Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
19/00818/FUL Mr And Mrs W Hollinshead PERTON NON MAJOR Councillor Philip Davis
Longville Pattingham Road Perton WOLVERHAMPTON WV6 7HD
Replacement dwelling, associated site works and landscaping
1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY
1.1 Site Description
1.1.1 The application site relates to a substantial two-storey detached property set back along the main Pattingham Road amongst a historic ribbon development constructed during the 1930s. The application site is set within extensive grounds and is situated on the northern side of Pattingham Road, in the rural area between the main service village of Perton and the local service village of Pattingham.
1.1.2 The topography of the site to the south declines steeply and is characterised with a number of trees. A hedgerow characterises the front of the site. The site is located within West Midlands Green Belt.
1.2 Relevant Planning History
80/00385 – Garage Approved subject to conditions 16.04.1980.
19/00836/LUP - Erection of detached garage block, detached swimming pool/amenity block issued 10.12.2019.
A Lawful Development Certificate has recently been issued under planning reference 19/00836/LUP which confirms the following proposed developments:
Outbuilding (Swimming Pool) - The proposed single storey outbuilding to house the swimming pool will measure 8 metres by 18 metres with a floor area of approximately 144 square metres. The outbuilding will have a pitched roof with an eaves height of 2.5 metres and a maximum height of 3.982 metres. The outbuilding will be located to the western side of the property, approximately 1.8 metres from the side wall of the dwelling, 10 metres from the western side boundary.
Garage Outbuilding - The proposed single storey garage outbuilding will measure 7.2 metres by 12.975 metres with a floor area of approximately 93.42 square metres. The outbuilding will have a pitched roof with an eaves height of 2.5 metres and a maximum height of 3.99 metres. The outbuilding will be located to the east of the property, approximately 1.7 metres from the eastern side elevation, 8 metres from the eastern side boundary.
Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
2. APPLICATION DETAILS
2.1 The Proposal
2.1.1 Planning permission is sought for a replacement dwelling, associated site works and landscaping. The proposal seeks the demolition and replacement of an existing two-storey dwelling with a two-storey 6-bedroom dwelling and detached garage.The existing access and hardstanding to the front of the site will remain in situ.
2.2 Agent’s Submission
2.2.1 The Agent has provided an additional document in the form of a covering letter in support of the application presenting Very Special Circumstances. This is to justify that the floorspace of the replacement dwelling exceeds 20% over the existing dwelling. The document is summarised with the following key points:
Notes the principal of concern with the proposal is that of Green Belt Policy compliancy. The proposals utilise the existing access track, gates and turning areas which have two main benefits relating to minimising cumulative visual change at the site and retaining highway safety features. No major increase in vehicle movement is likely due to the similar level of occupancy between the existing and proposed dwelling. The replacement dwelling attempts to minimize the visual change perceived, by using a similar architectural style as the existing dwelling, albeit in a more pronounced and articulated style – more traditional features such as stone sills, header details, eaves/cornice details etc. The scheme proposes no notable removal of trees, no removal of boundary treatments. The existing dwelling, split over two storeys, has a total floor area measured externally of 457m2. The LUP application submitted alongside the application provides two outbuildings measuring 92m2 and 138m2 respectively. The replacement dwelling, split over three floors measures approximately 620m2. The garage block/annexe building measures a further 113m2.The proposals are therefore contrary to policy GB1 as they exceed a 20% increase over the existing dwelling. The significant PD works for which a certificate of lawful development has been submitted provide expansive leisure facilities, occupying more land and impacting the openness of the green belt more than the proposed scheme, further supported by the ability of the authority to remove Permitted Development rights and effectively control any further development of the site.
2.2.2 In addition, given the number of trees across the site a Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan has been submitted as requested.
Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
2.3 Amendments
2.3.1 There have been a number of amendments to the detached garage which originally was proposed as triple bay with living accommodation above at first floor. Given the concern regarding the prominence and scale of the original detached garage, the agent has decreased the scale of the proposal and has re-sited it to a more sensitive location. A two-bay garage is now proposed and has been reduced in height. Subsequently, an amendment was made to the Tree Survey and Tree Protection Plan for consistency.
