing brick walls to the side and rear boundaries, specifying block paving to the hard surfaced areas and showing a key fob operated security gate to the access to the rear. To secure the rear amenity area a short 1.8m high brick wall is also now shown from the side of the building to the side boundary to the west.

8.5 The access way has bin stores to the side tucked neatly under the building. The vehicle access is defined by the columns supporting the building with a pedestrian access to the side of columns. This is clever use of the space well expressed by the proposed architecture. A wider vehicular access would allow vehicles to pass but would not be desirable on design grounds. The driveway width is considered to be acceptable for a twelve space car park and will not be detrimental to highway safety on this quiet cul-de-sac.

8.6 The internal layout of the apartments has been satisfactorily designed to respond to the orientation of the building.

8.7 The height of the central section of the proposed building is shown as 9.1m. The height of the neighbouring two storey properties on Lawley Road is shown as 8m. The ridge height of the proposed building drops down at both ends. The height and massing of the proposed building in relation to its surroundings is considered to acceptable.

8.8 The visual appearance of the proposed building represents good quality architectural design.

Neighbours’ Amenities 8.9 The properties to the rear are set a lower level than the site. No 204 Wellington Rd has a conservatory to the side of the rear part of the house with clear glass roof and windows. The distance from the rear of the proposed apartments to the properties to the rear is approximately 27m.

8.10 Wolverhampton’s Supplementary Planning Guidance note no 3 “Residential Guidance” advises that 21m is a generally acceptable separation distance although this may need to be greater where there are level differences.

8.11 The proposed rear elevation has four dormers and two roof lights. Two of the dormers had balconies in the original plans. The applicant’s agent has now deleted these in the amended plans to reduce overlooking. The neighbours have been reconsulted and any further representations will be reported verbally. There are four first floor balconies that are recessed inside the building (the edge of the balcony will be in line with the rear wall). The distance between these balconies and the neighbouring properties is considered to be acceptable.

8.12 A 1.8m high new brick wall is proposed on the rear and side boundaries. The proposed car park should not cause undue noise disturbance to the neighbours.

8.13 The relationship of the proposed development to the neighbouring properties is such that there would not be significant loss of privacy, loss of daylight/ sunlight,

55 overshadowing or noise disturbance that would be significant enough to justify a reason for refusal on amenity grounds.

8.14 The application proposes that surface water from the development is to be disposed of via the existing surface water system. In line with Government guidance and Council policy, this means of disposal should only used be if it is not possible to dispose of surface water in a sustainable way on the site. This issue may be addressed by a condition.

9 Conclusion

9.1 Overall the redevelopment of this unattractive former motor vehicle repair works is welcome and the proposed residential development makes efficient use of a brownfield site. There would be no adverse impact on neighbours’ amenities that would be significant enough to justify a reason for refusal.

10 Recommendation

10.1 Grant subject to any necessary conditions including:

• Materials & architectural details • Boundary treatment details, including gates • Construction management plan • Landscaping details • Hard surfacing details • Drainage details—by sustainable means if practicable • Details of cycle stores • No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. • Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation • External lighting

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

Planning Application No: 08/00355/FUL Location 20 Lawley Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV14 0NB Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393965 296910 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 1137m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/00016/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 16-Jan-08 TARGET DATE: 12-Mar-08 RECEIVED: 03.01.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Industrial Units Bounded By Thomas Street Pountney Street Bell Place, Dobbs Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Change of use of part ground floor to use within Use Class D2 as function hall with related alterations.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Messrs HS Bhogal, SS Bhogal, J Singh AJM Planning Associates C/o 24A Church Lane The Westlands Wolverhampton 132 Compton Road WV2 4PN Wolverhampton WV3 9QB

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Introduction

1.1 This application was deferred at the Committee meeting on 23 September 2008 to enable further discussions to be undertaken with the applicants’ agents regarding parking and security issues and for further information to be obtained in respect of the marketing of the premises and in respect of the assessment of possible alternative sites under the sequential test required by centres policy.

1.2 Additional information has subsequently been submitted by the applicants.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application premises comprise part of larger industrial premises, together with a car park on a detached piece of nearby land, within an industrial area to the south of St John’s Retail Park and to the west of Dudley Road.

2.2 The overall building has approximate frontages of 120 metres to Pountney Street, 65 metres to Thomas Street and 100 metres to the south side of Dobbs Street. The application premises have a 62 metre frontage to Pountney Street and a short frontage to Dobbs Street. The premises are mainly single storey but include a small area of the ground floor of a two-storey element of the building.

2.3 The overall building was formally occupied by JWB Finishes, a company specialising in book binding and related activities. This company vacated 3700 sq. metres of floor space (including the application premises) in mid-2006, downsizing into the remaining 7,000 square metres of the overall premises. Information received from the applicants since the last Committee meeting confirms that JWB went into liquidation in February 2008 and therefore the whole building is now unoccupied other than minor temporary lets of a very small percentage of the building floorspace.

2.4 The car park area is on the northern side of Dobbs Street and is currently roughly surfaced.

58 3. Application Details

3.1 The proposed change of use to a function hall is intended to cater for Asian weddings with a capacity of up 900 guests. Around 50 staff would work at the premises and would be mainly casual staff.

