Agenda Item No: 6 Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM
Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date 05-APR-2005
Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND TRANSPORTATION
Contact Officer(s)/ ANDREW JOHNSON (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 (05-APR-2005) INDEX
REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO
Bilston East 05/0058/FP/M Land off Constantine Way, Off Great 4 Bridge Road, Bilston
Bushbury Sth/LowHill 05/0060/FP/M Corner of Lower Stafford Street and 16 Cannock Road,
East Park 04/1800/FP/C 1 Willenhall Road, 25 & 04/1799/FP/C
Ettingshall 04/2213/DW/C Land surrounding flats at Boydon Close, 31
05/0173/DW/C Land adjacent 56 Raby Street 34
Fallings Park 05/0143/DW/C Former garage site adjoining 42 and 44 41 Primrose Lane,
Graiseley 05/0280/RM/M land adjacent to/and 247 Merridale Street 44 West,
Oxley 05/0158/DW/M Pendeford High School, Marsh Lane, 50
Park 05/0004/FP/R Coach House rear of 24 Albert Road, 58
05/0150/OP/M 6 - 10 Avenue Road, 65
05/0223/TP/C 114 - 118 Tettenhall Road, 74
Penn 05/0056/FP/C The Lodge 378 Penn Road, 78
05/0170/FP/R 11 Woodhall Road, Penn, 83
St Peters 05/0053/FP/C Skateboard Park, Penn Road Island, 87
Tettenhall Regis 04/2047/FP/R 1 Clifton Road, 92
Tettenhall Wightwick 05/0160/FP/M Former Tettenhall Library & Council 97 Offices, Regis Road,
Wednesfield South 05/0037/FP/M William Gibbons and Sons Unit 25 103
05/0038/FP/M William Gibbons and Sons Unit 41 109
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0058/FP/M WARD: Bilston East; DATE 17-JAN-2005 TARGET DATE: 18-APR-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Land off Constantine Way, Off Great Bridge Road, Bilston (former Heil Trailers International site) PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing factory and offices for erection of 157 no. 1 and 2 bedroom flats, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses, garages, access roads and associated works
APPLICANT: AGENT: Barratt Homes MRP West Midlands Ltd Salisbury House 4th Floor 2A Tettenhall Road Trinity Point Wolverhampton Halesowen, West Midlands WV1 4SG B63 3HY
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to Heil Trailers International site on the A4098 Great Bridge Road, Bilston, just over 1 mile from the junction with the A41. This is located between the modern housing estate accessed off Constantine Way and the Midland Metro line which is at a raised ground level to the site, hence there is a bridge across Great Bridge Road. This site is situated at the junction of Wolverhampton City Council, and Sandwell and Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council’s boundaries. There is an electricity sub-station located at the junction of Great Bridge Road and Constantine Way at the front of the site, which submitted information indicates as under the freehold ownership of Heil and used only by them. There is a grassed bund around the perimeter of the site which was created to form a buffer between the industrial premises and new housing opposite. To the north and east of the site, beyond the public open space, are established Council built housing estates.
1.2 The site frontage to Great Bridge Road is approximately 51m where there are two existing vehicular crossovers. The site is triangular in shape and has a maximum depth of approximately 265m. The site area is approximately 4.15 hectares (10.25 acres) which comprises large industrial buildings with limited circulation space between plus external vehicle storage areas, a tanker testing station and other fuel tanks. The southern and most of the western boundaries are formed by an existing 3.5m high acoustic fence. The far northern corner of the site is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation
Page 4 (SLINC) but comprises mainly of hard standing and grassland and has been used for trailer/vehicle parking.
2. Planning History
2.1 The planning history reveals various permissions relating to residential development of the adjacent site (A/B/3150/82, A/B/2068/85, 94/1131/OP, 96/1086/FP, 00/0047/FP & 00/0385/FP). Planning permission for temporary office and toilet accommodation and alterations to the gates railings and vehicular crossovers and removal of trees relating to the existing industrial use of the site are also recorded (94/0139/FP & 98/0197/FP).
3. Constraints
3.1 There are two public sewers that cross the site and numerous mine shafts throughout.
4. Application Details
4.1 The proposal is for demolition of the existing factory buildings and offices and erection of 157 no. 1 and 2 bedroom flats, 2, 3 & 4 bedroom houses, garages, access roads and associated works. The submitted information states that Heil Trailers are relocating business elsewhere in Europe. The proposed redevelopment of the site for residential purposes provides 41 flats and 116 houses detailed to provide the following accommodation: - - 6 no. 1 bedroom flats - 35 no. 2 bedroom flats - 25 no. 2 bedroom houses - 50 no. 3 bedroom houses - 41 no. 4 bedroom houses The proposed flats are all four storey and the remainder of the houses are a combination of 2, 2½ and 3 storey detached, semi-detached and terraced properties. The proposal identifies dwellings to be made available as low cost shared ownership and rental units via a Registered Social Landlord.
Page 5 4.2 The existing vehicular access off Great Bridge Road is to be sealed off and a new vehicular access to the site created off Constantine Way plus three pedestrian links to the existing footpath network in the surrounding public open space. The proposed development takes the form of a cul- de-sac layout with private driveways serving many of the proposed dwellings. The applicants state that this form and layout replicates the existing Barratt development adjacent. The proposed parking is indicated as 100% parking for the flats provided within the curtilage and a minimum of 1 car parking space per dwelling elsewhere provided within the curtilage.
4.3 A public open space is created in the north-eastern part of the site surrounded by a block paved one-way vehicular access. The submitted plans indicate a focal point within the centre of this to incorporate a percent for art feature. The public open space around the perimeter of the site is to be retained in its present form with additional areas offered as additional public open space.
4.4 The applicants consider the site is unsuitable for continued employment use due to the sub-standard access in terms of its poor visibility and proximity to the railway bridge, potential noise and disturbance to adjoining residential neighbours, poor visual appearance and continuing potential for ground contamination. In support of the application the following documents were provided: - - Design Statement. - Ecological Assessment. - Transport Assessment. - Noise Survey. - Supporting Statement. - Geoenvironmental Assessment.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 Relevant policies within the adopted UDP include: H2 – Development of Other Sites for Housing H3 – Housing Development on Contaminated, Unstable and Derelict Land H4 – Infill Development H6 – Large Housing Sites H7 – Affordable/Social Housing H10 – Housing suitable for occupation by people with disabilities H18 – Planning Considerations ENV1 – Development Principles ENV2 – Design Standards ENV8 – Site Protection ENV10 – Habitat Protection ENV13 – The Urban Forest and the Protection of Trees ENV22 – Provision of Public Art ENV23 – Environmental Impact Assessments
Page 6 R2 – Open Space Provision R3 – Priorities for Open Space Provision R4 – Protection of Existing Public Open Space R12 – Children’s Play and New Housing Development TP3 – Midland Metro TP5 – Access and New Developments TP14 – Planning Standards – Car Parking
5.2 The Council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 3 “Residential Development” and Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 16 “The Provision of Public Art” are also relevant.
5.3 Relevant policies within the emerging Revised UDP include: D1 – Design Quality, D2 – Design Statement, D3 – Urban Structure, D4 – Urban Grain, D5 – Public Realm (Public Space/Private Space), D6 – Townscape and Landscape, D7 – Scale-Height, D8, Scale-Massing, D9 – Appearance, D10 – Community Safety, D11 – Access for People with Disabilities, D12 – Nature Conservation and Natural Features, D13 – Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use), D14 – The Provision of Public Art, EP3 – Air Pollution, EP5 – Noise Pollution, EP11 – Development on Contaminated or Unstable Land, N1 – Promotion of Nature Conservation, N2 – Access to Natural Green Space, N5 – Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and Landscape Features of Value for Wildlife or Geology, R1 – Local Standards for Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities, R3 – Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities, R4 – Development adjacent Open Spaces, R7 – Open space Requirements for New Development. H6 – Design of New Housing Development, H9 – Open Space, Sport & Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments, H10 – Housing Density & Mix, H11 – Affordable Housing, AM1 – Access, Mobility and New Development, AM6 – Transport Assessments, AM7 – Travel Plans, AM8 – Public Transport, AM9 – Provision for Pedestrians, AM10 – Provision for Cyclists, AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision, S4 – Mixed Use Development.
5.4 The following National Policy Guidance is relevant: Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (PPS1) PPG3 – Housing (including companion Good Practice Guide) PPG13 – Transport ODPM/CABE ‘By Design’ [recognised by PPS1].
Page 7 6. Publicity
6.1 A newspaper advertisement was published on 29th January 2005 and site notices displayed on 7th February 2005. Direct notifications were also sent to adjacent properties in Constantine Way, Cadgwith Gardens, Harlyn Close, Wallace Road, Hannah Road, Great Bridge Road, Glyn Avenue and Hyett Way. The consultation period expired on 28th February 2005.
6.2 As a result of publicity 4 letters of objection were received plus 1 petition containing 13 signatures. The objections are summarised below: • Proximity of the footpath link to existing properties may affect privacy or residential amenities. • Proposed road layout and additional traffic has a potential adverse effect upon road safety. • Inaccuracies in the transport statement relating to proximity to public transport and bus service frequencies. • Inadequacy of the existing footpath and potential issues relating to the new footpath link.
7. External Consultees
7.1 Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council – It is unfortunate that approval of the application would result in loss of employment land. However, as the site is not allocated for employment use and is surrounded by housing Sandwell MBC have no objection in principle. It is noted that part of the site is allocated as a SLINC, although the applicants consider much of the nature conservation value could have been lost as the site has been rough surfaced and used for parking. Development of the site for housing would offer an excellent opportunity to re-establish the nature conservation value of the SLINC.
7.2 Walsall Metropolitan Borough Council – No objection.
7.3 Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to conditions to ensure satisfactory drainage works for the disposal of surface water and foul sewage and prevent buildings being erected or trees planted within 2.5m and 5m either side of the public sewers that cross the site.
7.4 Environment Agency – No response at time of writing.
7.5 Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country – No response at time of writing.
7.6 Centro – It is important that pedestrian links from this site provide direct, safe and readily accessible links to public transport services. Accessibility to public transport could be further improved by the developer making a financial contribution to provision of an additional Metro stop to be known as “Great Bridge Road” in the near vicinity of the
Page 8 site. Policy TP3 provides support for a committed Metro network and supports “continued development” and encouragement to developers to contribute towards the “provision of facilities associated with the Midland Metro System”. A study carried out in July 2000 identified Great Bridge Road as a potential future Metro stop and development of the surrounding area for housing provides a stronger case to implement a stop in this location. The development of a stop at Great Bridge Road will assist residents in accessing the wider network of public transport (Metro, rail and bus) within the West Midlands. A residential travel plan should also be developed and implemented by the developer to introduce public transport, cycling and walking initiatives and that the development be affiliated to Company Travelwise in Wolverhampton.
7.7 West Midlands Police – Raise concerns regarding the permeability of the site and potential opportunities for crime and suggest proposals for reducing fear of crime. Traffic calming measures are also recommended and crime prevention measures.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transportation - Given the above comments refusal of permission is recommended on highway grounds including the following: - 1. The layout is not to adoptable standard. 2. The development would lead to on-street parking due to inadequate provision to meet generated demand for off-street parking which would lead to obstruction of the highway by parked vehicles to the detriment of the free flow of traffic, access by emergency and service vehicles and road safety. 3. Private garaging, parking and circulation areas are insufficient to allow adequate movement and parking of vehicles which is likely to be to the detriment of safety and to further encourage on- street parking. 4. There is no provision for disabled parking or cycle parking to serve the flats. 5. Inadequate sight lines would be detrimental to highway safety.
8.2 Archaeology – No archaeological implications.
8.3 Trees Officer – No response at time of writing.
8.4 Planning Policy – The proposal involves the loss of employment land subject to UDP policy E5. The policy safeguards such sites unless it can be demonstrated that the site is no longer suited to continued employment use. The applicant’s assessment of current market conditions is not sufficiently robust. Additional information is therefore required on existing vacant premises in the area, and a more detailed assessment of anticipated market demand for such premises.
Page 9 8.5 Access Officer – All entrances to properties must have level or ramped access. All doors must comply with the table in Part M of the Building Regulations. All switches and sockets must be at accessible heights. Common stairs in blocks of flats must comply with Part M.
8.6 Landscape Design – Central Public Open Space – this is mainly grass, the developer should consider some planting possibly on the corners under trees, do not plant trees too close together as they only distort each other after 5-6 years growth. As a general rule; small trees should be 5m apart, medium trees 8m apart and large trees 10m apart as minimum. Small tress should be used on house frontages due to restricted space. There is an opportunity to introduce some less used trees along main avenues. Shrub planting should include a high percentage of evergreens up to 75% as this gives interest and cover over the entire years, variegated shrubs in particular. The use of spot plants within plantings is a good feature. Evergreen hedges should be used as much as possible. The developer should consider some climbers onto walls/fences.
8.7 Building Consultancy – Access for fire appears satisfactory. Access for disabled – insufficient detail to comment.
8.8 Environmental Services – Principal considerations are operational noise from the metro line and traffic noise from Great Bridge Road. It is recommended that suitable conditions are attached to any consent requiring installation of various glazing systems as highlighted in the applicant’s noise survey to achieve the required noise insulation to appropriate rooms. A scheme to determine necessary mechanical (and where appropriate – acoustically attenuated) ventilation systems necessary to achieve rapid room ventilation, such that occupiers of properties are provided with an alternative to opening of windows, should also be submitted for prior approval. Heil Trailers International are authorised by the City council under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Part 1 but there are no outstanding issues relating to the authorisation. Conditions are recommended requiring adequate site investigations relating to possible contaminated ground on site and possible presence of ground gas on the site (in particular mine gas).
8.9 Neighbourhood Renewal – Slightly light on social housing units. The proposal offers 34 against 39 if 25% social housing policy is applied. The flats to houses ratio appears acceptable with 16 flats proposed. Additional social housing units should be larger houses (2 & 3 bedroom).
8.10 Structures – Mine shafts on site to be located, grouted and capped with a reinforced concrete cap. A stand off zone will be required after treatment of mine shafts. Flying Reed seam and thick coal is not within influencing distance, however, if piling is proposed the developers may need to reconsider drilling and grouting requirements. Some samples show high values for loss on ignition and calorific values could be isolated hot spots and material may require to be excavated off site.
Page 10 Rafted foundations will be required for developments over mined areas. The site is bounded by an embankment for the Midland Metro on the north east and an earth embankment/bund on the west and south which the developer needs to ensure the proposed developments do not affect the stability of the embankments.
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 A Screening Opinion has been given that the proposal will not require a formal Environmental Assessment.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The key issues are: - • Loss of Employment Land. • Impact upon the SLINC. • Design and Layout of Development. • Monoculture Development/Sustainability. • Highway matters.
10.2 Loss of Employment Land – Policy E5 safeguards loss of employment sites unless it can be demonstrated that the site is no longer suited to continued employment use. The assessment of current market conditions highlighted in the applicant’s supporting statement is not sufficiently robust and additional information on existing vacant premises in the area and a more detailed assessment of anticipated market demand for such premises is required. In their statement the applicants suggest the site is currently a non-conforming use, however this cannot be the case as the new residential development on the adjacent land was designed to accommodate the existing and potential use of the application site. No marketing of the site has been undertaken and information on the anticipated market is anecdotal. Evidence of what market the size of the site will be competing for at a local/regional level is required plus information on the supply of vacant land and property suitable for B8 in the surrounding area.
10.3 The information provided has therefore not been able to demonstrate that the site is no longer suited to continued employment use, contrary to Policy E5.
10.4 Impact upon the SLINC – The application has been advertised as a departure to the UDP policy ENV8 as it proposes development on part of the land designated as a SLINC. The applicants state the area of land designated as a SLINC has been regularly used by Heil for vehicle parking and open storage. The submitted ecological assessment states that the proposed development would result in the loss of the hard standing and most of the remnant grassland included within the SLINC, although the part to the west of the dry ditch, including planted trees will
Page 11 remain. The SLINC is approximately 3.5 hectares in size and the part within the proposed development approximately 0.6 hectares of which loss of habitat to development would be 0.2 hectares.
10.5 In the circumstances it is considered that the loss of habitat is a relatively small proportion of the overall area of the SLINC and the proposal has the benefit of introducing larger areas of habitat suitable for birds and insects such as gardens, shrubs and trees. Further enhancements of the adjacent habitats could also be improved using contributions from a S.106 agreement.
10.6 Design and Layout of Development The proposed development has a poor design and layout for the following reasons: - • The built development turns its back on Great Bridge Road where some frontage development should be incorporated. • The proposed layout does not turn corners well and leaves many exposed property boundaries. • The proposal has a lack of integration with the adjoining areas, such as the open space areas and improved pedestrian linkages should be provided. • The layout introduces extensive sections of cul-de-sac and private drives where these should be made up to through roads of adoptable standards. • The proposed flats layout is cramped and achieves limited private amenity space which will constitute a poor living environment for residents. • Irregular building lines that potentially have an adverse impact on the character of the street scene. • Introduction of vulnerable rear alley ways for certain dwellings. • Poor relationship between the proposed development and adjacent sites. Of particular concern is the relationship between properties and the adjacent Metro line. • There is a lack of quality urban design concept and coherence. • The architectural design quality is mediocre, lacking originality and local distinctiveness, contrary to the higher standards now required in PPS1, incorporating ‘By Design’ principles. The design standards approved at the adjoining Barratts development some ten years ago are no longer acceptable for new development.
For these reasons the proposal is contrary to policies H18 and ENV2 of the adopted UDP, SPG3, PPS1, PPG3 and its companion guide, SPG3 Residential Development and ‘By Design’ ODPM/CABE.
Page 12 10.7 Monoculture Development - The proposal represents a mono-culture of housing development with no mixed use elements. The lack of alternative uses on the site does not therefore contribute towards local diversity or vitality. Mixed use is a key principle in the Government’s and Council’s Sustainability Policies and Strategies, in reducing the need to travel, energy conservation, quality of life and diversity. As the site is large it is considered appropriate to introduce a mixed use as stated in policy H6 and other Government and Council Policies and Strategies. Given that the application also lacks adequate justification for the loss of employment land the proposal is contrary to policy H6 and SPG3 and contrary to policy S4 of the emerging revised UDP and advice given in Planning Policy Statement 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development.