3. POLICY CONTEXT
3.1 The site lies within the West Midlands Green Belt.
3.2 South Staffordshire Core Strategy, adopted 2012
NP1: The Presumption in favour of sustainable development
Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire
Policy GB1: Development within the Green Belt
Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment
Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets
Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape
Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change
Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity
Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design
Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations
Policy EQ12: Landscaping
Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport
Policy EV12: Parking Provision
Appendix 5: Car Parking Standards
Appendix 6: Space About Dwellings Standards
3.3 Adopted local guidance
Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD (2014) Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
South Staffordshire Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document (2018)
Sustainable Development Supplementary Planning Document (2018)
3.4 National Planning Policy Framework 2019 (the - ‘NPPF’).
Section 12 – Achieving well-designed places Section 13 – Protecting Green Belt land
National Planning Policy Guidance, updated 2019 (the - ‘NPPG’).
4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES
Consultations Received:
Ward Councillors (expired 28.11.2019): No comments received.
Perton Parish Council: No objections 4.12.219
County Highways: No objections subject to conditions, received 22.11.2019
Tree Officer: Re-consultations following amendments: No Objection subject to appropriate conditions received 7.02.2020.
Environmental Health No comments, received 11.11.2019
No Neighbour comments (Expired 29.11.2019).
Site Notice (Expired 2.12.2019).
No third-party representations received.
5. APPRAISAL
5.1 The application is to be heard at Planning Committee as the proposal is inappropriate development in the Green Belt, contrary to GB1 of the Core Strategy.
5.2 Key Issues
5.2.1 The key issues in the determination of this proposal would be:
Principle and Green Belt; Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt; Very Special Circumstances; Impact on Neighbouring Amenity; Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area; Space about Dwellings Standard; Impact on Trees; and Highways and Parking Implications. Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
5.3 Principle and Green Belt
5.3.1 The site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition, harmful to the Green Belt and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. However, there are exceptions to this position as set out within Paragraphs 145 & 146 of the NPPF. Point d) of Paragraph 145 states that the replacement of a building, provided the new building is in the same use and not materially larger than the one it replaces is an exception to inappropriate development.
5.3.2 This is re-iterated in point d) within policy GB1 of the Core Strategy, 2012 which states where the replacement of an existing building is not materially larger than the building it replaces and in the same use, is considered acceptable development within the Green Belt.
5.3.3 Therefore, the key issue in ascertaining the principle of the proposal, is whether the replacement dwelling is ‘materially larger’ than the existing dwelling.
5.3.4 The gross floor area of the existing dwelling measures approx. 424.0m2 and an existing volume measuring approx. 1511.2m3. The existing dwelling is split over two floors.
5.3.5 The floor area of the proposed new dwelling measures approx. 679.0m2 and the proposed volume would measure approx. 1611.0m3. The proposed dwelling would be split over three storeys.
5.3.6 In addition, a detached garage with living accommodation to first floor was also originally proposed which would have measured a further 139.0m2, with a total volume of 271.25m3. The design and location of the detached garage have now been amended and it would be sited to the front of the dwelling on the western extent. The revised detached garage measures 48.8m2, with a total volume of 150.9m3 , in addition to the replacement dwelling.
5.3.7 Section 3 ‘Replacement of existing buildings’ within the Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, 2014 uses 10-20% increase in floor area as guidance as to what constitutes ‘materially larger’.
5.3.8 The proposal constitutes approximately a 60.0% increase in floorspace of the original dwelling. This does not include the detached garage as proposed, which equates to another 11% increase in floorspace than the existing dwelling.
5.3.9 The SPD is specific with the parameters for the increase in floor area and what constitutes materially larger and thus inappropriate development. If using this guidance, the proposal of the replacement dwelling would be deemed inappropriate development and as such there is a presumption of refusal. Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
5.3.10 Furthermore, with regards to the detached garage, outbuildings do not fall into any defined exception within the Policy.
5.3.11 As such it is considered that the proposal for the replacement dwelling together with the detached garage are deemed inappropriate development within the Green Belt and is contrary to Policy GB1 and the guidance set out within the Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, 2014. In order for inappropriate development to be acceptable, material considerations amounting to very special circumstances must be advanced to justify a grant of planning permission.
