Agenda Item No: 6 Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM
Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date 14-FEB-2006
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 (14-FEB-2006) INDEX
REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO
Bilston East 06/0061/DW/R Land at 131 - 133 Ashley Street, 4
Bilston North 05/1917/FP/M Former Bilston Girls High School, 8 & Windsor Street, 05/1918/LB/M
Bushbury North 05/1989/OP/M Goodyear Dunlop Tyres Site, Stafford 13 Road,
Bushbury Sth/LowHill 05/2068/DW/M Wolverhampton Council Depot Fifth 30 Avenue,
East Park 05/1862/FP/C 1 Willenhall Road, 36
05/2028/DW/C Land off Stowheath Lane/Bursledon 40 Walk,
Ettingshall 05/1959/FP/M Land at Spring Road (Baylis Distribution) 44
Heath Town 05/1999/RM/M Part of former Chubb Safes Ltd, 48 Wednesfield Road/Woden Road,
05/2013/OP/M Site of former Edward Vaughan Stamping 55 Works Horseley Fields,
Merry Hill 06/0010/FP/R 83 Castlecroft Road, 68
Oxley 05/1877/DW/M Land at Rakegate Infant School, Renton 73 Road,
06/0076/FP/R 24 Lodge Road, 81
Park 05/1930/FP/M Land at Gibbs St & Coleman St, 85
2
Tettenhall Regis 05/2016/FP/R Verge outside 5 Malthouse Lane, 91
Tettenhall Wightwick 05/1962/FP/R 48 Denham Gardens 96
05/1986/FP/R 17 Torvale Road, 100
05/2031/FP/R 6 Tinacre Hill, 105
Wednesfield South 05/2062/FP/C Starchem Ltd Strawberry Lane 109
3
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 06/0061/DW/R WARD: Bilston East; DATE 13-JAN-2006 TARGET DATE: 10-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Land at 131 - 133 Ashley Street, Bilston PROPOSAL: Residential development (OUTLINE APPLICATION)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Regeneration and Environment Property Services Resources Panel Resources and Support (Housing Portfolio)
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of a vacant plot of land that was formerly 131 – 133 Ashley Street. A small part of the site is within the fifty metre consultation zone around the Bilston Conservation Area. The street scene is characterised by two storey terraced houses and maisonettes within Ashley Street and Mount Pleasant. The houses are set close to the street and there is no off-street car parking. To the rear of the application site in Newbolt Road, the predominant residential character is that of two storey terraced and semi-detached houses.
2. Planning History
2.1 The site was formerly used as two terraced houses and that use ceased in 2002. The site is presently vacant.
3. Application Details
3.1 The application is for outline permission only with all details for subsequent approval reserved.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Within the adopted Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan, the application site is not allocated for any particular use or purpose.
4 4.2 The relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies for this proposal include ENV 2 – Design Standards. SPG No.3 – Residential Development.
4.3 Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing
5. Publicity
5.1 The application has been publicised by letters to adjoining occupiers and site notice.
5.2 Neighbour letter expiry date – 08.02.2006.
5.3 Site notice expiry date – 14.02.2006.
5.4 No reply or response received at the time that this report was written. Oral update at Committee.
6. External Consultees
6.1 None.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Transportation – to be reported.
7.2 Conservation – a small part of the site is within the 50 metre consultation Zone around the Bilston Conservation Area. However it is considered that the proposal will not have any material, adverse impact on the character, appearance or setting of the Conservation Area.
7.3 Archaeology – No archaeological implications.
8. Appraisal
Impact on Character of Area
8.1 The properties in the street are predominately two storey terraced houses. The site was previously used as two houses at the end of a terrace row. These have been demolished. Policy ENV 2 states that new development should respect the established scale and pattern of the group of buildings / street scene of which it forms a part. The policy also states that development should not result in cramped layouts and / or obtrusiveness in relation to adjoining properties. In view of this guidance it is considered that appropriate development for this site would be two terraced houses as this would be comparable to the existing pattern of
5 development.
Car Parking
8.2 Car parking provision in the immediate locality is on-street and it is considered that there is a sufficient level of provision on-street to satisfy the demands for a proposal of the scale of two terraced houses.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Delegated authority to grant planning permission subject to receipt of no additional comments raising any issues of significance in relation to this proposal, subject to conditions to restrict development to two terraced houses, which should follow the front and rear building lines. Materials and drainage should be reserved.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
6 Planning Application No: DCSW/06/0061/DW/R Location Land at 131 - 133 Ashley Street, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 395351 296768 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 214.795
7 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1917/FP/M & WARD: Bilston North; 05/1918/LB/M DATE 12-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 13-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission and Listed Building consent
SITE: Former Bilston Girls High School, Windsor Street, Bilston PROPOSAL: Amendment to Planning Permission Ref 04/0655/FP/M and Listed Building Consent reference 04/0656/LB/R to convert existing school into 25 No. two bed apartments and 12 No. one bed apartments
APPLICANT: AGENT: Morris Homes Nicol Thomas Ltd Delta House Gateway House Pendeford Business Park 53 High Street Wolverhampton Birmingham WV9 5HA B4 7SY
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is situated approximately 4km to the south-east of Wolverhampton City Centre and covers an area of approximately 2.6 hectares.
1.2 The site located in a predominantly residential area and is bounded by Wellington Road, Cemetery Street, Windsor Street, Green Lanes and Claremont Street.
1.3 The site is generally level but falls gradually from Claremont Street to Windsor Street. The former Girls’ High School building is a Grade II Listed building.
2. Planning History
2.1 Two applications (planning reference 04/0655/FP/M and Listed Building consent reference 04/0656/LB/R) were submitted on 3 August 2004 for the redevelopment of the building and site to provide 17 town houses, 58 two bedroom apartments and refurbishment of exterior of Grade II Listed building, demolition of temporary classroom at rear, removal of doors and windows to balcony walkways in courtyards and conversion of former school building to provide 9 one bedroom apartments, 22 two bedroom apartments with associated car parking, garages and landscaping. The applications were reported to your Committee on 2 November 2004 where it was resolved to grant planning permission and Listed building consent subject to conditions and an appropriate Section 106 Agreement. The applications were approved on 8 July 2005.
8
3. Application Details
3.1 The current applications for your consideration are for an amendment to the Listed building element of the previously approved applications, to provide 6 additional apartments (3 one bedroom apartments and 3 two bedroom apartments). There are no other proposals to modify the remainder of the overall development scheme.
4. Constraints
4.1 The only constraint to the proposal is that the former Bilston Girls’ High School is a Grade II Listed building.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 Within the adopted Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan, the site is not allocated for any particular use or purpose.
5.2 The relevant UDP Policies for this specific proposal are:
• ENV2 – Design Standards • ENV15 – Safeguarding Historic Buildings • ENV16 – Alterations and Extensions to Listed Buildings • H10 – Housing Suitable for Occupation by People with Disabilities • H18 – Planning Considerations • TP13 – Provision for Pedestrians and Cyclists • TP14 – Planning Standards – Car Parking.
6. Publicity
6.1 The applications were publicised by means of neighbour letters, a site notice and a notice in the Express and Star with time for comment expiring on 29 December 2006.
6.2 In response to the above publicity, there has been one letter of objection from neighbouring residents at 50 Green Lanes. The issues of concern include possible overlooking of the rear of the property, and possible noise from vehicles and residents. The residents of this dwelling objected to the previous applications.
7. External Consultees
7.1 English Heritage confirm that they do not have any comments to make on the applications.
9 8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transportation remain concerned about the provision of one parking space per unit as approved under the previous application.
8.2 Conservation/Urban Design Team confirm no objections to the revised scheme.
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Environmental Impact Assessment not required.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The key issues to be considered are the acceptability of providing 6 additional apartments within the Listed building and the impact on the Listed building itself.
10.2 The proposed additional apartments would be contained within the existing Listed building, and would be provided by the additional subdivision of space within the structure. The proposed subdivision has been reassessed in detail and would not cause any detriment to the internal fabric of the Listed building. In addition, by the careful subdivision of space, the additional apartments can be achieved without the need to create any further additional openings in the external fenestration.
10.3 The proposed revised layout would provide acceptable aspect and orientation, as the apartments benefit from being dual aspect.
10.4 To support the additional units of accommodation, six extra parking spaces have been provided within the car park located to the rear of the Listed building and accessed off Windsor Street.
11. Conclusion
11.1 The application proposals are relatively minor considering the proposed major investment and regeneration of this derelict site. The overall scheme is to be welcomed and will provide a good range of mixed tenure and new living accommodation in this part of Bilston. The additional units can be accommodated without providing any detriment to the Listed building, and appropriate additional parking arrangements are to be provided.
10 12. Recommendation
12.1 Grant planning permission and Listed building consent subject to modifications to the title of the Section 106 legal agreement with the Council for the provision of (a) public art at the site, (b) establishment of public rights of way through the site along both a north to south and east – west axis, (c) management arrangements for all the communal open space and elements, including parking courts and accessways. Subject to all the conditions in the previous applications in respect of the following:
• Submission of samples of materials • Sample panel of materials to be erected on site • The submission of large scale drawings • Provision of landscaping and boundary treatment as proposed • Suitable access to dwellings for people with disabilities • Removal of permitted development rights • The provision of acoustic double glazing and mechanical ventilation • Compliance with the ground conditions’ report and recommendations • An appropriate drainage condition.
Case Officer : Martyn Gregory Telephone No : 551125 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
11 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/1917/FP/M & DCSW/05/1918/LB/M Location Former Bilston Girls High School, Windsor Street, Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference so 394398 296902 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 27161.641
12 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1989/OP/M WARD: Bushbury North;Bushbu ry Sth/LowHill DATE 06-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 07-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
SITE: Goodyear Dunlop Tyres Site, Stafford Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Mixed use development comprising residential, local retail, community and ancillary uses
APPLICANT: AGENT: Goodyear Dunlop Tyres (UK) Ltd CB Richard Ellis & St.Modwen Developments 4th Floor Cornwall Court 19 Cornwall Street Birmingham B3 2DT
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The Goodyear site is located approximately 1.75 miles north of the city centre to the east of the Stafford Road. Goodyear (GB) occupies the whole site (approximately 35.6ha) although a number of buildings are vacant. This application relates to the majority of the site as shown by the attached plan.
1.2 The site is mostly covered in large scale industrial buildings and plant (to be demolished) including the former passenger tyre facility, the existing re-tread operation and the farm tyre buildings.
1.3 The Sports and Social Club is located at the northern end of the site and comprises tennis courts, football pitch, cricket pitch, bowling green and clubhouse. This facility is serviced by a dedicated access road off Stafford Road and has its own areas for parking. There is also a Scout hut in this area.
1.4 The north-east corner of the site comprises a paved/hard-surfaced area, which is currently used for the storage of tyre casings. Along the eastern boundary is an area of existing landscaping. This is an area of grass and trees that acts as a bund between the railway and the application site. This area is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation.
1.5 The existing main gate is onto Bushbury Lane. The former main gate on the Stafford Road roundabout gives access to Promise House, a two storey 1960s office building facing Stafford Road. This building is now leased from Goodyear by Promise Solutions and has recently been refurbished.
13 1.6 The application site backs directly on to the rear gardens of houses that front Stafford Road. To the north are residential properties and to the east is the West Coast Mainline railway. Bushbury Land Rover franchise has a workshop facility immediately adjoining the site to the south-east. To the south of the site is the rest of the Goodyear industrial buildings that are being reconfigured (planning approval 04/1407/OP/M)
2. Planning History
2.1 04/1407/OP/M – Part demolition and re-configuration of existing buildings including extension to form rubber processing plant, re-tread facility, casing storage, access and ancillary uses. Granted 11/3/05.
2.2 04/1405/OP/M – Mixed use development of part of former manufacturing plant comprising employment, residential, local retail and ancillary uses. Planning Committee 5/10/04 resolved to grant subject to S106 agreement.
3. Constraints
3.1 The development site is within 250m of an Authorised Process.
3.2 Site of Archaeological Importance (the whole site is included on the Sites and Monument Record).
3.3 Tree Preservation Orders (TPOs) nos. 02/2/572, 02/2/317, 02/2/187 and 02/2/363.
4. Application Details
4.1 This is an outline application with all matters reserved for subsequent approval except for access to the development. The development proposals relate to the northern part of the Goodyear site.
4.2 The applicants state that the proposals coordinate with and compliment the planning permission which has already been granted for the reconfiguration of the remaining Goodyear plant to the south of the site. The application proposals comprise residential, local retail development. new community facilities, a site for a new school, as well as open space (including the retention of the existing Sports and Social Club), strategic landscaping and internal distributor roads.
4.3 In October 2002, Goodyear and St Modwen entered into a sale and leaseback agreement, with Goodyear leasing back the site for ten years. The agreement recognised the declining use of the site, as production was being transferred from the UK to Europe, but still allowed Goodyear to continue manufacturing. The majority of the site is already vacant with Goodyear’s operations now focused in the southern part of the Goodyear site. There are some operations that the company would like to retain on the site, such as the re-tread and rubber processing facilities and the development necessary to facilitate this has already been 14 granted consent. The part of the Goodyear site which is no longer required can be disposed of to generate a capital receipt for Goodyear to enable them to continue to re-invest in their retained plant and fully implement the planning consent for the reconfiguration of the rubber processing plant, thus facilitating their continued presence in Wolverhampton.
4.4 A “Site Development Plan” (Drawing no 15) has been submitted with the application showing the different land uses. The Applicant’s Planning Statement describes the likely mix of uses as including the following. • Residential development (18.62 hectares) to the north of the site adjacent to the houses that front Stafford Road. • Neighbourhood and Local Retail Facilities (0.62ha), potentially including a crèche, a doctors’ surgery and local shops. • Reserved site for school (0.99 ha) to replace the existing Oxley Primary School which is currently located to the south of the Goodyear plant. The site proposed for the school is located to the south of the application site, adjacent to the proposed community and retail facilities. • The existing Sports and Social Club (1.2 ha). • Neighbourhood Park (4.89 ha), proposed adjacent to the Sports and Social Club, stretching to the eastern boundary of the application site. Open space provision is focused around the existing sports and social facilities to the north of the site as well as providing a buffer area to the east of the site along the existing railway line and between the retained Goodyear Plant and the residential, educational, retail and community uses.
4.5 Vehicular access to the application site is proposed via the A449/ Greenwood Road roundabout. Access to the retained Goodyear site will be exclusively via the Bushbury Lane entrance.
4.6 An existing access route into the site from Church Road (currently not used) would provide access for pedestrians and cyclists and emergency use only, although access for buses from Church Rd (utilising rising bollards or a bus gate) has also been suggested by the applicant as a possibility.
4.7 The existing access to the Sports and Social Club from Stafford Road is to be retained. There is no vehicular link from the Sports and Social Club to the proposed new residential development.
4.8 The application includes the following documents: • A Transport Assessment Report • An Economic and Market Assessment • A Planning Statement • A Phase 1 Geo-Environmental Audit • Geotechnical and Ground Investigation Reports
15 • An Ecological Assessment • Cultural Heritage Evaluation • Landscape Strategy • Noise and Vibration Assessment • Air Quality Assessment and Local Air Report • Drainage Strategy • Tree Survey • Financial Appraisal
4.9 The applicants state that taken together with the consent already granted for the remaining Goodyear plant, these proposals provide for the comprehensive and co-ordinated reconfiguration of the existing industrial facilities for Goodyear and redevelopment of surplus land and buildings for a mixed-use comprehensively and carefully master planned scheme. They state that the scheme will provide for the potential enhancement of job opportunities with the potential for this site to provide 1375 jobs. Also the new residential development will significantly improve the amenity and outlook of a significant number of adjoining residences. The submission also makes a valuable contribution to affordable housing provision, open space and the local landscape.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) including polices:
E4 Development Within Defined Employment Areas H2 Development of Other Sites For Housing H6 Large Housing Sites H7 Affordable/Social Housing R2 Open Space Provision R6 Sports Pitch Provision R12 Children’s Play and New Housing Development C2 Provision of Community Facilities In New Developments S6 Local Shops ENV1 Development Principles ENV2 Design Standards ENV8 Site Protection ENV13 The Urban Forest and Protection of Trees ENV21 Protection of Archaeological Sites ENV22 Provision of Public Art TP5 Access and New Developments TP7 Strategic Highway Network
Other relevant policies: • Wolverhampton’s Unitary Development Plan (UDP) Revised Deposit • West Midlands Regional Planning Guidance (RPG 11) West Midlands Regional Economic Strategy
16 5.3 Government’s Planning Policy Guidance notes including: PPS1 “Delivering Sustainable Development” PPG3 “Housing” PPG13 “Transport”
6. Publicity
6.1 Following publicity four representations raise the following issues: • highway safety and congestion due to increased traffic on existing network, • noise and air pollution (particularly that associated with carbon black) from remaining Goodyear plant, • increased crime and anti-social behaviour due to pedestrian access between 340 and 344 Stafford Road, • security of houses that back onto proposed public open space, • wish to retain blue Goodyear chimney as local landmark, • and possibility of a commuter rail station at Bushbury Lane.