10.8 Highway Matters - The layout is not to adoptable standard. It will also lead to on-street parking due to inadequate provision to meet generated demand for off-street parking which would lead to obstruction of the highway by parked vehicles to the detriment of the free flow of traffic, access by emergency and service vehicles and road safety. Private garaging, parking and circulation areas are insufficient to allow adequate movement and parking of vehicles which is likely to be to the detriment of safety and to further encourage on-street parking. There is no provision for disabled parking or cycle parking to serve the flats. Inadequate sight lines would be detrimental to highway safety. The proposal is therefore contrary to policies H18, ENV2, TP5 and TP14 of the UDP and to SPG3.
11. Conclusion
11.1 For the reasons stated above it is considered that the proposals are contrary to the Council policies, supplementary planning guidance and National guidance specified.
Page 13 12. Recommendation
12.1 Refuse permission on the following grounds: 1. Inadequate information to justify loss of employment land contrary to Policy E5. 2. Unacceptable design and layout contrary to policies H18 and ENV2 of the adopted UDP and to SPG3, PPS1, PPG3 and its companion guide and ODPM/CABE ‘By Design’. 3. Monoculture development contrary to policy H6 and SPG3 and the Government’s and Council’s Sustainability Strategies and Policies. 4. Inadequate highway design, parking and cycle provision contrary to policies H18, ENV2, TP5 and TP14 of the UDP and SPG3.
Case Officer : Alison Deakin Telephone No : 551134 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 14
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0060/FP/M WARD: Bushbury Sth/LowHill; DATE 17-JAN-2005 TARGET DATE: 18-APR-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Corner of Lower Stafford Street and Cannock Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Renovation and redevelopment of existing retail park.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Peel South East Ltd Dyer Peel Dome Lauriston Court The Trafford Centre Montpellier Street Manchester Cheltenham M17 8PL GL50 1TE
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of the Peel Retail Park located on the east side of Stafford Street. The site also borders onto the Cannock Road. It includes the site of the Elephant and Castle public house which stood on the junction of the Stafford Street and Cannock Road. It also includes a strip of land adjacent to the Cannock Road currently occupied by advertising hoardings. The eastern boundary of the site is formed by the West Coast Main Line whilst to the north is a car showroom.
1.2 The retail park was constructed in the 1980’s. Consequently the appearance of the site is now looking dated and overall the site appears in need of further investment to improve its appearance.
2. Planning History
2.1 Planning permission was granted in 1986 for the retail park (C/955/86). The permission restricted the goods that could be sold from the site to bulky goods including furniture, carpets, electrical goods, garden and DIY products, toys and stationery.
2.2 Planning was also granted in 1997 to allow the sale of sports, recreation and leisure goods from unit 1 only (C/1082/97).
2.3 Planning permission was granted in 1997 to widen the goods that could be sold to include pets, pet food and associated goods (C/0303/97).
3. Constraints
3.1 The site is included in the Sites and Monuments record.
Page 16
4. Application Details
4.1 The application includes the refurbishment and extension of the existing retail park. The extensions are proposed to existing units rather than additional units. The extensions would provide an increase in floor space of around 870sq.m which represents an increase overall of around 12% on existing.
4.2 The proposed extensions are to each of the existing units. The effect of the proposed extensions to the northern block of retail units (Units A-C) would be to provide a more uniform building line on the frontage. Another extension is located in front of unit D (currently occupied by United Carpet and Beds) to provide a new entrance parallel to Stafford Road along with more floor space. The second extension consists of an addition to unit E (occupied by Focus DIY) which would provide a new but linked building on the site of the former Elephant and Castle.
4.3 The proposed extension onto the site of the former Elephant and Castle consists of a curved façade with bands of glazed green and cream terracotta tiles. The use of terracotta banding and green and cream colours are intended to reflect certain characteristics of the former (demolished) Elephant and Castle pub. The building rises up to provide a landmark feature clad in copper sheeting. An area has been identified above the entrance on the corner of Stafford Street and Cannock Road to allow for public art in the form of 3 dimensional representation of an elephant and castle to reflect the previous feature on the site.
4.4 The refurbishment also involves a new glazed canopy across the front of all the retail units to provide some continuity in design. This takes the form of a colonnade which would link with the two groups of retail buildings. New glazing and cladding is proposed throughout the retail park. Again green terracotta panels are proposed to tie in with the new extension and the former public house.
4.5 It is also proposed to revise boundary treatments through the introduction of new railings to the Stafford Street frontage. New landscaping would be provided in the form of new tree planting both on the road frontage and within the car park. The car park is proposed to be expanded through using some of the space to the rear of the existing buildings for additional car parking. Car parking on the site would increase to 220 spaces, an increase of 4 spaces over the existing. Wider spaces would be provided (11) for people with disabilities along with motorcycle parking (5) and cycle parking (40).
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The majority of the site (excluding the former Elephant and Castle) is identified as an Industrial Business Area in the adopted UDP. In the Revised Deposit UDP the whole site is not identified for any purpose.
Page 17 5.2 Relevant adopted UDP Policies include: S1 Shopping Strategy S2 Wolverhampton Town Centre S8 Large Out of Centre Retail Stores S9 Re-use of Large Out of Centre Retail Units S13 Planning Standards ENV 2 Design Standards ENV22 Public Art TP5 Access and New Developments TP13 Measures for Pedestrians and Cyclists TP14 Car Parking TC15 Industrial Business (Employment ) Areas
5.3 Other relevant policy guidance includes PPG6 including relevant Ministerial clarifications, PPS1, and PPG13.
5.4 Supplementary Planning Guidance No.16 Public Art is also relevant.
6. Publicity
6.1 Site and press notice. Period for response expired on 21 February 2005. Four individual replies received from residents making the following comments:
• The demolition of the Elephant and Castle represented a shameful and covert act. • The site of the pub should not be built on but a sculpture such as an elephant should be commissioned, recognising the recent history of the site and being a more respectful monument. • The new triangular building is an inappropriate and ugly structure. • The new entrance to the building proposed on the Elephant and Castle site serves no purpose and would not improve pedestrian links. • The vandals that demolished the pub should not be allowed to profit from their actions. • The replacement building is not a fitting epitaph for the pub. • The replacement building is a very poor design, would have a detrimental effect on the surrounding area, is out of character, has no aesthetic qualities and the reflective surface may create a danger to road users. • The existing landscaping at the site is poor and maintenance inadequate resulting in a site with an unkempt appearance
6.2 A response has been received from the Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society who comment that whilst having some reservations overall the application is supported. The scheme offers the potential to provide a visual and commercial improvement to the area. The recladding and introduction of the colonnade promise to unify the existing disparate buildings. The building on the corner seems striking and could prove to be landmark. However this land is only available due to the vandalism of the Elephant and Castle Pub. The applicants make one guarded allusion to the Elephant and Castle through use of green
Page 18 terracotta. This is inadequate and more should be done to commemorate the Elephant and Castle, perhaps through engraving the prisms glazing, signage or other representations. Perhaps the retail park could be renamed The Elephant and Castle development and would give a degree of historical continuity. Other points raised include • Has glare off the Prism been considered. • What will be the view of the inside of the Prism and will it be a mess. • Will the colonnade be spoiled through displays of goods for sale. • What steps are being pursued to stop vehicles impeding pedestrians on match days on the corner of Stafford Road. • Is there sufficient room for delivery vehicles. • The railings seem flimsy and unimpressive.
7. External Consultees
7.1 West Midlands Fire Service- The layout does not conform to standards in document B 5 of the West Midlands County Council Act. New turning heads should be provided adjacent to unit A.
7.2 West Midlands Police-Premises on the Retail Park are vulnerable to burglary especially from the rear service area. Access to the rear service area should be restricted out of hours through gating of the area. Strengthening the boundary from the railway should also be sought. Monitored CCTV should be installed to cover the rear of the units as well as frontages and car parks. External materials should be of sufficient strength to deter penetration. Retractable bollards should be installed to deter ram raiders. Refuse disposal points should be located away from buildings as they can be a target for arson. The double doors to unit A should be relocated as they are hidden from view and prone to attack.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Public Protection- No observations.
8.2 Building Consultancy- Access for fire vehicles seems restricted.
8.3 Transportation- In general terms the access arrangements and circulation of vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists seems satisfactory. Analysis of the potential increased level of trips reveals that any increase will be below 5%. In this context it would be unreasonable to require improvements to the Cannock Road/Stafford Street junction. A Car Park Management Plan should be provided in order to manage parking demand. A Travel Plan and Travel Information Point should be provided.
8.4 Archaeology- The proposal affects the site of a former windmill known to have been in existence between the 16th and 19th centuries. Its site lies within the existing car park. Remains are likely to exist and it is requested that a condition be imposed requiring a scheme of archaeological works ahead of and during construction.
Page 19
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 A screening opinion has been given that Environment Assessment is not required.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The key considerations in this case are: • The relationship of the proposed extension in floor space with current retail policy • The design and appearance of the proposed development including the new building on the former Elephant and Castle site • Transportation issues
10.2 Retail Policy The adopted UDP identifies the site as an Industrial Business (Employment) Area. However this designation is not carried forward in the Revised Deposit UDP in recognition of the current use of the site. Being over 400 metres away from the nearest part of the City Centre retail core the site is effectively out of centre. Consequently in accordance with the most recent policy guidance it will be necessary for the applicants to demonstrate:
• that there is a need for the development, • that a sequential test has been undertaken, the impact of the development on existing centres and UDP policy • access by a choice of means of transport.
10.3 The most recent analysis of quantitative retail need (2003) established that, taking into account existing commitments, there would be still be sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated uplift in turnover at the application site as a result of the proposed development. In terms of qualitative need it is evident that the site is typical of a first generation retail warehouse park and the layout, design and unit sizes are no longer compatible with modern retailer requirements. The site is also looking untidy and the buildings coming to the end of there lifespan. This constitutes a qualitative need for the development. Nevertheless there is no policy support in the UDP, Revised Deposit UDP or Government Guidance for an increase in retail floor space in out of centre locations to provide for improvements to their operation. Policy S9 of the adopted UDP takes account of situations where out of centre retail parks become vacant and states in such situations there should be a presumption in favour of development within Classes B1, B2 and B8.
10.4 In terms of the remaining tests set out in current national planning policy there is no sequentially superior site which has been identified which could accommodate the proposal by satisfying the need quantitative and qualitative need identified above. In addition it is not anticipated that the development will have any adverse impact on any existing centres or on the development plan strategy. However, it is felt that controls will be
Page 20 required to prevent the development from changing its character in such a way as to have an adverse impact on existing centres. Specifically, such controls should relate to unit sizes, goods sold and the provision of additional floor space through the insertion of mezzanine floors.
10.5 In addition it is evident that the site is located on a key regeneration corridor in a location that will benefit from physical improvement. These regeneration benefits are clearly a material consideration in favour of the proposal. These regenerative benefits and a high quality building are unlikely to be delivered through a B1, B2 or B8 development as suggested in Policy S9 of the adopted plan. Furthermore the actual increase in retail floor space is relatively modest consisting of an additional 870 sq.m onto the existing 8,470 sq.m present at the site. The majority of the increase is the provision of a new building on the site of the former Elephant and Castle, which would have substantial benefits in terms of the street scene (subject to the building having a suitable design). Consequently in view of the above it is not considered that there is substantive reason for refusal on retail policy grounds.
10.6 Design and Appearance The improvements to the retail park through re-facing the existing retail units and provision of a colonnade across the Stafford Street frontage will improve the appearance of the site and provide some continuity in design terms. The design incorporates green and cream terracotta tile panels as well as new glazing and silver cladding. These elements of the proposal are considered acceptable.
10.7 The most significant element of the design consists of an extension to the retail unit on the south west of the site to provide a new building on the site of the former Elephant and Castle. The design consists of a curved façade to the prominent Stafford Street/Cannock Road junction. The building provides for bands of green and cream terracotta tiling with clear glazing. It rises up to provide a drum feature constructed out of copper sheeting. In a prominent position over the entrance is an area identified for a three dimensional elephant and castle sculpture. The detail of the sculpture would be secured via a condition for public art. However the information submitted shows that the sculpture would be a substantial feature easily visible from surrounding areas. The design has incorporated certain elements to reflect the characteristics of the former Elephant and Castle pub. This includes use of green terracotta tile and cream bands, which also ties in this element of the proposal with the improvements proposed on the rest of the retail park.
10.8 In addition the proposal will provide for a substantial amount of new tree planting to soften the car park and provide some greening of the environment. New railings along Stafford Road, street furniture such as seating, bollards, cycle parking facilities and new lighting would be provided.
10.9 The design of the scheme and in particular the new development on the site of the Elephant and Castle will provide a significant visual improvement to the area. The proposed development on the Elephant and Castle, whilst not seeking to reproduce the pub, includes certain references to the former building, providing a historical reference point to Page 21 its past. Subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans to cover the detail of the proposed building it is considered that the proposal can be supported.
10.10 The design of the proposal has taken on board the comments of the Police with a view to improving security of the site. The Police Architectural Liaison Officer is now supportive of the proposal.
10.11 Transportation Issues The Transportation Assessment has been assessed and certain areas require further clarification and development. However on the information currently available it is not considered that the proposal is likely to result in an adverse effect on the external road network. Any increase in traffic is likely to be below 5% of overall traffic flows. It is evident that the site has been used by football supporters on match days. In order to ensure that sufficient car parking capacity is available to visitors to the retail units it is considered necessary to impose a condition requiring that a car park management plan is agreed and introduced at the site. Details and road marking and signage should be provided which can be secured by condition. In order to maximise the parking availability for customers (rather than staff) it is proposed that a Travel Plan be introduced for occupiers of the development.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The relatively modest increase in retail floor space at the site can be supported in retail policy terms and in view of the material considerations which result from the proposal. The improvement in the appearance of the site will have clear benefits in terms of the appearance of the area and will contribute towards regeneration on an identified strategic corridor. The proposed design of the development will provide a degree of continuity between currently disparate retail units. The design of the extended unit on the site of the former Elephant and Castle has been amended to include reference to the pub which occupied the site. Subject to satisfactory details the design of the proposal is considered satisfactory. In Transportation terms the proposal is not considered to have any adverse affects or cause any road safety issues.
12. Recommendation
12.1 That delegated authority be given to the Chief Panning and Highways Officer to grant planning permission following receipt of satisfactory amended plans and subject to the following conditions:
(i) Conditions to limit goods sold to furniture, carpets, electrical goods and domestic appliances, paints, wall coverings, curtains, fabrics, floor coverings, tools, hardware, light fittings, garden and leisure products, homecare and DIY products, auto parts, spares and accessories, playground equipment and in addition a limited (max of 1786 sq.m) for sale of cycles, traditional and electrical toys, computer games, nursery equipment, childrens books, notelets and Page 22 stationery, sports, recreation and leisure goods and a maximum of 600 sq.m for pet sales limited to selling live pets, cages, aquariums, bulk pet food items and ancillary products. (ii) Details of external materials. Large sample panel to be erected on site. (iii) Large scale details of all external architectural elements. (iv) Details of landscaping including tree planting, lighting and other street furniture. (v) Boundary treatments including screening to the railway. (vi) Details of surfacing materials. (vii) Signing and lining of car park. (viii) Provision of cycle parking, bollards and seating (ix) Car park management plan. (x) New linked building on site of Elephant and Castle to be completed and available for occupation prior to use of new retail floor space contained in the other identified extensions. (xi) Public art. (xii) Restriction on minimum unit sizes . (xiii) No mezzanines or other additional areas of retail floor space. (xiv) Archaeological evaluation including works prior to commencement (xv) Provision of a travel information point. (xvi) Travel Plan. (xvii) No blocking/obscuring in any way of glazed shop fronts which must permit clear uninterrupted views into retail units showing activity.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 23
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 04/1799/FP/C & WARD: East Park; 04/1800/FP DATE 06-OCT-2004 TARGET DATE: 01-DEC-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 1 Willenhall Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: 04/1799: Change of use of part of ground floor to two Class A3 Units (remaining ground floor to stay in existing Class A1 Use). 04/1800: Change of use of part of ground floor to two Class A3 Units (remaining ground floor to stay in existing Class A1 Use). Conversion of upper floor into four flats.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr N Piponides First City Ltd 253 Bilston Road First City House Wolverhampton 19 Waterloo Road WV2 2JN Wolverhampton WV1 4DY
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This location is on the corner of Willenhall Road and Colliery Road. These premises comprise a two storey building on the Willenhall Road frontage with single storey buildings to the rear. There is a front forecourt with vehicle access from Willenhall Road and Colliery Road. The existing building has vehicle access into the rear yard from the front forecourt.
1.2 The surrounding area is primarily commercial. Eastfield School and a boxing club lie on the opposite side of Colliery Road.
2. Planning History
2.1 Hughes and Holmes Limited, Ironmongers and Tool suppliers occupied these premises in the early 1970s, using the frontage building for display and sales. In subsequent years it was a Trident superstore (discount electrical goods) then a reject furniture store and latterly Harper and Beardmore, architectural ironmongers, which was a similar operation to Hughes and Holmes. This operated until approximately 2002, since when the building has stood empty.
2.2 Planning permission was granted in 1978 for retail Class A1 uses, subject to a condition on the amount of floor space that could be used for retail sales. In 1989 there was a refusal of planning permission for retail sales occupying the whole of the ground floor.
Page 25 2.3 On the basis of the uses over the years, and notwithstanding the 1989 refusal, it is considered that the ground floor of this building has an extant Class A1 retail use. Resumption of retail uses or subdivision within Class A1 would not require planning permission.
2.4 Recent planning applications;
03/1694 – change of use to Class A3, refused 23 April 2004. 04/879 – mixed Class A1/Class A3 units, residential flats on first floor, refused 9 August 2004. 04/881 – change of use of part of ground floor to Class A3, refused 9 August 2004.
3. Application Details
3.1 04/1799 – subdivision of ground floor into two Class A3 takeaway units (62m2 and 57m2). The remaining floor space of 370m2 to be in Class A1 retail use, (either one or two units).