5.4 Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt
5.4.1 It is pertinent to establish the ‘actual’ harm to the Green Belt caused by the proposed replacement including the proposed detached garage.
5.4.2 There has been much dispute in recent years in case law in defining openness. A defining case in R (Timmins & Anr) v Gedling BC & Anr helps to define whether the visual impact of a development could be taken into account in considering ‘openness’. It was held that ‘openness’ is characterised by the lack of buildings but not by buildings that are un-obtrusive or screened in some way. It was also held that ‘openness’ and ‘visual impact are different concepts’, although they could ‘relate to each other’.
5.4.3 It is noted that the National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG) has updated guidance on factors taken into account when considering the potential impact of development on the openness of the Green Belt. One factor states that:
openness is capable of having both spatial and visual aspects – in other words, the visual impact of the proposal may be relevant, as could its volume;
5.4.4 In assessing the proposal on whether the proposal has an impact on the openness of the Green Belt, the overall width and heights of the existing dwelling and resulting dwelling are taken into consideration. The accommodation within the existing property is split over two floors and measures approx. 9.0m to maximum roof ridge height and a maximum width of 23.1m. The depth of the overall existing property is 13.8m. The width of the property is all at two-storey.
5.4.5 In comparison, the proposed dwelling would be split over three floors with the main bulk of the proposed dwelling set to a maximum roof height of 9.4m, depth of approx. 12.6m and overall width of the main two-storey element would be approximately 16.5m. The dwelling is designed to have two adjoining single-storey wing elements that measure no more than 5.9m to maximum roof height. The overall width of the built form would be 32.1m in length for both front and rear elevations. Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
5.4.6 The site is located along a ridge that runs along Pattingham Road, with wider views obtained from the south, which is much lower in topography. The dwelling is set back from the main road.
5.4.7 Whilst it is noted that the replacement dwelling would be only marginally taller (0.4m) than the existing dwelling, the overall width of built form would be increased. However, it is also noted that the proposed replacement dwelling would have a more compact design with two clear single-storey wings, set back from the front building line of the main dwelling that reduce the bulk of the dwelling.
5.4.8 There is also the matter of the detached garage to the front of the replacement dwelling which would further present a built form in the area. The detached garage would be sited discreetly behind a hedgerow and would measure approx. 4.2m to maximum roof height. The detached garage features a hipped gable roof with eaves set at 2.2m in height again to lessen the bulk and appearance of the garage. Given the sensitive siting it is not considered that the garage would be visually intrusive or alien within the landscape.
5.4.9 Overall in assessing the harm to the Green Belt, clearly the replacement dwelling together with the proposed detached dwelling would be materially larger than the existing dwelling. By reason of the inappropriateness of the proposal, the proposal carries default harm to the Green Belt. In assessing both the visual and spatial aspects of the proposal within the landscape, it can be seen that the proposal would be wider than the existing dwelling and would be marginally taller by 0.4m. Whilst the two-storey width of the replacement dwelling is reduced, the single- storey wings, albeit set back, increase the overall mass of the dwelling. This design reduces the impact of the replacement dwelling. Given the character of the immediate area and situation along a plateaued ridge, with the land steeply declining to the rear, the replacement dwelling would continue to be screened from wider views and would have not result in any visual intrusion.
5.4.10 Whilst there would be a degree of reduction to the openness of the Green Belt from the additional detached garage, overall it is considered that there would be a limited harm to the openness of the Green Belt.
5.5 Very Special Circumstances
5.5.1 The NPPF states that inappropriate development should not be approved except in very special circumstances. These will not exist unless the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness together with any other identified harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.
5.5.2 There are three elements to this proposal:
1. Volume increase Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
2. Permitted development fall-back position
3. Matter of the detached garage
1. Volume Increase
5.5.3 Whilst it is calculated that the replacement dwelling constitutes a 60.0% increase in floorspace of the existing dwelling, it is pertinent to highlight that the result in the unacceptable increase in floor area from the existing dwelling is due to the incorporation of the loft space. The existing dwelling is split over two floors and the replacement dwelling is split over three floors.