7. External Consultees
7.1 Severn Trent Water – no objection subject to conditions relating to drainage and sewers.
7.2 Advantage West Midlands (the Regional Development Agency) – on the basis of the extenuating circumstances surrounding the retention of Goodyear as a major sub-regional employer in the north Wolverhampton area, the Agency supports in principle the ongoing programme of development that will facilitate the preservation of the current Goodyear industrial operation and associated jobs on the site. Although the application represents a departure from the adopted Unitary development Plan, the need to retain and develop those jobs is of great importance to the Agency and forms the basis of its support for the scheme.
7.3 Environment Agency – response awaited.
7.4 Wildlife Trust – response awaited.
7.5 Centro – response awaited.
7.6 Police – response awaited.
17 8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Estates Services – no comment other than land to be transferred to the Council, including the school site, should be remediated as necessary.
8.2 Neighbourhood Renewal – no comment other than affordable housing should be secured through the S106 agreement.
8.3 Archaeologist – there is no obvious reason why the Goodyear clock tower could not be retained. Recommends condition to secure a programme of building assessment and structural recording prior to demolitions.
8.4 Landscape – contents of documents ok. Through the S106 process the Landscape Section would be keen to undertake the design and implementation of the Neighbourhood Park in consultation with Leisure Services.
8.5 Trees – The main access infrastructure would require the removal of at least seven T.P.O. tress.
8.6 Environmental Services – The noise assessment gives an over view of the general noise climate affecting the site, and has highlighted areas where there is likely to be a significant impact on existing residential properties surrounding the development site and on proposed residential properties within the development site.
The report does not go into specific details regarding mitigation methods with regard to residential properties along the eastern boundary, and recommends that further assessments be carried out with regard to these properties and to the proposed piling methods during the construction phase. These reports will need to be carried out prior to the start of any building works in order to fully determine the mitigation methods necessary with respect to these aspects of the development.
With regard to the relocation of Oxley Primary School, it should be noted that the report recommends that closed double glazed windows will be required to achieve internal noise levels which conform the Building Bulletin 93 Acoustic Design of Schools . There is however no mention as to the provision of adequate ventilation to avoid the need to open windows.
It is recommended conditions are attached to any planning approval to cover: • construction controls in relation to hours of operation, dust, noise, vibration, waste, stockpiling, emissions, vehicle sheeting and wheel washing, • a detailed acoustic insulation scheme for those properties along the eastern side of the application site adjacent to the railway line and retained Goodyear site • classrooms within the relocated Oxley Primary School shall be fitted with double glazed windows and rapid ventilation systems • site investigation for physical and chemical 18 contamination and landfill gas, and any necessary remedial works
In relation to the possibility of carbon black emissions from the existing Goodyear plant, the existing control measures do appear to be adequate. However it is recommended that emergency procedures for dealing with plant breakdown and maintenance procedures are both reviewed. Also an assessment of the long term viability of the existing system is recommended, including an appraisal of a replacement system or the use of non dusty forms of carbon black such as pellets or oiled powders.
8.7 Lifelong Learning - Following a study on the provision of school places in the area, it is considered that the new development would be best served by a new purpose built one form entry school (with nursery) at the heart of the residential development, replacing the existing Oxley Primary school. It is suggested therefore that :
• The land reserved for a school be closer to the heart of the residential development as opposed to the fringe of the site. • The land be reserved for a three year period as suggested, during which time the funding can be secured for the new school. • The land be allocated for the development as part of the section 106 agreement / the present Oxley site could be offered in exchange for development as part of the agreement. • If the Local Authority has to purchase the site within the three year period the value be negotiated.
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 A letter was issued on the 23 Dec 2005 stating that the “Screening Opinion” of the local planning authority is that a formal “Environmental Impact Assessment” is not required for this application.
10. Appraisal
10.1 The key issues are employment, transportation, the mix of uses, affordable housing, open space, nature conservation and other environmental considerations.
Employment 10.2 The site is subject to policies in the Proposed Modifications in the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan. Policy B9 – Defined Business Areas aims to ensure the retention and reuse of land and buildings for B1 (office and light industrial), B2 General Industrial and B8 (warehousing) employment activities. The overall proposal, a mixed use scheme with a significant amount of residential development, together with employment uses is therefore not in accordance with this policy. As 19 a result this application is a departure from the Unitary Development Plan.
10.3 The site has already been subject to an outline application for a mixed use scheme which was subject to a resolution to approve in August 2004. The current application differs in that there is an increase in the area of residential development on the site, with a further 2.5ha loss of employment land taking the total amount of land lost to 26.9ha. This further loss is comprised of a 0.52ha reduction in employment land on the remaining Goodyear site and a 2ha reduction in the land that is to be retained for office uses.
10.4 In the reasoned justification to Policy B9 of the Revised Deposit Unitary Development Plan, Para 9.8.6 states that “Over the lifetime of the Unitary Development Plan it is anticipated that a number of sites and premises within Defined Business Areas will become available as a result of a number of macro economic changes and micro economic changes. In some instances and subject to policy B10, some of these sites will no longer be suited to continued economic activity, and other uses may be supported. These sites may make a contribution to the provision of new homes in the city.”
10.5 Policy B10 – Redevelopment of Employment Land and Premises states that the redevelopment of existing employment uses will only be permitted where an economic and market assessment has been carried out.
10.6 The supporting evidence provided is generally accepted as being a reasonable statement of the case in support of a mixed use development of the site and the further loss of some employment land as part of the process, in order to make the scheme viable and to enable the retention of Goodyear on the site.
10.7 The industrial premises that currently occupy all of the Goodyear site are purpose built and as a result would be unsuitable for reuse for other economic purposes without major reinvestment.
10.8 The rationalisation of the Goodyear company has led to the termination of the production of new tyres at the plant. However the company, as part of this rationalisation have agreed to relocate within the site to improved facilities to carry out rubber processing and retreading on the premises, therefore protecting 450 jobs for Wolverhampton.
10.9 Other employment opportunities have already been created as part of the scheme. The former Goodyear headquarter offices have been reoccupied by Promise Solutions who currently employ 175 people but have the potential to employ up to 375 within the office building.
10.10 As part of the Stafford Road Strategic Regeneration Corridor (Policy S2) which includes the Wolverhampton Science Park and Wolverhampton Business Park the further loss of this employment land will not have a major impact on the supply of good quality employment land in the city, also the proposed i54 Wobaston Road Major Investment and Regional Investment Site will amount to an additional 100 hectares of high quality 20 employment land in the north of the city.
10.11 In taking these facts into consideration the further loss of employment land on this site is not of a sufficient quantity where it will have a detrimental effect on the operation of the retained employment site.
10.12 To meet the Council’s aim of providing employment opportunities for local people through targeted training and employment programmes as set out in Policy S2 (Strategic Regeneration Corridors) and Policy B12 (Access to Job Opportunities) of the revised deposit Unitary Development Plan, a “Targeted Recruitment and Training” clause in a S106 legal agreement is considered to be necessary.
Transportation 11.1 The Transport Assessment Report (TAR) submitted as part of the Planning Application has been subjected to a comprehensive review by Transportation Officers. 11.2 Site Access and Layout. The proposed site access arrangements are acceptable in principle, but need further development to address detailed design issues and to provide multiple access points for vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists. The TAR currently provides insufficient detailed information to determine the acceptability of the internal site layout. Further details have been requested and a response from the applicants is awaited. 11.3 Travel Demand. The applicant has estimated the number of new trips that would be generated as a result of the development proposals during the critical weekday morning and evening peak hour periods; this has informed all subsequent transportation related considerations. Officers consider that the estimates are sufficiently robust, but have requested some further refinements to address outstanding concerns.
11.4 Operation of the Highway Network. An assessment of the effect of the development on the operation of the highway network is included in the TAR. This has been based on traffic models developed by the Applicant covering Stafford Road, Stafford Street, Waterloo Road, Three Tuns Lane, Fordhouse Lane and the southern sections of Bushbury Lane. The traffic models have been reviewed by Transportation Officers and found to be generally robust. 11.5 The models indicate that the proposals will have an adverse effect on the performance of the highway network with increased levels of congestion, particularly at junctions along Stafford Road. In general terms, effects such as these might be viewed as an inevitable consequence of a development of this type and magnitude; in this case they are not considered to compromise the viability of the development providing an appropriate mitigation strategy is agreed and implemented.
11.6 The strategy contained in the TAR to deal with consequent effects on the efficient and safe operation of the network is currently being developed by the applicant. In particular, the Applicant will be required to investigate the potential for remedial measures at specific ‘hotspots’, such as the junctions of Stafford Road/Three Tuns/Marsh Lane, Stafford Road/Bushbury Lane and Stafford Road/Site Access/Greenwood Road.
21 11.7 Accessibility. The development is considered to have a reasonable degree of accessibility by public transport, being adequately served by bus services on Stafford Road and Bushbury Lane. These services also provide good linkages to the wider public transport network. However, the developer should be required to facilitate the diversion of bus services into the redevelopment site to ensure that future users are within the recommended 400-metres walking distance to a bus stop. Clearly the access and internal layouts would need to be designed accordingly. 11.8 The TAR incorporates a comprehensive pedestrian and cycle accessibility audit of key routes surrounding the development site which provide linkages to the City Centre, education facilities and local amenities, such as shops and doctors surgeries. The audit has indicated that existing facilities for pedestrians and to a lesser extent for cyclists are relatively well developed. Conversely, the audit has also identified a number of detailed issues that detrimentally affect pedestrian and cycle accessibility, it is envisaged that these issues will be addressed as part of a package of improvement measures being developed by the applicant.
11.9 Safety. The TAR incorporates a baseline assessment of current road traffic accidents on links and junctions within the identified study area. This has indicated that the junction of the Stafford Road/Greenwood Road/Development Access is a location of particular concern. 11.10 The development proposals will clearly exacerbate the baseline position through the generation of increased numbers of vehicle, pedestrian and cycle movements. Appropriate mitigation measures will therefore be required to address the potential for an increase in the number of accidents.
11.11 Mitigation. The applicant has submitted a draft mitigation strategy which outlines a potential package of measures to offset the transportation impacts of the development proposals. Measures include the provision of improved bus shelters, new and up-graded pedestrian crossing facilities, the extension of cycle routes and the provision of highway improvement measures such as the improvement to junctions in the vicinity of the development site on Stafford Road.
11.12 These proposals are in principle, very welcome. It is considered that if the potential package of measures are fully implemented, they will contribute substantially towards mitigating against the effects of the development on the transportation network. Transportation Officers are currently in negotiation with the applicant regarding the extent of the mitigation strategy likely to be provided and any conditions attached to financial contributions. The outcome of these negotiations will determine the overall effectiveness of the mitigation strategy and whether it can be recommended for acceptance.
11.13 Summary and Appraisal. The approach adopted by the Applicant is considered to be generally robust. However, a number of key issues and concerns remain outstanding; they can be summarised as follows:
• The Transportation Assessment Report (TAR) needs to be reviewed 22 taking into consideration a range of technical issues raised by Transportation Officers;
• The Applicant has been asked to address a number of issues of detail concerning access to the development site and the retained Goodyear facility and the proposed internal site layout; and
• The mitigation strategy requires further detailed consideration and further negotiations will be necessary.
11.14 It is suggested that the acceptability of the transportation element of the proposals should be dependent upon a satisfactory conclusion being reached in respect of outstanding issues. It is considered that a satisfactory outcome is attainable. A verbal progress report will be provided at the meeting.
Mix of uses 12.1 The site will make a substantial contribution towards meeting housing windfall targets over the remaining Unitary Development Plan period to 2011 and therefore remove pressure to release “greenfield” sites or other, less suitable, “brownfield” sites for housing.
12.2 The site is not located within a City or town centre, although it is located close to a high frequency bus route providing quick access to the City Centre. Housing in the local area is characterised by Council housing estates to the east and suburban private housing to the west.
12.3 The site has the potential to provide a significant new neighbourhood of high quality, attractive family accommodation in an accessible location, adjacent to an attractive new park and local shopping and community facilities. Such a new development could assist the regeneration of estates to the east of the site and create a greater social mix in the local area. Therefore the overall net density of the development should be no higher than 40 dwellings per ha, including a significant proportion of 3 and 4 bedroom houses with larger gardens and providing a pleasant, “green” environment.
12.4 It is important that a sufficient buffer is provided between the retained Goodyear site and potential residential areas to protect amenity. This could reduce the net developable area.
12.5 The potential residential area is 18.62 ha. and an average net density of 40 dwellings per hectare is proposed. To calculate the potential capacity of the site it is necessary to determine the net developable area by removing any potential areas of public open space and substantial buffers.
12.6 Approximately 1 ha of the residential area is designated as a Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC) in the Revised Deposit UDP, but a new SLINC area of approx. 0.3 ha is shown in the south-west corner on the Landscape Masterplan. In addition, para. 6.39 of the Planning Statement makes reference to further open space to be provided within the site to contribute towards meeting the Council’s open space standards (see section 14 of this report). Given the need to 23 provide approx. 2.5 ha of new open space on-site the maximum net developable area would be 16.12ha, giving rise to approximately 645 dwellings.
12.7 The sports and social club is an important existing local community facility. Therefore, an arrangement should be made to ensure that the club sports and social facilities are maintained, as far as possible, in perpetuity, and to ensure that the playing fields are made publicly available as part of a wider Neighbourhood Park, and are also properly maintained. To this end, discussions with the club should be progressed. In the event that the club does become financially unviable at some time in the future, provision should be made to ensure that the buildings / playing fields remain in community / open space use in perpetuity and that the changing rooms remain operational or are replaced. These arrangements should be secured through the S106 legal agreement.
12.8 The proposal is to provide a number of small retail units for support A2, A3, A4 and A5 uses, focused around a slightly larger unit for convenience A1 use, together with community uses to serve the new residential development, on a site of 0.62 hectares.
12.9 The provision of an area for small retail units and a community facility, to meet local needs, is supported, providing the following apply: - A suitable retail need assessment should be submitted sufficient to justify the need for the retail element in accordance with UDP Policy S6 and draft UDP Policy SH9, PPG6 and ministerial statements on retail policy. - Acceptable uses should be defined through the S106 agreement, with restrictions placed on change of use. Phasing of the development should be controlled to ensure the units are available for occupation before significant completion of the housing development.
12.10 The proposed site of the school is adjacent to the remaining Goodyear site and the community facilities. Lifelong Learning would prefer the school to be more centrally located. The location of the school and the terms under which the land is offered should be the subject of further discussion with the applicant. The provision of the land for the school should be secured through the S106 legal agreement.
Affordable Housing 13.1 Policy H11 of the revised deposit Unitary Development Plan states that the Council will seek to negotiate the provision of affordable housing. On sites outside the City Centre 25% of units will be sought unless it can be proved that the requirement would genuinely threaten the overall viability of the development.
13.2 The applicant has requested that a contribution of 20% affordable housing is accepted. A brief Financial Appraisal has been submitted; however evidence in the form of a comprehensive financial viability report would be required to justify the proposed 5% reduction. The Supporting Planning Statement makes reference to the importance of meeting City-wide affordable housing targets. The difference between 24 20% and 25% provision of affordable housing on such a large site as Goodyear is in the region of 33 units. Any reduction would have to be properly justified in accordance with Policy H11.
13.3 Given the size of the site, the affordable housing provision should be secured through a S106 agreement. The type of affordable housing to be required will be specified at the time of any reserved matters application. However, any definition of affordable housing should include the following:
• General purpose Housing Association houses and flats for rent; • Shared equity / low cost home ownership products where a subsidy is maintained in perpetuity and the housing is allocated to those in housing need; • Supported accommodation for those with learning difficulties and to meet BME needs; • Housing Association accommodation with full disabled access to lifetime homes standards; • A small self-build scheme.
13.4 As it is anticipated that the housing development will be phased, it should be ensured that each phase includes a proportion of affordable housing and that the affordable housing units are transferred to a Housing Association, where applicable, at an appropriate stage in the development. All reserved matters applications should show the location and type of all affordable housing units.
Open Space 14.1 The Strategic Landscape Masterplan (fig 7) shows an area of 4.8ha described as a Neighbourhood Park and 1.21 ha retained for the existing sports and social club, bowling green and former training building. The existing areas of playing fields, social and sports club and entrance / parking etc, including the training building, comprise 4.5 ha. If it is not intended to retain the training centre, this could be usefully incorporated into the park to create a wider access.
14.2 Approximately 1.1 ha of new Recreational Open Space is proposed to the north-east of the existing playing fields, running alongside a potential access road linking the development to Church Road. The remaining Park area shown on the Landscape Masterplan includes a steep buffer zone embankment, (totalling 0.54 ha) up to the main line railway line between Wolverhampton and Stafford, which is likely to be separated from the rest of the Park area by an access road. The alleyway linking the site to Church Road shown as part of the Park should not be defined as Recreational Open Space. Therefore the specified new on-site provision to serve new residents is approximately 1.6 ha.
14.3 A development of 645 dwellings is likely to give rise to 1,980 or so residents. Therefore, in order to meet Policy H8: Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments of the Revised Deposit UDP, it is likely that the equivalent of an additional 3.55 ha of Recreational Open Space (5.15ha – 1.6 ha), two local equipped areas for play and a multi-use ball games area would need to be 25 provided. The site is located in a Neighbourhood Park Area (Oxley) which currently has no Neighbourhood Park and is deficient in open space generally (see Revised Deposit UDP p.183 Map 12.1 and p.186, para. 12.2.8).