3.2 The proposed function hall would have its main entrance from Dobbs Street but the main guest area would be on the Pountney Street side of the premises. External alterations would comprise the construction of the main entrance and exit on the Dobbs Street frontage and the provision of three sets of fire exit doors onto Pountney Street. Also proposed is a new steel extraction flue to serve the kitchen at the eastern end of the building.

3.3 Deliveries would remain via the existing access off Pountney Street. Adjacent to this would be the proposed kitchen but for most functions the food will actually be prepared elsewhere with the kitchen only being used to heat up the pre- prepared food.

3.4 The car park is on the northern side of Dobbs Street and would provide 70 standard car parking spaces, 4 disabled spaces, motorcycle and cycle parking.

3.5 The applicants state that the larger functions, catering for between 500 and 900 people, would take place during the afternoons and evenings on Saturdays and Sundays, ceasing no later than 0100 hours. Smaller functions catering for up to 300 people are anticipated on Friday evenings with others occasionally on other weekday evenings. Use during the weekdays would be very intermittent and involve a maximum of 100 people.

3.6 The applicants state that there is a clear demand for this type of facility in Wolverhampton and that Wolverhampton residents requiring this size of facility currently have to use function halls in West Bromwich, Dudley or Birmingham.

4. Planning History

07/00503/FUL. Change of use and alterations to form 2 No. industrial units and 2 No. function centres. Withdrawn 22.6.07.

5. Constraints

Authorised Processes - Company: 250m buffer zone around Authorised Processes at: M. E. Perrins Ltd Location: Unit 6 Bloomsbury Street, Wolverhampton, WV2 4BS Process: Respraying of road vehicles

Authorised Processes - Company: 250m buffer zone around Authorised Processes at: BodyKraft Coach and Motor Works Ltd Location: Drayton Street, W-ton, WV2 4EE Process: Respraying of Road Vehicles

Authorised Processes - Company: 250m buffer zone around Authorised Processes at: Birmingham Road Service Station Location: Birmingham Road/Dudley Road, W-ton, WV2 3LH Process: Loading of Petrol Tanks

Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Pountney St, Wolverhampton

59 6. Relevant Policies & Guidance

UDP Policies B9: Defined Business Areas. B10: Redevelopment of Employment Land and Premises. B11 Ancillary Uses in Employment Areas and Premises. B14 All Saints and Blakenhall Community Development Area (ABCD). SH1 Centre Strategy SH2 Centre Uses SH3 Need and the Sequential Approach C1 Health, Education and Other Community Services C2 Location of New Community Services Development D9 Appearance AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision

7. Publicity

Letters sent to 25 premises. Site Notice posted. No representations received.

8. Internal Consultations

8.1 Planning Policy

8.1.1 Comment as follows (these comments relate to the information available prior to your Committee’s deferral of the application and will be updated verbally, in respect of the latest information received which is currently being assessed).

Loss of employment land. The proposal would result in loss of land for employment use. In this case other parts of the same building are being used for workshop units and there is no reason why the application premises cannot also be reused as such.

Insufficient information has been provided by the applicants in terms of the availability of employment premises in the immediate catchment of Wolverhampton. In the economic and marketing assessment submitted with the application only 4 of the 95 identified available locations fell within the Wolverhampton City Council boundary.

ABCD Warehouse Quarter Large scale D2 leisure uses do not fall within the sustainable mix of uses in the Warehouse Quarter identified in the explanatory text to Policy B14 of the UDP. There appears to be no functional link between the proposed function hall and the existing industrial buildings.

Centre Use Policies D2 leisure uses are regarded as centre uses in Policy SH2. They should therefore be located in defined centres and a centres first approach is necessary in identifying sites for such facilities. The application site is outside the City Centre boundary and the Ring Road and is therefore classed as edge of centre, which means that it is necessary for policies C1 and SH3 to be satisfied in terms of need, the sequential test and accessibility.

In terms of need, there is a recent approval for a banqueting and conference suite at Vulcan Road, Bilston (07/01714/FUL). In addition permission has been granted for a function hall/banqueting suite at the former Mecca Bingo site, Skinner Street, Wolverhampton and this is of a scale and nature that is likely to meet the identified need for such facilities in a sequentially preferable central location.

In terms of the sequential test the applicant has not looked at proposed redevelopment sites in the city centre such as Darlington Street, Piper’s Row and School Street

With regard to accessibility the applicant has not demonstrated that the location is easily accessible to public transport and can provide safe access pedestrians and cyclists.

8.2 Transport Strategy

8.2.1 Comment as follows: • There is potential for guest parking demand to exceed the capacity of the car park and lead to some on-street parking, taking into account any staff parking demand.

• A significant proportion of the guests are likely to arrive by coach/minibus/taxi, which would need to drop off guests from the highway as there is no dedicated off-street drop-off area proposed within the car park areas.

• During evenings and weekends when nearby businesses are generally closed/not operating, some additional on-street parking and coaches setting down/picking-up is unlikely to be a problem; however during the daytime on weekdays parking demand on all of the surrounding streets is extremely high, with little or no space available for additional parking or pick-up/set-down.

• The main car park is almost 100 metres from the main entrance of the proposed function hall, which could result in visitors parking on-street in Dobbs Street rather than in the proposed car parks. It is therefore imperative that there is good signage at all entrances to the car parks and from the main entrance of the function hall.

