Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM PLANNING

Agenda Item No: 6

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 5th December 2006

Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND ENVIRONMENT

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

Telephone Number(s) (01902) 555610

Title/Subject Matter PLANNING APPLICATIONS

Recommendation

That Members determine the submitted applications according to the recommendation made in respect of each one. PLANNING COMMITTEE (5th December 2006)

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

Bilston East

06/01273/DWF Bilston Retail Market 5 Market Way Bilston Wolverhampton West Midlands

Blakenhall

06/01053/FUL 242 - 244 Dudley Road 10 Blakenhall Wolverhampton West Midlands WV2 3JU

Bushbury North

06/01299/DWF Car Park To The Rear Of 18 Three Tuns Parade Oxley Wolverhampton West Midlands

Bushbury South and Low Hill

06/01253/FUL 363 Bushbury Lane 22 Bushbury Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 9UW

East park

06/0814/FP/M 26 Purbrook Road, 28 Monmore Green

06/01302/FUL Tarran Bungalows Site 34 Selbourne Crescent East Park Wolverhampton West Midlands WV1 2EB

2 Fallings Park

06/01391/FUL 248 Cannock Road 41 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 0BE

06/0933/FP/C Land junction of 45 Cannock Road/Blackhalve Lane, (formally known as 1 & 3 Blackhalve Lane), Wednesfield

06/01392/FUL 246 Cannock Road 53 Wednesfield Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 8QF

Graiseley

06/0918/OP/M Land to the West side of Raglan 57 Street bounded by St Marks Road and adjoining Highways and Market Car Park, Wolverhampton

Heath Town

06/01247/FUL Low Level Station Site Bounded By 76 Sun Street Wednesfield Road Heath Town Wolverhampton West Midlands

06/01248/LBC Low Level Station Site Bounded By 78 Sun Street Wednesfield Road Heath Town Wolverhampton West Midlands

Merry Hill

06/01334/FUL 75 Uplands Avenue 80 Merry Hill Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 8AJ

Oxley

06/01280/FUL 22 Earlswood Crescent 84 Pendeford Wolverhampton West Midlands WV9 5RL

06/01341/FUL 1 Hampton Road 89 Oxley Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 6UX

Park

06/01244/VV 4 Horsehills Drive 93 Finchfield Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9JL

Tettenhall Regis

06/01018/FUL Land At Rear Of 147-151 Aldersley 98 Road Aldersley Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 9NJ

06/01223/COU 59 Pendeford Avenue 104 Aldersley Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 9EH

Tettenhall Wightwick

06/01166/REM Turners Garage 111 School Road Tettenhall Wood Wolverhampton West Midlands

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01273/DWF WARD: Bilston East DATE: 02-Nov-06 TARGET DATE: 28-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 19.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Bilston Retail Market, Market Way, Bilston, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of new toilet block extension and re-positioning of entrance (including provision of rollershutters)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Regeneration And Environment Tony Woods Civic Centre Property Services St Peter's Square Civic Centre Wolverhampton St Peter's Square Wolverhampton WV1 1RL

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The subject site is part of a site owned by Wolverhampton City Council and fronts the Black Country Route which runs along the south boundary of the site.

1.2 The curtilage has a main building, and smaller temporary and permanent buildings associated with the use of the Bilston Market situated around the main building.

2. Application details

2.1 It is proposed to extend the indent in the south-west corner of the main building for the purpose of a toilet block, and re-locate the existing entrance and install roller shutters for the new entrance.

2.2 The toilet block will have approximate dimensions of 6m x 8.2m and will consist of a male toilet block, female toilet block, and a disabled/baby change toilet block. The extension will fill in the current indent, so that the building will continue the existing building line from the road. The toilets will be accessed from the new entrance which will serve the toilets and the market.

2.3 The previous entrance into this part of the building was within the indent of the building, this entrance will be relocated to the new south wall. The entrance will contain double doors that open to dimensions of 2.3m wide.

2.4 The doors will be secured by a full lath roller shutter which will cover the entire new entrance.

5 2.5 Amended plans were submitted that have the external roller shutters as punched lath roller-shutters with polycarbonate inserts.

3. Planning History

3.1 01/1645/DW for New Market Office, Creche and Colonnade, Granted,dated 22.02.2002.

3.2 04/0155/FP/C for Installation of new roller shutters, Granted,dated 18.05.2004.

3.3 93/1128/DW for Demolition of existing toilet block and reconstruction of new block. Erection of ornamental metalwork screen fencing., Granted,dated 19.11.1993.

3.4 94/1028/DW for Constructing new shutters to one elevation to match existing shutters, Withdrawn,dated 05.12.1994.

3.5 95/0243/DW for Construction of new shutters to east elevation of the indoor market, Granted,dated 24.04.1995.

4. Constraints

4.1 Deep Coal - Name: Deep Coal - Bilston, South East of the City.

4.2 Landfill Gas Zones - Name: 250m buffer around: Landfill Gas Site No.16 - Carder Crescent.

5. Relevant policies

BTC1 – Bilston Town Centre Wide Initiatives BTC4 – Retail Core SH10 – Protected Frontages SPG5 – Shopfront Design HE 25 – Ancient Monuments Sites EP11 – Unstable Land

6. Publicity

6.1 A site notice was posted on 9 November 2006 for 21 days, which expires 30th November. At the time of writing, no objections were received.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 Consultation was via a Site Notice as detailed above.

6 8. Internal consultees

8.1 Transportation Development Awaiting a response at the time of writing.

8.2 Archaeology No Objections

8.3 Access Officer Awaiting a response at the time of writing.

8.4 Building Control No Objections - Insufficient detail for fire access - Access for disabled to comply with Part M of the Building Regulations.

8.5 Environmental Services The site Requires a Landfill Gas Note 2.

9. External consultees

9.1 West Midlands Police Awaiting a response at the time of writing

10. Appraisal

10.1 Due to the continued use and success of the retail market in Bilston, it is appropriate for the addition of an extra toilet block which will more comfortably cater for the market patrons. The extension fills in an existing indent in the south-west corner of the building and is in line with the current south wall.