5.5.4 Within paragraph 3.2 of the Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, 2014 it states that each application would also include the calculation of overall volumes. It is therefore considered that the figure for the floorspace area does not give the whole picture and that it would be more appropriate in this case to consider the existing volumes of the built form and the proposed replacement volumes. Returning to the NPPF, the purpose of the policy is to protect harm on to the openness of the Green Belt.
5.5.5 In this case, the volume of the replacement dwelling would equate to a 6.4% increase in volume of the existing dwelling, without the detached garage as proposed. It is considered that the main replacement of the dwelling would be only marginally larger in volume than existing. This is because as previously stated the accommodation for the replacement dwelling would be split over three floors as opposed to the two-floor configuration the existing dwelling possesses.
5.5.6 When considering the actual harm on the openness of the Green Belt, it is not considered that the 6.4% increase in volume is significant to represent materially larger when considered in volumetric terms.
2. PD Fall-back position and approved extensions
5.5.7 Should it be unsuitable to take into consideration the increase in the volume of the existing dwelling rather than the floor area, the proposed detached garage is not accounted for. The defining case law within Mansell v Tonbridge And Malling Borough Council [2017] EWCA Civ 1314 – Judge Lindblom LJ sets out that PD-fallback is an established material planning consideration proving there is a ‘real prospect’ of the works being undertaken.
5.5.8 The Agent contests that a Lawful Development Certificate has been issued for two outbuildings that meet the criterion under Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E of the General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended). The two outbuildings would comprise of a swimming pool, sauna and steam room to the western side of the dwelling and garaging for 4no. vehicles to the eastern side. Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
5.5.9 These outbuildings would equate to 144.0m2 and 93.4m2 of additional floorspace into the inclusion of the replacement dwelling. (A total of 237.4m2). When combined with the floorspace of the existing dwelling (424.0m2), it represents a combined total of 661.0m2. Whilst the footprint and siting of the proposed outbuildings are similar to those single-storey side wing proposed with the replacement dwelling, they could not be implemented in addition to the replacement dwelling.
5.5.10 However, in line with the guidance set out within the SPD, generally off setting ancillary buildings is not an acceptable approach to adding bulk, massing, floor area or volume to a new building. On this basis the floor area attributed to the detached garage is excluded from the calculations. As such the off-setting of these outbuildings cannot be used to demonstrate a ‘PD-fallback’ in this case.
3. The Matter of the Detached Garage
5.5.11 It was considered above that the detached garage would have a limited impact on the openness of the Green Belt, because of its discreet siting, together with the amendments to the siting and design. As such it is considered that the detached garage would be acceptable.
5.6 Impact on Neighbouring Properties
5.6.1 Policy EQ9 of the Core Strategy requires that new development should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents. There are adequate separation distances between the proposal and the nearby dwellings and as such there is no prospect of this proposal reducing the daylight or privacy, so there is no conflict with Policy EQ9.
5.7 Impact on the Character and Appearance of the Area
5.7.1 Policy EQ4 seeks for development to respect the intrinsic rural character and local distinctiveness of the South Staffordshire landscape should be maintained and where possible enhanced.
5.7.2 Core Strategy policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations states that development proposals must seek to achieve creative and sustainable designs that take into account local character and distinctiveness, and reflect the principles around use, movement, form and space.
5.7.3 The proposed replacement dwelling would be sited on the same footprint as the existing dwelling. For the reasons discussed above, the proposal is not considered to result in a significant impact on the rural character and open landscape that is characterised by the wider area. Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
5.7.4 With regards to the impact on the trees and hedgerows that characterise the site, a Tree Protection plan is submitted with the proposal. A number of trees are proposed for removal. However, within the Tree Survey, these trees are identified as having limited amenity value. The Tree Officer therefore has no objection to the proposed removal of trees where indicated.
5.7.5 Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy requires that development proposals must take into account local character and distinctiveness. It is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would be commensurate in scale to the plot available. The replacement dwelling would not result in a cramped form of development. There is a mix of designs of properties along the northern side of Pattingham Road, all of which are substantial scale. With regards to Point c) (f) in terms of scale, volume, massing and materials, the proposal is considered to respect the character of the street scene and not result in an incongruous or overbearing form of development. Furthermore, Section D within the South Staffordshire Design Guide SPD states that new development should be harmonious with in their surrounding environment.