• The car parks are not currently internally lit, which, given the likely hours of operation of the function hall leads to some concerns regarding security. The car parks should be properly lit by installation of appropriate lighting within the car parks. The applicant should provide details of the proposed lighting including positioning/type and illumination lux levels.

• The car parks must be resurfaced appropriately so that proper demarcation of bays is possible.

• It is noted that the proposed car parks are being used as chargeable public car parks and therefore the applicant should confirm whether they are intending to reserve the proposed car parks for sole use of visitors and staff of the function hall. The applicant should also clarify whether they intend to charge these visitors for parking, post development.

8.2.2 If permission is granted the following should be set as conditions to the planning permission.

• Limitation of operational hours (function/conference times) to weekends and after 18:00 hours on weekdays only. • Clear car park signage both at the car park entrances and at the entrances to the function hall to limit the amount of on-street parking. • The car park should be appropriately hard surfaced so that proper demarcation of bays is possible. • The applicant should sign up to Company Travelwise which is a Council run initiative to encourage employees and visitors to travel by sustainable means. 61 • Acceptable motorcycle parking provision should be provided including security rails. • Acceptable covered and secure cycle storage should be provided. • Provision of acceptable car park lighting. • Parking should be reserved for and be free of charge for visitors and staff during operation hours of the function hall. This should be clearly indicated on appropriate signs.

8.3 Environmental Services

8.3.1 No objections raised.

9. External consultees

9.1 ABCD

No response.

10. Appraisal

10.1 It is not considered that the proposed external alterations to the building would result in any detriment to the appearance of the building. It is therefore considered that the key determining issues are loss of employment premises, the suitability of the location for a large scale leisure use, the impact on policy for the ABCD Area and impact on highway safety,

10.2 Loss of employment land

10.2.1 The proposed subdivision of the building to provide a function hall will result in the loss of employment land. Under Policy B10: Redevelopment of Employment Land and Premises, it must be demonstrated that the site is no longer suitable and there is no market demand for continued employment use.

10.2.2 The applicants have submitted an economic and marketing assessment which states that that the premises suffer from a lack of adequate loading and unloading facilities and on-site manoeuvring space and also from the restricted eaves height of the building. The assessment also states that the area is not generally in good demand for warehousing and manufacturing uses, partly because of the congestion caused by on-street parking and the age of the premises. The assessment states that there is no shortage of available premises in the immediate locality and provides a list of 95 available premises.

10.2.3 In response to your Committee’s request for more information regarding the marketing of the premises, the applicants have submitted an updated marketing report from their estate agents, which states that they were originally instructed to market the application premises from February 2007 and then the whole of the site since February 2008. The following marketing methods were used: • The premises appeared on the agents’ and other various internet sites/portals • Local businesses were sent particulars of the availability of the premises; offering the unit as a whole or split depending on the size and tenure • Prospective tenants who have registered with the agents have also received marketing information • Two large sign boards have been erected at the site • Advertisement in the Express and Star

62 The report also refers to a number of enquiries expressing interest but none appears to have translated into potential lets, the estate agents quoting similar reasons to those referred to in paragraph 10.2.2 above.

10.2.4 In assessing whether the applicants’ marketing information amounts to a justification for the loss of employment land it should be noted that this application proposes subdivision of 3700 sq. metres of floorspace, vacated by JWB in 2006, to provide 2150 sq. metres for the function hall, with the remaining 1550 sq. metres to be used as a workshop unit. Such a workshop is an employment use that is acceptable at this location in planning policy terms, and it is not clear why the provision of workshop units could not take place in the whole of the vacated area of the premises. The eaves restriction might well deter some storage and distribution uses but should be suitable for many industrial users. Furthermore, if the height restriction is crucial, there is no clear reason why the building cannot be adapted, to include raising the internal height clearance, or even demolished and rebuilt.

10.2.5 The applicants’ claims regarding generally poor access to the area could, by extension, be applied to much of the surrounding area, which is a Defined Employment Area. Allowing a loss of industrial floor space in this case would encourage other applications in the area involving further such loss, fundamentally undermining the proposals of the Unitary Development Plan with regard to employment land provision in defined areas.

10.2.6 In terms of the current market demand for employment use ‘Appendix A’ of the applicants’ Economic and Marketing Assessment provides details of vacant premises. However, only four of the 95 available locations identified fall within the boundary of Wolverhampton City Council and none of those four sites are south of the city centre. Therefore, in relation to the supply of employment premises in the immediate catchment area, this does not suggest that there is no market demand for employment uses.

10.2.7 Whilst the updated marketing report is noted, the length of time for which the premises have been marketed is still not considered to be such a long period that future industrial/warehouse use of the application premises can be discounted.

10.2.8 It is therefore considered that it has not been demonstrated that the site is unsuitable or unviable for continued employment use either by redevelopment/ reconfiguration/ subdivision of the site, or that there is no market demand for continued employment use.