14.4 It has been proposed that some of the additional Recreation Open Space requirement for the new housing is met within the proposed residential areas. The distribution of this space would be determined as part of the reserved matters application. The remainder of the recreational open space requirement should be translated into contributions and used to improve and maintain the existing playing fields site in order to create a comprehensive, good quality neighbourhood park. Open space provision and maintenance, including commuted sums and contributions should be covered in the S106 legal agreement.
14.5 Suitable sites within the Recreational Open Space are required for a Local Equipped Area for Play and Multi-use Ball Games Area. Also within the Recreational Open Space there should be sufficient areas of nature conservation value to compensate for loss of the SLINC, following an approved mitigation strategy (see section 15 below). These facilities should be secured through the S106 legal agreement. There will be a general requirement for commuted sums to cover 10 years maintenance of all new on-site open space and facilities.
Nature Conservation 15.1 Based on the information as submitted, the proposal involves the loss of approximately 1 ha of SLINC as shown on the Revised Deposit UDP Proposals Map and it’s partial compensation through the provision of a far smaller area of habitat creation on the residential area. The development will also result in impacts on a number of protected species.
15.2 Policy N5: Protection of Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation and Landscape Features of Value for Wildlife or Geology, of the Revised Deposit UDP states that “the protection and long term management of important features will be sought” and that “development which may have a harmful effect on the nature conservation value … of such sites or features will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances, where the benefits generated by the development would clearly outweigh nature conservation considerations.”
15.3 An ecological assessment was submitted with the planning application. It concludes that “the proposed development is unlikely to have significant negative impact on the ecological value of the application site provided the recommended mitigation measures are adopted and may even improve the applicant site’s biodiversity through improvement of existing habitats”. It suggests further work and mitigation measures to compensate for the loss of the SLINC. The further work suggested by the report should be carried out and any necessary mitigation effects and future management should be secured through the S106 legal agreement.
26 Other Environmental Considerations 16.1 Trees. The trees fronting Stafford Road, in front of the Promise offices will remain. Group G3 has the potential to remain in situ, subject to construction of the improved access to the roundabouts and works to the roundabout itself. Some of the trees within Group G3 will be lost because of the access road, which must meet highway requirements. However most will remain unaffected within the retained Promise site. A detailed survey for these trees is required by condition to determine the maximum number that can be retained without compromising the development.
16.2 Works of Public Art or Craft. Public art feature(s) should be provided to a minimum value of 1% of total construction costs, as set out in draft deposit Unitary Development Plan policy D14 and adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance.
16.3 Waste. Policy EP13 “Waste and Development” of the revised deposit UDP specifies that in the case of major developments, a waste audit and provision for in-house or on-site recycling or treatment of wastes may be required.
16.4 The large scale redevelopment of the Goodyear Site will generate a large amount of secondary and recycled aggregates as the existing buildings on the site are demolished and the process to rejuvenate the site begins. All reasonable efforts should be made to minimise the use of primary aggregates. Wherever possible recycled aggregates should be used in constructing any buildings, means of enclosure or laying out of any infrastructure on the site
16.5 The proposed development is likely to generate significant quantities of waste. The development should be conditioned so that any reserved matters application must be accompanied by a site waste management plan (SWMP) identifying the steps taken to:
• Utilise waste generated by the on site operations into the proposed development; • Recycle/reuse/recover materials in order to avoid the off site disposal of waste to landfill; • Design and provide sustainable waste management systems for the ultimate users of the proposed development.
Guidance on the preparation of SWMPs is available in the DTI document; Site Waste Management Plans – Guidance for Construction Contractors and Clients.
27 17. Conclusion
17.1 The redevelopment of the site for mixed use purposes provides substantial regeneration benefits and is welcome in principle.
17.2 In this case, the mixed use redevelopment of a site within a Defined Employment Area is considered to be acceptable in principle. As the application is a departure from the Unitary Development Plan it has to be referred to the Government Office for the West Midlands. They will have the option of “calling in” the application to determine it themselves.
18. Recommendation
18.1 Refer the application to the Government Office of the West Midlands and subject to the application not being “called in”, delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to grant outline consent, subject to the resolution of outstanding issues, including proposed highways layout, travel demand, transportation mitigation strategy, bus access, pedestrian and cycle access, a comprehensive financial viability report, the education land, retail need assessment, any issues arising from outstanding consultee responses, the receipt of any additional information and plans, the negotiation of the S106 legal agreement and any necessary conditions.
18.2 The S106 legal agreement would include the following principal heads of terms: • development of residential linked to the retention of Goodyear on remainder of the site; • targeted recruitment and training; • affordable housing; • provision for educational facilities; • provision and enhancement of public open space including Neighbourhood Park and Local Equipped Area for Play and Multi-use Ball Games Area; • management and maintenance of public open space for a period of ten years; • retention of Sports and Social Club and provisions for its future operation and use; • provision of the community and local retail facilities; • nature conservation mitigation and management • provision and maintenance of public art; • phasing.
Case Officer : Stephen Alexander Telephone No : 555610 Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
28 Planning Application No: DCNC/05/1989/OP/M Location Goodyear Dunlop Tyres Site, Stafford Road, Plan Scale 1:7000 National Grid Reference sj 391405 301788 Plan Printed 07-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 282875.688
29 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/2068/DW/M WARD: Bushbury Sth/LowHill; DATE 21-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 22-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Wolverhampton Council Depot Fifth Avenue, Fallings Park PROPOSAL: Outline application for residential or care homes (use classes C2 and C3)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Resources Panel (Economic Tony Woods Development Portfolio) Property Services
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site consists of the former Fifth Avenue Council Depot. Access is off Fifth Avenue between two existing houses. To the north is Our Lady and St Chad’s School. This contains a Grade II* Listed Building. To the north-west is the Marist Centre, which is located within the school site. To the east is a Council run children’s resources centre. The other boundaries are surrounded by gardens of residential properties. The majority of the residential accommodation in the area is two storey houses. The depot contains a 15 metre high telecommunications mast located close to the northern boundary with the adjacent school. A number of large mature trees within the school site overhang the boundary into the depot site. The boundary to the site consists of unattractive palisade fencing.
2. Planning History
2.1 Planning permission granted for the telecommunications mast on the site on 16.10.97 (reference 97/0872/FP).
2.2 Planning permission granted to relocate the mast on 22.10.98 (98/0823/FP).
2.3 Planning permission granted on 13.6.03 for a new primary care resource centre (reference 03/0408/OP). This consisted of the relocation of a number of existing medical practices containing GPs and associated other facilities, to be located in a single resource on the application site. This planning permission has never been implemented and it is no longer being pursued by Wolverhampton PCT.
30 3. Application Details
3.1 The proposal consists of an outline application for the development of the site for either residential purposes or as a care home. No information has been supplied other than a red line identifying the site. Access is shown from Fifth Avenue.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Relevant UDP Policies include: E5- Development outside of defined employment areas H2 – Development of other Sites for Housing H4 – Infill Development H11 – Residential Accommodation for Care H12 – Provision of Housing for the Elderly H18 – Planning Considerations ENV2 – Design Standards
4.2 Policies within the Revised Deposit UDP include:
H3 – Housing Sites Assessment Criteria H6 – Design of Housing Development H9 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments H10 – Housing Density Mix H11 – Affordable Housing H12 – Special Needs Accommodation H13 – Residential Care Homes. B10- Redevelopment of employment land and premises
4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance 3 - Residential Development and SPG 16 - Public Art are also relevant.
5. Publicity
5.1 Adjoining properties consulted directly by letter. Site and press notice. Period for response expires 4 February 2006.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Transportation – Visibility is acceptable due to wide footpath. A turning head suitable for refuse vehicles would be required as any dwellings would be more than 25m from Fifth Avenue. It is important that sufficient parking will be provided. Cycle parking should be considered. The retention of the telecommunications mast is unfortunate as access will be required for maintenance.
6.2 Planning Policy – Loss of this employment site is acceptable, given previous planning permission. Open space and play contributions will be required if 10 dwellings or more and a 25% affordable housing requirement if 25 dwellings or more. These should be secured through a S106 agreement. 31
6.3 Environmental Services – to be reported.
6.4 Lifelong Learning (Leisure) – The proposal adjoins the established youth resource centre. Experience shows that however well managed the youth facility is, such close proximity to sheltered accommodation for the elderly or other residential homes is likely to lead to complaints. We therefore feel that the proposed development is ill advised. 6.5 Conservation – It is appropriate to consult English Heritage due to the potential impact on the setting of the adjacent Grade II* listed building. There would not appear to be any buildings of any special historic interest on the site. No objection to the principle to re-develop which is likely to have a beneficial impact on the setting of the listed building. It is important that the trees on the boundary are protected. Boundary treatments should be of high quality.
7. External Consultees
7.1 English Heritage – to be reported.
8. Appraisal
8.1 The key issues of this case are:
• The loss of the employment element provided by the depot. • The suitability of the site for residential development or as a care home. • Physical factors such as access, siting and type of housing development.
8.2 Loss of Council Depot The facilities provided by the Council depot on this site have now been transferred elsewhere. The site is now vacant with no activity taking place. Policy E5 of the adopted UDP and Policy B10 of the Revised Deposit UDP seek to protect individual employment premises for employment use unless it can be demonstrated that a site is no longer suited for employment use under a number of criteria. However the site benefits from an extant planning permission for a health facility (03/0408/OP). In this context it is not considered that there is any policy requirement to maintain the site in a form of employment use.
8.3 Suitability of the Site The majority of this site fronts on to the gardens of surrounding residential properties. To the north is a school whilst to the east is a youth resources centre. The obvious alternative land use in this context is residential development or some form of care home. The site is large enough to ensure that the siting of new residential dwellings would be sufficiently distant from adjoining properties to maintain privacy. The comments received from Lifelong Learning about the proximity of the youth resource centre is not considered to prejudice the site for residential redevelopment. However, when considering the siting of a facility such as an elderly persons’ care home, which may more 32 sensitive to noise than the average residential dwelling, it may cause the siting of such a building to be located on the western rather than eastern part of the site. This can be dealt with at reserved matters stage.
8.4 Form of Development Access to the site is limited to the existing access onto Fifth Avenue. This runs between two existing dwellings. At present the boundaries to these dwellings is relatively open and is formed by an unattractive palisade fence. It is essential that the boundaries to dwellings on either side of the access road are properly secured by the construction of a solid brick wall to maintain privacy.
8.5 In view of the height of surrounding housing buildings should be generally limited to two storey. However, an element of three storey may be appropriate in the central part of the site, away from the boundaries with adjoining houses. Single storey accommodation may be more appropriate close to the boundaries with adjoining houses to avoid overlooking. Regard must be had to the substantial trees within the school site which overhang in part the northern boundary. These are important in contributing towards the setting of the adjacent Listed Building. It will be important to define the public and private realms and also provide a focus for the development in the form of an open space. All these matters can be dealt with at Reserved Matters stage.
8.6 As the development is likely to provide for in excess of 10 dwellings Policy H9 of the Revised Deposit UDP would apply. This requires that contributions should be provided towards the enhancement/creation of open space as a result of new housing development. In this regard it is considered likely that in excess of 10 dwellings will come forward. As a result it is suggested that a condition be placed on any planning permission requiring the developer to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to provide contributions to enhancing open space in the vicinity.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:
(i) Standard outline planning permission conditions requiring details of siting, access, design, external appearance and landscaping.
(ii) Details of materials.
(iii) Details of boundary treatments which shall include brick wall to access road.
(iv) Details of tree protection measures.
(v) Public art.
(vi) Developers of housing on the site to enter a Section 106 Agreement to contribute towards open space provision.
33 (vii) Provision of access road and car parking prior to occupation of dwellings.
(viii) Provision of management company to maintain public and communal areas.
(ix) Provision of affordable housing for any residential development that provides in excess of 24 units.
(x) Design Statement to be submitted which shall include need to provide communal open space within any housing layout.
(xi) Details of turning head for refuse vehicles.
(xii) Site to be developed for residential purpose or as residential accommodation for people in need of care.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
34 Planning Application No: DCNC/05/2068/DW/M Location Wolverhampton Council Depot, Fifth Avenue, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference sj 392809 301361 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 7204.005
35 PLANNING COMMITTEE 14-FEB -2006-
APP NO: 05/1862/FP/C WARD: East Park; DATE 14-NOV-2005 TARGET DATE: 09-JAN-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 1 Willenhall Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension to provide storage building, layout of new parking/servicing area and access from Colliery Road
APPLICANT: AGENT: Nick Piponides PMC Design (Codsall) Ltd 1 Willenhall Road 61 Oaken Lanes Wolverhampton Codsall WV1 2HG Wolverhampton WV8 2AW
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This is the former Harper and Beardmore building on the corner of Willenhall Road and Colliery Road. The premises comprise a two storey building on Willenhall Road with a shop window frontage on the ground floor, with a single storey building to the rear. There is a forecourt with vehicular access from Willenhall Road and Colliery Road. There was a small rear yard at this site with access from Willenhall Road through the frontage building. This access is now closed.
1.2 The building has been refurbished and is improved in appearance. The rearmost single storey building has been demolished to facilitate this proposal. Building work had commenced on the rear storage building when Members visited on 31 Jan. 06. A letter was sent to Mr. Piponides strongly advising him to stop work.
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.
36 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:
Applications 04/1799 and 04/1800 for Class A1 and A3 units with four residential flats above were reported to Planning Committee 5 April 2005 with a recommendation for refusal and were subsequently withdrawn by the applicant. The principal concerns were highway safety considerations arising from the type of traffic generation to Class A3 uses and unsuitable surrounding environment, compounded by proposed Class A3 uses, for first floor residential flats.
2.5 Application 05/949 – change of use of first floor from offices to four flats, with alteration of rear building to permit vehicular access from Colliery Road was refused 18 August 2005. The main concern remained the poor environment for residential flats and poorly detailed alterations to provide a rear access and parking area.
2.6 Investigation has commenced into occupation of flats on the first floor with the likelihood of enforcement action. A Planning Contravention Notice has been served.
3. Application Details
3.1 Demolition of rear warehouse to facilitate vehicular access from Colliery Road, layout of rear car park with 16-17 spaces, and rear single storey storage building.
3.2 The ground floor is intended for two Class A1 retail units. These do not require planning permission.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 UDP Policy ENV2 – Design Standards and Shopping Policy S13 – Planning Standards with respect to design and layout. Site lies within Deposit UDP Designated Business Area, Policy B9 refers.
5. Publicity
5.1 Application advertised by neighbour letter 25 November for replies by 16 December. One response received from the manager of Snow Hill Motors adjacent. Views summarised as; proposed boundary lines not entirely accurate, more detailed plan required, applicant has trespassed across boundary, request to speak to Planning Committee.
37 6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Environmental Services – no observations.
6.2 Transport Strategy – no objections in principle. Advise condition prohibiting service vehicle access to the site between core retail opening hours. Parking is suffic ient for the amount of proposed floor space. Proposed vehicle gates (Colliery Road) swing across two parking spaces. Amendments needed to dimensions of parking spaces. Conflict between position of loading ramp to rear building, access for service vehicles and position of four parking spaces. Signage should be provided to direct customers to the rear car park. Lighting and surfacing for the car park will be important to encourage use by customers.
7. Appraisal
7.1 Key issues:
• Improved access and rear parking/service area. • Rear single storey building – scale and appearance.
7.2 The existing premises had a very constrained rear yard with approximately ten parking spaces, with access only from Willenhall Road. The removal of one of the rear buildings to create a vehicular access from Colliery Road, with a larger parking and servicing area is a significant improvement and will assist the re-use of this building. The plans have been amended to show a workable parking layout, with lighting and signage positions.
7.3 The proposed rear single storey storage building will be part of one of the retail units. It will not be seen from the road. Its design is satisfactory.
7.4 The objection from the manager of Snow Hill Motors is because of a private boundary dispute. The position of the Snow Hill Motors building has been taken into account in the car park detail.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Permit, conditions in respect of surfacing and marking out of the car park, provision of lighting and signage, fence and gates to Colliery Road, all to be completed as per the submitted specification before the retail units are brought into use. Facing materials to be agreed, and servicing hours to be conditioned.
Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 555649 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
38 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/1862/FP/C Location 1 Willenhall Road, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 392817 298462 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 1581.293
39 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/2028/DW/C WARD: East Park; DATE 05-JAN-2006 TARGET DATE: 02-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Land off Stowheath Lane/Bursledon Walk, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Creation of 9 parking spaces
APPLICANT: AGENT: Neighbourhood Renewal FAO: Steve Adams
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This application follows an earlier submission 04/0684/DW/C for the creation of eight car parking spaces which was withdrawn on 11 November 2004 and has been submitted following a pre-application discussion in which the proposal as submitted was agreed to be the preferred solution.
1.2 The area in question is a piece of land in use as public open space and in the ownership of Leisure Services. The area is predominantly residential in character and is situated adjacent a busy route, Stowheath Lane linking the A41 Bilston Road and the A454 Willenhall Road.
1.3 The site is adjacent a pond which is used for fishing albeit seasonal, however users of this pond are parking on this piece of land already and therefore ruining the grassed area.
2. Planning History
2.1 04/0684/DW/C – Creation of eight car parking spaces – Withdrawn 11 November 2004.
3. Constraints
3.1 The application site is a defined public open space in the adopted Unitary Development Plan.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV2 – Design Standards and R4 – Protection of Existing Open Space apply to this application.