5.7.8 Overall it is considered that the proposed replacement dwelling would accord with Policies EQ4 and EQ11 of the Core Strategy, 2012 and the provisions set out within the South Staffordshire Design Guide 2018.
5.8 Impact on Trees
5.8.1 Policy EQ12 seeks to protect and enhance key landscape features. The site is characterised by a number of mature trees and a hedgerow to the front of the site between the main road. A Tree Survey was undertaken across the site, outlining the method statements for the protection of identified trees that make a positive contribution to the site. In addition, a Tree Protection plan was developed. The Tree Officer was consulted on the proposal and has no objection subject to a number of conditions. It is therefore considered that the proposal would accord with Policy EQ12 and retain the important landscape features across the site.
5.9 Space about Dwellings Standards
5.9.1 Policy EQ11 sets out the Council's Space about Dwellings (SAD) Standards in Appendix 6. For a 4-bedroom dwelling or above, the standards set out that a minimum garden area of 100m2, with a minimum length of 10.5m would need to be required. The dwelling would benefit from a large plot with a long sloping garden and ample amenity standards to the sides of the new dwelling. As such it is considered that the proposed dwelling would accord with Policy EQ11 together with the standards set out within Appendix 6.
Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
5.10 Highways and Parking Implications
5.10.1 Core Strategy policy EV12, parking provision, requires that adequate parking be included with schemes for new housing. Appendix 5 Parking Standards provides guidance on the recommended number of vehicle parking spaces to be provided. The proposal seeks for a 6- bedroom property as such two-off street parking spaces would be required to accord with the Parking Standards. A detached two-bay garage is proposed and there is ample space for additional parking to the front of the property. The proposal would therefore accord with Policy EV12 of the Core Strategy.
6. CONCLUSIONS
6.1 It is concluded that the proposed replacement dwelling is materially larger than the existing dwelling, as defined by the Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD, which defines materially larger as between 10-20% larger than the existing building. Policy advises that replacement buildings that are materially larger are inappropriate development and carry the presumption of refusal. There has been assessment of the actual harm on the openness of the Green Belt of the replacement dwelling and proposed detached garage. It was summarised that there was limited harm to the green belt.
6.2 The SPD advises that in some cases the figure for the floorspace area does not give the whole picture. As it would be more appropriate in this case to consider the existing volumes of the built form and the proposed replacement volumes to assess the actual harm to the openness of the green belt. It was identified that there was only a 6.4% increase in the volume of the existing dwelling. Although the detached garage is considered to be inappropriate development, its amended design and location are sufficient reason to clearly outweigh the default harm caused by inappropriateness.
6.3 The proposal would comply with other relevant development management policies and is therefore recommended for approval subject to appropriate conditions.
7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions
Subject to the following condition(s):
1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.
Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
2. The development hereby approved shall be carried out in accordance with the amended plan reference 19-121-08 entitled 'Existing Survey', 19-121-09 entitled 'Block Location', 19-121-05 entitled 'Proposed Floor Plans' all received by the Local Planning Authority dated 24th October 2019 together with revised plans references 19-121-11 Rev B entitled 'Proposed Site Plan' and 19-121-04 Rev B entitled 'Proposed Garage' both received by the Local Planning Authority dated 3rd February 2020 and the revised Tree Protection Plan referenced 19-121-00 together with the measures contained in the method statement received by the Local Planning Authority 6th February 2020.
3. Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, before development commences, details of the facing materials to be used on the wall and roof of the development shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out in the approved materials.
4. Before development commences details of finished floor levels of the dwelling hereby approved, shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval. The development shall be carried out to the approved levels.
5. Where the approved plans and particulars indicated that specialized construction work is to take place within the Root Protected Area (RPA) of any retained trees, hedgerows or shrubs, prior to the commencement of any development works, an Arboricultural Method Statement (AMS) detailing how any approved construction works will be carried out shall be submitted and agreed in writing by the local planning authority. The AMS shall include details on when and how the works will be take place and be managed and how the trees etc. will be adequately protected during such a process. The approved scheme shall be implemented.