10.3 Suitability of this location for a large scale leisure use

10.3.1 Function halls are regarded as leisure uses within Class D2 of The Use Classes Order and are therefore regarded as centre uses (UDP Policy SH2). As the proposal will perform a community function, Policy C2: Location of New Community Services Development is also relevant; this states that new community development should be of a scale and nature appropriate to the location concerned and that they should be located within the defined centres of Policy SH1. Being situated outside both the City Centre boundary and the Ring Road, the proposal is contrary to these policies and is in an inappropriate location for a function hall. The site is classed as edge-of-centre, which means it is necessary for Policies C1 and SH3 to be satisfied in terms of Need, the Sequential Test, and Accessibility.

(a) Need 10.3.2 The applicants state that there is no other existing facility within the administrative area of Wolverhampton that can accommodate the required scale of individual functions. They state that neither the Racecourse, the Park Hall Hotel nor the Imperial Palace in Bilston have the necessary capacity. The applicants submit letters of support from

63 eight local community associations expressing support for the facility. However there is a recent approval for a banqueting and conference suite at Vulcan Road, Bilston (07/01714/FUL). In addition permission has been granted for a function hall/banqueting suite at the former Mecca Bingo site, Skinner Street, Wolverhampton (08/00367) and this is in a sequential preferable central location.

10.3.3 In response to your Committee’s request for further information the applicants state that their further research since May has confirmed that there are no premises available within the Council’s administrative area that can cater for Functions on the scale envisaged (i.e. up to 900 people). They understand that the capacity of the former Mecca building in Skinner Street is some 500-600 and of the former industrial premises in Vulcan Road, Bilston is some 300.

(b)The sequential test 10.3.4 The applicants rule out the Mecca Bingo club in Bentley Bridge, stating that the permitted use for those premises includes retailing and is unavailable for a function use.

10.3.5 In addition, in response to your Committee’s request for further information in respect of the applicant’s sequential considerations the applicants state that contact has been made with other Commercial Agents serving Wolverhampton and other Town Centres and no other site/premises to cater for the 900+ market is available, leaving aside cost and viability considerations. They also state that the UDP and related documentation proposals for Darlington St.; Piper's Row; School Street do not specifically provide for a proposal of this kind, again leaving aside cost and viability considerations, and they imply that redevelopment of this area would betook much in the long term to serve the applicants’ requirements

10.3.6 The applicants therefore consider that there is no other building or site in the City Centre which is available to provide for the required use.

10.3.7 At the time of writing this report, your officers are still assessing the applicants additional submissions relating to the sequential test and a verbal update will be given at the Committee meeting.

(c) Accessibility 10.3.8 With regard to accessibility the applicant has not demonstrated that the location is easily accessible to public transport and can provide safe access for pedestrians and cyclists.

10.4 ABCD Policies

10.4.1 The site falls within the specifically designated All Saints and Blakenhall Community Development Area (ABCD) Warehouse Quarter identified in Policy B14 of the UDP. Under sub area B14(i) “Northern and Central Area” the policy states that the following will be permitted:

“refurbishment and reuse of the historic buildings and mixed use development with an emphasis on creative and technology light industrial activity, and live/ work units as demand arises”

10.4.2 Para 9.11.1 states that the area is identified as a Strategic Regeneration Area in Policy S1. As the sustainable mix of uses outlined in this paragraph and Policy B14 do not include large scale D2 Leisure Use, the proposal for a function hall is contrary to this policy.

64 10.4.3 There does not appear to be any functional linkage between the proposed Function Hall and the industrial buildings, nor any way in which a Function Hall would complement either the other uses on the site, the existing uses in the Warehouse Quarter, or the acceptable uses outlined in Policy B14 and para 9.11.1 of the UDP. Consequently, this application would create piecemeal development which risks undermining the ability of realising the aspirations of the ABCD Area.

10.4.4 The applicants state that the proposal would not prejudice or undermine Policy B14 (i), particularly in a situation where the market has shown no demand for the type of uses advocated in that policy. However, it is considered that, by highlighting that favourable types of uses will be permitted “as demand arises” Policy B14 emphasises the need for long term regeneration in this area, and does not justify the proposed change of use at a time when the premises have not been vacant for long.

10.5 Highway safety

10.5.1 The applicants state that at a typical function for 900 people there would be 6 coaches (420 guests) 12 minibuses (120) guests, in addition to 90 cars. They base their information on their own experience in attending such functions and on their consultations with other large function suite operators in Birmingham and Smethwick. The coaches and minibuses would have to drop off on the highway and some are likely to park on street for the duration of the function.

10.5.2 It is clear that the local streets could not cope with this volume of parking during the working day but problems are unlikely to arise in the evening when the streets are quiet. It is therefore considered that the proposal is acceptable in terms of traffic safety, provided that hours of operation are limited as advised by the highway engineer and provided that the other suggested conditions are complied with.

10.5.3 In response to your Committee’s concerns regarding parking and security, the applicants stress that 91no. car parking spaces are proposed rather than 70no. as stated in the previous Committee report.

10.5.4 Also the applicants state that they will accept conditions that the use be in the evenings only on weekdays (Mondays-Fridays inclusive) and regarding the lighting of the car park. The proposed use would therefore operate outside of core business hours. Moreover, the whole car park will be available for function users and no charge would be made. It would also have security personnel patrolling it during all operating hours.