10.2 It is appropriate for the new entrance to be placed on the south wall which should not adversely impact upon any free-flow of pedestrian movement, and is large enough to be used by disabled people. The new entrance will be visible from the Black Country Route so it is important that the roller shutters create an acceptable visual entry when viewed from the street.

10.3 Currently the entrances of the main building to the Bilston Market have solid external roller-shutters. However, this form of roller-shutter can create an environment which is perceived as oppressive and unsafe. Although it would be preferable for internal roller shutters to be used, due to past vandalism of the site, external roller-shutters in this case for the new entrance is appropriate. In order to comply with the Wolverhampton UDP and SPG No.5 'Shopfront Design Guide’ amended plans have been received which detail punched-lath roller- shutters with poly carbonate apertures will be used and satisfactorily comply with Council Policy.

7 12. Recommendation

12.1 Grant subject to the flowing conditions:-

1. The external materials used in the development hereby permitted shall match in size, colour, form and texture to those of the existing building.

Reason: - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. Relevant UDP Policies BTC1 & BTC4

2. The roller shutters shall comply with the plan titled ‘Existing & Proposed Elevations,’ Drawing 005, drawn by pwc of Jacobs Babtie and Brunton Knowles, dated Oct 06.

Reason:- To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the roller-shutters. Relevant UDP Policies SH10 and SPG No.5 ‘Shopfront Design Guide.’

Case Officer : John Somers Telephone No : 551134 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

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

Planning Application No: 06/01273/DWF Location Bilston Retail Market, Market Way,Bilston,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 394872 296272 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 834m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01053/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 12-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 01.08.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 242 - 244 Dudley Road, Blakenhall, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of 16 flats and 258sqm retail development

APPLICANT: AGENT: Brittania Estates ID Architects 242-244 Dudley Road Pelham Works Wolverhampton Pelham Street WV2 3JU Wolverhampton WV3 0BJ

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site fronts Dudley Road and backs onto Phoenix Park. It is adjacent to the main Dudley Road entrance to Phoenix Park and is therefore very prominent in relation to the park. On its northern side on Dudley Road are existing shops.

1.2 The current use of the site is for car sales.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal puts forward a three storey gabled building, with an archway to access parking and a small amount of amenity space to the rear.

2.2 The ground floor element will be 258 sq metres of retail development with 4 car parking spaces for customers to the rear and 2 ground floor flats.

2.3 On the first and second floor there are 7no. 2 bedroom flats each proposed of varying sizes. The second floor is partly housed in the roof using dormer windows.

2.4 The two ground floor flats are fully accessible with level thresholds.

2.5 The corner with the entrance to Phoenix Park is turned using a 14m high tower.

2.6 All of the shop fronts proposed are of traditional proportions with a stall riser and fascia and strongly defined pilasters.

10 2.7 Two parking areas are proposed to the rear, accessed through the central archway. The first is for 4 spaces to be used by the customers to the shops. Beyond this is an area for circulating, bin storage and a cycle shelter and beyond that, 16 car parking spaces dedicated to occupants of the flats.

2.8 There is shared amenity space of approximately 170 sq metres in the development.

2.9 Balconies are proposed on the rear elevation overlooking the car parking and amenity areas from 3 of the apartments.

2.10 On the elevation facing the Phoenix Park entrance area there are 3 shop front bays from the largest of the 3 proposed retail units [92.3 sq metres] and each of the bays has a balcony from the living space of the residential units above. The shop front from this unit facing onto Dudley Road is a splayed bay with a balcony from the residential unit above.

2.11 On the front elevation, to Dudley Road, 2 shop units face the road of 58.8 and 69.1 sq metres respectively.

3. Planning History

3.1 05/1016/FP/M for Proposed erection of 21 flats and 300sqm retail development. Refused 19.09.2005.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas – lies within 250m buffer zone around Phoenix Park. Trees - in the adjacent Phoenix Park.

5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D7 - Scale - Height D8 – Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D14 - The Provision of Public Art D2 - Design Statement EP5 - Noise Pollution EP11 – Development on unstable or contaminated land. H6 - Design of Housing Development H8 - Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. PPG3 - Housing AM1 - Access, Mobility and New Development AM8 - Public Transport AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

6. Publicity

6.1 The application has been publicised by site and press notices and letters to neighbouring occupiers.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 Letters have been received from a local resident and The Friends of Phoenix Park. They express the following: • Concerns over the number of flat developments being proposed in the area. • Concerns that the flats would be rented. • There are enough shops in the area. • Concerns regarding litter.

Planning Officer comments 7.2 The principle of housing is acceptable in this location and there is certainly a demand in the city for a greater choice in housing types which this development should help to meet.

7.3 The issue of competition is not a planning consideration; however in the urban environment it is usual for retail businesses to attract more custom where they are more concentrated.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Access Officer requires that stairs should be designed to meet the needs of ambulant disabled and Part M of Building Regulations. Level or ramped access at principal and rear entrances. Provision of blister tactile pavement at vehicle crossing points on Dudley Road footway.

8.2 Building Control - Access for Fire Service - doors between shops 2 and 3 must remain unlocked at all times. Access for People - level thresholds on ground floor accesses; same required for all shop units.

8.3 Environmental Services

Noise - road traffic and from the use of ground floor retail units and the impact of this noise on the residential units. An acoustic survey for existing traffic noise and a schedule of mitigation measures will be required which includes mechanical ventilation. Some bedrooms are shown next to kitchens or living/dining rooms which increases the likelihood of noise disturbance. Toilets must not open directly off kitchens.

Land fill gas and contaminant risk from adjoining site. Site investigation required.

12 8.4 Leisure Services Design acceptable in relation to its impact on Phoenix Park. Draws attention to Open Space contribution under Policy H8 of UDP.

8.5 Planning Policy Recreation and Open Space contribution of £31,869.87 is required for this development. Proposal fine in principle no policy objections however the units should not be allowed to become larger through the merging of adjacent shops.