6. In this condition retained tree means an existing tree, which is to be retained in accordance with the approved plans and particulars; and paragraphs (a) and (b) below shall have effect until the expiration of 5 years from the date of the occupation of the building for its permitted use.
(a) No retained tree shall be cut down, uprooted or destroyed, nor shall any retained tree be topped or lopped other than in accordance with the approved plans and particulars, without the written approval of the local planning authority. Any topping or lopping approved shall be carried out in accordance with British Standard BS 3998:2010 Tree Work.
(b) If any retained tree is removed, uprooted or destroyed or dies, another tree shall be planted at the same place and that tree shall be of such size and species, and shall be planted at such time, as may be specified in writing by the local planning authority.
(c) The erection of fencing for the protection of any retained tree shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans and particulars before any Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
equipment, machinery or materials are brought on to the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be maintained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed in any area fenced in accordance with this condition and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered, nor shall any excavation be made, without the written consent of the local planning authority.
7. Prior to occupation of the dwelling hereby approved, a plan indicating the positions, design, materials and type of boundary treatment to be erected shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The boundary treatment shall be completed in accordance with the approved details.
8. No dwelling shall be occupied until the access, car parking, manoeuvring and service areas have been laid out in accordance with the approved details. Such areas shall be permanently retained for the purpose of parking and manoeuvring of vehicles, as the case may be.
9. Any gates shall be located a minimum of 6.0metres from the highway boundary and shall open inwards.
10. The detached garage hereby approved shall be retained for use as such and shall not be adapted or converted for any other purposes whatsoever.
11. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015 (as amended), or any other subsequent equivalent order, no development within the following classes of development shall be carried out to the dwelling, the subject of this approval, without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority:
a. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class A - enlargement, improvement or other alteration
b. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class B - addition or alteration to the roof
c. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class C - any other alteration to the roof
d. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class D - porches
e. Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E - garden buildings, enclosures, pool, oil or gas storage container i. Schedule 2, Part 2, Class A - gate, wall, fence or other means of enclosure
Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
Reasons
1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.
3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.
4. To safeguard the visual amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy and for the avoidance of doubt of what is permitted.
5. To safeguard and protect the retained natural features that contribute to the amenity of the local area and that are important to the appearance of the development.
6. To safeguard the amenities of the local area and to protect the natural features that contribute towards this and that are important in the appearance of the development.
7. To ensure the openness and rural character within this part of the Green Belt is retained in accordance with EQ4 and EQ11 of the Core Strategy, 2012.
8. In the interests of highway safety
9. In the interests of highways safety.
10. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to ensure that adequate parking facilities are available to serve the development and to conform to the requirements of policy EV12 of the Core Strategy, 2012.
11. The site is within Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies within the National Planning Policy Framework and Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy, 2012, there is a presumption against inappropriate development.
Informatives
1. The developer is reminded that the Control of Pollution Act 1974 restricts the carrying out of construction activities that are likely to cause nuisance or disturbance to others to be limited to the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday and 08:00 to 13:00 on Saturdays, with no working of this type permitted on Sundays or Bank Holidays. The Control of Pollution Act 1974 is enforced by Environmental Health.
Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
2. Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - Birds. Please note that works to trees must be undertaken outside of the nesting season as required by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is thus an offence, with certain exceptions. It is an offence to intentionally take, damage or destroy the nest listed on Schedule 1 while it is nest building, or at a nest containing eggs or young, or disturb the dependent young of such a bird. The maximum penalty that can be imposed for an offence under the Wildlife and Countryside Act - in respect of a single bird, nest or egg - is a fine of up to £5,000, and/or six months' imprisonment. You are advised that the official UK nesting season is February until August.
3. In dealing with this application, the Local Planning Authority has worked with the applicant in a positive and proactive manner through suggesting amendments to overcome planning issues. As such it is considered that the Council has implemented the requirement set out in paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2019.
Gemma Smith – Planning Officer: Planning Committee 17/03/2020
Longville, Pattingham Road, Perton, WOLVERHAMPTON WV6 7HD