10.5.5 The applicants also state as follows • If the application premises were occupied by industrial/warehousing operations, there would be associated traffic movements during normal business hours which would add to existing congestion and which could have a detrimental effect upon access to the nearby retail park. • Moreover, proposals such as this within Town Centres could be to the detriment of retail activity for similar reasons. • In contrast, evening and weekend use, when the local roads are almost devoid of traffic from existing commercial operators in the locality, avoids any conflict with vehicle borne shoppers. • Moreover, the security measures envisaged for parking and which the ABCD has indicated it would provide grant aid towards, would assist in the security of the overall locality to general benefit.

10.5.6 The applicants summarise their submissions on this issue by concluding that “……the location of the application premises; the car park; the availability of on-street parking; the proposed availability of two entrances (off Dobbs Street and Pountney Street) all

65 allow for a straightforward strategy for parking and drop and pick up to be arranged and subsequently managed by appropriate security staff and signage”.

11. Conclusion

11.1 It is considered that, subject to the conditions discussed above, the proposal is acceptable in terms of highway safety.

11.2 However, the application is not in a policy preferred location and should be refused on policy grounds.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Refuse permission for reasons relating to the following:

• The proposal would result in the loss of employment premises, contrary to Policy B10 of the UDP. It has not been convincingly demonstrated that loss of employment land is justified, that there is no demand for a continued employment use, nor that sub-division to provide workshops for the whole of the vacant premises is not viable.

• The proposal is contrary to the future aspirations of the ABCD Warehouse Quarter as set out in Policy B14 of the UDP.

• The proposal is contrary to centre use policies in that the issues of need, the sequential test and accessibility have not been adequately addressed.

Case Officer : Rob Hussey Telephone No : 551130 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 08/00016/FUL Location Industrial Units Bounded By Thomas Street Pountney Street Bell Place, Dobbs Street,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391405 297798 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 4760m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/00904/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 08-Jul-08 TARGET DATE: 02-Sep-08 RECEIVED: 08.07.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Three Pines, 28 Grove Lane, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of detached dwelling. (AMENDED PLANS RECEIVED)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs Sperling Mr Dave Ralph 1A The Orchard Mark Dady Associates Aldersley 25 Salop Street Wolverhampton Bridgnorth West Midlands WV16 5BH WV6 9PF

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The site is situated in an predominately mature residential area approximately 4 miles west of the City of Wolverhampton in the suburb of Wightwick. The application site is part of the curtilage of 28 which is a particularly wide curtilage. The site is within a residential area consisting of steeply sloping sites backed by woodland. Most of the sites contain large trees

1.2 No 28 Grove Lane is situated approximately half way up a steep slope dividing the area into lower and higher levels. This site is situated on the upper level looking down on the lane and having panoramic south views toward Wolverhampton. There are a number of trees at the bottom of the site along the side of the lane. This is where a new drive will be constructed.

1.3 The existing residential properties dates from 1960’s through to the 1980’s and are individually bespoke. All dwellings surrounding the site are detached, in varying plot width, depths and design characteristics. The existing houses are situated in varying positions within their curtilage, in almost an organic way, not conforming to a building line.

1.4 This particular site is part of the curtilage of 28 Grove Lane which has particularly wide curtilage.

2 Application details

2.1 The proposal is for a similar scheme as that previously approved with some changes. The applicant proposes to increase the length of the two storey rear element along the boundary with the neighbour at No. 26 from the previously approved planning application ref: 04/0840.

2.2 The dwelling is an infill and will occupy the site of an outside swimming pool and changing rooms previously attached to No.28 Grove Lane.

68 2.3 A tree survey and a report by Kevin Mann Landscape Architect to access the environmental impact of the drive on the trees has been undertaken and included in the application.

3 Planning History

3.1 The site had outline consent in the form of residential development for some considerable number of years, before submitting a full planning application ref: 03/1208 for a 4 bedroom detached house.

3.2 The application was withdrawn before it went out of time because the applicant had not supplied the council with details in respect of trees and the effect the proposal might have on the trees. The details of the house type were also unacceptable; these were the effects of overlooking from the terrace in particular on the property next door of No. 26.

3.3 A further similar planning application was submitted ref: 04/0840 for the erection of 4 bedroom detached dwelling, which was granted planning permission 23rd July 2004. This permission was not implemented.

3.4 A further application was submitted 15th May 2008, ref: 08/00447/FUL for a detached dwelling. This application was also withdrawn before it went out of time because the proposed scheme was unacceptable.

4 Constraints

Current Open Space - Site Name: Tettenhall Ridge Ancient Woodland Site Tag: TRAW Current Open Space - Site Name: Proposed Tettenhall Ridge Boundary Tag: PNCS DC Consult Zone - Neighbour Authority - Name: 400m zone inside joint Wolverhampton/S.Staffs boundary #3 - Adjacent to S.Staffs CC Notes: Needed for DC consultation purposes and telecom applications only Local Area Neighbourhood Arrangements - Name: Tettenhall Neighbourhood Area - Name: Tettenhall Permitted Development Rights Removed - Name: P.D. Removed. Condition 6 04/0840/FP/R Description: No windows shall be inserted into the East or West facing sides of the dwelling hereby approved. Police Command Sector - Name: G1 Operational Command Unit Notes: G1 - contact Phil Russon on 01902 649009 Smoke Control Zone - : Wolverhampton Borough Council - Wightwick Area Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00105/TPO - Location: Tettenhall Ridge Ancient Woodland Policy: Ancient Woodland

5 Relevant policies

5.1 Unitary Development Plan Policies

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

69 AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security H6 - Design of Housing Development

5.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 - Residential Development

6 Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement or a site notice to be posted.