8.6 Transportation Development Visibility splays of 2.4 x 90m are indicated and are satisfactory however the forecourts to the north may impede this to some degree.

A Traffic Regulation Order is being introduced to restrict parking along the frontages during peak traffic times [8.00 to 9.30 and 16.30 to 18.30 Monday to Friday]. Parking on the southern side will be restricted using double yellow lines. However, parking on the footway may need to be restricted physically.

The 4.6m wide rear access is acceptable. Automatic gates should be set back 6m from the frontages if proposed.

Servicing the shop units may be an issue for Highway safety if they park on the street. Vehicles which can access the rear should be used.

The footway work must be reinstated to the same standard as the existing recently carried out works on Dudley Road especially where dropped kerbs are to be removed.

Fire Tenders may not be able to access through the archway so all units will require a sprinkler system where front doors are more than 45m from Dudley Road.

Parking Layout should be rearranged to the best advantage of retail units.

8.7 Urban Design. Asked for some significant design changes to the front elevation to improve the vertical emphasis and traditional proportions of the building.

Asked for some changes to the design to improve secure by design principles and to encourage more access from ground floor to the amenity space.

Revised drawings have also been considered and some further changes are required prior to Committee.

13 9. External consultees

9.1 Police - No response recorded.

9.2 Severn Trent Water Ltd recommends a drainage condition.

9.3 ABCD require that the building is built secure by design principles and are not particularly happy with the prospect of more flats in the area and concerns on the impact on the existing businesses on Dudley Road.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues in this proposal are:

• principle of housing development and additional retail development on this site; • impact of the design and appearance of the proposal; • proximity of the proposal to and its impact on Phoenix Park; • amenity of the future residential and business occupants in respect of noise, ground contamination and landfill gas; • traffic and highway safety considerations; • parking for residents and shoppers and servicing of shops - provision, segregation and future maintenance; • maintenance of communal areas; • open space contributions; • public art; and • security for shop fronts and communal areas.

10.2 The principle of additional retail in the ground floor of the proposal has been accepted and the loss of the car sales area is considered appropriate in relation to this location. However, there is some concern that the size of the retail units should remain as proposed and that no merging of the units should be allowed as this would create an unacceptably large unit in the area for which parking would be insufficient. 10.3 Accommodation in the form of 16 two bedroom apartments is also considered appropriate in this location.

10.4 The proposed design has been modified to take on board several areas of concern including the appearance and how the proposal would fit into the street scene. While there is a significant difference in height between the proposal and the adjacent property, the scale of the shop fronts on this side of Dudley Road carries through and the height is considered acceptable.

10.5 The amended plans have gone some way towards providing an improved appearance and have made significant improvements in the security afforded by windows and living spaces overlooking the communal areas to the rear and improving activity on the front elevations. Further amended plans are expected before the date of the Committee which will address outstanding design issues.

14 10.6 The access to the rear is acceptable and sections demonstrate that it is likely to accommodate the majority of vehicular traffic to the rear for residents, servicing of shops and shoppers parking.

10.7 The gable to the north will be built using a decorative brick bond which will be subject to agreement to ensure that it has a positive impact on the street.

10.8 The proposal is designed to have activity at shop front level in the vicinity of Phoenix Park but without creating an overpowering facade. It therefore does not have a significant impact on Phoenix Park. However, the existing trees in the park close to the boundary of the development site will need to be given protection during the course of construction to ensure their long term survival.

10.9 In order to ensure that noise from the road and between the premises within the development is carefully mitigated against the developer will be required to submit a noise survey and schedule for mitigation works including methods of ventilating the building which do not require the opening of windows on the Dudley Road elevation.

10.10 A ground contamination survey will be required to resolve the potential for both land fill gas migrating into the development from the adjacent Phoenix Park former landfill site and from any other potential contaminants from previous use of the site. This will inform the need for additional measures being provided in the construction detail of the proposal.

10.11 The proposal has a 4.6m wide rear access which will allow vehicles to pass. The visibility will be adequate if there is no abuse of normal parking laws and the double yellow lines and the Council proposed Traffic Regulation Order restricting on-street parking in the vicinity during rush hour come into effect. The most serious aspect of this will be if servicing of the shops does not take place from the rear by the use of vehicles small enough to pass beneath the archway.

10.12 Parking within the rear yard area will need to laid out to the best advantage of those using it and therefore the submitted plans will require amendment to provide 2 disabled user spaces for residential units and better positions for bins and cycle storage to maximise the amenity of the occupants.

10.13 The shared areas will require management to ensure that fire escape routes, car parking areas, access gates, cycle stores and bin areas are properly cared for, for the duration of the development.

10.14 The security of the shop fronts needs to be considered so as not to require the addition of unsightly shutters on the exterior of the building. The method of securing the shop fronts will be asked for as a condition to ensure that it will not have a detrimental impact on the design or the street scene.

10.15 The development will require a work of public art which is likely to be placed on the building.

10.16 The development will attract an Open Space contribution and therefore a Section 106 agreement. The developer has agreed to this and the S.106 should accompany the report. The contribution required is £31,869.87.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The development is acceptable subject to:

• the signing of a S.106 agreement for Open Space contributions, • receipt of amended plans which take account of the issues referred to above; and • conditions which reflect the need for additional detail and information on elements of the design and the ground conditions and noise in the vicinity.

11.2 A work of public art will also be required through condition.

12. Recommendation

Delegated authority to Grant following receipt of satisfactory amended plans and completion of a S.106 agreement to secure an open space contribution.

Subject to conditions to cover the following:

1. Submission and implementation of a landscape plan; 2. Noise survey and schedule of sound insulation; 3. Architectural details of proposed dormers; 4. Site investigation and implementation of reclamation strategy for ground conditions and chemical contamination; 5. Restrictions on use of retail units to A1 and the area to be used in connection with retail units for storage of goods or waste; 6. Submission of boundary treatment detail; 7. Submission of all external materials; 8 Submission of detail of cycle parking; 9. Provision of public art; 10. Submission of detail of gates; 11. Submission of detail of reinstatement of footway crossings; and 12. Submission of tree protection measures.