40 5. Publicity
5.1 The application has been advertised by neighbour letter and site notice with deadline date for comments to be received by 1 February 2006. No objections received.
6. External Consultees
6.1 West Midlands Police – Crime Prevention Unit have been consulted and whilst they have no objections in principle, recommend that the planting of new trees should be carefully carried out as not to reduce the natural surveillance as this would increase the chances of car crime on the new parking area.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Environmental Services and Transport Strategy have been consulted and whilst both of the consultees have no objections, the engineers recommend the parking bays be marked out and that the disabled bay is marked out at 3.6m by 6.0m.
8. Appraisal
8.1 Prior to the submission of this application, there were initial reservations about the loss of this open space and the re-use of it for car parki ng. However parking on this piece of land is already occurring due to people using the nearby pond for fishing.
8.2 Leisure Services have requested the parking area and recommendations were made so that vehicles should be restricted to the parking area using timber bollards and in the case of any loss of trees, a replacement planting scheme should be submitted. With the timber bollards in place, it will prevent vehicles encroaching onto the remaining open space and confine them to the parking area. The planting scheme includes 11 new trees and the comments received from the West Midlands Police – Crime Prevention Unit recommend they are not of a type that will obscure visibility to the area and reduce the natural surveillance to the site.
8.3 The existing shrub area to the rear of the parking area is to be retained and the surface to the car parking is of ‘Grasscell’ which will help in the disguise of the car park when it is not in use.
41 9. Conclusion
9.1 The proposal is considered acceptable subject to the submission of details of the trees and landscaping to be installed to be agreed in writing prior to the commencement of the development and the parking bays, in particular the disabled parking to be clearly marked out at 3.6m by 6.0m.
10. Recommendation
10.1 Grant – subject to the submission of a landscaping/tree details, parking bays to be marked out and the disabled parking to be at 3.6m by 6.0m.
Case Officer : Ragbir Sahota Telephone No : 555616 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
42 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/2028/DW/C Location Land off Stowheath Lane/Bursledon Walk, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 393930 297867 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 374.454
43 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1959/FP/M WARD: Ettingshall; DATE 30-NOV-2005 TARGET DATE: 01-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Land at Spring Road (Baylis Distribution) Ettingshall PROPOSAL: Proposed storage and distribution unit (Class B8) and associated service areas.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Baylis Distribution Ltd Building Design Practice 12 Becket Court 132 Compton Road Pvcklechurch Wolverhampton Bristol WV3 9QB BS16 9QG
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site is part of the very large well established Baylis storage and distribution centre on Spring Road, Ettingshall. It is a large triangular area of land situated between Spring Lane and the main railway line. It is presently vacant but used in part for the parking of Baylis vehicles. It is fenced off from Spring Road by a high metal fence and from the railway by a palisade metal fence.
2. Planning History
2.1 In May 2000 a similar scheme was granted planning permission subject to a Percent for Art provision and other standard conditions. This was not implemented and has now expired.
3. Constraints
3.1 The site is likely to be affected by past mining and contamination from earlier uses of the site.
4. Application Details
4.1 The application seeks full planning permission for a 4,760m 2 storage building giving employment to 25 persons.
4.2 The building will be in brick with proprietary cladding to walls and roof and embellished at the most prominent corner with a full length glazed section and attached ‘finial’ in front of which is to be a prominent art feature.
4.3 Lorry parking, servicing and manoeuvring space is also shown. 44
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 UDP Policies:
ENV2 – Design Standards ENV22 – Percent for Art E15 – Planning Standards.
5.2 SPG No 1 Business, Industrial and Warehousing.
6. Publicity
6.1 The application has been advertised by means of letters to adjoining uses; site and press notice. No replies have been received.
7. External Consultees
7.1 Severn Trent – standard conditions; details of drainage to be agreed.
7.2 Environmental Agency – awaited.
7.3 Rail Track – awaited.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Transport – No objections in principle; further information supplied and so detailed response awaited; recommend condition that the Company sign up to a ‘Company Travel-Wise Scheme’ in order to encourage a wider choice of travel modes for employees.
8.2 Environmental Health – awaited.
8.3 Access Officer – awaited.
8.4 Building Consultancy (Fire) – no objections.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The main issues in this case are:
• The scheme is essentially as approved in 2000. • Traffic impact. • Visual appearance. • Contamination and past mining.
45 9.2 The scheme is essentially the same as that for which planning consent was granted in 2000. It is a large building on a large site and part of a very large well established operation. The scheme differs from the earlier one in that following discussions with officers, it now incorporates better facing materials and articulation, with a prominent Percent for Art feature.
9.3 The scheme will result in a 14% increase in staff and an increase of 25 HGVs per day. Revised details now show where, in the larger site the HGVs which presently park on this part of the site, will be displaced to and how the additional staff parking is to be provided. A condition is recommended that the company sign up to a ‘Company Travel-Wise Scheme’ in order to encourage greater choice of travel modes for its employees.
9.4 The appearance of the site at present, whilst not an eyesore, is of open vacant land, used for incidental parking of HGVs etc. Its development with a building will therefore add to the streetscene in a positive w ay. The proposed building is large and will have presence on this prominent site. It has now been specifically designed to take account of this fact by a better choice of materials; the addition of a full length glazed element with attached ‘finial’ on t he ‘leading’ corner of the building and in front of this, a prominent art feature, sketch details of which have been submitted.
9.5 Part uses of the site may have resulted in abandoned mineshafts and contamination. A report covering these aspects has been submitted with the application and the recommendations therein should be a condition of any consent.
10. Recommendation
10.1 Planning consent be granted subject to standard conditions and including:
• Landscaping. • Provision of Art feature. • Submission and approval of all facing materials. • Drainage details. • Signing up to a Travel-Wise Scheme. • Implementation of recommendations in respect of contamination and past mining. • Cycle facilities.
Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 555623 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
46 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/1959/FP/M Location Land at Spring Road (Baylis Distribution) Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference so 393273 296201 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 8403.047
47 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1999/RM/M WARD: Heath Town; DATE 08-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 09-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Approval of Reserved Matters
SITE: Part of former Chubb Safes Ltd, Wednesfield Road/Woden Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Residential development, approval of reserved matters (for outline planning permission 04/1243/OP/M) for 130 dwellings including amended siting, design and external appearance
APPLICANT: AGENT: George Wimpy West Midlands/ Pegasus Planning Group Countrywide Homes Ltd 5 The Priory Old London Road Canwell Sutton Coldfield B75 5SH
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site consists of the southern porti on of the Chubb factory premises. It contains a mixture of pre-war industrial buildings and a five storey 1960s office block. The site is currently vacant. It has a main frontage to Wednesfield Road where there are three existing points of access. It also includes a link to Woden Road where there are two gated accesses.
1.2 To the north is a large industrial building which is being retained in use by the successors to the Chubb operation. The industrial activity in the retained building is described as a low intensity storage and final finish operations. To the west of the site is a terrace of modern housing with access off Hemmings Close. To the east of the application site fronting Wednesfield Road there is the substantial building of St Barnabas’s Church. Between the eastern boundary of the application site and Woden Road is a small industrial/warehouse unit occupied by Hallmarket Engineering. Also fronting Woden Road is a doctors' surgery and St Stephens Primary School.
2. Planning History
2.1 Outline planning permission, (04/1243/OP/M), including siting and access, was granted for the development of the site for 130 dwellings in August 2005. The planning permission was granted subject to a Section 106 Agreement. The 106 Agreement secured the following planning benefits.
• Affordable housing based on 25% of the overall number of units. • Public open space on site. 48 • A children’s play area. • Contributions to off-site open space and provision of older children’s play. • Management of communal space. • Public art. • Provision of £62,500 towards the signalisation of the Woden Road/Wednesfield Road junction and revisions to the Woden Road safety scheme.
2.2 The outline planning permission fixed the number and siting of dwellings and access arrangements. The main vehicular access is from Woden Road, with a pedestrian access/emergency access provided onto Wednesfield Road. New apartments in a 3 and 4 storey block would front onto Wednesfield Road. The remaining housing would be a mix of apartments and housing set around a central area of open space.
3. Constraints
3.1 The site is located adjacent to the proposed metro line linking Wolverhampton and Walsall.
4. Application Details
4.1 The application consists of a reserved matters submission to deal with design and external appearance of dwellings on the site. There is also some variations to the siting of dwellings on the site. The most significant alteration consists of proposed apartment block 3 in the north west corner of the site. Formerly the block was L-shaped to enclose the square. Now the block is rectangular. This change was necessary due to the need to provide a drainage easement through this part of the site. Should the drainage easement not be provided at this point then site drainage would have to be pumped. Other minor alterations are proposed such as repositioning of garages and bin stores and handing of dwellings.
4.2 Two apartment blocks are proposed either side of the main pedestrian route into the site. These rise up to 4 storeys to provide a gateway feel into the site. All the apartments are contemporary design and utilise a mixture of brickwork, steel, render and pre-formed panelling. The boundaries to the apartments are fronted by railings and brick walls to the back edge of pavement. Roofs have shallow pitches and prominent overhangs. The height of the blocks has been increased through increasing the space between window heads and the eaves.
4.3 The proposed houses consist of 2 and 3 storey buildings in terraces and semi-detached pairs. The houses utilise a similar mix of materials and colours to the apartments in a contemporary form. Feature gables are placed at the end of long vistas. ‘Box’ dormers have been introduced to provide a break in the roofline.
49 4.4 Parking for the apartments is provided in secure parking courts. Cycle parking is also provided for each of the apartment blocks. Parking for houses takes the form of a mix of garages and in curtilage parking.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 Relevant planning policies for the adopted UDP include:
H18 – Planning Considerations ENV1 – Development Principles ENV2 – Design Standards TP5 – Access for New Developments TP13 – Measures to Provide for pedestrians and Cyclists.
5.2 Relevant Policies from the adopted UDP include:
D1 – Design Quality D3 – Urban Structure D4 – Urban Grain D5 – Public Realm D6 – Townscape & Landscape D7 – Scale – Height D8 – Scale – Massing D9 – Appearance D10 – Community Safety D13 – Sustainable Development H6 – Design of Housing Development.
5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance No 3 – Residential Development provides detailed guidance on design and layout of new housing. It includes guidance on such issues as separation between dwellings, privacy, orientation and car parking.
6. Publicity
6.1 Site and press notice. 131 individual properties consulted directly by letter. Period for response expired on 4.1.06. No replies received.
7. External Consultees
7.1 Severn Trent Water – no objections subject to conditions.
7.2 West Midlands Fire Service – the bollards on the pedestrian access route should be fitted with padlocks for cutting by the Fire Service. Any gates on the access routes should be openable without the use of a key or code. The access road should have conspicuous signage showing that it is for emergency access only.
7.3 West Midland Police – there have been some positive changes following my last report. Recommend that the height of railings and gates be 2 metres. Recommend that cycle stores are capable of be ing secured. 50 Prefer the heights of walls and gates surrounding car parking courts to be increased to 1800mm. Recommend that residential properties should be built to Secured by Design standards. The general layout of the development appears to comply with the principles of the Secured by Design Team.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Lifelong Learning (Leisure Services) – it is not believed that the amended siting and design has any effect on the central open space. The location of the play area in the central position is still subject to the agreement of the proposed layout and landscaping plan for the open space.
8.2 Building Consultancy – access for fire appears OK providing that a fire fighting appliance can get within 45 metres of each dwelling.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key considerations in this case are:
• The revisions to the siting arrangements in comparison to the approved outline permission. • Design and appearance of the dwellings. • Boundary treatments and surfacing.
9.2 Revisions to Siting The most obvious revision to the siting relates to the north-west corner and apartment block 3. The apartment block no longer encloses the square. However, there are clear reasons which relate to the drainage of the site which has resulted in the revised layout. To have an alternative drainage arrangement would result in the whole site having to be pumped. This is not a sustainable drainage option.
9.3 There are some other benefits associated with the proposed revised layout. The amount of amenity space provided in association with some of the flats has in some cases increased. In the course of negotiations the positions of garages have been repositioned to avoid large expanses of car parking and tarmac. Subject to receiving amended plans picking up certain details, such as positions and boundaries and relationship of dwellings fronting Woden Road, the siting of dwellings is considered to be consistent with the outline planning permission and acceptable in urban design terms.
9.4 The layout of houses are compliant with the Council’s policies in regard to orientation. Garden and communal open spaces remains consistent with the Council’s guidance.
51 9.5 Design and Appearance of Dwellings
Negotiations have been continuing with the applicants to provide an appropriate high quality design of buildings. In terms of the apartments the design is generally considered acceptable utilising brick, cladding and render. The height of the apartment blocks has been increased to give appropriate emphasis in key locations and improve their appearance. Subject to providing appropriate modulation and avoiding “flat” facades the design of the apartments is considered acceptable.
9.6 In terms of the houses these provide less interest than the apartments. Negotiations are continuing with a view to improving their design and appearance. Should negotiations be successful it is envisaged an approval could be given. Alternatively if design cannot be improved the application could be refused on the grounds that it did not accord with Policies D8 – Scale (Massing) and D9 Appearance of the Revised Deposit UDP and Government Guidance contained in PPS1.
9.7 Overall the layout provides appropriate building frontages to enclose streets and accessways. Attempts have been made to provide landmarks into the site and emphasise corners and provide appropriate treatment of vistas. Buildings generally positively relate to the street. Fronts and backs of properties are clearly defined. Defensible space is provided at the front whilst secure private boundaries are provided to the rear. The Police consider the layout satisfactory and to be suitable for the Secured by Design initiative.
9.8 Boundary Treatment and Surfacing
As submitted the application did include large expanses of tarmac to be used as parking. During the course of negotiations this has been reduced. Negotiations are continuing to reduce the amount of tarmac being proposed for parking areas and utilise block paving instead.
9.9 Similar negotiations have taken place with regard to boundary treatments on the site. It is general Council policy to require front boundaries to be secured by low brick walls, piers and railings. Whilst in some key locations this has been provided, in others, such as many of the houses, it has not been satisfactorily treated. This issue is the subject of ongoing negotiations. Similarly the securing of rear boundaries to parking courts has also been subject to ongoing discussions.
10. Recommendation
10.1 Delegated authority to the Chief Planning & Highways Officer to either:
(a) Grant planning permission following submission of acceptable amended plans and subject to the following conditions:
Details of boundary treatments Details of surfacing Landscaping 52 Details of boundary treatment to open space Details of all materials Secure cycle stores Target hardening Details of bollards which shall include padlocks.
(b) That planning permission be refused for the following reason:
The proposed design and appearance of the houses within the site does not provide an appropriate form of composition, proportion and modulation contrary to Policies D1 and D9 of the Revised Deposit UDP. The proposed treatment of surfaces and boundary treatments also results in an unsatisfactory visual appearance and results in large expanses of tarmac. The proposed flats and houses have a lack of cohesion in design terms which results in the development not providing the appropriate sense of place. In combination these elements are considered to result in a substandard development contrary to Policies ENV2 and H18 of the adopted UDP and Policies D1, D5, D6, D7, D8 and D9 of the Revised Deposit UDP.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
53 Planning Application No: DCNC/05/1999/RM/M Location Part of former Chubb Safes Ltd, Wednesfield Road/Woden Road, Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference so 392565 299409 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 28688.480
54 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/2013/OP/M WARD: Heath Town; DATE 12-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 13-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Outline Planning Permission
SITE: Site of former Edward Vaughan Stamping Works Horseley Fields, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Residential development of 133 apartments (Outline Application)
APPLICANT: AGENT: Cala Homes (Midlands) Ltd Elmdon House 2291 Coventry Road Sheldon Birmingham B26 3PD
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site consists of a vacant area of land. It has a frontage onto Horseley Fields and also onto the Birmingham Canal. The Horseley Fields frontage is enclosed with an unsightly wooden fence. The site has been cleared of any buildings but does contain areas of tipped material. The site is approximately 3 metres higher than the canal, with a large retaining wall abutting the canal side. The surrounding areas are predominantly commercial. To the north of the site, on the opposite side of the canal, is Crane Foundry. To the north-west is the West Coast Mainline. Sites adjoining include the Royal Mail depot and telephone exchange.
2. Planning History
2.1 A planning application (reference 03/022/FP) was refused for the development of the site for 19 one-bedroom apartments and 86 two- bedroom apartments in June 2003. Reasons for refusal included loss of employment land, inadequate visual appearance, an inadequate level of amenity for occupiers of the proposed development, substandard vehicular access, inadequate parking provision and inadequate provision of open space.
2.2 A second application was submitted in October 2003 (03/1347/FP/M). This application consisted of a three storey building consisting of 20 business units and a building of between three and five storeys comprising 45 apartments. This application was reported to Planning Committee when it was resolved to give delegated authority to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement, provision of an adequate transportation assessment and submission of 55 an adequate air quality and noise assessment. Satisfactory transport, air quality and noise assessments were never submitted. As a consequence the Section 106 Agreement was never signed. This application is now treated as “finally disposed of” and no further action will be taken.
2.3 A further application (reference 05/1203/OP/M) to redevelop the site for 133 apartments was submitted in July 2005. This application was identical to the current application. It was withdrawn by the applicants on 17 August 2005.
3. Constraints
3.1 The eastern half of the site is contained within the Union Mill Conservation Area. It is also included on the Sites and Monuments Record.