04/1800 – ground floor as 04/1799. First floor converted into four residential flats. Applicant has stated that these would be for managers and employees in the shops.
3.2 In both applications the rear single storey building is shown to be demolished to make space for a rear car park. A total of 35 spaces is shown within the curtilage of the site, including parking on the front forecourt and alongside Colliery Road.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 The site is within a UDP Defined Employment Area, although this does not affect existing retail uses. Policy S10 – Class A3 Uses and S13 – Planning Standards are relevant with respect to parking and access issues. Policy S10 is also relevant in relation to proposed flats above. Policy TP9 – Protection of Highway Improvement Lines is relevant to a proposed Willenhall Road improvement scheme between Lower Walsall Street and Brooklands Parade. This is reconfirmed by Policy AM5 in the Deposit UDP.
5. Publicity
5.1 Both applications have been advertised by neighbour letter, press and site notice for replies by 18 November 2004, no written responses received. (Verbal concerns have been expressed by a shop owner nearby.)
6. External Consultees
6.1 West Midlands Fire Service – access to two flats is not clear from the plans. Page 26
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Transportation (a) Improved off-street parking is shown by 35 parking spaces. This exceeds the number that would normally be required for this development. No disabled parking or cycle or motorcycle parking is shown.
(b) Parking Layout Vehicle manoeuvrability within the front forecourt parking area is significantly constrained, this would lead to potential for access/egress movements to affect the operation of traffic flow and highway safety on Willenhall Road. The front forecourt parking area is affected by a highway improvement line. If this is implemented access to and vehicle manoeuvrability within the front parking area would be significantly affected. The front forecourt parking bays will be the most attractive to potential customers and will be utilised before customers seek alternative parking provision at the rear of the premises. No information has been provided as to how customers will be directed to the rear parking area. Further traffic restrictions in the form of double yellow lines are likely to be required on Colliery Road. Parking bays shown adjacent to Colliery Road should be deleted given the potential for conflict with pedestrian movements. Given the peripheral nature of the rear parking area from the shop entrances the car park must be attractive to customers and residents, through provision of appropriate lighting, good surfacing, CCTV surveillance, signage, indication of pedestrian routes to shop entrances etc. It would be beneficial to provide indication of parking provision solely for residential use and that intended for retail customers.
(c) Pedestrian Access The proposals do not consider pedestrian movement to and from retail and residential units within the forecourt parking area. There is potential for conflict between vehicle and pedestrian movements. There should be clearly defined pedestrian routes through the parking forecourt areas to the entrances of the retail units.
(d) Trip Generation and Road Safety The level of trip generation from the previous uses is likely to be less than that generated by the current proposal particularly during the hours 1200-1400 and 1700-1900. A brief examination of accident records over the past five years indicates that there have been a notable number of slight and serious accidents in the vicinity of this site.
(e) Given the above assessment it is recommended that the applications are refused.
Page 27 7.2 Public Protection The site is situated in a commercial/industrial area and it is likely that there will be a reduced level of amenity due to noise and/or odour. One of the adjoining premises currently operates as a motor repair garage. Disturbance to residents may also result from customer traffic, deliveries and refuse collection, as a consequence of the commercial aspects of the new development. Preliminary noise measurements indicate that this development would fall within Category C (as defined in PPG24) and as such permission should not normally be granted. If permission is granted, then a full noise impact assessment to include sound insulation should be submitted for approval by the Local Planning Authority. In view of the compromised level of amenity, it is recommended that the residential aspect of this application be refused.
8. Appraisal
8.1 The key issues with this application;
(a) The lawful use of these premises. (b) Traffic and parking issues associated with Class A3 uses. (c) Residential flats.
8.2 A Class A1 retail operation could recommence at these premises without planning permission and utilise the present inadequate and unsafe parking and access arrangements.
8.3 The principal concerns with respect to Class A3 uses relate to highways issues and noise nuisance to local residents. Willenhall Road is part of Wolverhampton’s Strategic Highway Network and carried considerable volumes of traffic. It carries frequent bus services. The Council is investing in measures along Willenhall Road to “smooth” traffic flow and improve safety for all road users. The highway context at this location includes the following;
• The carriageway narrows at this location. • The premises are located on the inside of a bend in the road and on the junction with Colliery Road. • There are double yellow lines on the Willenhall Road frontage of this site. • Opposite and approximately 13 metres to the east is the Cross Street/Willenhall Road junction. This leads to conflicting vehicle movements and consequent traffic hazard at this location. • There is a traffic light controlled pedestrian crossing approximately 13 metres to the east on Willenhall Road. • Accident records over the past five years indicate a notable number of slight and serious accidents in the vicinity of this site.
8.4 Whilst the amount of parking proposed is noted, it is considered that customers to two Class A3 uses will try to park either on the front forecourt, or on Willenhall Road itself or on Colliery Road. Class A3 customers are short stay, often in a hurry, and are unlikely to be attracted to use the rear parking area because of the manoeuvring
Page 28 required. Parking on the forecourt and parallel to Colliery Road might have been adequate for longer stay customer parking in the past but this arrangement is no longer suited to the highway situation here. The exit/entrances to the front forecourt allow for potentially very hazardous vehicle movements, and forecourt parking would also conflict with pedestrian movement to the shop frontage.
8.5 It is considered that there is a considerable and unacceptable risk of on- street parking outside these premises arising from this proposal. This would lead to a significant detrimental impact on safety and free flow of traffic on Willenhall Road and Colliery Road and would not be acceptable at this location.
8.6 The applicant has indicated that the residential flats would be for shop managers or employees. This is not an ideal location for residential flats, but needs to be considered in the light of construction of new housing elsewhere along the Willenhall Road frontage, the encouragement of “living over the shop” and other locations for town centre flats in noisy locations. Residential flats would assist security for whatever permitted use takes place on the ground floor. There is a difference however between the quality of living environment created where residential accommodation is provided above A1 retail shops compared with residential accommodation above hot food take away uses (Class A3). In the latter case the nuisance of odours and increased noise are likely to lead to a poorer level of amenity. The concerns of Public Protection about whether this is an acceptable residential environment are noted, although it is the juxtaposition of A3 with residential that gives rise to concern particularly as the scale of residential use goes beyond simply a proprietor and their family.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Refuse. Unsuitable location in Highways terms for Class A3 Uses. Likely to generate on-street parking which would cause a significant hazard at this location and would be detrimental to the safety of road users. In addition, poor residential environment created by the mix of residential flats and A3 uses
Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 555649 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 29
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 04/2213/DW/C WARD: Ettingshall; DATE 21-DEC-2004 TARGET DATE: 15-FEB-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Land surrounding flats at Boydon Close, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Environmetal improvement works including path network, lighting, signage, fencing and soft landscaping
APPLICANT: AGENT: Landlord Services Regeneration & Transportation Regeneration & Transportation
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 On 27 July 2004 approval was given by Cabinet to this scheme of environmental improvement work.
1.2 This followed on from consultations with residents of the flats at Boyden Close and Frost Street about concerns they had in respect of a lack of security to the perimeter of the blocks which resulted in the general public short-cutting through the estate and antisocial gatherings of youths close to the blocks.
1.3 The site consists of three blocks of flats set within a landscaped setting and situated between Ettingshall Road, Frost Street and George Street.
2. Planning History
2.1 The scheme involves the erection of a 1.8m high boundary vertical bar mild steel railing to enclose a large landscaped area around the blocks of flats with appropriate gateways on the pathways leading to and from the flat entrances. Other, lower more decorative railings are to be erected within this area, to provide residents with private gardens and more ‘defensible’ spaces.
2.2 Also involved is a complete redesign of the landscaping and surface treatments designed with security and visual improvements in mind. Existing trees and shrubs are also to be pruned and/or removed in places, to open up areas to better natural surveillance. Signage is to be erected declaring areas ‘private’ and better lighting is to be provided to footpaths, forecourts, refuse storage areas and car parks.
Page 31 3. Relevant Policies
3.1 The following UDP policies apply:
ENV2 – Design Principles H18 – Planning Standards, Housing.
4. Publicity
4.1 The application has been advertised by means of letters to residents and site notices. No responses have been received.
5. External Consultees
5.1 • West Midlands Police – Welcomes the scheme.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 • Transport Strategy and Development Control – no objections.
• Tree Officer – no objections.
7. Appraisal
7.1 These works have been prepared in close consultation with residents and the local Crime Prevention Officer and will clearly help overcome the security and antisocial behaviour problems being experienced around these blocks of flats.
7.2 In street scene and visual appearance terms the new fencing, landscaping, surface treatments and lighting will be an improvement,. The creation of less publicly accessible smaller more defensible and more ‘private’ garden areas around each block will help to ensure their better upkeep.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Permit: standard conditions.
Case Officer : Jo Chambers Telephone No : 555632 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 32
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0173/DW/C WARD: Ettingshall; DATE 08-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 04-APR-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Land adjacent 56 Raby Street All Saints PROPOSAL: Change of use to public open space.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Nicola Bargery Peter Collings Regeneration & Transportation Regeneration & Transportation Civic Centre Civic Centre St Peters Square St Peters Square Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV1 1RP WV1 1RP
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to a piece of vacant land adjacent 56 Raby Street, Wolverhampton. The land is Council owned and lies just outside the city centre ring road. The adjacent property is an end-terrace house and the extensive gable wall of the former Bloxham’s Garage premises at 37 Melbourne Street forms the northern boundary of the site. The offices of Crown Prosecution Services lie to the west whose brick screen wall forms the rear boundary of the application site. There are a variety of other mixed uses in the area including Benhams BMW and Audi sales and garage premises, a taxi hire firm and terraced residential properties.
1.2 The Raby Street site frontage is approximately 33m and average site depth approximately 35m, although there is a small area of land (9m X 13m) which wraps around the rear of number 56 Raby Street. There is a chain link fence across the site frontage, the building wall of 37 Melbourne Street forms the north boundary and a corrugated steel fence forms the boundary to the south adjacent the driveway of 56 Raby Street. The site is relatively flat and overgrown.
Page 34 2. Planning History
2.1 As the site previously formed part of Bloxham’s Garage premises the planning history reveals permissions for use of the site for car storage and showroom purposes (C/3510/78 & A/C/0990/85). Since the Council took over ownership of the site temporary permissions have been granted for use as a temporary compound for use by contractors during the refurbishment of properties in Vicarage Road and All Saints Road (96/0793/DW & 98/0551/DW). The most recent permission, 98/0193/DN, includes the current application site within a much larger redevelopment site bounded by Ring Road St.George’s, Raby Street and Lever Street, and proposes development for commercial offices and housing and construction of a new access road.
3. Application Details
3.1 The application is for temporary change of use of this vacant piece of land to public open space, for a maximum of 3 years. No alterations to the access are proposed. The application entails removal of the existing fencing to the Raby Street frontage, clearance of the site and to grass the area. A trip rail is to be provided along the Raby Street frontage and frontage to a proposed new boulevard to the north (albeit the Bloxham’s building presently forms this boundary). Suitable fencing is also to be provided to the boundary of 56 Raby Street and the Crown Prosecution Service building.
3.2 The supporting information identifies the background to the proposal. The Resources Panel considered a report in July 2004 regarding ongoing negotiations with Benhams BMW to assist in securing the BMW franchise within Wolverhampton by enabling a proposed extension and refurbishment of their dealership in Raby Street. The report considered various land exchanges which would essentially assist the proposed expansion of Benhams BMW by allowing them to develop the existing public open space at the corner of Raby Street/Powlett Street; facilitate a potential land assembly exercise on the Ring Road/Lever Street junction to create a more substantial development opportunity and facilitate an early acquisition of premises within the ABCD Master Plan and Housing Strategy emerging for the All Saints Area.
3.3 The proposal therefore provides a temporary stop gap measure for provision of compensatory public open space to replace that lost by enabling development of the existing open space at the junction of Raby Street and Powlett Street.
Page 35 4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Relevant policies within the adopted UDP include: ENV1 – Development Principles. ENV2 – Design Standards. R3 – Priorities for Open Space Provision. R4 – Protection of Existing Open Space. TC19 - Other Development Sites (Site 6 – Melbourne Street). TC29 – Public Spaces and Town Parks.
4.2 The site lies within an area identified in the Development Brief for “St.Georges Ringway, Melbourne Street, Wolverhampton”. This shows demolition of the former Bloxhams garage premises and redevelopment of a smaller building on the application site with frontages to a newly created tree lined boulevard to the north of the site. The Brief was approved by Planning & Environment Committee on 21st November 1996.
4.3 Relevant policies within the emerging Revised Deposit UDP include: R2 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation Areas. R3 – Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities.
4.4 Latham Architects have also prepared a Draft Master Plan for the ABCD area in collaboration with the Council. The “All Saints Urban Development Study” Draft was prepared in October 2004. This again highlights the pedestrian boulevard to the north of the application site, linking residential areas of Raby Street and Vicarage Road with the City Centre. It identifies the application site as potential residential development. A final position for public open space is indicated in the Draft Master Plan, but this may take some time to implement.
5. Publicity
5.1 A site notice was displayed on 2nd March 2005. Direct notifications were also sent to adjacent properties in Raby Street, Vicarage Road, Lever Street and Melbourne Street plus the Raby Street Resident Housing Group and the All Saints Action Network. The consultation period expired on 23rd March 2005.
5.2 As a result two letters of objection were received, one from Reverend Hingley and one from Raby Street and Vicarage Road Residents Housing Development Group. The objections are summarised below: • Lack of co-ordination or consultation with the wider community regarding the proposal. • The proposed public open space is smaller than the existing. • Choice of site is inappropriate as it is surrounded by derelict buildings and attracts “undesirables”. • Concern regarding road safety due to traffic and parking congestion in the area (including articulated lorries). • Lack of time to consider the proposals. • The proposal is part of a wider land swap proposal with BMW which residents do not support.
Page 36
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Strategic Planning – It is noted that the compensatory open space provision is not as large an area as the existing which it proposes to replace. Under normal circumstances this could be considered contrary to Council policy. However, the provision of a temporary public open space is an interim measure until such time as the Master Plan for the area has been adopted identifying suitable permanent replacement provision.
6.2 Environmental Services – No observations.
6.3 Leisure – Land to the rear of 56 Raby Street should not be included as open space as the shape of it could lead to invasion of privacy and encourage anti-social behaviour for adjoining residents. The existing open space in Raby Street amounts to 1540 sq m and this replacement open space in only half that at approximately 775 sq m. Although the proposed site is only designed to be temporary, it should provide some sort of amenity benefit to the neighbourhood, hence it is suggested that a landscaping plan needs to be agreed by both planning and leisure services to ensure this site satisfies the needs of local residents. Such landscaping plans will need to incorporate a. The portion of tin fence that adjoins part of the boundary of the proposed open space adjoining No. 56 Raby Street – this is unsuitable / unsafe for public open space purposes in its current form and it is necessary to replace this portion of fencing at the Council’s expense, with the one off agreement of the owner of No. 56. b. The purpose of the open space needs to be considered. In its present form the only use it would attract / provide is the kicking of balls against the adjoining two brick walls, c. Provide some climbers etc up the brick adjoining walls and consideration of a tree or two of an appropriate habit to provide some sort of pleasing open space. d. The site will also need protecting from incursion / dumping. e. Appropriate maintenance access arrangements i.e. for the cutting of grass. .
7. Appraisal
7.1 The key issues are whether the proposed development will prejudice the implementation of the wider Master Plan proposals for the area and whether the compensatory public open space is adequate in size, or an appropriate location.
7.2 The proposal offers an interim measure for provision of compensatory public open space on a currently vacant and underused site within an established residential area. Given that the site will remain open in character and the proposal seeks a temporary 3 year permission only, this will not prejudice future development of the site at such time as a Master Plan for the area has been adopted. The approved development plan Policy TC29 states the Council will seek to provide a variety of Page 37 public spaces to meet a variety of visual and functional needs. The proposal offers the opportunity to create such a space which will displace that area of existing open space lost to redevelopment.
7.3 Policy ENV1 suggests where loss of existing habitats/features is unavoidable, this should be conditional that compensatory provision for replacement habitats/features of equivalent or greater extent are developed. The proposal is intended as a temporary measure to replace the existing public open space at the junction of Raby Street/Powlett Street for which there is a Committee resolution to dispose of for development. Although the application site offers a smaller area than the existing, it is intended merely as a temporary measure until such time as the All Saints Urban Development Study has identified a suitable site for permanent replacement in consultation with local residents.
7.4 Policy R3 has regard to open space provision that makes positive use of vacant/derelict land particularly in the urban area. The proposal accords with this policy.
7.5 Policy R4 seeks to retain and improve existing open spaces but acknowledges that where additional public open space provision is not practical, attention will be given to improving access to and other facilities within existing areas. The proposal seeks to provide a replacement public open space nearby as a temporary measure until a permanent replacement can be agreed between the Council and local residents.
7.6 Given the above comments it is considered that the proposal does not prejudice the future development proposals within the Master Plan for the area. The compensatory public open space is considered of adequate size for an interim temporary period until a permanent site is identified and its location close to the existing site is convenient for existing users.
8. Conclusion
8.1 Although the proposed site is smaller in area than the existing public open space at the junction of Raby Street and Powlett Street, it is intended as a temporary measure only until such time as a suitable permanent replacement has been identified and agreed, in consultation with local residents as part of consultation for the “All Saints Urban Development Study”. In the circumstances as the proposed site is in close proximity to the existing site, even though smaller in area, it is considered acceptable for a temporary period. It also offers the opportunity to tidy up an area of vacant and underused land without prejudicing the future development of this land.
Page 38 9. Recommendation
9.1 Grant permission subject to conditions: i. Temporary for 3 years. ii. Details of Layout to be approved. iii. Submission and Implementation of Landscaping. iv. Details of all boundary treatments to be approved.
Case Officer : Alison Deakin Telephone No : 551134 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 39
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0143/DW/C WARD: Fallings Park; DATE 01-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 29-MAR- RECEIVED: 2005 APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Former garage site adjoining 42 and 44 Primrose Lane, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Retrospective application for erection of 1.8 metre high vertical steel bar fencing.