Case Officer : Mizzy Marshall Telephone No : 551123 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01053/FUL Location 242 - 244 Dudley Road, Blakenhall,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391720 296786 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 1726m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01299/DWF WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 10-Nov-06 TARGET DATE: 05-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 22.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Deemed Planning Permission (WCC)

SITE: Car Park To The Rear Of, Three Tuns Parade, Oxley, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Car Park Improvements as part of the A449 red route to provide replacement street parking lighting improvement and 25No car park spaces

APPLICANT: AGENT: Regeneration & Environment Faber Maunsell Civic Centre Beaufort House St Peters Square 94/96 Newhall Street Wolverhampton Birmingham B3 1PB

REPORT:

1. Site Description & Relevant Background

1.1 This proposal relates to an area at the rear of the parade of shops at 2-12A Three Tuns Parade. The site is currently part unsurfaced, part tarmacadam with an unkempt area of ground vegetation and a brick garage structure adjacent the eastern boundary to Three Tuns Lane.

1.2 There are two access points one from Three Tuns Lane and one from Stafford Road, both accesses are at the end of the service road that runs around the front of the shops at Three Tuns parade.

1.3 This proposal to provide improved off-street car parking is in connection with the proposed implementation of the Stafford Road A449 Red Route.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application follows pre-application discussions between your Officers (Engineers and planners) and consultants were appointed to submit this proposal.

2.2 The scheme includes the laying out of a car park to provide two disabled spaces and 18 spaces together with access to a small number of spaces on adjacent private land at the Lloyds TSB Bank.

2.3 The circulation would be ‘in only’ off Stafford Road with entrance and exit onto Three Tuns Lane. The existing concrete surface area at the Three Tuns Lane entrance/exit part of the service road would be relayed in tarmacadam.

18 2.4 Surface water drainage is to be provided and lighting is to be by the installation of five lighting units.

3. Relevant Policies

3.1 AM2 – Strategic Regeneration Areas and Corridors – Transport Investment – A449 Stafford Road Corridor. AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision. AM15 – Road Safety and Personal Security. D1 – Design Quality. D11 – Access for People with Disabilities. SH7 – District Centres and Local Transport Plan within which this pilot Red Route is one of four experimental routes proposed across the West Midlands conurbation.

4. Publicity

4.1 Site Notice expiry date 13/12/06. Neighbour letter expiry date 11/12/06. Oral update at Committee of any responses received.

5. Internal Consultees

5.1 Transportation - No objections.

Lighting – No objections. Trees – No objections.

6. Appraisal

6.1 Implementation of the Red Route on Stafford Road is awaiting the completion of adequate replacement parking. These car park improvements are a key part of that provision.

6.2 The scheme at St Anthony’s at Bee Lane was completed in 2005 (reference 05/0200/FP/C) as part of the red route parking. This scheme will not only provide satisfactory and secure off-street parking for users of the shops but will significantly tidy up what is at present a somewhat unkempt area of backland, some of which is neglected and used as a rubbish tip.

6.3 The scheme does involve the removal of a large bush and two very poor quality self set Sycamores. However, the scheme can be conditioned to include replacement tree planting between the new car parking spaces and back gardens of properties at 2 and 4 Three Tuns Lane which adjoin this site.

6.4 There is mixed boundary treatment along the site boundaries of the gardens to No 2 and No 4 Three Tuns Lane (which extends beyond the length of the garden at No 2). The mixed treatment includes brick wall, an existing garage and hedges. These are all to remain. The significant part of the boundary to

19 the adjoining property No 516 Stafford Road comprises a conifer hedge which is also to remain.

6.5 It is considered that with some additional tree planting treatment along the boundary to Nos 2 and 4 Three Tuns Lane the site is adequately screened.

6.6 So far as the introduction of the new lighting scheme for the car park is concerned the lighting units have been positioned so as to have least effect on any amenities which adjoining residential occupiers currently enjoy but at the same time making sure that the car park is well lit and perceived as secure by users. Two disabled spaces have been included in the scheme.

6.7 Delay in brining this matter to your Committee for determination arose from the protracted negotiations that had to take place to secure the participation of the Lloyds TSB Bank who wished to retain the parking that they currently have within their site. The adjacent car park area will be marked off with a yellow box to allow access to those TSB spaces.

7. Recommendation

7.1 Request delegated authority to the Director to grant subject to conditions regarding:- surface treatment and marking out of the parking spaces before implementation, landscaping scheme including tree planting, and subject to no comments of significance being received as a result of publicity carried out which will not be completed until after the date of Planning Committee.

Case Officer : Alan Gough Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01299/DWF Location Car Park To The Rear Of, Three Tuns Parade,Oxley,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391358 302525 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 1397m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01253/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill DATE: 09-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 04-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 13.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 363 Bushbury Lane, Bushbury, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Change of use to Use Class A5 (hot food takewaway).

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr W J Harper Mr Gulu Miah 365 Bushbury Lane 34 Junction Street Wolverhampton Walsall WV10 9UW West Midlands WS1 4HG

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is a vacant retail unit and from the information supplied on the application forms, appears to have been vacant for some years. The site is within a local shopping centre with a Kwik Save supermarket to the south of the site.

1.2 There is a rear access at a lower level off Elston Hall Lane to a yard for the parking of vehicles for the occupiers of the shops and the flats above. The other uses within this parade consist of the following:-

No.353 - Chinese Hot Food Take-Away No.355 - Vacant No.357 - Sandwich Shop/Take-Away No.359 - Hairdressers No.361 - Access to Residential Flats Above No.363 - Application Site No.365 - Tool Hire Shop No.367/369 - Chip Shop/Hot Food Take-Away

1.3 The surrounding area is predominantly residential in character and the shops have residential accommodation above. The frontage of the shops is a large paved area which is used as parking for customers.