7 Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 Six letters of objection were received raising the following concerns: - Surface water/ drainage system - Un-adopted road - Detrimental impact from the proposed driveway - Privacy issues - Appearance - Steepness of drive - Reduce light/sunlight - Parking problems

8 Internal consultees

8.1 Planning Policy Section: The density of the proposed development is less than 30 dph, which policy H9 states should be avoided. However there are specific reasons in this case why a lower density is more appropriate, namely to match the local character of the area.

8.2 In relation to policy N8, there is no mention in the application to the impact of the proposal on the Tettenhall Ridge Ancient Woodland. The applicant needs to demonstrate what the impact would be.

8.3 Trees: No objections. Tree Protection to BS5837 Trees being retained.

8.4 Environmental Services: Information for the Applicant should be included in the decision notice, regarding the operational hours restricted which should be 0800 to 1800 Monday to Friday and 0800 to 1300 Saturday, and at no time on Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays.

8.5 Transportation Development: The site has reasonable levels of accessibility to local public transport services. The drive to be designed such that the steepness of the gradient is minimised. The driveway serving No. 28 Grove Lane protrudes out and significantly reduces the width of Grove Lane and so creates a pinch point and a potential hazard. The transportation officer has request that the design of the proposed driveway access serving this new development does not have a similar impact on the width of Grove Lane as it would represent a similar potential hazard (particularly during twilight hours) and may affect the existing passing place. Plans need to be submitted to assess the overall level of parking provision. The plans should be of a large scale showing details of driveway and parking/turning provisions. Plans received 2nd October 2008 showing the parking provisions.

70 8.6 Comments received from Transportation Officer 13th October 2008 – No objection in principle to the proposed development, but to include the following conditions. • The driveway to provide maximum grip for vehicles and pedestrians. • Provide a transition phase of the gradient of the driveway • Provide appropriate drainage gullies.

9 External consultees

9.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd: No objections to the principle of development. Drainage details required. Plans received from the agent and forwarded to Severn Trent Water Ltd for their comments.

10 Appraisal

10.1 The following key Issues are considered in determining this application:

• Principle of development • Design & Layout • The effect on neighbours • Unadopted access road • Drainage

Principle of development 10.2 The site lies within a residential area, therefore the principle development for a detached dwelling is considered acceptable.

10.3 This scheme is in effect a re-visit of the earlier scheme granted on July 2004. That scheme included full planning consent for one detached dwelling which will occupy the site of an outside swimming pool and changing rooms previously attached to No.28 Grove Lane.

Design & Layout 10.4 The plot is similar width to the adjoining property No. 26 which is 17m but smaller then the Tree Pines No. 28 which is 18m to the front and 20m to the rear. However, it will follow the same pattern as the other properties by being situated away from the neighbouring properties, of a similar height and staggered forward of No. 26 and back from No. 28, which is the pattern of properties along this upper level.

10.5 This scheme proposes the same detached dwelling except that it proposes to extend the two storey element further to the rear of the building.

10.6 The proposed building is on three levels, lower ground floor, ground floor and first floor. The ground work has already been carried out under the previous approval.

The effect on neighbours 10.7 The scheme as submitted has been amended to address the concerns of overlooking; the proposed two storey element has been reduced and brought in line with the neighbour (No.26) side bathroom window.

10.8 The proposed dwelling will be set away from the boundary with the neighbour at No.26 to reduce any overbearing impact.

10.9 There will be no detrimental impact on the neighbours at No. 28, as they are set forward of the application site and set away approximately 4m from the boundary.

71 The unadopted access road 10.11 The section of Grove Lane in the vicinity of the site is not adopted highway and is single track width with passing places for much of the length. This section of the road is designed as a public footpath and it serves as the vehicular and pedestrian access for numerous properties.

10.12 The proposed driveway has been designed such that it doesn’t have a similar impact on the width of Grove Lane as the driveway serving No. 28 which protrudes out and significantly reduces the width.

10.13 Since Grove Lane is a single track road, vehicles will be able to enter and exit the application site in forward gear, an appropriate turning area has been provided to the front of the property.

Drainage 10.14 Comments are awaited from Severn Trent Water Ltd on the additional information provided and an update will be provided at Planning Committee.

11 Conclusion

11.1 As there is a valid planning permission for a dwelling on this site, the principle of a dwelling is established. The proposed development in this area is considered acceptable. The design would aim to match the existing surroundings.