APPLICANT: Regenaration & Transportation Neighbourhood Renewal Bushbury Low Hill Partnership Office 13 Second Avenue Wolverhampton WV10 9PW
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is a plot of land between 42 and 44 Primrose Lane to the front and to the southern side is Redcotts Close. The neighbouring property at 44 Primrose Lane has a substantial privet hedge along the boundary with the site. The end-terrace house, 34 Redcotts Close has a close boarded garden fence along the boundary and the end gables of the other adjoining house number 36 Redcotts Close.
2. Planning History
2.1 04/0206/FP/R – Demolition of existing garages and erection of two semi- detached 3 bedroom houses with associated parking and garages plus closure of public footpath FP 49 approved 13th May 2004.
3. Application Details
3.1 The proposal is retrospective for the erection of 1.8m high vertical steel bar fencing. The fence is facing Primrose Lane measuring approximately 17m in length and to the southern side boundary facing Redcotts Close approximately 20m in length.
3.2 There were 9 garages along the boundary of 36 Redcott Close which have since been demolished and the land is currently vacant. As noted above there has been permission for the site to be used for two semi- detached houses with associated parking and garages which has been granted.
Page 41 3.3 On the 10th August 2004 representation was made to place an Order for the closure of the public footpath. The Order was uncontested and therefore the closure of the footpath was confirmed on 23rd September 2004.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 ENV2 Design Standards
5. Publicity
5.1 A site notice was displayed on 2nd March 2004 and direct neighbour notifications were sent to neighbouring residents. The consultation period expires 23rd March 2004. No responses received at the time of writing.
6. Appraisal
6.1 The application is retrospective. The area has recently been at the centre of anti-social incidents and the fencing will alleviate some of the problems caused by youths congregating on the site.
6.2 The steel bar fencing is an acceptable style and coloured green. It has a satisfactory visual appearance in the streetscene and does not harm the character and appearance of the locality.
7. Recommendation
7.1 Grant permission
Case Officer : Nussarat Malik Telephone No : 551132 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 42
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0280/RM/M WARD: Graiseley; DATE 16-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 18-MAY-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Approval of Reserved Matters
SITE: Land adjacent to/and 247 Merridale Street West, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising 10 flats,
APPLICANT: AGENT: Three Pines Building Co. Ltd The Edward Finch Partnership 247 Merridale Street West PO Box 618 Wolverhampton Shifnal WV3 0RP TF11 8WX
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site consists of an end of terrace Victorian former dwelling which is presently used by a building company as their office, together with the associated builders’ yard to the rear. Also included within the site is the rear garden of No 245 and part of the rear garden of 243 Merridale Street West.
1.2 The site is situated at the very end of the cul-de-sac Merridale Street West, where it terminates at the high wall enclosing Jeffcock Road cemetery. It contains a number of storage buildings and outside storage of plant and materials and is used for the parking of the builders’ employees’ cars by day and work vehicles by night and weekends.
1.3 The site has a very narrow vehicular access at the end of the terrace. The site slopes steeply up from the road. It is adjoined on the one side by the cemetery, but otherwise by the gardens of houses in Merridale Street West and Rayleigh Road. Within the site along its rear boundary are several self seeded Sycamore trees.
2. Planning History
2.1 At its meeting in February 2003 the Committee gave planning permission for an application for outline consent for residential development for a site which included the majority of this site excluding the properties Nos 245 and the part rear garden of No 243 Merridale Street West, now included in this application. All matters were reserved for later approval.
2.2 Following the issue of that consent in February 2003, discussions took place with the applicant about what form any residential development on this site might take.
Page 44 2.3 It is a difficult site to develop due to its position at the end of a Victorian terrace of houses with long rear gardens, the narrow access point and the steeply sloping nature of the site, rising up as it does, behind the terrace of houses on this side of Merridale Street West.
2.4 Various schemes were put forward upon which officers gave advice. However, no scheme was finalised as likely to be acceptable, although the applicant considers that he was given sufficient encouragement by Officers to feel that the scheme now submitted would be given a favourable recommendation.
3. Application Details
3.1 As submitted, the application was intended to be for the approval of reserved matters following on from the outline consent for residential development granted under reference 02/1343. However, because the site boundary now is larger than that for which the outline consent was granted (since it now includes no 245 and part of 243) this cannot be done. The application has therefore been amended to one for full planning consent instead.
3.2 The scheme proposes the erection of a two storey high block with rooms in the roof, comprising a total of 10 units, 8 of which are 2 bedrooms and the 2 in the roof space, 1 bedroom only. The block is positioned gable- ended onto the Merridale Street West entrance and runs up the depth of the site close to the boundary with the cemetery. It is stepped in the middle to partly accommodate the sloping nature of the site.
3.3 It is a traditionally designed domestic style building in brick with rendered sections and a tiled roof.
3.4 The scheme would involve the demolition of Nos 245 and 247 Merridale Street West (now in use as offices by the building company) to form a vehicular access. This runs up the length of the site to access 6 parking spaces, space for which has been formed by incorporating half of the rear garden of No 243 Merridale Street West, a terraced dwelling owner and rented out by the applicant. A disabled parking space is also shown, together with 3 more parking spaces. These latter 3 spaces are situated between the gable end of the block and the entrance from Merridale Street West. The scheme also shows 3 separate areas of “amenity” space, one between the gable end and the parking close to the entrance; one between the main facade and the parking/turning space and one of the sloping ground at the rear of the site. In all, approximately 396m2. The existing trees on the site would be removed.
Page 45 4. Relevant Policies
4.1 The following UDP Policies would apply:
ENV2 Design Standards H18 Planning Standards Residential TP15 Planning Standards Car Parking H4 Infill development Also SPG No 3 – Residential Development.
4.2 The following UDP Review Policies would apply:
Design Policies: D1 to D9 Housing Policies: H6, H8, H9 and H10 Access and Mobility: AM1, AM10 and AM12.
5. Publicity
5.1 The application has been advertised by means of letters to surrounding residents, site notice and press notice.
5.2 As a result three letters and a petition signed by 25 persons, have been received. Objections are on the grounds of additional traffic and an already difficult on-street parking problem, loss of light and privacy to the garden of No 243 (NB this property has since been vacated).
6. External Consultees
7.1 • Severn Trent Water – awaited.
• Environment Agency – details of means of disposal of foul and surface water to be agreed.
• Fire Officer – No turning space for fire appliance.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 • Bereavement Services – no objections.
• Transportation – awaited.
• Access Officer – awaited.
• Environmental Health – no objections.
Page 46 8. Appraisal
8.1 The key issues in this application are:
• Urban design and layout • Amenity space • Effects on future residents and on neighbouring properties.
Urban Design/Layout 8.2 Merridale Street West has a very well defined urban layout consisting of traditional rows of Victorian terraced houses with long narrow rear gardens, forming a strong ‘urban grain’. No 247 must at one time have been an end of terrace Victorian dwelling with a very much larger garden than the rest of the terrace which at some time has been occupied as a builders’ yard, with the house used as the office together with No 245. The yard may have always been used in this way.
8.3 In accordance with good urban design principles and the design policies of both the current and Reviewed UDP, development proposals on infill sites like this, will only be acceptable if they respond positively to the established pattern of building including plot sizes, spatial character and building lines, of which the site forms a part. Respect should be had to existing building lines, with buildings aligned parallel to the street and not constitute over development; be obtrusive to adjoining development, or affect the outlook and spaciousness of surrounding properties and their gardens.
8.4 This scheme fails on all these counts. It introduces a wholly different form of building form and layout to that which is established. A form which is wholly unrelated to the Victorian terrace, with no active street frontage and with its main facade looking away from the street and out over the rear gardens of the remainder of the terrace. With the site rising as it does to the rear, this effectively three-storey block, would look unduly dominant when viewed from surrounding houses and gardens. It would detract seriously from the attractive traditional pattern of Victorian terrace style development and the amenity created by this form for current residents.
8.5 The amount and form of development would constitute an over development of this site. Unlike the Victorian terrace, this block of 10 flats, would not front onto the road, but stretch up the whole length of the former rear garden, taking away this otherwise open aspect as the urban form.
8.6 The Fire Officer considers that since there is no turning space at the end of Merridale Street West one should be provided on site if this many additional units are proposed. This would result in further over development of the site.
Amenity Space 8.7 The building and the parking proposed would take up so much of the site as to leave insufficient amenity space to meet the standard set out in the Council’s SPG No 3. This requires approximately 580m2 for a development like this capable of accommodating up to 28 persons. The 2 Page 47 proposal would provide a figurative total of only 396m2 (approximately) and much of this would be effectively unusable as amenity space due to its broken-up nature and proximity to the proposed building and its car parking and turning areas. Space for the majority of the car parking spaces are to be provided by taking away half of the rear garden of the adjacent terrace house, reducing the length of the garden of that house unacceptably and having an adverse effect on the use of the rest of it and on the use of the garden of No 241 due to the proximity of parked cars.
8.8 The scheme will necessitate the removal of the only trees on the site.
Effect on Future Residents and Neighbouring Properties 8.9 The units proposed within the roof space will have a poor means of lighting and outlook from all the rooms, all of which are to be served wholly by roof lights only. A distance of only 16 metres from the main façade of the block to the boundary with the garden of No 241 and only 7 metres to the remaining garden of No 243 will result in a serious overbearing and overlooking effect of the block on the outlook from these gardens. Similarly, the corner of the gable end of the block and the end of the rear garden of a house in Rayleigh Road.
8.10 Whilst therefore the loss of this builders’ yard will be, in itself, an environmental improvement, in removing commercial activity, outside storage and traffic, these advantages would be far outweighed by the damage caused to the established pattern of development and residential amenities enjoyed by nearby residents, and to future residents of the proposed development, particularly those who would inhabit the second storey flats with velux rooflights only.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Refuse:
Poor design and layout and over development detracting from the established pattern and urban grain of existing development; adverse effect on existing amenity and spaciousness of adjacent dwellings; poor environmental conditions of future residents; insufficient space about the building and lack of amenity space.
Contrary to UDP Policies ENV2, H18 and H4 and to advice in SPG No 3.
Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 555623 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 48
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0158/DW/M WARD: Oxley; DATE 01-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 03-MAY-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Pendeford High School, Marsh Lane, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Construction of sports hall, changing facilities and field changing rooms
APPLICANT: AGENT: Life Long Learning K Adams FAO:Ian Wood Property Services Finance & Physical Resources
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of the existing Pendeford High School located to the south of Marsh Lane. The site contains a range of buildings up to three storeys in height. To the west and south of the existing buildings are areas of substantial playing fields. The site borders onto the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal to the west. It also borders residential properties to the north, east and south. To the south-east is the Rake Gate Junior School.
1.2 The proposed new buildings occupy an area of land to the south and west of the existing school buildings. The site of the proposed sports hall is currently hard surfaced and used for children’s play. The area proposed for new changing facilities is occupied by a swathe of sand utilised as “jumping pits”. None of the proposed buildings would occupy any area used for playing fields.
2. Planning History
2.1 Planning permission was granted for a three storey classroom block consisting of 8 classrooms and a single storey extension in 1999 (reference 99/0361/DW).
2.2 Planning permission was granted in 2004 for a three storey extension to create a lift shaft (04/0352/DW/C).
3. Constraints
3.1 The whole site is within the Green Belt. The canal running to the west of the school buildings is a designated Conservation Area.
Page 50 4. Application Details
4.1 The application consists of a sports hall and store. The sports hall measures 35m x 21m. The application also involves a number of additional changing facilities. The majority of these would be associated with the use of the outside open pitches. The changing rooms and sports hall would wrap around the existing gymnasium building. The proposed sports hall would have a maximum height to the top of the ridge of 11 metres. This would be similar to the height of the largest classroom buildings on the site but would be less than the adjacent boiler chimney.
4.2 The application would provide two changing rooms associated with the indoor facilities at the site, along with four changing rooms for outside pitches. The proposal also includes two separate “officials” changing areas. Each changing room would have associated showers and other facilities. The proposed buildings would be physically linked to the existing facilities at the site. However, they would have their own independent entrance and associated parking. This is located to the west of the existing buildings. A new car park would be formed adjacent to the entrance at the west of the established buildings. This would link into the school complex and ultimately gain access via the main entrance onto Marsh Lane. The proposal will provide for 32 parking spaces with an additional 4 wider spaces suitable for people with disabilities.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The site of Pendeford High School including both the playing fields and the existing buildings is included within the Green Belt in the adopted UDP. The Revised Deposit UDP proposes removing the existing school buildings and associated areas of hardstanding/playground from the green belt. This has the effect of retaining all the playing fields within the Green Belt area but excluding all the areas directly associated with the school buildings. Consequently in terms of the Revised Deposit UDP none of the proposed buildings would be located in the Green Belt.
5.2 Policies of relevance in the adopted UDP include the following:
Policy ENV1 – Development Principles. Policy ENV2 – Design Standards. Policy ENV3 – Definition of the Green Belt. Policy ENV4 – Appropriate Development in the Green Belt. Policy ENV5 – Restrictions on Appropriate Development in the Green Belt. Policy ENV6 – Access to the Green Belt. Policy ENV22 – Provision of Public Art. Policy R1 – Provision of Leisure and Recreation Facilities. Policy R2 – Open Space Provision. Policy R4 – Protection of Existing Open Space. Policy R13 – Planning Standards. Policy TP13 – Measures to Provide for Pedestrians and Cyclists. Policy TP14 – Planning Standards Car Parking. Page 51 5.3 SPG No 16 Public Art is also relevant to the proposal.
6. Publicity
6.1 Site and Press notice. The application has been advertised as a departure from the Development Plan. Residential properties adjoining the application site consulted directly by letter (116 properties). No replies received. Period for response expired 8 March 2005.
7. External Consultees
7.1 British Waterways – the building works are of sufficient distance from the canal such that the works are unlikely to affect British Waterways. The fence between the playing field and canal should remain.
7.2 Sport England – from the information supplied it would appear that this proposal would not be constructed on a playing field, that it would not adversely effect existing sports facilities and in part the changing facilities would be ancillary to the use of the playing fields. Sport England generally supports proposals for development of new sports facilities recognising the benefits that they may have on the health and wellbeing of the community. Developments such as that proposed could be expected to contribute towards the mission statement contained in the Regional Plan for sport in the West Midlands which is to increase participation in sport within all ages and social groups.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Public Protection – no observations.
8.2 Building Consultancy – no comments.
8.3 Transportation – no objection in principle. However, due to the intensification of the use a condition requiring a travel plan for the whole campus should be imposed. To improve visibility the zigzag marking on Marsh Lane should be increased. The driveway through the site should be resurfaced and traffic calming introduced. Ten secure cycle parking places should be provided. It is important in view of the potential number of vehicles which could be at the site that parking demand is managed via the Campus Development Group. Some of the existing parking areas for the school are unsurfaced and unlit. These should be improved to ensure that they are usable as overspill parking. More details should be provided on car park lighting.
8.4 Conservation Officer – in view of the distance from the Canal and the screening on site, it is not felt that the proposal will have any material impact on the Conservation Area.
Page 52 9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 The application has been screened as to whether an environmental assessment is required. The screening opinion given is that it does not require environmental assessment.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The key considerations in this case are as follows:
(i) Green Belt policy; (ii) impact on the openness of the Green Belt; (iii) design and appearance; (iv) transportation issues.
(i) Green Belt Policy 10.2 The erection of a substantial building comprising the sports hall and its associated changing facilities constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt. To be able to justify such a proposal will require very special circumstances to be demonstrated.
10.3 A substantial element of the proposed development consists of four changing rooms associated with outdoor sport. These are directly associated with the use of the adjacent open playing fields. The proposal also provides for 2 officials changing rooms associated with the outdoor pitches. These changing facilities could be considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt in that they support the appropriate sports use of the adjacent open land. The adjacent open land has a size of approximately 11.5 hectares and can accommodate 11 pitches. The City Council are also pursuing a Big Lottery Fund grant to develop pitches in the City. Pendeford High School site is a top priority for such investment in sports pitches.
10.4 The sports hall, which represents around 70% of the overall proposed floor space, cannot be considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt. It is not directly associated with the use of the surrounding open land. However, it is located in a position which would be excluded from the Green Belt in the revised deposit UDP, should this plan be adopted in its current form.
10.5 However, there are persuasive arguments why the sports hall ought to be located at this site. There has been an identified curriculum and local need for a sports hall on this site. The facility will be used by Pendeford School during the day and by local sports groups during the evenings and weekends. The sports hall would have the equivalent of a four pitch capacity. It has potential to be used for such activities as martial arts, racquet sports, dance, cheer leading, trampolining and basket ball. The provision of the sports hall has been as a result of a need to meet the particular educational requirements of the existing school.
Page 53 10.6 In addition to the educational benefits of the proposal there are wider community benefits. The existing facilities at Pendeford High School already provide some community use. This centres on football and karate as well as Gaelic football. The proposed sports hall is aimed at developing community use significantly. The Sports Development Programme for Pendeford High School includes the provision of training to allow young people to become trained as sports leaders, football referees and coaches. It is hoped the provision of the sports hall will allow opportunities to extend this area of work.
10.7 The application has been submitted with a number of supporting letters. It includes letters from Wolverhampton City Primary Care Trust, Wolverhampton Neighbourhood Management, Rakegate Primary School, GKR Karate and Wolverhampton Wanderers FC. These support the contention that the proposed sports hall will meet a wider community need.
10.8 It is considered that meeting the educational requirements of the school for a new sports hall, as well as meeting a community need for such a facility, can constitute very special circumstances necessary to support inappropriate development in the Green Belt. Furthermore the sports hall is only one element of the proposal. The remaining elements (changing facilities) actually directly support the use of the 11.5 hectares of sports fields on the site.
(ii) Impact on Openness of the Green Belt 10.9 The site of the proposed sports hall and new changing facilities is located immediately adjacent to the existing school complex. Both buildings will be linked directly into the school itself. The school currently contains buildings of equal height to the proposed sports hall. Immediately adjacent to the building is the boiler room chimney which is in fact higher than any other building on the site. In the context of a substantial number of existing large buildings, it is not considered that the proposed sports hall or changing facilities will have any adverse impact on the openness of the Green Belt.