1.4 Bushbury Lane is a busy road, particularly at this location due to the mixed uses of the area and a roundabout in close proximity leading to Elston Hall Lane and Kempthorne Avenue.

22 2. Application details

2.1 The application was received on 9th October 2006 for the Change of Use to Use Class A5 (Hot Food Take-Away).

3. Planning History

3.1 A/C/1779/78 for New shop front – Granted dated 17.08.1978.

3.2 A/C/0507/77 for Two storey timber and brick building, four garages with store room over Granted dated 04.04.1977.

4. Relevant policies

4.1 SH1 - Centres Strategy, SH8 - Local Centres, SH10 - Protected Frontages and SH14 - Catering Outlets.

5. Publicity

5.1 The application was advertised in the Express & Star newspaper on 14.10.2006 as the application was considered to require wider public consultation.

5.2 A site notice was posted on 23 October 2006 as the application was considered to require wider public consultation.

6. Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 Sevens letter have been received with regards to this proposal.

6.2 Two letters in support of this proposal have been received from Councillor Ian Brookfield and Councillor Paul Sweet. From the information provided on their letters, both have been contacted by local residents in support of this proposal as the shops have been derelict in this parade and are being renovated to a high standard and making this parade vibrant again. The proposal is seen to bring back into use a vacant shop and contribute to the vibrancy of the parade subject to the safeguards of refuse and opening times being adhered to.

6.3 Five letters are in opposition to this proposal. The main reasons for objecting are the traffic problems which already exist and will further be exacerbated, noise, the existing number of take-aways in this parade and the litter problem within the area.

23 7. Internal consultees

7.1 Environmental Services - Information on a system for the effective control of cooking odours and chiller motors shall be submitted to and approved by the Food and Environmental Safety Service. A trade waste contract must be entered to and the property is in close proximity of some 20-30metres of residential properties and adjacent three other hot food take-away in the parade of shops. There are no indication of opening hours although a premises license will be required if they exceed 11.00pm.

7.2 Planning Policy - The property is part of the Bushbury Lane Local Centre (Policy SH8). Policy SH10 of the adopted UDP states that within Local Centres, permission for non-A1 uses will not be granted where they would constitute more than 30% of all shop units and a frontage length of more than three consecutive units.

7.3 A frontage use survey of the local centre undertaken in June 2006 identified that out of the 21 retail units, only 13 (61%) were in A1 use. This means that almost 40% of the retail units are already in a non-A1 use, exceeding the 30% for non-A1 uses in Policy SH10.

7.4 However there comments go on to further state that there are circumstances that should be taken into account when considering this proposal. The proposal will reduce the number of vacant premises within the local centre and bring a previously derelict property back into use. Therefore although they would prefer to see this unit used for an A1 use, they have no objection to this proposal.

7.5 Transportation Development - No objections to this proposal as there is sufficient off-street parking to cope with the likely demand, however this will be the 3rd Hot Food Take Away in this parade of shops and do not believe the parking area will be able to cope with the demand generated by any hot food take away.

8. External consultees

8.1 Police - No objections.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The parade of shops were being well used on inspection of the site one Monday evening as vehicles were continuously entering and exiting the site, although there appeared to be conflict with pedestrian safety.

9.2 The application site is situated within a local centre within the adopted Unitary Development Plan. The comments of the Policy Team have stated that within this local centre, of the 21 retail units, 13 of them (61% of the units) were in retail use which would result in the approval of this application exceeding the 30% frontage use policy. However the comments of the Policy Officer are that other circumstances should be taken into account in that the proposal will bring

24 back into use a previously derelict property and although they would prefer the unit to remain as an A1 use, they have no objection to this proposal.

9.3 The properties within this parade have been vacant for many years and from the information provided by the applicant and the agent, this particular property has been vacant for as long as 9years. The applicant took over the shop along with many others in the parade, some two years ago and having renovated the property, marketed it for 18months prior to the sale of it.

9.4 UDP Policy - SH14 Catering Outlets is of particular relevance in this application and it states that "catering uses provide a useful and necessary service to the community and can add to the vitality of shopping centres. They can however cause considerable pedestrian and vehicle activity and the Council needs to consider the likelihood of noise, fumes and disturbance to nearby residents, particularly at the weekend and late at night."

9.5 It must be noted that UDP Policy SH14 states that takeaway uses will not normally be permitted where there would be significant harm caused to the amenities of existing or proposed residential amenities. However, in terms of noise and disturbance the most affected are likely to be the flats at first floor level, the houses in Elston Hall Lane and those in Bushbury Lane being separated from the application property by the busy road.

9.6 In this instance it is considered that the re-use of the property would outweigh justifying refusing planning permission on the grounds of the affect on residential amenity as the proposal will add vibrancy and vitality to the shopping parade.

9.7 Although details of fume extraction have been omitted, there have been no objections from Environmental Services and it does seem possible to construct a flue to vent upwards above the roof level to the rear. The fitting of modern fume extraction can go a long way to protect neighbouring amenities in emanating fumes and smells.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The proposed change of use to a hot food take-away would bring back into use this vacant property, which has been vacant for as many as nine years. The fitting of modern fume extraction systems can go along way in reducing smells and fumes from the property.

11. Recommendation:

11.1 Approve – subject to an acceptable fume extraction system being installed, including any external flue or other venting system, a written scheme to control noise/vibration from any ventilation or refrigeration systems, two litter bins of a size, design and position first agreed in writing and the use shall not be open to customers between 12.00pm to 11.00pm Monday to Saturday only.

Case Officer : Ragbir Sahota Telephone No : 555616 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01253/FUL Location 363 Bushbury Lane, Bushbury,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392178 302219 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 48m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/0814/FP/M WARD: East Park DATE: 13-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 12-Jan-07 RECEIVED: 23.06.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 26 Purbrook Road,, Monmore Green, , PROPOSAL: Installation of a 'skip waste recycling plant'

APPLICANT: AGENT: S B Waste Management Ltd 26 Purbrook Road Monmore Green Bilston Wolverhampton WV12 2EJ

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application relates to an existing waste transfer/recycling site at the corner junction of Purbrook Road and Hickman Avenue. The application site falls within a wider industrial area which is a Defined Business Area and there are other adjacent waste transfer/recycling facilities.