12 Recommendation

12.1 Delegated authority to grant, subject to satisfactory Severn Trent Water Ltd and Highway comments.

12.2 Planning permission to be subject to the following Conditions:

1. Materials 2. Landscaping 3. Hours of construction and vehicular movement 4. Drainage 5. Bin stores 6. Boundary treatment 7. Highway conditions

Case Officer: Mindy Cheema Telephone No: 551360 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 08/00904/FUL Location Three Pines, 28 Grove Lane,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387628 298818 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 1045m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 04-Nov-08 APP NO: 08/01130/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 03-Sep-08 TARGET DATE: 29-Oct-08 RECEIVED: 03.09.2008 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 56 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 8TD PROPOSAL: Change of use from private dwelling house into a children's care home for up to 4 children aged between 5 & 11 years of age.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Rajan Kanda Mr Anthony Buckley 56 Wergs Road ADG Design Limited Tettenhall 17a Chapel Ash Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV6 8TD WV3 0TZ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site description and background

1.1 The application site is located 2.5 miles to the north-west of Wolverhampton City Centre. It contains a vacant, three bedroomed detached dwelling house which is set back from Wergs Road and positioned within a spacious residential setting. There is substantial private amenity space to the rear and pleasant garden space to the front of the house. There is on-site parking provision on the front driveway and within the integral double garage.

1.2 This application is a resubmission proposal. Earlier this year, a previous application (08/00260/FUL) to use the house as a residential care home for up to four children, between the ages of 10 and 18 years old, was refused.

2. Application details

2.1 The application seeks planning permission to change the use of the existing residential dwelling house (Use Class C3) to a children’s care home (Use Class C2).

2.2 The applicant has provided the following information to support this application:

I. The proposed age of the children who would reside at the premises would be 5 – 11 years; II. There would be up to four children residing at the property for periods usually not less than six months and up to two years. The normal period of residency would be 9 – 12 and 18 months. Only very occasionally would children reside at the premises for less than 6 months III. If the first child placed in the proposed home is 5 years old, this would restrict the age category of the other children. Ofsted will not allow children whose ages fall outside a four year age gap. This means, in the case of the youngest child being five years old, the oldest child can only be of 9 years old; IV. The children who would reside at the property are described as those experiencing or who have experienced incidences of neglect, possibly as a result of separation from of a parent or guardian through illness, death or

74 because of physical or mental/emotional abuse. The children may have behavioural or emotional issues as a result of their experiences. The children may have difficulties with social interaction, verbal and non-verbal communication skills, repetitive behaviours or interests and attachment issues; V. The purpose of the care home is to provide children with a safe environment under the supervision of trained staff; VI. The children would be at school during normal term time week days and will be take part in structured and supervised activities on and off the premises. The children would be accompanied to and from school; VII. No staff would live at the property. There would be three staff carers in total on site at any one time, rotating shift patterns involving changes on a twenty four hour basis; VIII. Shift patterns would be – 08.00 – 20.00 hours and 20.00 – 08.00 hours. Change over of staff would be 07.30 – 08.00 hours and 19.30 – 20.00 hours. IX. Primarily visitors to the home would be by appointment only and visits would be between 10.00 hours and 17.00 hours; X. No tutors would visit the site; XI. Child psychologists would only visit the site in exceptional circumstances. Children who need to consult with a social services officer will usually do so at the Social Services Offices. XII. Visits to the property by contractors would be no more than a typical residential dwelling house; XIII. No external changes to the building proposed; XIV. Internal changes would be required. These changes would include converting the existing ground floor utility room into an office and altering the first floor layout to create five bedrooms as opposed to the existing three bedrooms; XV. The applicants do not intend to accommodate children with existing or known criminal backgrounds.

3. Planning history

3.1 08/00260/FUL - Change of use from private family dwelling house into a children's home for vulnerable young children/people from the age of 10 years to 18 years of age. Refused - 14.05.2008.

3.2 03/0946/FP for One dormer window to front elevation and three dormer windows to rear elevation. Refused - 04.09.2003.

4. Constraints

Tree Preservation Order

5. Relevant policies

D1 Design Quality D2 Design Statement D6 Townscape and Landscape D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities D13 Sustainable Development EP5 Noise Pollution H6 Design of Housing development H11 Special Needs Accommodation AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision

75 AM14 Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Communities AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

6. Publicity and Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 One petition received including 34 signatures and fourteen letters including a letter from Councillor’s John Davis and Barry Findlay objecting to the proposals. The following comments were raised;

• The only change since the previous application appears to be that the proposed residents would be from a younger age group; which only constitutes a further demerit of the application; • Proposal does not comply with Wolverhampton Sustainable Communities Strategy; • Staff would find it too difficult to control the children; • Loss of property values; • Noise pollution; • Likely to result in crime problems such as anti-social behaviour, which would be detrimental to the safety and security of surrounding residents; • There are already many care facilities in this locality. The approval of this application would set an undesirable precedent whereby it would be difficult to refuse similar proposals; • Criteria of admission is not explicit and no indication of management and staff is given; • Undertakings made in the proposal in relation to curfews and no unsupervised children leaving the premises during curfew times are spurious; • The residence is not secure and it is difficult to envisage how young people would be kept ‘in’ during curfew; • The children may have more ‘difficulties’ than described in the application supporting statement; • Residential accommodation is not appropriate for children between the ages of 5 and 11 years. Foster care rather than institutional care should be promoted. It is understood that Wolverhampton Social Services has a policy of placing children under the age of thirteen in foster care; • The submission of this application is financially motivated; • The existing property is unsuited to modification works to allow adaptation to a care home; • Inappropriate location for a care home, particularly in view of close proximity to Denescourt care home and adjacent schools. There are more suitable locations for the proposed use nearby; for example, Tettenhall Road, Stockwell End or Bantock House; • Detriment to character and appearance of area and nearby conservation area; • Loss of residential amenity – for example, loss of privacy and general disturbance caused by the ‘comings of goings’ of residents and staff; • Detrimental impact on trees; • Increase in waste and use of other services to the detriment of the environment; • Occupier of no.60 Wergs Road is employed in a child care occupation and is concerned about contact with potential residents of the proposed care home. The proposal would therefore be detrimental to the amenity of that neighbour occupier and future residents of the care home; • The access and egress from Wergs Road is busy and dangerous. Any increase in traffic generated by this proposal would be likely to have a further detrimental impact on highway safety;