(iii) Design and Appearance 10.10 The proposed sports hall comprises of facing brickwork with the upper most element consisting of composite cladding panels. The roof of both the sports hall and changing facilities would consist of a standing seam metal roof. The changing facilities will be single storey with a predominantly brick façade. The new entrance to the facility would consist of glazed insulated panels. The overall design of the proposed buildings is considered reasonable in the context of their proposed function and their location adjacent to the existing school buildings. The proposed buildings are located over 100 metres away from the Staffordshire and Worcester Canal, which is a designated Conservation Area. In view of the distance involved it is not considered that the proposed building would have any effect on the character or appearance of the Conservation Area.
Page 54 (iv) Transportation Issues 10.11 Access will be provided via the main entrance on Marsh Lane. Vehicles would follow an existing surfaced route around the High School buildings to an area in front of the proposed sports hall. Here 32 parking spaces with three additional wider spaces will be provided. This arrangement is considered to be satisfactory. It is worth noting that the proposal is very much based on providing a community facility serving the local area. Cycle parking can be provided on the site and this can be secured by condition. In accordance with the comments of the Transportation Division it is also suggested a Travel Plan is provided for the whole campus.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The proposed development of the sports hall in particular represents inappropriate development in the Green Belt under the adopted UDP. In the revised deposit UDP the site of the proposed buildings will be removed from the Green Belt. However, it is considered that there are very special circumstances to justify the proposed sports hall development. It is clearly integrated to the High School and will have a vital function in supporting many of the aims and objectives of not only the educational requirements of the school but also the wider use of the site by the community. The provision of new leisure facilities is supported by Policy R1 of the adopted UDP. The proposal is also consistent with the detailed criteria concerned with new leisure development and identified in Policy R13 of the Plan. Its location means that it is viewed against the substantial school buildings already on the site. Consequently it would not result in the loss of openness in the Green Belt. The design of the proposed development is considered satisfactory and consistent with the appearance of surrounding buildings. Transportation issues in terms of providing adequate car parking and access are also satisfactory.
12. Recommendation
12.1 (i) That delegated authority be granted to the Chief Planning and Highways Officer to grant planning permission subject to appropriate conditions provided that the Secretary of State does not wish to call the application in following notification under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans Consultations (Departures)) Direction 1999.
(ii) That planning conditions should cover the following matters: 1. Details of materials; 2. Details of landscaping including surfacing of car park; 3. Cycle parking; 4. Details of community use to be submitted and agreed and the development operated in accordance with the agreed details; 5. Travel Plan. 6 Floodlighting of car park. 7. Details of signing, lining and traffic calming on site. Page 55 8. Public art. 9. Car parking management plan including arrangements to surface and layout the overspill parking areas.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 56
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0004/FP/R WARD: Park; DATE 08-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 05-APR-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Coach House rear of 24 Albert Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Conversion of existing building from garage to a two bedroom dwelling, including single storey extension. Amended location plan received omitting land adjacent (known as 'The Snicket')
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr and Mrs I Hazledine Phillip Tonks Holly Cottage Sliema Penn Common Greenhill Penn Wombourne WV5 0LD
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to a detached former Coach House building located within the grounds of 24 Albert Road, Compton. The building is in a perilous state and it is evident that the rear western corner of the building is collapsing. The building has latterly been used as a domestic garage. The site is in a predominantly residential area within the Park Conservation Area and there are private access roads to the west hand side of the site (“The Snicket”) and rear boundary (Parkdale West rear drive) where there are substantial semi-detached Victorian houses. There is a bungalow development to the west of the site on the opposite side of the access drive.
1.2 The existing property, 24 Albert Road, is divided into 6 one-bedroom flats and the Coach House is located at the rear of this. There are lawns to the front and rear of no.24 but there are also tarmac areas at the front and side of the building which provides off-street car parking. The Coach House building lies hard on the boundary with both access drives to the side and rear.
2. Planning History
2.1 The planning history reveals refusal of permission for construction of an extension at the side and rear of no.24 itself to create 4 no. 1 bedroom flats (96/0202/FP). This was dismissed at Appeal.
Page 58 3. Constraints
3.1 The site falls within the Park Conservation Area.
3.2 There is a main sewer pipe which runs along the length of the adjacent access drive (known locally as “The Snicket”).
4. Application Details
4.1 The proposal seeks conversion and extension of the former Coach house to create one 2-bedroom detached house. A small extension on the east side of the building is proposed to provide a shower room, hallway and utility room. The renovation of the existing Coach House will form a living room and kitchen/dining area at ground floor with two bedrooms and shower room at first floor. A glazed screen serving the new habitable rooms will be installed on the front elevation and reproduction timber doors fixed to the outside of this to replicate the original timber garage doors. No additional window openings are proposed in the original building although roof lights will be inserted in the rear roof slope. The single-storey side extension measures approximately 2m wide and 4.6m long with a pitched roof 4.1m in height.
4.2 A design statement was submitted. This confirms that the proposed renovation will be carried out using re-claimed materials where possible and that reproduction timber Coach House doors and timber side hung casement windows will be incorporated. The applicants advise the proposed extension is located on the site of a previously demolished extension. They also consider that the curtilage of the site will be enhanced by introduction of more soft landscaped areas to replace some tarmac areas and that parking for the Coach House will be provided in front of the building in blue paviors reclaimed from the ground floor of the existing building.
4.3 A structural engineering report has also been submitted in support of the application. This highlights that the property has suffered extensive foundation settlement resulting in extensive distortion and cracking to the masonry superstructure. Although they admit retention and refurbishment of the building will be technically complex and disproportionately expensive, they consider it can be achieved. They estimate the following works will be required: a) reconstruction of the roof, b) rebuilding of 25% of right hand gable, c) rebuilding of 25% of rear elevation, d) rebuilding of masonry around proposed new features such as windows.
Page 59 5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The following policies within the adopted UDP are relevant: - H4 – Infill Development. H18 – Planning Considerations. ENV2 – Design Standards. ENV18 – Preserving and Enhancing Conservation Areas. TP14 – Planning Standards – Car Parking.
5.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance No.3 “Residential Development” is applicable.
5.3 The following policies within the Revised UDP are also relevant: - D1 – Design Quality. D4 – Urban Grain. D5 – Public Realm (Public Space/Private Space). D6 – Townscape and Landscape. D9 – Appearance. HE1 – Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness. HE3 – Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas. HE4 – Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area. HE5 – Control of Development in a Conservation Area. HE7 – Underused Buildings and Structures in a Conservation Area. HE9 – Relaxation of Normal Standards in a Conservation Area. H6 – Design of Housing Development. H7 – Conversion of Buildings from Non-Residential to Residential Use. AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision.
6. Publicity
6.1 A newspaper advertisement was published on 15th January 2005 and site notice displayed on 19th January 2005. Direct neighbour notifications were also sent to properties in Albert Road and Parkdale West. As a result of the re-registering of the application due to the change in the application site boundary further neighbour notifications were sent on 15th February 2005. The consultation period expired on 8th March 2005.
6.2 As a result of publicity 6 letters of objection were received. Initially objections were raised that the applicant was not the owner of the access way known as “The Snicket” and that it actually belongs to Parkdale Trustees who have right of access across the land. As a result, this area has subsequently been omitted from the proposed application site and access provided within the existing site curtilage via the existing drive at 24 Albert Road. In the circumstances concerns regarding rights of ownership/access across this land have therefore been overcome.
Page 60 6.3 Objections relating to potential obstruction or disruption of the rights of access across the adjacent land (particularly during construction works) and to Party Wall matters have been raised, however, these are not material planning considerations. Other points raised refer to the need for high quality design and craftsmanship appropriate to and sympathetic with the surroundings and an objection to inclusion of any door in the rear elevation of the Coach House opening onto Parkdale West rear drive. One objector has indicated their wish to speak to Committee.
7. External Consultees
7.1 Civic Society – No response at time of writing.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transportation – No objections in principle. Concerns relating to proposed use of the access to the west of the site (“The Snicket”) as shown on the original plans are raised; however, this is not now included in the proposals. A large scale site layout plan is requested.
8.2 Conservation – In principle the proposal is considered to be acceptable subject to receipt of satisfactory drawings detailing the proposed alterations to the building including front elevation and cross sections. Subject to receipt of satisfactory amended drawings then conditions will need to be imposed relating to submission and prior approval of samples of all new external materials; ¼ or ½ full size details of all new external joinery. A further condition will be needed to require no more extensive re-building than as set out in the structural report submitted by Mark Dady & Associates (as the scheme is only acceptable as a conversion. Any more extensive demolition and rebuilding could effectively involve a new building, which is not acceptable in this context).
8.3 There is a remaining concern over the extent of car parking which dominates the site and has an adverse impact on the setting of the Coach House, principal building, Conservation area and amenity and outlook of residents. The car parking should be limited to 7 spaces on the front forecourt, to provide 1 per unit, with the remaining areas landscaped in accordance with details to be agreed.
8.4 Building consultancy - No comments other than to advise the building is presently in a dangerous state hence its renovation is welcomed.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key issues are as follows: - • Principle of the use of the building for residential purposes. • Proposed alterations to the building. • Impact on residential amenities. • Means of Access and Car Parking. Page 61 9.2 Use of the building for residential purposes - The Coach House forms part of the heritage of the Park Conservation Area hence its retention is favoured above demolition and redevelopment and the proposed change of use to residential purposes, within this predominantly residential area, secures the long-term future of the building. In principle the proposal therefore complies with policies H4, H18, ENV2 and ENV18. Over recent years the future of a number of coach houses has been secured by similar schemes.
9.3 Alterations to the building - The proposed renovation of the Coach House building and single-storey extension are considered generally satisfactory. Amended plans for the front elevation are required to ensure that the scheme is sympathetic to the character of the original building. This would then comply with policies H18, ENV2 and ENV18.
9.4 Impact on residential amenities - The building is located behind the main dwelling and the proposed dwelling will be single-aspect. Ordinarily this relationship would not be acceptable for new built development; however, the relationship between properties is part of the original character of the area and is considered not to unduly harm privacy or residential amenities of existing or potential occupiers. In the circumstances the proposal does not compromise policies H4, H18, ENV2 and ENV18. The retention of the building is also favourable to its potential loss which would have a greater impact on the townscape and setting of the development within the conservation area. A condition would need to be imposed to take away any permitted development rights to alter and extend to prevent over development.
9.5 Means of Access and Car Parking - The proposed means of access is via the existing hence this is acceptable in principle. However, the site as a whole is still dominated by car parking. In the circumstances, and given that this is a sustainable location close to the City Centre and served by high level bus services, it is considered that a reduction in parking spaces is justifiable and amended plans have therefore been requested which reduce the number of parking spaces allowing more space for soft landscaping to improve the visual appearance of the site and surrounding context. These changes will improve the landscaping and appearance and treatment of the spaces between and around the dwellings in accordance with Policy H18.
10. Conclusion
10.1 The retention of the building is considered of paramount importance in order to preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. The proposed change of use to a dwelling is also acceptable within this context. The alterations and extension to the building itself can be amended to be in keeping with the design of the existing building and retain its original character. It is considered that a reduction in the amount of car parking is justifiable in this location and will allow incorporation of more soft landscaping areas to improve the character and appearance of the site in the Conservation Area.
Page 62 10.2 Although there remain outstanding neighbour objections these mainly relate to rights of access and party wall issues which are not material planning considerations.
11. Recommendation
11.1 Delegated authority to the Chief Planning and Highways Officer to grant permission subject to submission of satisfactory amended plans showing a revised front elevation and cross sections and showing a revised parking layout and subject to the following conditions:- i. Submission and prior approval of samples of all new external materials. ii. Details (including large scale drawings) of all new external joinery. iii. No more demolition other than that set out in Mark Dady Associates structural report. iv. Submission and Implementation of Landscaping Scheme and samples of hard landscaping materials. v. Submission and prior approval of elevations of bin stores. vi. Removal of Permitted Development Rights (Extensions, Dormer Windows and Fencing)
Case Officer : Alison Deakin Telephone No : 551134 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 63
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0150/OP/M WARD: Park; DATE 01-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 03-MAY-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
SITE: 6 - 10 Avenue Road, Compton PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing house and erection of twelve apartments (Outline Application)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Wood Frampton Aylesford House 70-72 Clarendon Street Leamington Spa
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to the site of 6–10 Avenue Road, Compton. The site was formerly occupied by three houses, but the pair of large Victorian semi-detached houses (6 and 8 Avenue Road) was demolished following grant of permission in January 2001 and the land grassed over. Only the modern detached house (10 Avenue Road) remains, located towards the rear north-eastern corner of the site.
1.2 The site frontage is approximately 29 metres wide and site depth approximately 45 metres (0.13 hectares). There is a low brick wall with screen hedge across part of the site frontage with driveways adjacent the northern and southern boundaries, which served the former dwelling 6 Avenue Road, and remaining dwelling 10 Avenue Road. There is a marked difference in levels between the front and rear parts of the site, the lower section at the rear forming the private garden of no.10. Avenue Road. There is screening within adjacent gardens along the eastern and southern boundaries. Although it is evident there were several mature trees throughout the site these have since been removed.
1.3 The adjacent semi-detached property at 4 Avenue Road operates as a day nursery, there is a block of three-storey flats to the north of the site, known as Grosvenor Court, and modern terraced housing directly opposite. There is also a dormer bungalow at the rear of the site whose garden has a boundary with the application site.
2. Planning History
2.1 The planning history reveals the following: - - 00/1519/DD - Demolition of 2 dwellings – Granted 16 Jan 2001. - 04/1668/OP/M – Demolition of existing house and erection of 14 apartments (outline application) – Refused 20 Oct 2004.
Page 65 2.2 The latter was refused on the following grounds: - 1) The proposed development would provide insufficient amenity for the proposed new dwellings and result in a form of development which would be too high density, cramped in appearance and out of keeping with the existing pattern of surrounding developments and hence detract from the character and appearance of the existing street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H4 “Infill Development”, H18 “Planning Considerations” and ENV2 “Design Standards” of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan and to Supplementary Planning Guidance No.3 “Residential Development”. 2) The proposed access road and parking area would cause unacceptable disturbance from traffic and pedestrians to the residents of Grosvenor Court, Avenue Road, 216 and 218 Compton Road and 6 Ross Close due to its proximity to these properties and their gardens. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy ENV2 “Design Standards” of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan and Supplementary Planning Guidance No.3 “Residential Development”. 3) The proposed means of access and parking area is inadequate in terms of the level of parking provision, detailed layout and design, pedestrian provision and vehicle visibility. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H18 “Planning Considerations”, Policy ENV2 “Design Standards”, Policy TP5 “Access & New Developments” and Policy TP14 Planning Standards – Car Parking”.
3. Application Details
3.1 The application seeks outline permission for residential development of 12 no. 2 bedroom apartments accommodated in a three-storey building with 4 apartments per floor. Approval is sought for siting and means of access at outline stage, although the applicant’s confirm that the proposed floor plan forms part of the application, whilst elevations do not. The proposed site plan indicates a building with a footprint approximately 15m deep X 21m wide positioned on building line parallel with the adjacent nursery at 4 Avenue Road. The building is positioned approximately 3m from the northern boundary and vehicular access is located on the southern boundary of the site with parking area and bin store at the rear.
3.2 The proposed floor plan schedules 10 no. 2 bedroom flats at 64.4m² floor space and 2 no. larger 2 bedroom flats at 80.6m². The proposed apartments are single aspect comprising lounge/kitchen, bathroom, en- suite bedroom and second bedroom. Short lounge balconies on the four corners of the building are also indicated.
Page 66 3.3 Thirteen parking spaces are shown in two rows at the rear of the building, including two disabled parking bays. Private amenity space is shown at the rear of the building, predominantly on the northern half of the space and between the building and parking spaces. Other smaller areas, of possible visual amenity value only, are located in front of the building. A site survey drawing has been provided showing existing features, landscaping and spot heights. The present site plan indicates a tree to be retained, however, this has been removed therefore an updated site plan has been requested.
3.4 In support of their proposal the applicant suggests the scale of the building respects the scale of the adjoining flats, large semi-detached properties and town houses opposite. The 13 car parking spaces provided at the rear of the property have been moved away from the boundary nearest Grosvenor Court and 6 Ross Close allowing a larger external amenity area and greater separation between the car parking and adjacent gardens. They consider the level of parking justified in this sustainable location which they state is within 2.6km of Wolverhampton city centre and close to a main transport corridor served by good public transport.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Relevant policies within the adopted UDP include: - H4 – Infill Development. H18 – Planning Considerations. ENV1 – Development Principles. ENV2 – Design Standards. ENV13 – The Urban Forest and Protection of Trees. TP14 – Planning Standards – Car Parking.
4.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance No.3 “Residential Development” is also relevant.
4.3 Relevant policies within the emerging Revised UDP include: - D4 – Urban Grain. D5 – Public Realm (Public Space/Private Space). D6 – Townscape and Landscape. D7 – Scale-Height. D8 – Scale-Massing. D9 – Appearance. D14 – The Provision of Public Art. H3 – Housing Site Assessment Criteria. H6 – Design of Housing Development. H8 – Residential Intensification Sites. H9 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments. H10 – Housing Density and Mix. AM12 – Parking & Servicing Provision.
Page 67 5. Publicity
5.1 A press notice was published on 12th February 2005, site notice displayed on 16th February 2005 and direct neighbour notifications sent to adjoining properties in Avenue Road, Grosvenor Court, Glen Court, Compton Road and Ross Close. The consultation period expired on 9th March 2005.