1.2 The application site itself consists of three smaller sites, the first of which is accessed from Sutherland Avenue and is used for car parking, skip storage and general storage and houses an office and workshop. The main site is accessed off Purbrook Road and consists of waste storage bays, a screening area, diesel tank, weighbridge, offices, and a machine that sorts waste for recycling. To the north, lies a smaller site also accessed off Purbrook Road which is used for the parking of lorries and car parking and skip storage. The application site is bounded by a combination of metal fencing and brick walls.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application proposal is for the installation of a “skip waste recycling plant”. This element of the operation of the site would not be a completely new facility, as there is already a waste conveyor machine which sorts materials for recycling. The application proposal is literally to replace the existing machine with a new machine which will provide more advanced and effective sorting of materials which can then be recycled/re-used, leaving less waste for landfill and therefore improving the sustainability of the overall process at the plant. The effectiveness of the new plant would reduce the material out to landfill by 1,000 m3/week.

3. Planning History

3.1 The application site was formerly used by Salient Best Limited and was granted planning permission in 1997 under application 97/0436/FP for change of use to waste transfer station with waste bunkers, vehicle repair bay, administration office and weighbridge.

4. Constraints

4.1 The application site falls within an identified landfill gas zone, former mining area, and a smoke control zone.

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 Within the Adopted Unitary Development Plan for Wolverhampton 2001- 2011, the application site is identified as falling within a Defined Business Area.

5.2 The following Unitary Development Plan Policies are relevant to the development proposal,

D1 – Design Quality D8 – Scale – Massing D9 – Appearance EP1– Pollution Control EP14 – Waste Management Facilities B4 – Expansion of Existing Businesses B5 – Design Standards for Employment Sites AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision.

6. Publicity

6.1 The application is categorised as a Major application under Article 8 and therefore was advertised in the Express and Star newspaper and by site notice. The public consultation period expired on 6 November 2006.

6.2 In response to this publicity, no comments or objections have been received.

7. Internal Consultees

7.1 Environmental Protection comment that the principal considerations from the point of view of the Environmental Protection Division are the following:

1. Operation noise from the use of the metal cutting and auxiliary machinery. 2. Potential nuisance arising from noise and dust during scrap metal processing.

29 The site is approximately 350 metres from the nearest residential properties and within an area of existing commercial and industrial activities.

The site has been granted a Waste Management Licence by the Environment Agency and conditions are included that require noise abatement measures and dust control to be implemented. Matters such as operational hours and waste handling are also referred to within the Licence. Specific detail on how the site is operated and how licence conditions will be met are detailed in a working plan. In relation to the specific plant that is the subject of the planning application the Environmental Protection Unit recommends that the following conditions be attached to any consent:

1. If necessary, adequate facilities for the treatment of grit or dust and for their extraction shall be provided and maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

2. If necessary, all plant and machinery shall be enclosed with sound insulating material and mounted in a way which will minimise the transmission of vibration and structure borne sound in accordance with the scheme agreed by the Local Planning Authority in writing and shall maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

The site location is within a 250 metre radius of a process permitted by Wolverhampton City Council under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1990, in Sutherland Avenue, Bilston Road, Wolverhampton, WV2 2JQ operated by Hickman Industries Limited. There are no outstanding issues relating to this permit.

7.2 Transport Strategy comment that this is obviously an existing business with a certain existing level of vehicle movements – mainly skip lorries, if the proposal maintains or reduces the number of movements then there are no transportation objections. However, if the new plant could lead to significantly more vehicle movements then more information would be required, for example a survey of existing vehicle movements over a typical working day. Transportation also note that the letter from S B Waste Management states “due to the increased efficiency of the proposed new plant, we are looking to reduce vehicle movements from the site”.

There are two existing access points – one from Sutherland Avenue which appears to be used for staff vehicles only and the main access from Purbrook Road. The Engineer checked the accident records for the last five years and there do no appear to be any linked to this site. The Engineer also comments that even on a dry day, soil was being carried onto Purbrook Road by the lorries exiting the site. He therefore recommends that a suitable wheel wash be installed to reduce this problem – this should be conditioned.

The site access off Purbrook Road is in poor condition due to the number of vehicle movements and should be repaired.

The Engineer states that the proposal will be a significant improvement on the existing layout however, he would like the applicant to supply a figure for the estimated vehicle traffic flow to the site during a normal working day and give more details of the proposed reduction in vehicle movements before a

30 final decision is made. An improved proposed site layout plan is also required.

8. External Consultees

8.1 The Environment Agency has written to confirm no objections to the proposed development. They confirm that the premises are currently being used for recycling waste and are licensed for this activity, under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Operation of the proposed new plant will be in accordance with the permitted activities although some conditions of the licence may need to be modified, for example, if waste quantities are to be increased.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The main issues to be considered on the application are:

Use of the site and efficiency of new plant. Design, layout and street scene. Environmental protection issues. Traffic generation. Policy.

9.2 The application site has been operating successfully with planning permission as a waste transfer and recycling facility for almost ten years. This application is not to establish a new site, but to provide an upgraded plant which is more efficient and effective in sorting waste which can ultimately be recycled. The plant is a conveyor type machine with hoppers and as the waste travels along the conveyor, is sorted into different recycling receptacles. The proposed new sorting facility would replace an existing sorting facility, the existing sorting facility has the capacity to enable up to 50% of the waste received to be recycled, whereas the proposed new facility would enable up to 90% of the waste to be of recyclable quality. This proposal would therefore make much better use of waste material and be more efficient and effective in sorting these materials.