4. Application Details
4.1 The proposal consists of 133 apartments with 102 car parking spaces, representing 77% provision, plus an additional 8 disabled parking spaces. The apartments consist of 1 and 2 bed units (86 2-bed units and 47 1-bed units). The building form proposes two separate “U” shaped buildings. Both of the two buildings front directly onto Horseley Fields with a vehicular access point provided centrally between them. The main elevation fronting onto Horseley Fields would be three storeys in height whilst the buildings to the rear would rise to four storeys as they return into the site. The buildings to the eastern end of the side would rise to five storeys along its frontage with the Canal. The layout of the buildings means that all apartments are either facing east, west or south with no habitable rooms facing north.
4.2 Parking is provided in three courtyards behind the main elevations on Horseley Fields and in the area between the two buildings. Twenty of the spaces would be undercroft parking whilst eight spaces will be allocated for people with a disability.
4.3 A new canal walkway is identified alongside the Birmingham Canal. The canal walkway is shown as having a width of 1.6m reducing down at a pinch point to 0.9m. Access to the new canalside walkway would be via the development or by a new stepped access from Horseley Fields, immediately adjacent to the Horseley Fields canal bridge. Cycle parking would be provided as well as refuse stores.
4.4 The proposed buildings would be primarily constructed of facing brickwork. All circulation spaces, both vertical and horizontal, are proposed to be timber clad so they are expressed externally as a different use and are legible from the outside. Each apartment, except ground floor ones, have floor to ceiling glazing to maximise the feeling of light and space. The timber clad vertical circulation courts are predominantly located at the corners of the blocks or at the northern end of the “fingers” which project into the site from Horseley Fields. The 56 three storey blocks, which give a defined street scene to Horseley Fields, are lower than the blocks/fingers which run north into the heart of the site. This means that the blocks (fingers), which are at 90 0 to the main façade, will be visible from the street. The elevations addressing the courtyards would be decorated with timber cladding and with graphics saying “Horseley Fields Junction”. This is intended to reflect the painted signage on the traditional canalside buildings in a more contemporary way and give an identity to the courtyards.
4.5 Both the vehicular access and pedestrian access points would be gated on the Horseley Fields frontage to provide security to the inner courtyard of the site. However, the pedestrian access from the site to the canal is not gated and would be unsecured.
4.6 Whilst some of the courtyards have been broken up with some soft landscaping there is little in the way of private amenity space for residents. A small area is proposed between the eastern most edge of a “finger” and the canal towpath. A further area of space is provided between the eastern car park and the canal. This would also provide access directly from the canal into the development itself.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The adopted UDP does not allocate the site for development but identifies the site as being within the Black Country Development Corporation area. However as a former employment site it does gain protection from Policy E5 of the adopted plan. This states that employment land will normally be safeguarded except where it can be clearly demonstrated the site is no longer suited to continued employment use. Policy E5 states that under such circumstances the Local Planning Authority will give consideration to alternative development providing it does not conflict with other policies or proposals in the plan.
5.2 Further relevant policies contained in the Adopted UDP are:
• H2 - Development of Other Sites for Housing • H3 - Housing Development on Contaminated, Unstable or Derelict Land • H6 - Large Housing Sites • H7 - Affordable/Social Housing. • H18 - Planning Considerations • ENV1 - Development Principles • ENV2 - Design Standards • ENV18 - Preserving and Enhancing Conservation Areas • R2 - Open Space Provision • R3 - Priorities for open space provision • R5 – Greenways • TP5 – Access and New Development • TP13 – Measures to Provide for Pedestrians • R10 - The Canal Network and Other Water Features • R12 - Children’s Play and New Housing Development 57 • TP14 - Planning Standards –Car Parking • TC13 - New Residential Development and Change of Use to Residential. • TC20 - Heritage Area • TC23 - New Buildings • TC27 - Main Road, Canal and Railway Corridors.
5.3 The Revised Deposit UDP identifies the site as being within the Canalside Quarter. Policy CC12 indicates that as part of a comprehensive economic and physical regeneration of the area, a wide range of sustainable land uses such as leisure, housing and workshops will be sought. Improved linkages both into the area and through it will be required to secure greater integration with the rest of the City centre.
5.4 Other policies of relevance in the Revised Deposit UDP are:
S2 - Strategic Regeneration Corridors D1 - Design Quality D3 – Urban Structure D4 – Urban Grain D5 – Public Realm D6 – Townscape and Landscape D7 – Scale – Height D9 – Scale – Massing D10 – Community Safety EP11 – Development of Contaminating and Unstable Land HE3 – Preservation and Enhancement of Conservation Areas HE4 – Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 – Control of Development in a Conservation Area HE8 – Encouragement of Appropriate Redevelopment in Conservation Areas HE9 – Relaxation of Normal Standards in a Conservation Area HE22 – Protection and Enhancement of the Canal Network B10 – Redevelopment of Employment Land and Premises R7 – Open Space Requirements for New Development H1 – Housing H6 – Design of Housing Development H9 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments H10 – Housing Density and Mix H11 – Affordable Housing AM9 – Provision for Pedestrians AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision CC3 – City Centre Housing.
5.5 The Council has produced the Wolverhampton Canalside Quarter Implementation Plan. This has been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The overall Master Plan for the Canalside Quarter identifies the site for Industry/Workshops. The Canalside Quarter Plan also identifies the site as being within the southern character area, which is considered an area of mixed use activity, combining small scale residential, leisure and employment uses in a restored fine grain historic environment centred on the canal. 58
5.6 The City Centre Strategy and Action Plan 2005 identifies the site as being a mixed use scheme currently under discussion. The Action Plan also refers to the need to include the application site within a larger comprehensive development.
5.7 The Council has also produced Supplementary Planning Guidance No 3 – Residential Development which gives detailed advice with regard to the form, layout and orientation of residential developments. SPG16 also provides advice with regard to public art.
5.8 The Black Country Study, in which Wolverhampton is a partner authority, seeks to provide substantial amounts of service type and particularly office employment, especially in or near City Centres and accessible transport corridors, to compensate for the loss of manufacturing employment. The result of the Black Country Study will be incorporated in the revised West Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy.
6. Publicity
6.1 Site and press notice. Adjoining properties consulted directly by letter. Period for response expired on 11 January 2006. Three representations received at the time of writing.
6.2 One from Bodycote Metallurgical Coatings, who operate from a site directly opposite on Horseley Fields, raises an objection that the area has been industrial for over 80 years. To remain competitive the objectors need to operate equipment over a 24 hour day. If the application is approved then occupiers are likely to complain about the operation of their business forcing the business to close.
6.3 An objection has been received from Crane Cast Limited who operate a foundry adjacent to the site. This raises concern over the problems of noise which would result from existing and continuing working practices at the foundry site. This includes starting operations at the site with charging the hoppers at 5.30am.
6.4 The remaining representation raises no objection and comments that the paved area alongside the canal should form part of a public right of way from the Railway Station to Horseley Fields. More hard landscaping is preferred to the soft landscaping indicated.
7. External Consultees
7.1 Environment Agency – no objection in principle, request condition to control site investigation and remediation.
7.2 West Midlands Police – it is essential that there is no unrestricted access from the towpath into or out of the development. This should be controlled by fencing. Undercroft car parking as shown must not be included as they have proved to provide opportunities for crime elsewhere. Other issues relate to access into buildings, landscaping 59 and CCTV.
7.3 West Midlands Fire Service: it would appear that satisfactory access for fire appliances to each flat is not possible. This is unsatisfactory.
7.4 Severn Trent Water: no objection subject to conditions.
7.5 Centro: no objection. As the number of residential units exceed 100 the developer should be required to develop a Residential Travel Plan.
7.6 Network Rail: no comments.
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Archaeologist – no archaeological implications.
8.2 Neighbourhood Renewal – support but it is not clear what the affordable housing provision is on the site.
8.3 Landscape – the layout leaves very little open space. There is an uncertain relationship between the ends of the apartment blocks and the canal. Building heights up to 5 storeys is excessive. Tree planting proposed in parking areas will have limited growth potential. The “defensible space” along Horseley Fields is too narrow for planting to develop.
8.4 Project Implementation – a comprehensive approach to the development of this part of the Canalside Quarter is required. Piecemeal development is wholly inappropriate. In land use terms a wholly residential scheme would result in a monoculture. The Wolverhampton City Centre Strategy and Action Plan (2005) identifies the site as suitable for mixed use/residential. The site should be developed along with others including Royal Mail Depot, the Cheese and Butter Warehouse and adjacent land, plus the Crane Foundry site.
8.5 Transportation – the preference has always been for redevelopment of the wider area on a comprehensive basis outlined in the Canalside Quarter Implementation Plan, December 2000. Such an approach would require some highway works to provide a new junction on Horseley Fields to allow for turning movements, improve flows (including buses) and address road safety concerns. Should the site be redeveloped in isolation additional consideration of these issues is also required. The developer should be prepared to allow provision of capacity for a turning lane or bus lane as part of a capital contribution towards additional capacity and safety measures along this section of Horseley Fields.
8.6 There are a number of detailed issues in the application which require further consideration. This includes revisions needed to the TA, revisions to the layout and car parking an d access for service vehicles. As a result refusal is recommended for the following reasons.
1. The site should be redeveloped as part of a comprehensive 60 development in accordance with the Canalside Quarter Implementation Plan. 2. The applicants have failed to adequately address issues regarding highway capacity on the surrounding network and access from Horseley Fields, specifically with regard to road safety (including for pedestrians) and the free flow of traffic (including buses). 3. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed parking provision of less than 0.8 spaces per dwelling would not generate on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety and the free flow of traffic. 4. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would make adequate provision for cycle parking, motor cycle parking or emergency vehicles, refuse collection vehicles and other service vehicles. 5. The layout does not make adequate provision for convenient access and circulation within the site by people with disabilities and by pedestrians or provide adequate dimensions for the undercroft parking to function adequately.
8.7 Planning Policy – Policy E5 of the adopted UDP and B10 of the Revised Deposit UDP protect existing employment land from re development. Applicant has failed to demonstrate in the report that it is not possible to redevelop the site for employment purposes. The site has not been marketed. The Black Country Study highlights the need for substantial amounts of office space to be provided to compensate for the loss of manufacturing. The site is identified as suitable for mixed use in adopted Supplementary Guidance. The site does not provide open space or affordable housing. The application should be refused.
8.8 Public Protection – a noise assessment and air quality report has been submitted with the application. This indicates that the site is largely within either category C or D of the noise exposure categories. PPG24 indicates that for developments on land in category D planning permission should be refused. Within category C planning permission should not normally be granted, unless factors such as there are no other sites available apply, and then conditions should be imposed.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key considerations in this case are:
• Environmental Health considerations. • Whether this site should be developed solely for residential use. • The need for comprehensive development. • Whether the form of development is acceptable adjacent to the canal and in a Conservation Area. • The visual appearance of the building. • Provision of appropriate vehicular access, pedestrian and cyclist routes. • Affordable housing and provision of open space • Other Transportation issues.
61 9.2 Environmental Health Considerations The site is located adjacent to the very busy strategic route Horseley Fields. To the rear of the site is a foundry. On the opposite side of Horseley Fields are other unrestricted class B2 operations. The West Coast Main Line is in close proximity to the site. A wholly residential development in such a harsh environment is not considered to give an acceptable level of amenity to potential occupiers.
9.3 Mixed Use Development The site was formerly used for an industrial purposes. Clearly the buildings have now been demolished. Policy B10 of the Revised Deposit UDP sets out a series of criteria for consideration in the determination of proposals for redevelopment of employment sites for other purposes. These include whether the loss of the site would have an unacceptable effect upon the range and quality of sites available for employment use in the area. In addition it should be established that the site is unsuitable for continued employment use and should have been adequately marketed to ascertain there was no market demand for the site. Whilst the applicants have provided a report on the office market they have not undertaken a marketing campaign for the site. The report submitted by the applicant is not considered to address the issues identified in Policy B10 or the fact that the site is identified for mixed use in both the Canalside Quarter Plan and City Centre Strategy and Action Plan. Effectively the development of the site for a wholly residential development would result in the loss of a key employment site contrary to established planning policy.
9.4 The applicant’s report also does not take on board emerging issues such as those within the Black Country Study and the need to re-establish an office market. The site, being on a major strategic route and close to the City Centre, would make an important contribution towards providing a new office market and the aspirations of the Black Country Study. It also does not reflect the Council’s aspirations to reinvigorate the office market in Wolverhampton. Consequently it is not considered that the report provides justification for a wholly residential development when key policy objectives provide support for mixed use developments. This includes Government guidance in PPS1, the Canalside Quarter Plan and the Wolverhampton City Centre Strategy and Action Plan (March 2005).
9.5 Layout of Development The proposal provides a frontage to Horseley Fields with three projecting buildings at 90 0 to the frontage (the “fingers”). This results in a proposal where blocks do not formally relate to the canal frontage. In addition the “fingers” projecting into the site are higher than the main frontage buildings. This arrangement is considered unacceptable, contrary to the general layout of historic buildings located adjacent to canals and detrimental to the visual appearance of the Conservation Area. A more traditional arrangement providing a perimeter block, which addressed both the Horseley Fields frontage and the canalside, is considered to be the most appropriate approach to provide an acceptable development of the site. This would replicate the development which has already been constructed at Albion Street to the west. Whilst the proposed “fingers” allows for the maximum amount of 62 development to be put on the site, it does not reflect the general characteristics of the canalside, provide a suitably overlooked canal frontage or adequately defined public and private realms. Whilst the Overall Master Plan in the Canalside Quarter Plan does identify buildings at 90 0 degrees to the canal, this was only indicative and on further analysis is not an appropriate arrangement.
9.6 In addition the buildings appear cramped on the site with little amenity space, or defensible space for residents. In some areas windows directly front onto Horseley Fields with little or no buffer between the pavement and the building. The proposed development is considered to be an over development of the site contrary to Policy ENV2 of the Adopted UDP and policies D4, D5 and D6 of the Revised Deposit UDP and SPG3.
9.7 Comprehensive Development It is evident that a number of sites in the vicinity of the application site are potentially becoming available for redevelopment (the adjacent Post Office Depot and possibly the BT Depot). A comprehensive development of the area would have substantial planning benefits. It would also allow a proper mixed use development of appropriate scale and critical mass to come forward which would be more difficult on a site by site basis. It would also allow f or a more efficient resolution of transportation matters, which could also have benefits for road safety and the free and safe flow of traffic. This aspiration is reflected in the City Centre Strategy and Action Plan.
9.8 Informal planning guidelines have been prepared by Officers and made available to developers to facilitate the comprehensive development of the area on a coordinated basis to solve problems and produce sustainable development. These guidelines have not been followed in this particular submission.
9.9 Visual Appearance The proposal provides a contemporary but rather bland form of architecture utilising brick and large amounts of timber panelling and flat roofs. It is considered that the proposals as they stand are of poor or mediocre quality, lack local distinctiveness, and are out of character with the Conservation Area and the canalside.
9.10 Pedestrian Linkages Whilst providing a secured environment to Horseley Fields through gated access points, the proposal does not adequately address this matter with regards to the canal frontage. As a result free access is provided from the proposed canal towpath into the rear of the housing development. This negates any benefits from securing the Horseley Road’s frontage.
9.11 In addition the application proposes a new canalside walk which would vary in width of between 1.6 metres and 0.9 metres. The canalside walk would eventually be “rolled out” as adjacent sites to the west were developed. The canalside public walkway provided by Redrow Homes further along is of a minimum clear dimension of 3 metres, widening considerably in parts to create amenity/sitting out area. However as 63 designed the canalside walk would result in a dead end. The proposed pedestrian facilities consisting of narrow canal towpath with a dead end are considered inadequate and potentially a security issue. As a result the proposal is considered to have negative security implications and does not provide for appropriate pedestrian linkages to the canal. The access to the canal from Horseley Fields would consist solely of steps and as a result would not be accessible to wheelchair users.
9.12 Affordable Housing and Open Space As a major development the application should be providing both affordable housing and a contribution towards public open space. Neither has been adequately addressed in the application.
9.13 Transportation The scheme should allow provision for a turning lane or bus lane as part of a contribution towards improvements and safety measures on Horseley Fields. This has not been identified in the proposal. There are a number of other outstanding matters of detail which have not been fully addressed. As a result the proposal has not fully addressed transportation issues.
10. Conclusion
10.1 The lack of a mixed use element and particularly office/service employment to the proposed development is considered to be contrary to the protection given to the former employment use of this site and the Canalside Implementation Plan. The location of the site is not currently favourable to residential development due to the impact of noise from traffic and nearby industrial uses. The form and design of the buildings are considered to inadequately relate to the canal and Conservation Area and provide poor and potentially dangerous pedestrian routes. Security of the flats is also compromised as a result of its relationship with the proposed canal towpath. As a result the proposal is considered to be contrary to many key design and security policies contained in both the adopted and emerging UDPs.
10.2 A piecemeal development approach as the current application is unlikely to resolve the environmental, land use and design problems of this and surrounding sites. A comprehensive, master plan approach incorporating the Council’s Policies and advice would be the right way to approach development in this area, on a partnership basis between the various interests.
11. Recommendation
11.1 Refuse for the following reasons:
1. The proposed development would result in the loss of employment land contrary to policies E5 of the Adopted UDP and B10 of the Revised Deposit UDP and will be contrary to the Council’s approved Supplementary Planning Guidance for the area identified in the Canalside Quarter Plan. 64
2. The existing environment is already affected by traffic noise, railway noise and adjacent industrial operations. The level of amenity provided in a wholly residential development in these circumstances is not considered to be satisfactory. As a result the proposal is contrary to Policy H6 of the Revised Deposit UDP.