5.2 At the time of writing 11 letters of objection had been received as a result of publicity (plus 2 no. duplicate letters and a fax). The objections are summarised as follows: - • Inadequate on-site car parking provision. • Parking congestion in the street. • Proximity and size of proposed apartment block to adjacent garden. • Loss of light to adjacent garden. • Potential overlooking and loss of privacy. • Most of the existing trees have already been removed. • Parking in Avenue Road is already difficult, particularly at peak time, for example, when parents are picking-up and dropping-off children at the nursery. • Increased flood risk due to the extent of tarmac surface parking area. • Greater load on sewerage systems. • Potential traffic hazard at the junction of Avenue Road and Compton Road. • Inappropriate scale. • Avenue Road serves as access to Compton Road for properties in Pentland Gardens, Glen Court, Nevis Court, Ross Close and Wyvis Close hence it is congested. • The junction of Avenue Road and Compton Road already has a history of accidents.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Transportation – The layout shows 11 general parking bays and 2 disabled parking bays. Guidance within PPG13 Annex D Note 3 sets the principle that parking for disabled people should be additional to the maximum parking standards. Consequently, the ratio of parking bays per apartments is 0.9. The Transportation Officer requests that 1 parking bay per apartment is provided with an appropriate form of parking control, such as lockable posts. In addition one disabled parking bay and 3 visitor parking bays should be provided and clearly demarcated within the car park. This would provide a total of 16 parking spaces.
Page 68 6.2 In addition the following observations relating to the layout are highlighted: • The layout plan provides no details of cycle and motorcycle parking. Pedestrian footways from the entrance of the apartment block to Avenue Road and the car parking area widths should be increased from 1.2m to a minimum width of 1.5m which would allow for electric wheelchairs and allow pedestrians to pass each other. • The kerb-radii on the car park access should be a minimum of 4m. Dropped-kerbs with tactile paving should be provided across the car park access. • Observations of pedestrian movements from the car park access should be obtainable at a level of 0.6m at 2.4m X 2.4m from where the driveway meets the back of footway. Details of railings/wall fronting onto Avenue Road adjacent to the access way will be required. • The distance between Avenue Road and the bin store is in excess of the recommended 25 metres. • Query whether the car park access will be gated.
6.3 Trees – There is no Tree Preservation Order for this site. Some trees and vegetation have been removed. The site survey showing existing trees is therefore inaccurate and an updated survey is required. It is disappointing to note that a multi-stemmed mature Yew has been felled which is considered completely unnecessary as it was apparently healthy. Yews can be cut back substantially and their stature controlled by regular pruning, rather than resorting to removal (especially as Yews can live for up to 2-3000 years!) and the proposed access could have been designed to retain this tree. The large Beech on the rear boundary has been felled but was hollow and extensive decay is evident.
6.4 Building Consultancy – Access for fire – no comments. Access for Disabled – level access at ground floor level should be provided.
6.5 Environmental Services – No objections.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The key issue is whether the amended proposal overcomes the previous grounds for refusal of application 04/1668/OP/M which was refused for the grounds highlighted in paragraph 2.2 of this report. The reasons can be summarised as inadequate amenity and cramped development, disturbance to neighbours from the proposed access and parking area and inadequate parking provision and inappropriate layout and design.
Page 69 7.2 The main changes on the current application are as follows: - - Reduction in the number of units from 14 to 12 no. 2 bedded units. - Reduction in the height of the proposed building from 4-storey to 3-storey. - Re-siting of the proposed building to achieve an access and parking layout located on the southern side of the building. - Increased amenity space. - Reduced parking spaces. The following paragraphs highlight what impact these changes have on the previous grounds for refusal of application 04/1668/OP/M.
7.3 Reason 1 - Insufficient amenity space and cramped layout – The amended proposal provides a greater ratio of private external amenity space per dwelling in a more usable configuration than that previously shown. The space shown at the rear of the building also provides a buffer between the car parking area and the proposed apartment building and to surrounding gardens of private dwellings. Although the plans show approximately 169m² amenity space at the front of the site this serves as visual amenity purposes only. Upon examination of the aerial photographs of the site it is apparent that the siting of the proposed building is not dissimilar to the siting of the original pair of semi-detached houses on the site frontage and the scale and depth of the proposal are also comparable. The layout is fairly similar to the adjacent Grosvenor Court site. It is considered that the layout and amenity space is now acceptable.
7.4 Reason 2 – Proposed impact of the access and parking area on neighbour’s amenities – The amended site layout shows the access road and parking area positioned along the southern edge of the site boundary, adjacent the boundary with the day nursery at 4 Avenue Road. The parking area has also been moved away from the boundary of Grosvenor Court and 6 Ross Close where it is proposed for amenity space instead. Although the parking spaces still have a boundary with the garden of properties in Compton Road there is substantial landscaping along this boundary which masks the proposed parking area. The relationship of the proposed parking with the neighbouring properties is now considered to be acceptable.
7.5 Reason 3 - Inadequate parking provision and inappropriate layout and design – Ideally one parking space per apartment should be provided, plus one disabled bay and 3 visitor parking bays. This equates to a total of 16 spaces whereas only 13 are indicated on the layout plan. The Transportation officer has also highlighted other issues relating to the design and layout of parking spaces, visibility to the access road and provision of bin store, cycle and motorcycle parking. However, a balanced approach should be taken between provision of parking and servicing versus the need to provide adequate amenity space for the proposed apartments and a satisfactory site layout in keeping with surrounding development.
Page 70 7.6 The previous scheme provided 21 car parking spaces for 14 apartments but this was at the expense of adequate amenity space and a cramped layout dominated by the building and car parking areas. The present proposal introduces more amenity space and provides greater separation between parking areas and surrounding residential gardens which softens the appearance of the development and is more in keeping with its surroundings. In the circumstances, and given that the site is close to bus services on Compton Road, it is considered that the proposed parking area is acceptable. There is also limited on-street overspill parking available directly in front of the site.
7.7 The applicants have lodged an Appeal against refusal of planning permission 04/1668/OP/M which is currently on-going.
8. Conclusion
8.1 Although there are still limited parking spaces for the number of apartments proposed it is considered that on balance this is acceptable in such a sustainable location and will allow a better site layout in terms of the relationship between the building, parking and amenity space and adjacent residential properties.
8.2 The intensification of residential use on this sustainable site close to the City Centre is considered acceptable in principle. The siting of the proposed building and means of access are also considered acceptable subject to the detailed design which can be conditioned.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Grant outline consent subject to receipt of amended plans and recommended conditions including the following: - 1) Reserved matters are design, external appearance and landscaping. 2) This permission shall not relate to the elevations shown on drawing number 806/23 dated Jan 05. 3) Submission of materials. 4) Submission and implementation of landscaping and amenity space. 5) Details of boundary treatments including replacement of any existing unsatisfactory boundary treatments. 6) Submission and approval of a street scene elevation. 7) No greater than 3-storeys in height. 8) No greater that 12 no. 2 bedroom flats. 9) Surfacing of car parking and access road. 10) Details of vehicular visibility splays. 11) Any proposed gates set back from carriageway. 12) Details of cycle and motor cycle parking required. 13) Relocation and details of bin store to satisfaction of LPA. 14) Percent for Art. 15) External lighting details.
Page 71
Case Officer : Alison Deakin Telephone No : 551134 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 72
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0223/TP/C WARD: Park; DATE 11-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 08-APR-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Temporary Planning Permission
SITE: 114 - 118 Tettenhall Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Retrospective change of use from class C2 to bed and breakfast (class C1) for a temporary period of 18 months
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr and Mrs Troisi AJM Planning Associates T/A Marnets The Westlands The Willows 132 Compton Road Horsebrook Hall Lane Wolverhampton Brewood WV3 9QB ST19 9LP
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site comprises an originally detached building on the corner of Balfour Crescent No 114 and the adjoining pair of semi- detached properties 116 and 118. These are all grand scale Edwardian houses.
1.2 These buildings were linked together some 15 or more years ago to form the Hollyhock Cottage Home which provided facilities for old people.
1.3 There is a parking area accessed off Balfour Crescent which can hold about a dozen cars. There is on-street parking available in Balfour Crescent and there are bus stops close by on Tettenhall Road.
2. Application Details
2.1 The proposal is to change the use to bed and breakfast facilities with a request for a permission for 18 months. The proposal would provide 26 bedrooms with dining and lounge facilities. The use has already commenced.
3. Relevant Policies
3.1 ENV2 – Design Standards ENV18 – Preserving & Enhancing Conservation Areas Tettenhall Road Conservation Area.
Page 74 4. Publicity
4.1 Neighbour letters sent to properties in the immediate vicinity. Expiry date 21.3.05. Twelve letters of objection have been received from residents and occupiers in the vicinity. Objections received include claims that this is a hostel for the homeless and that numbers of youths are constantly hanging about, misbehaving and playing football in the street, even early in the morning, and litter. Concerns have been expressed regarding regular Police attendance.
4.2 Press notice expiry date 26.3.05. Site notice expiry date 25.3.05. Oral update on any additional comments received.
5. External Consultees
5.5 Civic Society – comments awaited.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Transportation and Access comments awaited at time report written. Oral update to be given at Committee.
6.2 Enforcement. This retrospective application has been received as a result of investigation of the ongoing situation by Enforcement staff. Complaints were received by Enforcement regarding the use of the premises as a hostel.
6.3 Conservation – comments awaited.
6.4 Social Services Housing Management & Special Needs – comments awaited.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The Use Class Order defines in Class C1 Hotels and Hostels as “use as a hotel, boarding or guest house or hostel where, in each case, no significant element of care is provided”.
7.2 There is a very clear difference between use as bed and breakfast accommodation or guest house and use as a hostel in the minds of the public. There is a long established guest house at 124/126 (some 30 years) which has never given rise to complaints presumably because of good management and the good behaviour of their customers.
Page 75 7.3 The applicant has requested permission for only 18 months. It is understood that the applicant may be considering the preparation of a scheme of conversion of the properties into flats. As yet no planning application has been deposited, although sketch proposals have been prepared by the owners architects. Initial discussions have taken place with Officers.
7.4 The alleged current bad management of the occupiers is not in itself a reason to refuse permission particularly as the applicants have chosen to describe the proposed use as bed and breakfast and not hostel.
7.5 The properties have recently been included with the rest of Tettenhall Road in a designated Conservation Area. None of the aspects of the proposed change of use have any bearing on the character or appearance of the designated Conservation Area.
8. Conclusion
8.1 In order to focus the issues it is recommended a temporary permission be given for nine months only. This should still give more than enough time for a viable and acceptable scheme for flats to be put forward and approved.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Grant only until 31 December 2005; to encourage the early refurbishment of these premises which are situated within a designated Conservation Area (Tettenhall Road).
Case Officer : Alan Gough Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 76
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0056/FP/C WARD: Penn; DATE 17-JAN-2005 TARGET DATE: 14-MAR- RECEIVED: 2005 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: The Lodge 378 Penn Road, Wolverhampton. PROPOSAL: Change of use to offices in the community service
APPLICANT: AGENT: CM Community Care Services Ltd J Christopher Ashton c/o 1 Plantation Lane The Orchard Office Himley Union Place Dudley Worcester West Midlands WR3 7DX
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 No 378 Penn Road is a large semi-detached house on the corner with Hopstone Gardens. It is unusual in that it has no private rear garden. Its amenity space is at the front and side. Vehicle access is from Hopstone Gardens. It has a large area of private drive.
2. Planning History
2.1 Application 04/1248, by C M Community Care Services Limited for the permanent use of this house as an office, was refused in September 2004. This has been appealed, no decision has been received to date.
3. Application Details
3.1 The applicant, C M Community Care Services Limited provide domiciliary care on behalf of the Council’s Social Care Services principally to elderly and disabled people in their homes in the south part of Wolverhampton. They presently operate from an office in Waterloo Road. This location is not proving convenient for their clients, who occasionally need to call in person to the office, or their carers. The applicant considers that they could provide a better service from a base in the south-west part of the City as 60% of their clients live in Penn, Warstones and surrounding areas.
3.2 The proposal is for an office base for this service provider. The application is made for a temporary three year period, to be personal to the applicant and to be specifically for the management of the service they provide.
Page 78 3.3 There would be two full time staff based here, Monday to Friday, normal office hours. A third person, the care manager, would typically spend about two hours a day in the office. The care workers would occasionally call, the majority of their time is spent providing the service in clients’ homes. Day to day communication is by phone and fax. Training sessions would periodically take place, involving up to three people at a time between about 11.00am to 3.00pm.
3.4 Parking is available for five cars within the existing drive of the house.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 This property is close to but not within the Penn Manor local centre defined in the Deposit UDP. Office location policies in the current UDP do not encourage the use of a house in a residential area as an office. Policy E15 Planning Standards and ENV2 – Design Standards are relevant with respect to consideration of disturbance to surrounding residents, traffic and parking implications.
5. Publicity
5.1 The application has been advertised by neighbour letter to surrounding properties including all those in Hopstone Gardens. Nine responses have been received. Views are summarised as;
• Penn Road is very busy. Business use of No 378 would add to congestion, and increase traffic in Hopstone Gardens. Anyone visiting would be forced to park in Hopstone Gardens, which is narrow and easily congested. • There is a surplus of vacant business property available in Wolverhampton. There is no need to change from residential to business use. • No 378 is attached to No 376. This proposal may be modest, but this could lead to other businesses which may have far greater needs for staff and parking. • This part of Penn Road is residential. The proposal would be out of character with this area. It would be detrimental to amenity of surrounding residents.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Transportation – relocating the office to a location closer to the bus station may be more suitable.
The layout of the property with an access directly onto Penn Road is not suitable. A sole access onto Hopstone Gardens would be sufficient. Advise that staff parking be increased to four spaces and the visitor parking spaces be lengthened to 6 metres.
This is an intensification of a property which would have a detrimental effect on pedestrian and highway safety due to the access onto Page 79 Penn Road. People would find it more difficult to reach by public transport, the parking provision is insufficient for the likely demand created by the offices.
6.2 Planning Policy – this application appears identical to that submitted in 2004 and refused. In planning policy terms, there is no material change is circumstances which warrant an alternative response to that for the previous application. Planning permission should be refused.
7. Other Respondents
7.1 Councillor Mrs P Bradley (Ward Member) has written in support of this application.
7.2 Andy Cross, Operational Manager (Older People) Social Care, has confirmed this company’s contractual status with the Council for the provision of domiciliary care services. This includes a range of personal support to vulnerable adults, predominantly older people, who require a range of assistance in everyday domestic tasks in order to remain independent and living in their own homes. The provision of a high quality and successful domiciliary care service to vulnerable citizens of Wolverhampton cannot be under estimated.
8. Appraisal
8.1 Key issues for this application are;
• Consideration of special circumstances; • Level of activity proposed; • Parking and access.
8.2 Because of the type of community service provided by the applicant on behalf of the Council, it is considered that special circumstances can apply in policy terms to allow this office for a period of three years. Any permission would be personal to the applicant and for the specified use. This gives sufficient safeguards should any problems (which are considered unlikely) associated with parking or disturbance to residents, emerge. An exception to UDP office location policy can therefore be made, without compromising the policy.
8.3 The small number of staff (3) and occasional visitors, office hours of 0900-1700 Monday to Friday indicate that this operation should not result in a significant extra level of traffic or disturbance to residents over and above a residential use of this house.
8.4 The drive area needs to be amended to close the entrance/exit to Penn Road. Minor adjustment needs to be made to dimensions of visitor parking. Subject to this, the drive space indicated will be adequate .
Page 80 9. Recommendation
9.1 Permission be granted for a period of three years, to be personal to C M Community Care Services Limited and for the use applied for. Parking spaces to be marked out as per the submitted plan and kept available at all times. Hours of operation to be 0900-1700 Monday to Friday.
Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 555649 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 81
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0170/FP/R WARD: Penn; DATE 03-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 31-MAR- RECEIVED: 2005 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 11 Woodhall Road, Penn, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: First floor side extension with ground floor front extension to porch
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr D. Baggs Mr M. Kaszuba 11 Woodhall Road 16 Lingfield Avenue Penn Fordhouses Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV4 D11 WV10 6NZ
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The property concerned is a traditional detached property, one of a group of properties of individual character and design. The rest of the street scene comprises a mixture of detached dwellings, within an area which is predominantly residential.
1.2 The property has been previously extended to the side with a kitchen extension.
2. Application Details
2.1 The proposal consists of a porch extension measuring 2.3m wide, with a 1.8m projection, with a pitched roof design. The existing garage to the side will be rebuilt, with a first floor element above, measuring 2.5m wide, and 5.95m long. At first floor the extension is set back from the existing front face by 0.25m. The first floor will provide an en-suite, bathroom and landing area.
3. Relevant Policies
3.1 Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV2 – Design Standards. Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 – Extensions to Houses.
Page 83 4. Publicity
4.1 Neighbour letters expire 2 March 2005 three letters of objections as follows:
Mr and Mrs Blest – 15 Woodhall Road, Penn – proposed extension would almost constitute ribbon development, to the detriment of No. 13 and also to the aspect of a very pleasant road.
Mr D Starmer – 17 Woodhall Road, Penn – There is insufficient space between the extension and the neighbouring property to allow for such an extension without detracting from the essential quality of spaciousness which exists at present between the detached properties in the street.
Mr K A Rowley – 13 Woodhall Road – points as follows:
• Creation of a narrow passageway, between the properties, being obtrusive and oppressive. • Loss of light to a first floor front bedroom window, being intrusive and oppressive, as the extension would be viewed from the bedroom window. • Loss of spaciousness between the two properties which is a characteristic establishment in this road. • Due to close proximity of side bathroom window, side garage window, and rear kitchen door there is a concern in respect of fire safety. • Plans display anomalies such as, existing boundary wall is displayed outside the garage wall, when in fact the outside wall to the garage is the building line, and any further extension, eves and gutter would overhang my property. • Sewerage pipe runs underneath the passageway close to the garage wall, with concerns that any new footings would necessitate re-location and disturbance of existing footings to the my house. • Side first floor windows would open and then overhang my property. • Lack of negotiation prior to submitting the application. • No consent for use my land to construct the extension. • Request to speak to committee.
5. Appraisal
5.1 Firstly, after the assessment of the proposal on site, it became apparent that the existing floor plan to the application was incorrect, with the garage was positioned directly along the boundary line, and not set in as displayed on the plans.
5.2 The application is therefore invalid, as no notice had been served on the neighbouring property. However, the agent has been informed and is in the process of amending the drawings, to display correct existing floor plans, and amend the proposal to keep all elements of the extension Page 84 within the boundary to the property. Plans waited at time of writing.