9.3 In respect of design, layout and street scene, the proposed new plant would be colour coated and would cover twice the footprint of the existing plant. The height of the existing plant is 7.5 metres, the proposed new plant would be up to a maximum height of 11 metres. (The maximum height being part of the plant within the centre of the site.) The proposed new plant would therefore be visible in the street scene above the 2 metre boundary fence.

9.4 In respect of environmental protection issues, Environmental Services confirm that the site has been granted a Waste Management Licence by the Environment Agency and conditions are included that require noise abatement measures and dust control to be implemented. In addition, matters such as operational hours and waste handling are referred to within the Licence. Specific detail on how the site is operated and how licence conditions will be met are also detailed in a working plan. In relation to the specific plant the subject of the planning application the Environmental

31 Protection Unit recommend that conditions are attached to any consent in respect of adequate facilities for the treatment of grit or dust and that all plant and machinery are enclosed with said insulating material and mounted in a way which minimises the transmission of vibration and structure borne sound. The Environment Agency also confirms no objection to the proposed development.

9.5 In respect of traffic generation, it has been confirmed that there are currently approximately between 40 and 50 skip vehicle movements per day to and from the site, and that with the proposed new facility, it is anticipated that the vehicle movements will reduce to approximately 30 to 40 vehicle movements per day. Therefore the reduction in skip vehicle movements is to be welcomed.

9.6 With regard to planning policy, the application site falls within a Defined Business Area, where there are other waste transfer and recycling facilities. In addition, in respect of Wolverhampton Council’s strategic aims, to become a green city, a facility which improves recycling of waste from 50% to 90% is also to be welcomed with regard to improved sustainability.

10. Conclusion

10.1 S B Waste Management Limited are a long established waste transfer and recycling facility at the Purbrook Road site, where over a ten year period there have been no outstanding issues from the Council’s Environmental Protection Unit or the Environment Agency. The proposed new plant will generate an investment in the site of approximately £1.5 million and the improved recycling capacity to move from a plant which recycles only 50% of the waste received to a position of recycling up to 90% of the waste received is also to be welcomed. As the proposed new plant would be of cutting edge technology with covers on the hopper heads and better sound insulation, there should be an even lower level of possible dust and sound migration from the site.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant planning permission subject to conditions in respect of: Details of parking layout. The provision of wheel wash facilities. The site access off Purbrook Road is repaired to an acceptable standard. Notes for information in respect of the site falling within a Coal Mining area and reference to the existing Waste Management Licence for the site.

Case Officer : Martyn Gregory Telephone No : 551125 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/0814/FP/M Location 26 Purbrook Road,, Monmore Green,, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393051 297859 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 9139m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01302/FUL WARD: East Park DATE: 25-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 25-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 25.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Tarran Bungalows Site, Selbourne Crescent, East Park, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Redevelopment of Tarran Bungalows site comprising retention of a small number of existing dwellings and erection of 112 new dwellings

APPLICANT: AGENT: Bromford Housing Group SupportaRPD 1 Venture Court Bartleet House Broadlands 165a Birmingham Road Wolverhampton Bromsgrove WV10 6TV B61 0DJ

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site is located approximately 2km from the centre of Wolverhampton to the east and is bound by the extent of properties on Hurstbourne Crescent, Woodstock Road and Mayfield Road. It is very close to the main radial route A454 Willenhall Road.

1.2 The site area totals 4.8 Ha, is currently occupied by 130 prefabricated bungalows built between the late 1940s and 50s, in the form of two parallel crescents.

1.3 There are 11 properties within the site which are excluded from the redevelopment proposals because the owners wish to remain in them.

1.4 There are 7 capped mineshafts on the site and several protected trees.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is for a phased development to replace the majority of the existing properties with housing of a standard adaptable to the changing needs of the occupants. The proposal intends to remove existing alleyways with the exception of the central walkway across the estate which gives access to the library, shops and local primary school.

2.2 Eleven of the existing properties are to remain in the proposal as owner- occupiers. The 112 new properties proposed in the scheme, are laid out on the existing road system but with some cul de sac provision and improvement to adoptable standards and with improved vehicular parking. The mineshafts and

34 trees on the site to some degree dictate the proposed layout however the existing spaciousness of the plots and general layout in the street scene will be maintained

2.3 There are 8 different types of bungalows all of provide only ground floor accommodation, with the exception of a small number of 3 bedroom dormer bungalows. Some of the bungalows are fully wheelchair accessible and all others are easily accessible at ground floor.

2.5 The front boundary treatments proposed are dwarf brick walls and piers with railings between and railing style front gates with close boarded fences between front gardens.

2.6 There are several trees affected by the application but it is intended to retain these in the development as far as possible and add trees within garden areas where appropriate to the street scene. Surface treatments are to be agreed.

3. Planning History

04/1032/DD/R for Demolition of bungalows, dated 23.07.2004 - approved.

4. Constraints

4.1 Mine shafts identified on the site.

4.2 Some residents are remaining while the properties around them are being replaced.

4.3 Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00465/TPO

5. Relevant policies

D1 Design Quality D9 Appearance AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM14 Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Communities AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security H6 Design of Housing Development H9 Housing Density and Mix N7 The Urban Forest SPG3 Residential Development

6. Publicity

6.1 As a major application the application was advertised in the Express & Star newspaper on 21.10.2006 and by site notice posted on 30 October 2006.

35 7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 Four letters have been received from local residents. Concerns expressed are that the method of reclamation and excavation may cause disturbance to residents and disrupt the water supply/sewers; site boundary encroaching on neighbouring garden; car parking for plot 29 should be relocated to reduce disturbance; loss of privacy should be reduced by additional screen planting.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Transportation. There are some awkward visibility splays and it is not certain that the turning areas in dead ends are sufficient for emergency vehicles to turn. Some amendments will be required.

8.2 Building Control. Require that access for fire appliance should be to within 45m of each dwelling entrance door and that a 20m turning head facility is required in dead end streets to accommodate an appliance turning.