3. The proposed layout and form of the development results in a cramped over development of the site which would have adverse impact on the character and appearance of the Union Mill Conservation Area and the visual appearance of the canal. As a result the proposal is contrary to policies ENV2 and ENV18 of the Adopted UDP and D4, D5 and D6 of the Revised Deposit UDP.
4. The proposed visual appearance of the buildings would provide for an unsatisfactory design, out of character with its surroundings and which would have a detrimental affect on the character and appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area, canalside and strategic route into the City centre.
5. The proposal fails to provide for adequate and accessible pedestrian links onto the canalside particularly for the disabled, provides inadequate security for residents and potentially a dangerous cul-de-sac for users of the proposed canalside footpath. As a result the proposal is contrary to policies H18, TP5, TP13 and ENV2 of the Adopted UDP Plan and policies D3, D5 and D6 of the Revised Deposit UDP.
6. The application does not provide for 20% provision of affordable housing and as a result the proposal conflicts with Revised Deposit UDP Policy H11 and Government Guidance.
7. The proposal does not provide adequate public or private open space contrary to Policy H6 of the adopted UDP, H9 of the Revised Deposit UDP and SPG3.
8. The applicants have failed to adequately address issues regarding highway capacity on the surrounding network and access from Horseley Fields, specifically with regard to road safety (including for pedestrians) and the free flow of traffic (including buses).
9. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed parking provision of less than 0.8 spaces per dwelling would not generate on-street parking to the detriment of highway safety and of the free flow of traffic.
10. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the development would make adequate provision for cycle parking, motor cycle parking or emergency vehicles, refuse collection vehicles and other service vehicles.
65 11. The layout does not make adequate provision for convenient access and circulation within the site by people with disabilities and by pedestrians or provide adequate dimensions for the undercroft parking to function adequately.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Assistant Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
66 Planning Application No: DCNC/05/2013/OP/M Location Site of former Edward Vaughan Stamping Works, Horseley Fields, Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference so 392375 298592 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 6786.950
67 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 06/0010/FP/R WARD: Merry Hill; DATE 05-JAN-2006 TARGET DATE: 02-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 83 Castlecroft Road, Finchfield. PROPOSAL: Retrospective, single storey rear extension.
APPLICANT: Mr S S Sandhu 83 Castlecroft Road Finchfield Wolverhampton WV3 8DY
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The property concerned is a large detached house built in the early 1950’s on the corner of Castlecroft Road and Finchfield Lane. The property is well set back from the road with an approximately 2.5m high hedge surrounding the whole site except for the drive entrances. The entrance of the driveway on the corner of Castlecroft Road has gates and there is another entrance from Finchfield Lane.
1.2 There is a Copper Beech tree on the property which has a Tree Preservation Order.
1.3 The street scene to Castlecroft Road is mainly detached properties. The rear of the property backs on to a bungalow on Finchfield Lane.
1.4 The proposal is retrospective for a single storey rear extension.
2. Planning History
2.1 0739/53 Erection of greenhouse – granted.
3. Constraints
3.1 TPO Confirmed.
68 4. Application Details
4.1 The proposal is for an extension to an existing garage in the rear garden. The existing garage measures 6.5m length, 5m wide and 4m high. The extended building measures 11.5m in length, 6.5m wide and 4m high. The proposed enlarged building will be divided into four rooms to be used for a weight training room, sauna room and games room with a shower room.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 ENV2 "Design Standards" SPG4 "Extensions to Houses"
6. Publicity
6.1 Direct neighbour letters sent on the 11/1/0 6. The expiry date is 1/2/06. Neighbour at number 131 has indicated that she would like someone to address the planning committee on her behalf.
6.2 Letter received from the adjoining neighbour at 131 Finchfield Lane who is concerned about :- • the overhang of the extension on to her property. • That there is no gap left between the two and therefore will not be able to be maintained. • The size of the extension is more like a separate residential property. • Visual amenity of the area has diminished, being out of character with other properties on Castlecroft Road and Finchfield Lane
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Trees – Should have been protected to BS5837 prior to and during construction. Any roots encountered at the foundations should be cleanly cut. An application for this should be submitted and for any branches that require pruning for construction. Prior to any resurfacing existing tarmac/hard surface should be removed and an assessment of the roof plate of the Copper Beech undertaken, this should determine the method of construction.
7.2 Enforcement – retrospective application submitted as a response to enquiry/investigation.
69 8. Appraisal
8.1 The proposal is nearly complete. However, the drawings submitted do not match the extension that is built. The applicant was requested to send the correct plans, but the second set of plans are still inaccurate. The windows on the plans do not match the windows installed. The gap of 0.2m between the extension and the neighbouring property does not exist. There is a small gap at the front side however, there is no visible gap at the rear. The plans also show a small window in the wall of the front elevation.
8.2 The proposal replaces the garage wall and gate.
8.3 The plans show the walls and gate still there. However, the wall and gate have been incorporated into the scheme to create a lobby area between the extension and the house. The wall has been raised and a door has been added here with a letterbox.
8.4 The plans show a small third window to the front elevation when in actual fact it is a large window with two openings. Only one window has been shown on the rear when there are two. The rear the door is also not shown on the plans. 8.5 The extension has been built up to the boundary of the neighbour at number 131 Finchfield Lane and the roof to the rear overhangs the neighbouring garage. A gap of 0.2m has been shown on the plans.
8.6 The floor plans originally showed a large weight training room when in actual fact a dividing wall has been added with separate doors, making a total of four rooms instead of the three shown on the plans. Recently received plans now show this subdivision.
9. Conclusion
9.1 The plans submitted are not accurate and do not show the unauthorised extension exactly as built. The proposal is now up to the boundary with the neighbour. The gap between the garage and house has been removed creating large continuous built frontage around the corner of Finchfield Lane. The workmanship and quality of finish is poor in appearance and has not had proper clearance under the building regulations.
9.2 The extension due to its size, location and bulk is considered to be an overdevelopment of the site leaving little amenity area for the existing large house and adversely affecting the amenities of the neighbouring property.
9.3 The recently received amended plans show a sauna and steam room and a weight training room, when in actual fact this room has a window and electrical socket and light switch and it will obviously not be used as such. It is clear that the whole extension could easily be used as a separate unit of accommodation.
70
10. Recommendation
10.1 Refuse permission:- - plans not accurate and suggest a use as a separate un it of accommodation - effect of overhang on neighbouring property - cramped overdevelopment – adverse effects and loss of amenity/garden space impact on street scene. - contrary to ENV2 "Design Standards" and SPG4 "Extensions to Houses".
10.2 Authorisation be given to take Enforcement action under Section 172 of the Town & Country Planning Act 1990 to secure the demolition of the extension and in the event of non-compliance with the Enforcement notice, to authorise legal proceedings under Section 179 of the 1990 Act.
10.3 If accurate plans received by the time of Committee and oral update will be given.
Case Officer : Nussarat Malik Telephone No : 551132 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
71 Planning Application No: DCSW/06/0010/FP/R Location 83 Castlecroft Road, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 388303 297880 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 852.177
72 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1877/DW/M WARD: Oxley; DATE 15-NOV-2005 TARGET DATE: 14-FEB-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: Land at Rakegate Infants School, Renton Road, Oxley PROPOSAL: Redevlopment of school for residential purposes
APPLICANT: AGENT: Wolverhampton City Council Jacobs Babtie Life Long Learning 48 Queen Street Wolverhampton WV1 3BP
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of the exi sting Rakegate Infants’ School. The site contains a range of buildings dating from probably the 1950s. Access to the site is from Renton Road. To the north-west is Rakegate Junior School which in turn is accessed of Sandwell Road. The surrounding area is predominantly residential consisting of semi-detached two storey houses. To the south-west of the site are some community facilities in the form of a health centre, nursing home and library.
2. Planning History
2.1 An enabling scheme to allow the erection of 6 temporary classrooms and revised parking area on the infants school site was granted planning permission on 7 November 2005 (reference 05/1339/DW/M). This development, which was granted temporary planning permission, allowed for the relocation of the existing junior school onto the infants school site whilst construction of a new school took place. The new school was to be located on the junior school site.
73 2.2 A planning application was submitted in August 2005 for the erection of a new single storey primary school on the existing junior school site (05/1446/DW/M). This application was reported to Planning Committee on 6 December 2005. As the application site was within the Green Belt the application had to be referred to the Secretary of State. In addition an objection had been received from Sport England to the loss of playing fields which needed to be resolved before referral could take place. Concerns have been raised about transportation arrangements and a Transportation Assessment requested. None of these details have been resolved by the applicant and as a result the application for the new school has still to be referred to the Secretary of State.
3. Application Details
3.1 The application is entirely in outline form seeking redevelopment of the land for residential purposes. The only information supplied is the red line plan identifying the site and a tree survey assessing the trees on the site.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Relevant UDP Policies include:
Policy C1 – Land for Community Services Policy H2 – Development of other Sites for Housing Policy H18 – Planning Considerations Policy ENV1 – Design Principles Policy ENV2 – Design Standards Policy ENV13 – The Urban Forest and Protection of Trees.
4.2 Revised Deposit UDP Policies of relevance include:
Policy C1 – Health, Education and other Community Services Policy C3 – Educational Facilities Policy H1 – Housing Policy H3 – Housing Site Assessment Criteria Policy H6 – Design of Housing Development Policy H9 – Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for New Housing Developments H11 – Affordable Housing
4.3 SPG No 3 – Residential Development and SPG No 16 – Public Art are relevant.
74 5. Publicity
5.1 Residential properties surrounding the site (103 properties) consulted directly by letter. Site and press notice.
5.2 Two responses received from local residents. These raise concerns over the lack of information supplied in connection with the application.
6. External Consultees
6.1 West Midlands Police – no objection in principle. The area currently and historically suffers a high level of crime such as burglary and thefts from vehicles. Oversight or disregard for security will provide opportunity for crime and antisocial behaviour. Secure parking for vehicles will be imperative.
6.2 Severn Trent Water – no objection subject to a condition to control drainage.
6.3 West Midlands Fire Service – more details required before the scheme can be considered satisfactory.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Property Services – outline residential consent is necessary for the disposal of this site. The site is to be sold to fund the construction of the adjacent new school. Access will be from Renton Road. Part of the site is designated as a Millennium Forest. This is a very important site due to the inter-linking of the capital receipt from this site to the new school.
7.2 Building Consultancy – insufficient information on which to comment.
7.3 Landscape – no comments.
7.4 Lifelong Learning (Parks and Contracts) – the Renton Road estate already has a below standard provision of public open space. Currently no funds are available within Leisure Services to increase play provision. The residents of the estate already suffer from a general lack of and poor quality of public open space provision, especially for children. To install a multi-ball games area on the existing designated Renton Road football area would amount to £65,000 and an amount in excess of £20,000 is required to improve the Renton Road play area site. Applying the UDP Revised Development Plan would allow for a contribution towards the improvement of existing open spaces. This would significantly improve recreational facilities on this estate. The improvement of play facilities will reduce the amount of nuisance caused by children’s play
75 in the area. Without any such contribution the development of this land for residential purposes would accelerate current open space problems.
7.5 Environmental Services – no objection. Comments suggested with regard to the control of construction – noise etc.
7.6 Tree Officer – the site has very few mature trees of great significance. The Horse Chestnut on the entrance drive is one of the best examples. Other trees on the site are of long term potential being semi-mature. The woodland area has not been included for detailed survey but it is generally characterised as retention most desirable. The Lombardy Poplar trees are recommended for felling and this should be noted before any future development on the application site.
7.7 Planning Policy – the site is not designated for any particular use in the adopted or Revised Deposit UDP although it adjoins the Green Belt boundary. The woodland on the eastern third of the site should be retained and improved as specified in Policies N5 and N7 of the Revised Deposit UDP. The future management of this area is of concern as it is not suitable for inclusion in domestic gardens. A management company arrangement would be preferable. The existing school buildings and grounds are not worthy of retention and will be subject to redevelopment. Given the proximity to the Green Belt this should be limited to two storeys and a mix of dwellings should be provided. The site is likely to fall within the remit of Policy H9 of the Revised Deposit UDP. This would require planning permission not to be granted until a Section 106 is signed requiring the payment of a contribution towards open space and play proportionate to the number of residents to be accommodated in the final scheme. Policy H11 of the Revised UDP requires the provision of affordable housing on sites of 24 units or more. To ensure this policy is properly applied either the planning permission should be limited to 24 dwellings or less, or the Section 106 Agreement should include a clause requiring 25% affordable housing should the final capacity be 25 or more dwellings.
7.8 Transportation – no objection to the principle of development subject to there being no commitment on numbers and there being conditions requiring the following matters being addressed at detailed stage.
(i) Submission and approval by the City Council of a Transport Assessment which addresses issues related to both this and the proposed school development. (2) Contribution towards any ameliorative measures, such as traffic calming, which may be required arising from Transportation Assessment for both developments. (3) Implementation of any measures which may be identified from the Transportation Assessment/School Travel Plan as required for management of travel demand for the adjacent school, for
76 example from parent drop-off and pick-up.
8. Appraisal
8.1 The key considerations in this case are:
• The potential loss of a community facility • The suitability of the site for residential development in policy terms • Access arrangements • Conditions and obligations.
8.2 Potential Loss of Community Facilities
Policies in the Revised Deposit UDP and the adopted UDP seek to protect existing community facilities including educational facilities. In this case whilst the school will be lost on this particular site, there is a proposal to provide a new joint junior and infant school on the existing Rakegate Junior School to the north-west. A planning application to provide for the new school has already been submitted and considered by Committee. Whilst a planning permission has not been issued, due to the fact that outstanding information is still required and the application still has to be referred to the Secretary of State, it is clear that the infants school will be replaced in the new school complex as and when that is constructed.
8.3 In addition the arrangements to provide for the new school will mean that the application site will be utilised for a temporary period as a joint junior and infants’ school. This will occur during the demolition of the existing junior school and the subsequent construction of the combined school facility. Only when the school has been completed on the existing junior school site will the infants’ school then be available for redevelopment. In order to ensure that this sequence of events is followed a condition is suggested which would restrict redevelopment of the application site until the new school facility was available for occupation. With this in place it is evident that the existing facility will be replaced as part of the new school development. Consequently the UDP Policies protecting educational facilities are complied with.
8.4 Suitability for Residential Use
The application site is predominantly surrounded by the existing residential gardens. To the north-west on the site of the junior school is proposed a new school, whilst to the south east are an existing health centre and nursing home. The eastern third of the site has been planted up as a Millennium Forest project. This area contains a substantial
77 number of trees. It will be important to retain this as a wildlife and amenity feature. A management scheme should be provided to ensure its long term management. However, other than the area of forestry to the east the site is suitable for residential development.
8.5 Access Arrangements
Access for the site will be via the existing Renton Road accessway. This will be improved through the demolition of the caretaker’s house as part of the proposals for the new school facility on the junior school site. This will provide for a new roundabout adjacent to the western application site boundary. The roundabout will provide an access road both to the junior school and a further access point into the application site to cater for residential traffic.
8.6 Conditions and Obligations
The site is likely to generate something between 20 and 25 dwellings. However, without a layout which takes account of the existing trees on the site, including the Millennium Forest area, and also takes on board development control/urban design issues it is difficult to give a definitive figure. Nevertheless it is very likely that in excess of 10 units will be provided and as a result a contribution should be made towards enhancing open space in the vicinity. This monetary contribution can be secured through imposing a condition on the planning permission which requires that any future developer enters into a Section 106 Agreement with the Council to provide for such monetary payment. A further condition is suggested which will ensure that should a satisfactory scheme of in excess of 24 units come forward, then 25% of the overall number of units in the development should be provided as affordable housing. This is consistent with the Council’s Revised Deposit UDP Policy. A further condition is suggested requiring that a management scheme be submitted and agreed with the Council to ensure that the Millennium Forest area is properly maintained. With the above matters in place the proposal will be consistent with the Council’s adopted and emerging planning policies.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Grant planning permission subject to the following conditions:
(i) Siting, access, design, external appearance and landscaping to be submitted and approved.
(ii) The developer to enter into a Section 106 Agreement to provide a contribution towards enhancing open space in the area.
(iii) A management regime to be submitted, approved and implemented for the Millennium Forest area on the site and any
78 other communal areas.
(iv) Affordable housing to be provided should development come forward within in excess of 24 units. Such affordable housing to be based on 25% of the overall number of units.
(v) Tree protection measures.
(vi) Boundary treatments.
(vii) Implementation of the planning permission shall not commence until the new school to be provided on the Rakegate Junior School site is complete and available for occupation.
(viii) Details of the existing and proposed levels.
(ix) Details of street lighting.
(x) Public art.
(xi) Provision of access road and roundabout prior to occupation of any dwelling.
(xii) Transportation Assessment.