5.3 The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property, however, the proposal would benefit from a further set back at first floor from the existing front elevation in accordance with the guidance set out in SPG No 4. This would reinstate an element of space between the application site and the neighbouring property at No. 13, and would also maintain the specific character and appearance of the existing property and those surrounding.
5.4 There is no detrimental impact to the neighbouring property at No. 9, from the porch extension.
5.5 The neighbour at no. 13 is concerned with regards to a number of issues, mainly concerning loss of space, loss of light and outlook. This neighbouring property has no habitable room windows to the side of the property, only a side entrance door and bathroom window at first floor. The extension would be visible at an angle from the front bedroom window; however the detriment would be minimal, and would not warrant a refusal on this alone. However, amendments are to be requested, as stated in paragraph 5.3, which will address to some extent some of the concerns highlighted by the neighbour, loss of outlook from front bedroom window and possible loss of light, and loss of space between the properties.
6. Conclusion
6.1 Amendments awaited to correctly position the garage on the existing ground floor plan, remove the ensuite element to the extension, by setting the first floor element back from the existing front elevation by 1.8m, and keep all elements of the extension within the boundary of the site. Obscurely glaze and fix the side bathroom window and rear landing window, to restrict direct overlooking and possible loss of privacy to the neighbouring property.
7. Recommendation
7.1 Delegated Authority to the Chief Planning and Highways Officer to grant planning permission subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans, and condition matching materials, removal of permitted development rights for first floor windows, and obscurely glaze and fix bathroom and landing window.
Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 555641 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 85
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0053/FP/C WARD: St Peters; DATE 17-JAN-2005 TARGET DATE: 14-MAR- RECEIVED: 2005 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Skateboard Park, Penn Road Island. PROPOSAL: Provision of youth shelter
APPLICANT: AGENT: M Brooke Sjölander da Cruz Architects Lifelong Learning 11 Tenby Street Wolverhampton City Council Birmingham 16A Temple Street B1 3AJ Wolverhampton WV4 2AN
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to the Skateboard Park on the Penn Road traffic Island. The island is sunken and is below road level located on the southern edge of the City Centre. Pedestrian routes pass through the island from the north, south, east and west.
1.2 The Skateboard Park is situated to the southern side of the island still allowing pedestrian use of the underpass.
2. Planning History
2.1 03/0597/DW – Skate Park and associated facilities with floodlighting approved on 7th July 2003.
2.2 D/A059/90 – Site No 3 of 22 sites. Erection of display (poster) board, cast iron freestanding deemed consent given on 2nd October 1990.
3. Constraints
3.1 The island is within the 50m tolerance zone of the Copthorne Road Conservation Area and the Penn Fields Conservation Area.
4. Application Details
4.1 The proposal is for a youth shelter primarily for the benefit of the skateboarders that use the Skate Park facilities. The shelter will be located to the northern side of the island facing the skate park, behind the existing benches.
Page 87 4.2 The shelter will be approximately 12.5m in length and 3.4m in width at the widest point, 2.1m at the other narrower end and 6.2m in height.
4.3 The shelter will consist of a trapezium shaped sculptured brick base and the L-shaped cantilevering steel shell. The brick base will be created by the artist Gwen Heeney and will consist of a multitude of sculptured clay segments. Anti-skate rills will be carved into the base in a specific pattern. The architects state that the design follows a natural precedent, the line and surface of a sand dune. The steel shell is formed from a regular rhythm of cut-size frames rising from the ground to cantilever over the brick base. Two types of cladding are to be used. An open mesh wall which will allow pedestrians and users to see through the structure. The ‘roof’ is covered with solid sheets and provides shelter and represents the enclosure of a ‘crashing wave’, according to the architects.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 ENV2 “Design Standards” Policy R13 – “Planning Standards” Policy ENV 13 “The Urban Forest and Protection of Trees”
6. Publicity
6.1 Site notices were displayed and consultation period ended on 9th March 2004.
6.2 As a result of publicity three e-mails of objection were received with the main points raised urging that the money for the shelter be used on facilities to improve the skate park instead. One objector pointed out that the youth shelter would not benefit the user base as when it did rain the skateboarders would not use it as it would be unsafe and they would either go home or use an indoor facility instead. Also that it would attract vandals, nuisance and anti-social behaviour with some Skate Parks already experiencing these problems.
7. External Consultees
7.1 West Midlands Police – welcomes the proposal and is satisfied that its provision has been made as safe as practicably possible. Whilst there is always the potential for misuse, the vast majority of its users would be grateful of its presence and use it for the purpose it was intended. This may well have a deterrent effect on unwanted activities and encourage legitimate use of the skate park or alleviate fears of other persons walking through it.
Page 88
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transportation Development – No objections.
8.2 Environmental Services – No observations.
8.3 Landscape & Environment – The proposal will provide a dramatic focal point and enhance the site visually. Its position is appropriate, causing minimal disturbance to pedestrian flows through the site. Excavations for foundations adjacent to the mature Quercrus Rubra should be carefully monitored by our Tree Officers, given the potential harm to this fine specimen. The relocation of the semi-mature trees within the apron of “clear-mac” surfacing showing on drawing 0401/p02 is not recommended due to difficulties with growth and water permeability of the surface.
8.4 Tree Officer – No objections.
8.5 Leisure Services (Parks and Recreation) – The application is welcomed (written comments awaited).
9. Appraisal
9.1 The main issues for consideration in the determination of this planning application are: a) Providing a youth shelter for users of the Skate Park. b) The continued safety and security of users of the Skate Park and of pedestrians. c) Relocation of trees. d) Design and impact on streetscene
9.2 a) Providing a youth shelter for users of the Skate Park – The proposal will provide shelter for the users of the Skate Park and a place where they can meet and congregate in the dry. It is not supposed to be used for skating.
9.3 The design of the shelter is a result of collaboration between architects, artists and young people. The intention was to reflect the movement of a skater who preformed a ‘flip-kick’ jump (head-arms-legs and board).
9.4 b) The continued safety and security of users of the Skate Park and of pedestrians – The shelter will not be used for skating purposes and will still allow the free flow of pedestrians using the walkway. The material to be used on the ground surface will prevent skaters coming on to the walkway with there skateboards. The police are satisfied that on safety grounds all provisions have been met.
9.5 c) Relocation of Trees – The proposal is to relocate three trees. The design as submitted does not justify the proposal to relocate the two trees behind the shelter and the architects have been asked to amend their submission accordingly. Amended plans are awaited. Page 89 9.6 d) Design and impact on the streetscene – The proposed structure is unusual but innovative in its design and can be acceptable providing that the materials are of a good quality and that the structure will be durable and remain visually attractive for a long period of time. Clarification regarding details and a response has been requested, which is awaited.
10. Conclusion
10.1 The addition of the shelter will add a practical facility which will also be a dramatic focal point to the island. Some further information regarding design and materials to be used have been requested. The 3 objections are not on planning grounds and cannot be taken into consideration in deciding this planning aplliction.In principle the application can be supported.
11. Recommendation
11.1 That delegated authority is given to the Chief Planning and Highways Officer to grant consent subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and other details requested.
Case Officer : Nussarat Malik Telephone No : 551132 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 90
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APRIL-2005
APP NO: 04/2047/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Regis; DATE 23-NOV-2004 TARGET DATE: 18-JAN-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 1 Clifton Road, Tettenhall PROPOSAL: Two storey front extension,first floor side extension and extension to rear conservatory (Amended plans)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs Oswald Graham Moss White Cottage Brookgate 59 Perton Road Plealey Wightwick Shropshire Wolverhampton WV6 8DE SYS OUY
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This application was reported to 1 March 2005 Planning Committee and deferred for a site visit.
1.2 The property concerned is prominently positioned in the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area, being quite visible from both Clifton Road and Upper Green. This is a detached property which forms part of a group of like properties comprising 1, 3, 5 Clifton Road and 6 Stockwell Road. The properties are relatively large, of a simple modern design with large well treed gardens, with extensive views of mature trees between the buildings, which emphasise and enhance the spaciousness between them.
1.3 The property has been previously extended to the side/rear comprising of a bedroom and shower room to the rear of an altered garage, which received planning permission in 1997. There is also a conservatory to the rear of the property.
2. Planning History
2.1 C/1598/90 – Construction of kitchen extension and conservatory, for domestic use only Refused 8 August 1990.
1094/66 – Alterations and extension to existing garage to form new bedroom shower room and altered garage Granted 20 January 1997.
04/1615/FP/R Two storey front extension, first floor side extension and erection of a conservatory at rear Withdrawn 27 October 2004.
Page 92
3. Application Details
3.1 This application follows a similar proposal (04/1615/FP), which was withdrawn before determination but was considered unacceptable due to the negative impact on the Conservation Area, and on the neighbouring property. The agent has taken into consideration advice given regarding the previous application and downscaled the proposal, and resubmitted for a two storey extension to the front of the property, first floor side extension and conservatory to the rear replacing the existing conservatory.
3.2 The proposal consists of the following:
A Porch to the front elevation projecting forward by 1.5m, with a width of 5.5m wide, is linking the existing property to the proposed two storey front extension.
The two storey front extension projects forward of the existing property by 2.4m with a width of 4.5m, the extension then continues along the side of the property, above the existing garage, measuring 8m in length and 4.5m wide and remaining flush with the existing rear elevation. This element will extend the existing garage and convert part into a utility and w.c, and above at first floor will be two additional bedrooms.
To the rear will be a new conservatory measuring 9.7m wide with a maximum projection of 3.8m.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 ENV2 “Design Standards” ENV18 “Preserving and Enhancing Conservation Areas” Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 “Extensions to Houses”
5. Publicity
5.1 Neighbour letters expire 20/12/04, site notice expires 4/1/05 and press notice expires 25/12/04, two letters of objection as follows:
3 Clifton Road Mr and Mrs Fagura – Loss of light. Loss of natural sunlight. Loss of privacy. Loss of outlook. Impact on street scene due to the cramped appearance. Plans within 14m of property, which they feel contravene planning regulations. Loss of value to property, and terracing effect. 16 Clifton Road Mr D T Poxon – The design will effect the setting of the listed buildings opposite. Intrusive. Impact on view. Out of scale with the land it will occupy. Effect the character and appearance of the conservation area. Rear element encroaches on neighbouring properties and removes current open space. Claustrophobic and out of context with other properties. Out of character with what currently exists in the street scene. Page 93 5.2 Neighbours re-informed due to amended plans, neighbour letters expire 9/2/05, three letters of objection received as follows:
3 Clifton Road Mr and Mrs Fagura – Loss of daylight and sunlight to three ground floor living rooms. Loss of views of the greenery and Tudor houses from kitchen window, and garden. Loss of daylight and sunlight to garden. Existing structure already blocks out the majority of the view, therefore any further extensions will remove what element they have left, as they are blocked in along both boundaries by garages, resulting in unsightly views and numerous flat roofs around the property, especially from the 1st floor bedroom areas. Effect to the value of neighbouring properties. Tight, claustrophobic and squashed development. Design is not in keeping with the existing neighbourhood. Neighbour has requested to speak at committee.
12 Clifton Road Mr D Hawkins-McDowell – Disturbance caused by the development. Impact on views. Removal of hedge which erodes the beauty of the area.
20 Clifton Road Mr and Mrs Ogden – Out of keeping with the rest of Clifton Road. Out of proportion with the plot size. A larger conservatory would be appropriate only for a market garden. Loss of hedge will have a detrimental impact on the area. Misleading information from the applicant.
6. External Consultees
6.1 Civic Society – No response.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Conservation – Verbally no objection to the scheme, no written response received at the time of writing. Archaeology – No implications Leisure – No observations.
8. Appraisal
8.1 The design and detail of the extension is in keeping with the existing property and the streetscene. However, the two storey structure to the side, still removes an element of space between the application site and the neighbouring property at No. 3 Clifton Road having a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene, and would not enhance or preserve the character or appearance of the Conservation Area. Therefore, although the scheme has been downscaled and lowered, the height is still unacceptable.
Page 94 8.2 The two storey element to the side would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property at No. 3, with loss of outlook from rear habitable room windows, and rear private amenity space, where the extension will still be quite oppressive, due to this area being tunnelled with structure either side. There will also be loss of sunlight of the rear amenity area late afternoon.
8.3 The property has sufficient amenity space to front, side and rear to support the extension.
9. Conclusion
9.1 Due to the significant impact on the street scene and to the neighbouring property at No. 3 by means of outlook and loss of light, amendments were requested to remove the first floor element.
9.2 Amendments were received on 19 January 2005 removing the first floor element, resulting in a ground floor porch and garage extension to the front of the property and conservatory to the rear. The amendments re- instate the element of space between the properties, and reduce the impact on the neighbouring property to an acceptable level.
9.3 Neighbours re-informed and invited to make comment on the amended application – see publicity for objections and request to speak at Committee.
9.4 Further revised drawings received since the re-consultation lower the height of the single storey extension adjacent to 3 Clifton Road by omitting the parapet wall detailing and therefore lowering the height of the side wall by 450mm.
10. Recommendation
10.1 Grant Consent. Condition Matching materials.
Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 555641 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 95
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-APR-2005
APP NO: 05/0160/FP/M WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick; DATE 01-FEB-2005 TARGET DATE: 03-MAY-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Former Tettenhall Library & Council Offices, Regis Road, Tettenhall PROPOSAL: Conversion and re-build of former library and council offices to create 9 apartments and erection of a house
APPLICANT: AGENT: Thamesway Properties Ltd Tweedale Ltd 265 Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton WV6 0DE
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This site was the subject of a development brief approved in January 2001. Since then the site has been marketed and the applicant here is the intended purchaser.
1.2 The site consists of approximately 0.24 hectares in area. It is located in Regis Road, Tettenhall, close to the junction of Upper Green in Tettenhall Village Centre. It is adjoined by housing on three sides and public space on one and adjoins the Conservation Area on one side. There are three main buildings on the site. The Oaklands (a two storey former dwelling house and later used as Tettenhall Council Offices) with attached single storey extension the former Library room; Lawson House was originally a range of stable buildings/coach house attached to The Oaklands and Oaklands Cottage which is a free standing modern house. All the buildings have been vacant for some years.
1.3 The development brief proposed the following possible uses for the site:
(i) Flatted accommodation at first floor with either Business or Health/Medical uses at ground floor. (ii) Conversion of The Oaklands to one house. (iii) Apartments. (iv) Residential care home, or nursing home. (v) B1 business and office use. (vi) Health or medical services. (vii) Community use (as part of a mixed use).
Page 97 1.4 The brief gave an indicative layout which included the demolition of Oaklands Cottage or Dower House, the retention of The Oaklands and its single storey extension to Regis Road, but the demolition of some single and two storey extensions at the rear; the demolition and rebuilding of the Lawson House range of buildings; the formation of a car park at the rear and an access road to this parking through the existing entrance off Regis Road. Five trees the subject of tree preservation orders were shown to be retained.
1.5 The brief also sets out detailed recommendations in respect of how the interior of The Oaklands and the Library extension should be treated eg as to subdivision of rooms; retention of fireplaces and other architectural details.
2. Application Details
2.1 The application now before the Committee proposes the following:
1. Conversion of The Oaklands into 4 two bed flats. 2. Conversion of the Library room extension to The Oaklands into 1 two bed flat. 3. The demolition and rebuilding of Lawson House in 4, two bed flats. 4. The demolition of Oaklands Cottage (The Dower House) and its replacement with a three bedroom house.
2.2 Access is as at present from Regis Road with a driveway to parking at the rear and to the new house. Parking is in the form of 13 spaces (2 of which are for the disabled) for the flats.
2.3 All the protected trees, plus several others, are to be retained.
3. Relevant Policies
3.1 UDP Policies:
ENV1 – Development Principles ENV2 – Design Standards H18 – Planning Considerations ENV18 – Preserving and Enhancing Conservation Areas. TP14 – Car Parking Standards. TP21 – Access for the Disabled.
3.2 Review UDP Policies:
Design: D1-D11. Historic Environment: HE1, HE3 and HE18. Housing: H6, H7. Access & Mobility: AM!, 10 and 12.
3.3 The Oaklands is included on the Council’s Local List of buildings of historic or architectural interest.
Page 98 4. Publicity
4.1 The application has been advertised by means of letters to surrounding residents, site notices and a press notice.
4.2 In response four letters have been received. All are from residents of The Manor House, which adjoins the site to the south-east. Concerns expressed include:
• the need for care when demolishing Oaklands Cottage • the need for careful boundary treatment and screen planting along the boundary with The Major House • concern that large vehicles may access the driveway • need for pedestrian footpath adjacent to the access roadway • Regis Road and its footpaths are very narrow • loss of local public building suitable for communal uses • concern about accessibility of parking and flats for the disabled.
5. External Consultees
5.1 • Severn Trent Water: awaited.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 • Conservation Officer: concern over several aspects of the scheme – detailed in the ‘appraisal’ section below.
• Transportation: seeking wider access road at its junction with Regis Road; pedestrian entrance/footway; turning space within the site; concern over level of parking provision shown.
• Building Control: no objection to fire access but level access for disabled needed to all flats.
• Environmental Protection: need for sound insulation between ground and first floor living accommodation; suggest layout of one flat is altered to reduce likely noise impact.
• Tree Officer: awaited.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The key issues are:
• Compliance with the Development Brief • Preservation of the local list building and its setting • Level of parking, access arrangements and layout • Effect on neighbouring properties.
Page 99 7.2 Compliance with Development Brief The scheme in general complies with the development brief except in the following respects.
1. The replacement of Oaklands Cottage with a new house. It is felt that effectively replacing this building would not have any adverse effects on the setting of The Oaklands since it more or less replicates what is the historic situation. The replacement building is to be set further away from the main building than it presently is. It is also of a very much better design and materials. This will therefore enhance the setting of the main building. It is however shown on the submitted plan to take too much of what should be the communal garden for the flats. An amendment has been requested.
2. The rebuilt Lawson House building is shown to be rebuilt not on its original footprint, but set back into the site by up to 1 metre on its Regis Road frontage, and to be 24.7 metre long, rather than the original 23.4 metre. This creates an awkward space between the front of the building and the footpath, breaks the long established building line and projects more into the outlook from the front windows of an adjacent house No 1 The Village Mews. An amendment has been requested to show the building on its original existing footprint.