76 • Insufficient parking provision which is likely to give rise to on street parking and a detrimental impact on the free flow of traffic and highway and pedestrian safety; • Unacceptable change of use from residential to business use • A restrictive covenant exists on the deeds of properties in the street – to the effect that the dwellings shall not be used for purposes other than that of a private dwelling house

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Planning Policy – no objection

7.2 Transportation – no objection

7.3 Children and Young People –

• No objections to this latest application. This is due to a proposed change in age for young people. • The application does state about competing with Danescourt children’s care home but this is not an issue due to Danescourt being a local authority resource. • Wolverhampton City Council will not place young people at 56 Wergs Road (should approval be granted) due to a policy being that children under the age of 13 are placed in foster care and not children's homes.

7.4 Environmental Services – No observations

7.5 Legal Services – comments awaited

8. External consultees

8.1 Ofsted (Care Homes) – comments awaited

8.2 South Staffordshire District Council – comments awaited

8.3 Police – comments awaited

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues for consideration in this case are the following:

• Compliance with UDP Policy • Impact on character and appearance of the area • Access and parking • Community safety

Compliance with UDP Policy 9.2 As this proposal is for a change of use to children’s care home, UDP Policy H11 ‘Special Needs Accommodation’ is applicable. This policy states that residential schemes designed for people with special needs will be encouraged subject to the following criteria; 1. The suitability of the site or building; 2. The character of the surrounding area; 3. Compatibility with surrounding uses; 4. Proximity to public transport and other local facilities; and 5. The provision of satisfactory vehicular access and parking

9.3 The application site includes a large detached house set within residential surroundings. The proposed use of this house as a residential care home would be compatible with this urban character. While there is no frequent bus service and it is over 400 metres walk to reach a bus stop, public transport facilities are available to residents and satisfactory vehicular access and parking provision at the site is proposed. The application therefore complies with UDP Policy H11.

Impact on character and appearance of the area 9.4 The application site is located within a residential environment. The houses in the street scene are detached, set within spacious plots and with off road parking, and an open and spacious aspect.

9.5 The applicant states that the proposed children’s care home would operate in the same way as a typical single dwelling household. There are no external changes proposed and only minimal internal alterations to the house. There would be satisfactory on-site parking facilities provided and children would be provided with structured and supervised activities. The number of expected visitors would also be typical of a domestic residence. From the information provided it would appear that the proposed use would not be detrimental to the character and appearance of the area.

Access and parking 9.6 The application house has a double garage and drive space for two vehicles. There is no frequent bus service and it is over 400 metres walk to reach a bus stop for the 501 bus route. As part of the proposal there would be three staff working with shift changes at 07.30 – 08.00 hours and 19.30 and 20.00 hours.

9.7 The principle generation of traffic movements as a result of this proposal would be at shift change over times and when children are escorted to and from school. It is expected that one car could be accommodated within the garage and a further two cars on the front driveway; therefore there is sufficient capacity to meet expected demand generated by staff.

9.8 While there would be an increase in vehicle movements throughout the day (from visitors and deliveries) as a result of the proposed change of use. It is anticipated that these movements will be spread across the day and not solely concentrated at peak hours. Therefore, whilst it is a concern that this would be an increase in turning movements at the junction of Wergs Road and the access road, it is not considered that this would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic or neighbour amenity.

Community safety 9.9 UDP Policy D10 ‘Community Safety’ states that proposals should take full account of the need to prevent crime, reduce the fear of crime and promote community safety. This policy takes its lead from Government Guidance in the companion guide to PPS1 entitled “Safer Places: The Planning System and Crime Prevention” (2004) which confirms that crime prevention and related measures can be a material consideration in making decisions and that the planning system can make a significant contribution to deterring crime.

9.10 The proposed care home would be located very near to the current Danescourt children’s care home that is sited in Danescourt Road, Off Wergs Road. Although the proposed care home would be nearby to Danescourt care home, it is not considered that this should prohibit the proposal. The children who would occupy the proposed care home would be younger than those previously proposed and would be carefully supervised. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal would not result in criminal activity or be likely to result in an unacceptable rise in the fear of crime amongst local people.

78 10. Conclusion

10.1 In conclusion, the proposal to change the use of this house to a children’s care home is acceptable subject to conditions relating to numbers and ages of residents; staff numbers and shift patterns; hours of visits and deliveries and parking provision.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant subject to conditions relating to the following:

• Numbers of children • Ages of children • Staff Numbers • Staff shift patterns • Hours of deliveries and visits • Parking provision

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

Planning Application No: 08/01130/FUL Location 56 Wergs Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV6 8TD Plan Scale (approx) 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387903 300604 Plan Printed 20.10.2008 Application Site Area 488m2