(xiii) Contribution towards a scheme to install traffic calming measures should they be required following submission of Transportation Assessment.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
79 Planning Application No: DCNC/05/1877/DW/M Location Land at Rakegate Infant School, Renton Road, Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference sj 390903 302312 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 10442.155
80 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 06/0076/FP/R WARD: Oxley; DATE 13-JAN-2006 TARGET DATE: 10-MAR- RECEIVED: 2006 APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 24 Lodge Road, Oxley PROPOSAL: New tiled canopy at front plus new raised roof over existing side extension to form new kitchen
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Mohinder Singh J.K. Kalsi 24 Lodge Road 2 Coalway Road Oxley Penn Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV10 6TH WV3 7LR
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This is a detached property located on the north side of Lodge Road close to the junction with Churchfield Road. The site is bounded on the east by a bungalow and on the west by a pair of semi-detached houses. The location is wholly residential. The property has an existing single storey garage which has been converted to a play room. There is also an existing single storey rear extension which was developed using permitted development rights. The proposal is for a new tiled canopy at front plus new raised roof over existing side extension to form new kitchen.
1.2 An application was previously granted for a two storey side extension along the boundary with No.48 Churchfield Road. However this development has not been constructed.
2. Planning History
2.1 02/1215/FP – Granted – 07.02.2003 – Two storey extension at side
3. Constraints
3.1 None
4. Application Details
4.1 New tiled canopy at front plus new raised roof over existing side extension to form new kitchen
81
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 ENV 2 – Design Standards SPG No.4 – Extension to Houses (1996).
6. Publicity
6.1 The application has been publicised by letters to adjoining occupiers.
6.2 Neighbour letter expiry date – 09.02.2006.
6.3 One letter of objection received from the occupier of 48 Churchfield Road, Oxley. The objector expressed concern about the following matters:-
i. A considerable amount of extension work has already been undertaken using permitted development rights;
ii. Residential amenity impaired as a result of proposed development which would result in a loss of light and reduced quality of life; and
iii. Proposed development would be over intensification of the site and result in a house which would be out of character with the surrounding properties.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 None
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required
10. Appraisal
10.1 The proposed works in design terms are satisfactory and in keeping with the character and visual appearance of the main house and adjacent dwellings.
10.2 The nearest property is 48 Churchfield Road, a large detached bungalow, approximately 0.5 metres from the side boundary of the application site. There is a difference of approximately 0.4 metres in levels at the rear of the house whereby the bungalow is higher than the 82 application site. The west side of 48 Churchfield Road has three windows serving a cloakroom and bathroom, which overlook the existing single storey side extension, and a kitchen window which overlooks the rear single storey extension of the application site. The bathroom is already dark by virtue of the existing single storey extension and it is not considered that there would be any significant further loss of light to this window. It is not considered that there will be any loss of light to the kitchen as the proposed development will not extend this far along the side boundary. On this basis it would not be possible to justify refusal on the likely impact on neighbour amenity.
11. Recommendation
11.1 Grant consent with a condition for matching materials.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Acting Head of Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
83 Planning Application No: DCNC/06/0076/FP/R Location 24 Lodge Road, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference sj 390950 301741 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 285.019
84
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1930/FP/M WARD: Park; DATE 24-NOV-2005 TARGET DATE: 23-FEB-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Land at Gibbs St & Coleman St, Whitmore Reans PROPOSAL: Erection of 14 apartments and open space
APPLICANT: AGENT: Heantun Housing Association 3 Wellington Road Bilston West Midlands WV14 6AA
REPORT:
This application went to Planning Committee on 10 January 2006 but has been referred back to Planning Committee to allow for the applicant to address Committee.
1. Site Description
1.1 This 0.33 hectare site is an area of open space situated within an established residential area. It is a flat site that is grassed with some trees on the periphery and used as a kick about area by local families. The site is overlooked by adjoining terraced houses and is well used by the community, including Gibbs Street nursery which is situated just across the road. The site is currently managed by Estates Services.
2. Planning History
2.1 A/C/0316/86 – 18 No. 2 storey dwellings. Granted 4/4/86
3. Application Details
3.1 This is a detailed application that proposes to erect 14 apartments on existing public open space. The apartments would be provided in 2 three storey buildings. The principal building would comprise 11 two bed apartments and would be located at the junction of Coleman Street and Gibbs Street. A smaller three storey building would be located at the junction of Newhampton Road West and Gibbs Street and comprises 3 two bed apartments. About 50% of the 0.33 hectare site would be retained as public open space.
85
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 PPG 17 – Sport & Recreation – presumption against loss of public open space unless a needs assessment has demonstrated that there is an overprovision of public open space in the area or compensatory provision can be made locally
5. Publicity
5.1 Neighbour letters sent on 1.12.2005 and expired on 22.12.2005. Site notice posted on 12.12.2005. Expired on 3.1.2006. Press notice placed on 10.12.2005. Expiry date 24.12.2005.
5.2 8 letters of objection received including Mr Rob Marris MP, Park Ward Councillors Manohar Minhas and Sandra Samuels, the Chair of Wolverhampton South West Liberal Democrats and Whitmore Reans in Partnership (WRIP). Objections raised:- • impact on quiet residential area • children will lose a much enjoyed and safe open playing space • shortage of public open space in the area • high density housing already exists in area • No mention of Local Action Plan 2004 and very thorough Planning for Real exercise in 2003 • Impact on existing 2 storey skyline • Open space is well used and valued by the local community
• Development will increase the feeling of oppression, increase the
local population and destroy a very attractive piece of parkland
that should be protected from ever being developed
• Loss of daylight / loss of privacy / loss of pleasant views
• Generate an increase in traffic with associated detriment to traffic / pedestrian flows – rise in pollution and loss of pedestrian safety.
5.3 Petition received from 1093 residents of Whitmore Reans objecting to the loss of open space and increase in traffic.
5.4 Petition received with 57 signatures objecting to the loss of public open space and increase in traffic levels.
5.5 2 letters received from Mr S Rayner, Architect to Heantun Housing Association Limited. Mr Rayner requested to speak at Planning Committee.
86
6. External Consultees
6.1 Severn Trent – No objections subject to conditions
6.2 West Midlands Police – No objection to the application and believe its accreditation could have a beneficial effect upon the area, particularly regarding increased surveillance and giving ownership to presently waste ground. There are a number of detailed comments that should be taken into account in granting a planning permission.
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Building Consultancy – No objections providing level access provided for ground floor flats.
7.2 Landscape – Object to the loss of public open space to housing. It is a valuable area of usable green space for local people. This area contains high density terraced housing with small gardens and a high percentage of children in residence, small local parks such as these are invaluable and should be retained for informal use. There is already a lack of usable open space in the Whitmore Reans area. Whilst acknowledging that the park is in need of some improvement it is well contained and contributes positively to the local environment providing a green oasis within an urban area. The area of open space within the new proposals is too small to be of any amenity use to the local community.
7.3 Property Services – The land currently sits within the Economic Development portfolio but is surplus to requirements.
7.4 Policy – The site is not shown as Recreational Open Space on the current UDP Proposals Map nor on the Revised Deposit Proposals Map. Notwithstanding this omission the site is a functional area of Recreation Open Space and as such is subject to policies protecting functional open space in both the current and the new Revised Deposit UDP. Therefore object to the loss of open space for the following reasons: - • Current National Planning Policy states that no area of open space should be lost to development unless an open space audit and needs assessment is available which shows it is surplus to local requirements. Planning Policy and Leisure Services have started work on a City-Wide assessment. In the absence of this piece of work, a local needs assessment would need to be carried out including community consultation
87 • The Whitmore Reans area as a whole suffers from a lack of recreational open space facilities, and quality is also generally poor. This part of Whitmore Reans is particularly deficient • The location, size and shape of the site add to its value There is a small strip of the site fronting Newhampton Road West (adjacent to No. 317), that does not function as open space
7.5 Leisure Services – There is no other usable open space for residents situated between Newhampton Road and Hordern Road and therefore we see this open space should be protected from any form of other land use
7.6 Tree Officer – No objections
7.7 Transportation – No objection in principle
8. Appraisal
8.1 This application raises 3 principal issues: - • loss of public open space • Impact on streetscene • Impact on amenities of local residents
Loss of public open space 8.2 This is an area of functional open space which fulfils an important function as community open space. Its importance is increased by the fact that there is an under provision of public open space locally. There is no survey evidence to show that there is an overprovision of public open space locally or that compensatory provision could be made locally. There is therefore a fundamental objection in principle to the loss of this public open space. The only exception could be the small, narrow strip of land that projects towards Newhampton Road West.
Impact on the streetscene 8.3 The terraced houses that front the open space are 2 storeys in form. The proposed development is larger in bulk and scale than the surrounding context within which it would be situated. The smaller unit located at the junction of Newhampton Road West and Gibbs Street could, with design improvements, be made acceptable. However, the larger 3 storey building would be inappropriate in bulk and scale compared with existing surrounding development.
8.4 The design of the apartment blocks is mediocre. The architecture is bland and the window detailing is poor. The roof appears squat in relation to the rest of the building.
8.5 The physical layout of the proposals would create corners of open space which could encourage anti-social behaviour and crime. Walls create problems in respect of secured design principles.
88 Impact on amenities of local residents 8.6 The principal 3 storey building located at the junction of Coleman Street and Gibbs Street would appear dominant in relation to the surrounding 2 storey terraced houses. Existing residents would be overlooked and feel dominated by the new apartment block.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Refuse. Loss of public open space, impact on streetscene of large 3 storey development that does not respect the local setting, poor design.
Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
89 Planning Application No: DCNC/05/1930/FP/M Location Land at Gibbs St & Coleman St, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 390029 299729 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 3337.037
90 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/2016/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Regis; DATE 14-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 08-FEB-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Verge outside 5 Malthouse Lane, Tettenhall PROPOSAL: Demolition and reconstruction of revised alignment of stone retaining wall fronting highway
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr P Williams Design To Build The Old School House 159 Ivyhouse Lane Chelmarsh Coseley Bridgenorth Dudley WV16 6BA West Midlands WV14 9LA
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The wall is a honey coloured sandstone wall which retains the land adjacent to a service road behind it. The verge on top has been cleared of trees. The wall lies on the boundary of the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area and 20 metres of stone are an important visual feature in the conservation area.
2. Planning History
2.1 On 25 th October 2005, Planning Committee approved an application for Conservation Area Consent to demolish the 20 metres length of wall which is the subject of this application subject to conditions. Application reference 05/1315/CA/R 2.2 In order to carry out the rebuilding of the wall a planning approval is required. 2.3 The conditions referred to in the planning approval granted require that the detail of the new wall be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority, that a contract should be signed to ensure that the wall will be rebuilt in the approved position within 28 days of its demolition and that a landscape plan detailing the treatment to both the top of the wall on the embankment and the area adjacent to the highway would also be submitted and approved in writing. 2.4 An application to demolish the bungalow at no.5 Malthouse Lane and redevelop the site for 6 apartments was refused under delegated officer authority on 30 th September 2005 Application reference 05/1314/FP/R.
3. Constraints
3.1 Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area
91 4. Application Details
4.1 The application is to rebuild 20 metres of the existing sandstone retaining wall along a line which meets the remainder of the wall at one end and is set back 2 metres from its existing position. 4.2 The application includes a kerb build out to improve visibility for traffic emerging from the service road. Discussions are proceeding with Transportation and Highways to link this part of the proposal with a Section 278 under the Highways Legislation. Part of this agreement will be for a financial contribution towards traffic calming measures which will physically limit speeds on Malthouse Lane and further improve the safety of the junction of the service road with Malthouse Lane. 4.3 The application plans includes landscape details to be agreed with the Local Planning Authority. 4.4 The application plans refer to detail of reconstruction of the facing stone work to be in accordance with the requirements of the Local Planning Authority. 4.5 The method of demolition and the storage of the materials has been set out in the application specifying the numbering and mapping of stones and placement in crates after careful removal of mortar [dressing]. 4.6 The method of protecting the roots of trees has been set out in the application and the detail of the back fill specified to ensure that the roots remain supported in the final construction. 4.7 A structural engineer has been used to inform the construction of the retaining wall behind the stone facing. 4.8 There is no application to redevelop the site of no.5 Malthouse Lane being considered at the present time however this application is considered to be enabling development to undertake some kind of redevelopment of that site.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 ENV 2 – Design Standards ENV 13 – The Urban Forest and Protection of Trees ENV 18 – Preserving and Enhancing Conservation Areas.
6. Publicity
6.1 Site notice erected 23 rd December 2005 with responses by 18 th January 2006 a period of 27 days for comment. The statutory period is 21 days however an additional few days were allowed for the Christmas holiday closures. Press notice – in on 7 th January 2006 with responses by 28 th January 2006. Neighbour letters were sent to all parties who wrote in objection to the Conservation Area Consent referred to above sent on 23 rd December 2005 with responses by 13 th January 2006.
6.2 25 responses have been received.
6.3 The majority of respondents make objection to the demolition of the wall and the fact that in their opinion it shows no signs of damage and does not need realignment. This issue has been explored in the previous 92 application. The effect of trees on walls is obvious in other parts of the borough and the proposal to realign the wall will improve traffic safety and enable easier access from any future development at 5 Malthouse Lane or any other property accessed from this service road.
There are also concerns regarding maintaining access to the garages which are owned and used by residents of Lower Street and that the gradient of the revised access will not cause difficulty in inclement weather conditions. The application makes no change to the gradient.
There is concern regarding the change to the footpath and kerb and its effect on pedestrian safety. Highways are of the opinion that pedestrian safety will be improved by the proposals.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 Conservation – no adverse comments received – comment on construction detail will be required at a later Trees – no adverse comments received – some overseeing of the works may be required. Transportation – no adverse comments – discussion regarding a S.278 agreement with regard to the kerb build out and contribution to traffic calming measures are ongoing.
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required
10. Appraisal 10.1 The proposal sets out the means of reconstruction of the sandstone wall in a position which improves highway safety and reserves construction detail for the comment of the Conservation Officer.
10.2 The proposal will recreate the visual importance of the sandstone wall on the boundary of Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area so that it preserves the character of the Conservation Area in accordance with policy ENV 18. The joints, pointing and mortar mix are referred to in the application however a sample panel may be required on site before completion of the wall.
10.3 The proposal may be considered as enabling development for the future development of the bungalow at 5 Malthouse Lane but it also improves highway safety and the test for this application is whether it preserves the character of the Tettenhall Greens Conservation Area.
93 11. Conclusion
11.1 Approve with conditions which require a. the drawing up of a S.278 agreement; b. a sample panel of the wall to be constructed for approval by the Conservation Officer c. the detail of the surface materials to be used at beside the highway and the planting to be used at the top of the embankment to be submitted and agreed in writing.
12. Recommendation
12.1 Approve with conditions as detailed above.
Case Officer : Mizzy Marshall Telephone No : 551123 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
94 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/2016/FP/R Location Verge outside 5 Malthouse Lane, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference sj 389193 300629 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 22.277
95 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1962/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick; DATE 01-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 26-JAN-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 48 Denham Gardens Castlecroft PROPOSAL: 2 No. two storey side extensions, garage conversion with link, new porch and conservatory
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr M. Smith Simon Brookes 48 Denham Gardens Garfield Davis Castlecroft Architectural Ltd Wolverhampton 193 Wolverhampton Street WV3 3LW Dudley DY1 1DU
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This is a prominent corner site. The property is at the end of a row of 5 detached houses of the same design. This property is slightly forward of the other 4. All the detached houses are set back from the road with open, grassed frontages. The properties opposite are of nearly identical design. The character of the row is open with defined, narrow spaces between each detached property. The property boundary on the corner is defined by a thick hedge.
2. Planning History
2.1 An application for two storey side extensions either side of the property incorporating a garage and a forward extension at ground floor to create an enlarged lounge, and a conservatory to the rear was withdrawn on 4 th November 2005.
3. Constraints
3.1 The site is a corner site and has restrictive building lines to both the front and the side.
4. Application Details
4.1 The proposal is for two side extensions of two storeys, a small porch extension to the front and a conservatory to the rear.
96 4.2 The extension to the right is 2.9 metres wide and incorporates a garage. The first floor is set back 900mm from the front elevation of the existing house. The extension goes back the full depth of the house.
4.3 The extension to the left hand side is 1.575 metres wide. At ground floor the extension is set back 1.7 metres. The gap between the neighbour and the application proposal will be 0.825 metres.
4.4 The proposal to the rear is a forward extension of the garage at ground floor to become a study and gym and downstairs toilet.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 ENV 2 – Design Standards a. respect the integrity, established scale, mass and pattern of the building, group of buildings, or street scene (including characteristic building lines and plot widths) of which it forms a part
5.2 SPG4 – Extensions to Houses
6. Publicity
6.1 Neighbour letters to 7,8,9, 23 to 28, 41, 49 Denham Gardens.
A response was received from 27 Denham Gardens with concerns regarding overlooking from, the proposed dressing room. This issue would be easily addressed.
7. External Consultees
7.1 None
8. Internal Consultees
8.1 None
9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
9.1 Not required
10. Appraisal
10.1 The building lines on the side of the property on this corner site are defined by the existing corner of no.48 and the corner of no.41 behind no.48. The front building line is defined by no.48 as it projects a little forward of the neighbouring properties.
97 10.2 The detached character of the properties on Denham Gardens exhibits gaps between the properties of approximately 2.4 metres at first floor. The proposal would effectively reduce this gap to 0.8 metres.
10.3 The property has a garage which can be accessed at the present time but which is little narrow for modern cars. The garage has not been used for car storage for some time. The proposal introduces a new garage on the right of the house but would require the removal of the existing hedge. The garage would breach the established building line on this side. There is a slope up from Denham Gardens to the site of the proposed garage which makes the corner site more visually prominent.