3. There are several other more minor aspects not in accordance with the development brief (eg use of fencing instead of walling etc). Amendments have been requested.
7.3 Preservation of the local list building and its setting The scheme removes several modern poorly designed extensions at the rear, revealing more of the original building. Changes to the outside are minimal and acceptable. A large part of the grounds will remain grassed and the more important trees are to be kept. This will all help retain the existing character of the building.
7.4 Inside however, little detail is provided as to if, or how, original features such as fireplaces, cornices, skirtings and doors are to be repaired, replaced, or replicated, in accordance with the development brief. This has become all the more important because, since the preparation of the development brief, much damage has been done inside with doors and fireplaces removed. The original waist-high wall panelling in the library room is said to have been badly damaged such as no longer to be usable. This however should not preclude its replacement with replica panelling. All these details have therefore been requested.
Page 100 7.5 Parking, access and layout For the nine flats, eleven parking spaces are to be provided. Two of these are specifically designed for the disabled. Whilst there is concern that this number of spaces may be insufficient given the likely socio- economic bracket of the occupants here, it is felt that to take away any more of the garden area to provide for additional parking, would on balance be unacceptable. The parking and manoeuvring space is however restricted in having little or no turning space and a revision to provide a turning space has been requested. The proposed replaced detached house will have its own separate parking.
7.6 The existing vehicular access from Regis Street is to be altered to form the access to this development. The design as submitted is considered acceptable insofar as at 3.5 metre wide, it has insufficient width to enable two cars to pass; its radii are too large for so small an access and it has no separate pedestrian entrance or footway. The existing access at 6.5m is far too wide, but it is felt that an access of 4.1m width is acceptable with 4 metre radii and a separate pedestrian entrance to the site, would provide for a safer and yet visually more acceptable solution. Amendments along these lines have been requested.
7.7 Effect on neighbouring properties Several neighbours have raised the issue of lack of clarity in respect of how the boundaries are to be treated. The submitted plans are unclear on this aspect. Further details have been requested with suggestions proposed and reference to the development brief details.
7.8 A number of other minor changes have also been requested eg more details on drying facilities; bin storage; cycle storage; external pluming and external surface materials. It is hoped that all the amendments requested will have been received, assessed and found acceptable by the time of the Committee, but the recommendation covers the possibility that the details will not have been received or fully assessed by that time.
8. Recommendation
8.1 That delegated authority be given to the Chief Planning and Highways Officer to either:
Grant planning consent subject to standard conditions if the awaited details and amendments are received and are satisfactory, or
Refuse planning consent should the amendments and information not be acceptable on the grounds of poor design; effect on Conservation Area setting; effect on locally listed building; effect on neighbouring properties; contrary to UDP Policies ENV2; H18; ENV18 and TP14.
Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 555623 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou Page 101
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 01-MAR-2005
APP NO: 05/0037/FP/M WARD: Wednesfield South; DATE 05-JAN-2005 TARGET DATE: 06-APR-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: William Gibbons and Sons Unit 25 Planetary Road Indusrtial Estate, Wednesfield PROPOSAL: Retrospective erection of waste recycle and compactor units
APPLICANT: AGENT: William Gibbons and Sons Johnson Design Partnership LLP Unit 25 Laysard House Planetary Road Industrial Est. Underhill Hous Planetary Road Bridgnorth Wednesfield Shropshire Wolverhampton WV16 4BB
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to industrial premises located on the Planetary Road Industrial Estate, Wednesfield. The site falls within a Defined Employment Area (Policy E4) and is surrounded by other industrial premises. The unit is located near a prominent junction between Planetary Road and the industrial estate access and other industrial units which front Planetary Road follow a staggered yet regular building line along this frontage. Whilst the land opposite is presently vacant planning permission has recently been granted for erection of a new swimming and fitness facility (approval reference 04/0021/FP/M).
1.2 The applicants occupy several units on the estate including units 25–28, unit 34 and unit 41 and the application forms identify that 170 industrial staff and 30 office staff are employed at the premises in three shifts.
2. Planning History
2.1 Planning permission was granted in 1977 for change of use of units 25, 26, 27 & 28 from warehousing to paper processing and cardboard manufacturing (C/0293/77 & C/0709/77). In 1978 planning permission was granted for provision of new windows at the ground level and additional fire exit doors (A/C/1222/78).
Page 103 3. Application Details
3.1 The application seeks retrospective permission for installation of a waste recycle and compactor unit on the elevation of the building facing Planetary Road. Although this is effectively the rear elevation of William Gibbons premises, due to the merging of units 25, 26, 27 & 28, it is actually the front elevation to all of the remaining units along Planetary Road. The waste recycle and compactor unit is located on the forecourt premises and occupies almost all of the space originally available for servicing and parking at the unit. The application forms highlight that 523 tons of paper waste per month is stored in skips and removed by lorry for recycling and that the estimated traffic flow is one vehicle/lorry per day. The application includes a proposal to lower the main pipework on the compactor outside Unit 25 to in an attempt to reduce the visual impact.
3.2 The applicants advise that the compactor unit collects waste paper output from the main press for recycling and has to be sited adjacent to the main press. The main press is sited within the building in the only available space large enough to accommodate it. They also state that without it the main press cannot operate and that it is not feasible or viable to locate it anywhere else other than outside unit 25. Supporting information with the application explains the business case for the development and positive steps already taken by the applicants to reduce noise and dust emission, remove cars from this area to the yard area adjacent unit 34 and to reduce the visual impact by lowering the pipework.
3.3 A similar application for retention of a waste recycle and compactor unit on the front elevation of Unit 41 has also been submitted – application reference 05/0038/FP/M.
3.4 The applicant was advised by the Local Planning Authority that retrospective planning permission was required for the compactors as they represented development that materially alters the appearance of the building. They were also advised that the Council’s concerns were the visual impact of the development; the noise it generates and the loss of parking/manoeuvring space as a consequence of the development.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Adopted UDP: E4 – Defined Employment Area. E8 – Industry and Environmental Nuisance. E15 – Planning Standards. ENV2 – Design Standards.
4.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance No.1 – Business, Industrial & Warehousing Development is also relevant.
Page 104 4.3 Emerging Revised UDP: D1 – Design Quality. D9 – Appearance. EP5 – Noise Pollution. B1 – Economic Prosperity. B5 – Design Standards for Employment Sites. B9 – Defined Business Areas. AM12 – Parking & Servicing Provision.
5. Publicity
5.1 A press notice was published on 22nd January 2005 and site notices displayed on 31st January 2005. The consultation period expired on 21st February 2005. No objections were received.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Transportation –express concerns regarding the loss of parking and servicing to the forecourt of the unit and possible precedent this may set for other companies to do the same. Larger scale plans indicating the location of parking bays, pedestrian routes and circulation areas for service vehicles are requested as provision of staff parking in the service area is not to be encouraged. However, on balance, the Transportation officer considers these reasons are not sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission on highway or transportation grounds.
6.2 Environmental Services – The bag filter on the larger of the two compactors (Unit 25) was found to be faulty, and as a result the escaping compressed air gave rise to increased noise, particularly at night time. The company were advised of the problem and acted promptly to arrange for the bag unit to be serviced in order to remedy the matter. In addition a silencer was fitted to the outlet exhaust. Measurement of the bag pulse cycle before and after completion of the servicing and remedial works showed that the noise from the loudest of the pulse jets had decreased by as much as 15 dB (A) – a significant reduction. No formal action was required under the relevant noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Noise levels have been measured since the lodging of this application, and do not so far show any deterioration of individual pulse levels.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The key issues are the visual impact of the development; the noise it generates and the loss of parking/manoeuvring space as a consequence of the development and employment/other matters. These issues are considered in turn below:
Page 105 7.2 Visual Impact The industrial units along the Planetary Road frontage have a uniform character. The structure appears visually dominant because of the prominent location of the site. Proposed adjustments to the associated pipework for the compactor unit, to reduce the structure to below the building height, will help to reduce some of the visual impact.
7.3 Noise Generation Policy E8 advises that “minor extensions or alterations which require planning permission will be considered on their merits where these do not add to existing problems of nuisance or pollution”. The compactor unit did initially cause concern regarding noise pollution, particularly at night time. However, this was found to be a fault which has since been remedied. The proposal to retain the machinery does not therefore create additional noise or pollution subject to maintenance of the equipment and is compliant with Policy E15 in terms of controlling pollution and noise control.
7.4 Loss of Parking/Manoeuvring Space The position of the machinery occupies space at the front of the units which could provide crucial car parking and loading/unloading space for the operation of the premises. At the time of the case officer’s site visit the estate roads were heavily congested, although not impassable, even though the applicants have provided car parking adjacent unit 34. Policy E15 requires industrial development to be the highest possible standard in terms of access to and within the site, car parking and loading/unloading. Although the transportation officer considers the loss of this space at the front of the unit is not sufficient grounds to warrant refusal of the application it undoubtedly sets an unwanted precedent on this industrial estate.
7.5 Employment and other matters The applicants have been advised to reconsider the design of the proposal in order to reduce the visual impact upon the surrounding area. However, it is considered that given the scale of the machinery any form of building or cladding to enclose or mask the compactor unit would need to be of significant size and height. In addition this may create problems of possible overheating of equipment, venting of exhaust fumes, number of required extraction outlets, access to the machinery for breakdowns etc.
The business employs 200 people and the waste recycle and compactor units are an important part of operation. Whilst there were initially some noise concerns with the installation, these have now been corrected and your environmental health officers are satisfied in respect of noise emissions.
Page 106 Waste compaction and recycling is encouraged as making a positive contribution to sustainability. Businesses are required to respond to the need for recycling of waste products. UDP policies support recycling and waste reduction. Para 4.76 of the UDP states …’In addition, the Council considers the most effective way of reducing the problems of waste is for producers to examine the potential for recycling and minimising their own waste.’ Para 5.10.1 of the emerging Revised UDP states…’ It is important to handle waste as close as possible to where it arises (the proximity principle).
8. Conclusion
8.1 Significant investment has been made to acquire the equipment and William Gibbons & Sons are a major employer in this area. Waste compaction and recycling is encouraged in the interests of sustainability. Whilst it is recognised that the structure is visually prominent the applicant has offered to reduce the height of the pipework so that it does not exceed the height of the building. Whilst the development will result in the loss of some parking and manoeuvring space on the forecourt, the applicant has provided additional parking adjacent to unit 34. It is considered that the circumstances of this case are such that a grant of planning permission would not act as a precedent for other development on the forecourt areas of industrial premises.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Approve subject to a condition which requires lowering of the pipework to no higher than the roof of the building, in accordance with plans to be agreed with the local planning authority, within 6 months of the date of the planning permission.
Case Officer : Andy Johnson Telephone No : 555610 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 107
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 01-MAR-2005
APP NO: 05/0038/FP/M WARD: Wednesfield South; DATE 05-JAN-2005 TARGET DATE: 06-APR-2005 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: William Gibbons and Sons Unit 41 Planetary Road Industrial Estate, Wednesfield PROPOSAL: Retrospective erection of waste recycle and compactor units
APPLICANT: AGENT: William Gibbons and Sons Johnson Design Partnership LLP Units 25 & 28 Laysard House Planetary Road Industrial Est. Underhill Street Planetary Road Bridgnorth Wednesfield Shropshire Wolverhampton WV16 4BB
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to industrial premises located on the Planetary Road Industrial Estate, Wednesfield. The site falls within a Defined Employment Area (Policy E4) and is surrounded by other industrial premises. The unit is located in the centre of the industrial estate surrounded by and facing other industrial units.
1.2 The applicants occupy several units on the estate including units 25–28, unit 34 and unit 41 and the application forms identify that 170 industrial staff and 30 office staff are employed at the premises in three shifts.
2. Planning History
2.1 The planning history reveals three applications for changes of use within industrial use classifications (A/C/3093/79, A/C/3286/81 & A/C/1297/85) plus an application for a fascia hoarding (A/C/A150/79).
3. Application Details
3.1 The application seeks retrospective permission for installation of a waste recycle and compactor unit on the front elevation of the building. The waste recycle and compactor unit is located on the forecourt premises and occupies almost all of the space originally available for servicing and parking at the unit. The application forms highlight that 523 tons of paper waste per month is stored in skips and removed by lorry for recycling and that the estimated traffic flow is one vehicle/lorry per day.
Page 109 3.2 The applicants advise that the compactor unit collects waste paper output from the main press for recycling and has to be sited adjacent to the main press. The main press is sited within the building in the only available space large enough to accommodate it. They also state that without it the main press cannot operate. Supporting information with the application explains the business case for the development and positive steps already taken by the applicants to reduce noise and dust emission, remove cars from this area to the yard area adjacent unit 34 and to reduce the visual impact by lowering the pipework of the compactor unit on unit 25.
3.3 A similar application for retention of a waste recycle and compactor unit on the front elevation of Unit 25 has also been submitted – application reference 05/0037/FP/M.
3.4 The applicant was advised by the Local Planning Authority that retrospective planning permission was required for the compactors as they represented development that materially alters the appearance of the building. They were also advised that the Council’s concerns were the visual impact of the development; the noise it generates and the loss of parking/manoeuvring space as a consequence of the development.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Adopted UDP: E4 – Defined Employment Area. E8 – Industry and Environmental Nuisance. E15 – Planning Standards. ENV2 – Design Standards.
4.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance No.1 – Business, Industrial & Warehousing Development is also relevant.
4.3 Emerging Revised UDP: D1 – Design Quality. D9 – Appearance. EP5 – Noise Pollution. B1 – Economic Prosperity. B5 – Design Standards for Employment Sites. B9 – Defined Business Areas. AM12 – Parking & Servicing Provision.
5. Publicity
5.1 A press notice was published on 22nd January 2005 and site notices displayed on 31st January 2005. The consultation period expired on 21st February 2005. No objections were received.
Page 110 6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Transportation –express concerns regarding the loss of parking and servicing to the forecourt of the unit and possible precedent this may set for other companies to do the same. Larger scale plans indicating the location of parking bays, pedestrian routes and circulation areas for service vehicles are requested as provision of staff parking in the service area is not to be encouraged. However, on balance, the Transportation officer considers these reasons are not sufficient to warrant refusal of planning permission on highway or transportation grounds.
6.2 Environmental Services – The bag filter on the larger of the two compactors (Unit 25) was found to be faulty, and as a result the escaping compressed air gave rise to increased noise, particularly at night time. The company were advised of the problem and acted promptly to arrange for the bag unit to be serviced in order to remedy the matter. In addition a silencer was fitted to the outlet exhaust. Measurement of the bag pulse cycle before and after completion of the servicing and remedial works showed that the noise from the loudest of the pulse jets had decreased by as much as 15 dB (A) – a significant reduction. No formal action was required under the relevant noise nuisance provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Noise levels have been measured since the lodging of this application, and do not so far show any deterioration of individual pulse levels.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The key issues are the visual impact of the development; the noise it generates and the loss of parking/manoeuvring space as a consequence of the development and employment/other matters. These issues are considered in turn below:
7.2 Visual Impact The industrial units along the Planetary Road frontage have a uniform character. The structure appears less dominant than the similar proposal at Unit 25 since the structure is smaller and the industrial unit is not in as prominent a location within the streetscene. In this case it is not proposed to adjust the height of the pipework as it is already at a similar height as the industrial unit.
7.3 Noise Generation Policy E8 advises that “minor extensions or alterations which require planning permission will be considered on their merits where these do not add to existing problems of nuisance or pollution”. The compactor unit did initially cause concern regarding noise pollution, particularly at night time. However, this was found to be a fault which has since been remedied. The proposal to retain the machinery does not therefore create additional noise or pollution subject to maintenance of the equipment and is compliant with Policy E15 in terms of controlling pollution and noise control.
Page 111 7.4 Loss of Parking/Manoeuvring Space The position of the machinery occupies space at the front of the units which could provide crucial car parking and loading/unloading space for the operation of the premises. At the time of the case officer’s site visit the estate roads were heavily congested, although not impassable, even though the applicants have provided car parking adjacent unit 34. Policy E15 requires industrial development to be the highest possible standard in terms of access to and within the site, car parking and loading/unloading. Although the transportation officer considers the loss of this space at the front of the unit is not sufficient grounds to warrant refusal of the application it undoubtedly sets an unwanted precedent on this industrial estate.
7.5 Employment and other matters The applicants have been advised to reconsider the design of the proposal in order to reduce the visual impact upon the surrounding area. However, it is considered that given the scale of the machinery any form of building or cladding to enclose or mask the compactor unit would need to be of significant size and height. In addition this may create problems of possible overheating of equipment, venting of exhaust fumes, number of required extraction outlets, access to the machinery for breakdowns etc.
The business employs 200 people and the waste recycle and compactor units are an important part of operation. Whilst there were initially some noise concerns with the installation, these have now been corrected and your environmental health officers are satisfied in respect of noise emissions.
Waste compaction and recycling is encouraged as making a positive contribution to sustainability. Businesses are required to respond to the need for recycling of waste products. UDP policies support recycling and waste reduction. Para 4.76 of the UDP states …’In addition, the Council considers the most effective way of reducing the problems of waste is for producers to examine the potential for recycling and minimising their own waste.’ Para 5.10.1 of the emerging Revised UDP states…’ It is important to handle waste as close as possible to where it arises (the proximity principle).
8. Conclusion
8.1 Significant investment has been made to acquire the equipment and William Gibbons & Sons are a major employer in this area. Waste compaction and recycling is encouraged in the interests of sustainability. Whilst it is recognised that the structure is visually prominent the applicant has offered to reduce the height of the pipework so that it does not exceed the height of the building. Whilst the development will result in the loss of some parking and manoeuvring space on the forecourt, the applicant has provided additional parking adjacent to unit 34. It is considered that the circumstances of this case are such that a grant of planning permission would not act as a precedent for other development on the forecourt areas of industrial premises.
Page 112 9. Recommendation
9.1 Approve.
Case Officer : Andy Johnson Telephone No : 555610 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 113