10.4 The proposal for a second floor extension above the garage would exacerbate the proposed breach of the building line.
10.5 The site is difficult but there would be opportunity to look at reduced extensions in different positions.
10.6 There would be a detrimental visual impact on the character of the street and the open corner location.
11. Conclusion
11.1 Refuse for reasons of a. over-development of the site; b. inappropriate position and size of extensions in such a prominent corner location; c. the proposal would be detrimental to the character of the street scene.
12. Recommendation
12.1 Refuse for above reasons as Contrary to Policy ENV2 and the advice in SPG4.
Case Officer : Mizzy Marshall Telephone No : 551123 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
98 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/1962/FP/R Location 48 Denham Gardens Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 387840 297826 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 311.902
99 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/1986/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick; DATE 06-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 31-JAN-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 17 Torvale Road, Wightwick PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension including loft conversion with roof extension and 6No. dormer windows
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Fletcher G.D.Design 17 Torvale Road 7 Uplands Avenue Wightwick Rowley Regis Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8NL B65 9PS
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This application has been reported to Planning Committee due to both the applicant and the neighbours wishing to speak to committee.
1.2 The property concerned is a detached bungalow, located in a street scene of detached properties, both houses and bungalows, within an area which is predominantly residential.
2. Planning History
2.1 The property has been previously extended with a single storey rear extension and the erection of a new pitched roof above the existing garage which was granted on 16 January 2002, application number 01/1574/FP.
3. Constraints
3.1 The property is covered by a blanket tree preservation order “The Wolverhampton Tettenhall No. 1, Tree Preservation Order 1957 – 02/2/33”.
3.2 The property is within a landfill gas zone (250m)
4. Application Details
4.1 The proposal consists of a single storey rear extension, loft conversion, roof extension and insertion of 6 No. dormer windows (three to the front and three to the rear).
100 Measurements:
Single storey rear extension: 1.9m projection, width 8.95m, linking with the existing side/rear extension along the east elevation, and set in from the existing west elevation by 3.15m.
Roof Extension : The new roof will protrude out to the rear by 1.9m across the proposed single storey rear extension, with the height of the ridge raising from 5.3m to 6m in the mid section only, being 9.4m wide, and set in from the east elevation by 3.8m and in from the west elevation by 3.2m.
Dormer Windows : 6 No. dormer windows, three to the front elevation and three to the rear elevation - 1.6m wide, 2.2m high to the top of the ridge on the dormer. Maximum projection of 3m (taken from the ridge).
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 ENV2 Design Standards, SPG4 Extensions to Houses.
6. Publicity
6.1 Neighbour letters expired on 2 January 2006, objections were received from – 22, 11, 15, 18, and 20 Torvale Road. A request to speak to committee has been received to speak on behalf of all objectors; spokesperson is the occupier of No. 15 Torvale Road.
Objections to be raised :-
• Raised roof resulting in loss of light to No. 15 and 22 Torvale Road. • Loss of privacy to the rear garden areas of No. 11, 15, 18 and properties further down Torvale Road • Loss of privacy to the property at No. 11 with views into bedroom windows. • Loss views from 22 Torvale Road, which is detached house opposite, affording views directly into the extended property. • The proposed development would be contrary to the original planning ethos, whereby, properties were designed at different heights in particular locations. To raise the roof of the property and insertion of dormers would create a property which would be out of character and is unsympathetic to the environment, destroying the harmonious entity. • There is a well-balanced mix of houses and bungalows, the extension would interfere with the original covenant to this area, and set an undesirable precedent for the future, again having a highly detrimental effect on the aesthetic environment. • The increase in size would have a massing effect on the local environment. • Over development of plot.
101
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Environmental Health – Due to Landfill Gas Zone – No observations
8. Appraisal
8.1 Design:
The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property, and those surrounding in the street scene. The majority of the street scene consists of large detached houses, with a few bungalows dotted along the street. The existing bungalow is set on lower ground to the neighbouring detached house at No. 21, which does over power this small property, along with the adjacent detached houses, which are of a much larger scale. I feel that the new design with a slight lift in the roof height to the mid section only and the insertion of the dormer windows, will give the property more prominence and character, fitting in nicely with those surrounding properties, remaining in scale and character with the surrounding area.
8.2 Neighbours:
No. 21 Torvale Road is a large detached property, with no side windows, and heavily screened along the side boundary to the rear. The extension is set in from the boundary by 4m, with the majority screened by the existing side/rear extension. There will be no loss of privacy, outlook, or light to this neighbouring property.
No. 15 Torvale Road is a detached bungalow set on slightly lower ground. This property has also been extended to the side and altered internally, to provide a bedroom with a velux roof light, and side window to the eastern elevation, along the boundary with the application site. The proposed single storey extension is set in away from the boundary by 3.2m, and will not be visible from the property, due to the level difference and screening from a 1.8m boundary fence, shrubbery and trees, there will be no detriment to the outlook from this property.
The neighbour has concerns with regards to the loss of light and privacy to their property. With regards to the light aspect I feel the extension is set too far away to cause any significant detriment to the light accessible to this property and especially the side facing bedroom window and velux roof light. The windows are east facing, with any loss of sunlight being early morning only, with the majority of the afternoon sunlight still accessible to those windows; therefore I feel that there will be no significant light loss to this property.
The insertion of the dormer windows will provide a different outlook from the application site, with possible views across the rear garden areas of neighbouring properties. However, this property is screened via fencing, trees and shrubbery, and the view across this neighbouring property would be at a tight angle only, therefore, I feel any loss of privacy would be minimal. 102
No. 11 Torvale Road is a detached house, with the rear amenity area running along the southern boundary to the application site. There will be no detriment to the outlook from this property, or its rear garden area, and there will be no loss of light. The neighbour has raised concern to the loss of privacy, to both the house and the garden area which is set on lower ground. The windows will be located some 14m away from the boundary with this property, which is also screened via fencing and trees. I feel that overlooking into the neighbouring windows of this property would be difficult due to the distance and the angle, and the garden area is also some 14m away, and screened therefore, any loss of privacy would be minimal.
8.3 Amenity: The rear amenity has an approximate length of 14m, and a width of 17m, the garden consists of a grassed area, a central pond and a wooden chalet structure to the far corner, the size of the garden area would support the size and use of the extension.
9. Conclusion
9.1 Although the loft conversion and the dormer windows will give a different outlook from the property (especially to the rear), I feel that there will be no major detriment to any of the surrounding properties, such as loss of privacy, loss of light/sunlight that would warrant a refusal on this occasion.
10. Recommendation
10.1 Grant Planning Permission.
Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 555641 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
103 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/1986/FP/R Location 17 Torvale Road, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 387402 298659 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 573.564
104 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/2031/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick; DATE 15-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 09-FEB-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 6 Tinacre Hill, Wightwick PROPOSAL: Extension to existing bungalow to create a two storey 3 bedroom house and ground floor alterations.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs Winwood Lewis Architecture Ltd 6 Tinacre Hill East Wing Wightwick Wrottesley Hall Wolverhampton Codsall Wolverhampton WV8 2HT
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The existing property is an extended bungalow built on the rising slope of Tinacre Hill with a large bungalow to its right on the uphill side and a dormer bungalow to its left on the downhill side. The properties are set far back from the road and accessed through gaps in a stone wall. The front garden area has lawn and mature Scots pines and other conifer trees. The application property shares a drive with the adjacent bungalow at no.8 Tinacre Hill.
2. Planning History
2.1 A previous application for a taller building with eclectic design was withdrawn on 20 th September 2005.
3. Application Details
3.1 The proposal is to extend the existing 3 bedroom bungalow up, back and forward to create a 4 bedroom property with increased living space at ground floor. 3.2 The ridge height would be raised by approximately 3 metres so that it is approximately in line with the ridge of the property. 3.3 The proposal includes an octagonal bay window of two storeys on the rear with windows on 5 sides. The amended plans show the windows on the north and north-west sides of the bay to be obscure glazed. This will allow light into the room and preserve the symmetry of the bay with minimum intrusion on the privacy of the neighbouring property at no.8 Tinacre Hill. The proposed bay window includes a full length window and guard rail on the rear facing part of the bay. This has been amended from a balcony and doors in the interests of preserving the 105 privacy of no.8. The guard rail has been left in the design for aesthetic reasons. 3.4 The roof of the proposed extension is hipped back on the front elevation and gabled on the side elevation with a long cat-slide roof to ground floor ceiling height. There are two front facing dormer windows and one rear facing dormer.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 ENV 2 – Design Standards & SPG No. 3
5. Publicity
5.1 A site notice was erected on 23 rd December 2005 with responses due by 18 th January 2006. This included extra days to allow for the Christmas holiday period. Neighbour letters were sent to 4,8,7 Tinacre Hill and 6,7 Heath Hill Road
5.2 Responses were received from the occupant of 8 Tinacre Hill raising concern regarding the privacy of their kitchen and patio area. The applicant has amended the glazing in the window to take on board this concern and the objector has been informed. The neighbour has requested to speak at Committee if the plans are not amended to their satisfaction.
5.3 An objection was received from 28 Tinacre Hill objecting to the effects of the proposal on the street scene and the loss of a bungalow which would become a two storey house in essence. The change in height in the proposal takes the ridge line of no.6 in line with the ridge of no.8 while at the moment it is in line with that of no.4.
6. External Consultees
6.1 South Staffordshire Council – no objection
7. Internal Consultees
7.1 Conservation – Awaited at time of writing
8. Appraisal
8.1 The proposal represents a substantial change from the single storey dwelling at present, to the two storey proposed. However, the change in height of the property creates a step in the roof line from between no.6 and no.8 to being between no.4 and no.6.
8.2 The appearance of the property takes its cue from properties higher up the street in a mock Tudor style.
106 8.3 The property is set back from the street and in part shielded by pine trees.
8.4 This design is acceptable as a front elevation in the street.
8.5 The proposal on the rear has implications for the privacy of no.8 however the amended proposal to obscure glaze the windows which would overlook the patio and kitchen window of no.8, takes account of this potential intrusion.
8.6 The change in height of the building will have some effect on the light reaching the patio and small side window to an en suite bathroom at no.8 over part of the day, particularly in the winter months. This window is 3 metres from the existing boundary. The proposal will also reduce the light reaching the rear, side window of the lounge room. This window is approximately 7 metres from the existing boundary. The single storey element of the property adjacent to the boundary remains in the proposal. The two storey element will be an additional 6 metres from the side window of the lounge at no.8. It is considered that this will not be an unacceptable loss of light.
8.7 Existing trees cause loss of light to no.8’s garden and the placement of new trees would assist with the privacy of the garden of no.8. If this course of action is insisted on through condition the application’s effect on the neighbour could be improved.
9. Conclusion 9.1 With the obscure glazing now proposed and conditioned and a condition requiring a landscape plan to be produced looking at removal of hedge trees and replacement trees to give additional privacy to no.8, it is considered that the scheme is now acceptable. Permitted development rights should be restricted. The ‘guard rail’ and window details need to be submitted to ensure that it cannot be used as a balcony.
10. Recommendation 10.1 Approve with conditions: a. obscure glazing in windows facing neighbour at no.8 b. landscape plan showing improvements to shading effect of hedge and appropriate tree planting to improve privacy on boundary with no.8 Tinacre Hill. c. Remove permitted development rights for changes to or new windows on rear elevation d. Details of window and ‘guard rail’ to be submitted
Case Officer : Mizzy Marshall Telephone No : 551123 Acting Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
107 Planning Application No: DCSW/05/2031/FP/R Location 6 Tinacre Hill, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference so 386528 298405 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 1948.064
108 PLANNING COMMITTEE - 14-FEB-2006
APP NO: 05/2062/FP/C WARD: Wednesfield South; DATE 19-DEC-2005 TARGET DATE: 13-FEB-2006 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Starchem Ltd Strawberry Lane Willenhall. PROPOSAL: Telecommunications development for the permanent retention of a 15m high monopole mast, 3No. antennae and ancillary development.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Airwave O2 Ltd Stappard Howes Wellington Street 39 King Street Slough Thetford Berkshire Norfolk IP24 2AU
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is located 80 metres north of Strawberry Lane in a predominantly industrial area, and surrounded by two storey industrial buildings. The nearest residential properties are to the south west in Helming Drive 205 metres away from the application site and Denmore Gardens 260 metres away. The residential properties are separated from the application site by two storey industrial buildings and a railway line.
1.2 Deansfield High School is also south of the railway line. There is a distance of 450 metres from the mast to the nearest school buildings and 250 metres to the closest part of the school playing fields.
1.3 There are three masts in the locality.
(i) A temporary monopole mast on the application site (ii) A 15 metre high lattice mast (Hutchinson 3G) approximately 26 metres south west of the application site. (iii) A 22 metre high lattice mast (02) approximately 32 metres to the north of the application site.
2. Planning History
2.1 Planning history of the application site is as follows:
2.2 04/0170/FP – 15 metre high mast, antennae and ancillary equipment – granted 12 months temporary permission until 31 March 2005.
2.3 05/0904/FP – 15 metre high mast, antennae and ancillary equipment – granted 12 months temporary permission until 31 August 2006. 109
3. Application Details
3.1 The agents have stated “as you will be aware from Airwaves previous planning application for the temporary mast at Starchem Limited it is required by our clients to provide coverage for the West Midlands Police Force in the Willenhall area. The Airwave Services is now in full use by the West Midlands Police Force, and in time the Ambulance and Fire Brigade services will also utilise the service”.
3.2 “Airwave are applying for consent to retain this mast on a permanent basis for three reasons:”
3.3 “Firstly, if the proposed site share with 02 is to go ahead the existing 02 20 metres (high) lattice tower will have to be swapped out for a stronger, more bulky tower, at a height of at least 25 metres. A stronger tower is required as the existing tower is not capable of supporting two operators’ equipment. The height increase will be required because Airwave are only able to locate their antennae above those that belong to 02, as Airwave cannot switch off their equipment during periods when 02 access their antennae for maintenance and replacement purposes. The contract between the Police and Airwave stipulates that the system must be up and running at all times for obvious reasons. As 02 currently require the height of 20 metres Airwave will have to locate above them at a height of at least 25 metres to maintain an adequate separation between the two sets of antennae. It is our view therefore that in terms of planning it is more beneficial to the visual amenity of the area if Airwave retain their slim-line 15 metre monopole as opposed to sharing the existing 02 mast, which would result in a considerably larger structure being installed in the area.”
3.4 “Secondly, the mast is located in a predominantly industrial area of Willenhall and has already been on site for approximately two years, and has never received a single issue raised by residents in the area, or members of public. It is our view therefore that the retention of the existing Airwave mast on a permanent basis would be non-contentious.”
3.5 “Thirdly, negotiations between 02 and the landowner in terms of the 02/Airwave mast share are currently progressing very slowly, and are far from reaching a positive conclusion. It is therefore highly likely that Airwave may never receive permission from 02 and/or the landowner to install their equipment on the existing mast.”
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 ENV2 – Design Standards Interim Telecommunications Policy.
110 5. Publicity
5.1 The application has been publicised by site notices and letters to industrial units in the vicinity and letters to the Head Teacher and Chair of the Governors of Deansfield High School. The time for comment expires on 1 February 2006. No objections have been received at the time of writing.
6. Internal Consultees
6.1 Environmental Services – no observations.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The Interim Telecommunications Policy explains that in less sensitive locations such as commercial and industrial areas (excluding locations close to a boundary with a more sensitive location) then subject to satisfactory screening and no adverse effect on the backdrop of other buildings or the skyline, a telecommunications mast may be acceptable.
7.2 The Policy also states that ‘Ground based mast are appropriate only in industrial areas or locations away from dwellings and their gardens, schools and health facilities’ and ‘Monopole masts are preferred to lattice masts which will normally only be allowed in industrial areas or where they will not be visually prominent’.
7.3 The proposed mast is already in place and is 15 metres in height. The mast has a total height of 16.6 metres including the antennas and base and is located in Strawberry Lane a predominantly industrial and commercial area. The mast is monopole in design and surrounded by two storey industrial and commercial units. When viewed from Strawberry Lane, Planetary Road and the pedestrian bridge that crosses the railway line the mast is mostly obscured apart from the antennas and a small area at the top of the monopole mast and the mast is set against an industrial backdrop. Therefore it is considered there are no serious adverse effects on visual amenity or the street scene.
7.4 During the determination of the previous application (05/0904/FP) Members were concerned about a further temporary permission and that Officers should liaise with the applicant with a view to discussing the possibility of reducing the volume of equipment in the light of new technology. Discussions have taken place, however as the agent explains in paragraphs 3.3 and 3.5 above negotiations ‘are currently progressing very slowly’ and if the proposed site share with the 02 mast goes ahead a more bulky tower of at least 25 metres in height will be required due to operational and structural reasons.
7.5 Therefore the main considerations appear to be if the Committee wish to grant a further temporary approval or grant planning permission with no temporary clause. A further temporary consent would leave the option open of a possible permanent consent in the future.
111 8. Recommendation
8.1 Grant temporary planning permission for two years.
Case Officer : Nicholas Howell Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
112 Planning Application No: DCNC/05/2062/FP/C Location Starchem Ltd, Strawberry Lane Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference so 394331 299110 Plan Printed 06-FEB-2006 Application Site Area 173.318
113