8.3 Environmental Services. Recommend very clear hours for demolition and construction contract: 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday 08.00 to 12.00 Saturday at no time on Sundays or Bank Holidays. Noise to be limited during construction, strict control of waste disposal, burning of waste and siting of waste and plant, dust control and vehicle exhaust control. Reclamation strategy is satisfactory. Confirmation of completion of reclamation works in writing to LPA before construction work begins.

8.4 Access Officer - No objections.

8.5 Property Services - No objections in principle. Some queries over provision of area of open space. Pointed out incorrect phasing plan which has subsequently been updated.

9. External consultees

9.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd will require usual condition relating to provision of drainage.

9.2 Centro - have no objection in principle - would like to see good lighting on the pedestrian routes to access public transport and would expect some kind of residential travel plan.

9.3 Police – have no objections to the scheme.

36 10. Appraisal

10.1 The proposal is to be considered in the light of the following key issues: Phasing Street scene and design of individual properties; Impact on trees and landscaping; Access for people and emergency services; The existence of mineshafts in some of the plots; Layout and design - the impact of individual houses and gardens on the existing 11 properties; the impact of the proposed new houses on each other and secure by design principles in the development.

Phasing. 10.2 The development is to take the form of 5 phases which will be implemented sequentially.

Street Scene. 10.3 The proposed development replaces the existing single storey detached properties with an equivalent number of generally similar properties and improves the way in which properties are orientated towards the four affected streets - Selbourne Crescent, Hurstbourne Crescent, Mayfield Road and Woodstock Road.

10.4 The 8 variations in the designs of the proposed properties ensure that the corners are addressed in an attractive and open way and that where the layout for parking or garden space changes slightly that the properties make the best use of the plot shapes. Only one of these designs includes an upper dormer floor so that the proposed development will remain low in the street.

Trees and landscape. 10.5 The majority of trees in the street scene are to be retained with only 3 trees marked for replacement. Additional trees are proposed in the small area of Public Open Space on Mayfield Road and in other key locations where they would be visible.

10.6 A landscape plan for each phase will be required to be submitted and will need to be implemented before the occupation of the first phase and subsequent phases.

Access. 10.7 In order to facilitate better access to properties in the new development some cul de sac streets will be improved to adoptable standards. Cars will be able to park adjacent to properties and there will be sufficient access for emergency services and refuse collection vehicles subject to some minor amendments.

10.8 Through routes to the main roads are proposed to enable access to bus stops on Willenhall Road and the same routes enable relatively easy access to Health Centre, Library and local shopping facilities.

Mineshafts 10.9 There are known mineshafts in the development area. Indicative positions have been provided in the development proposals however it is possible that

37 the exact positions will vary in reality so that the design and layout has endeavoured to leave sufficient space for this possible variation. Full ground condition details and a strategy for reclamation have been submitted with the application and confirmation of their satisfactory implementation will be required before development commences.

Layout and Design. 10.10 The layout follows the existing road pattern of two semi-circular shaped crescents and the straight Mayfield Road to the north of the site with properties facing onto the public roads, a short north-south section of Woodstock Road and an additional cul de sac proposed off Mayfield Road between Selbourne Crescent and Woodstock Road.

10.11 Individually the plots address the need for privacy and private garden space between the new and existing properties which will remain and all the new properties. There have been some comments received from individuals, largely from people who are remaining in their homes and who have concerns regarding the impact of the proposals on them and request additional screen planting or denser trees to preserve privacy. This can be addressed in the landscape plan. There is a request for obscure glazing in plots with house type B2 as these are the only properties with stairs and any views over neighbouring plots such as those beside 19 Selbourne Crescent. Amendments to accommodate these requirements have been requested.

10.12 There have been requests by neighbours for minor amendments to the scheme including the relocation of a parking space from beside an existing bungalow to beside the new bungalow at plot no.29 who will be using it. This can be accommodated in the proposal and an amendment is expected.

10.13 Generally there have been no very negative comments regarding the layout and the proposals seem to have taken board all the major concerns of street scene by ensuring that properties face onto the existing roads and the corner pairs are splayed to follow the road lines.

10.14 As proposed, front boundary treatments walls and railings would not return to meet the fronts of houses walls which is what is normally expected in high quality developments and front gardens are divided by 1.2m high close boarded fence on concrete posts in the proposal. An amendment to this will be required before any plans are approved.

10.15 Rear gardens are divided by 1.8m high close boarded fences which is an acceptable form of division. Where rear garden side boundaries are adjacent to roads, 1.8m high brick walls are proposed.

10.16 The comments from the Police are encouraging as they consider the proposals improve the security and natural surveillance in the area by ensuring that all car parking spaces are overlooked by windows from habitable rooms and by centralising the thoroughfares through the site. Properties back onto each other and face onto the highways so that there is much less risk of opportunist theft.

38 11. Conclusion

11.1 The general principles and layout of the proposals are acceptable.

11.2 There are some minor alterations to the boundary treatments and details which will be required to accommodate existing occupants and the boundary treatments will require some amendment.

11.3 A phased landscape plan will be required by condition.

11.4 The proposal will meet many housing objectives and improve the living conditions and appearance of this part of the city.

12. Recommendation

Delegated authority to grant subject to the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and with Conditions to include:

Landscape proposals for each phase to be implemented before occupation. Revised boundary treatment detail. Submission of external materials for approval. Details of joinery to be provided at a detailed scale. Submission of drainage scheme. Submission of comprehensive lighting scheme. Confirmation that reclamation strategy is complete. Working hours during construction. Affordable housing.

Case Officer : Mizzy Marshall Telephone No : 551123 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01302/FUL Location Tarran Bungalows Site, Selbourne Crescent,East Park,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393694 298185 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 54462m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01391/FUL WARD: Fallings Park DATE: 16-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 16.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 248 Cannock Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV10 0BE PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached double garage to the rear

APPLICANT: AGENT: Clark Brothers Developments Brophy Riaz & Partners 8 High Street 48A Hylton Street Bilston Jewellery Quarter Wolverhampton Birmingham WV14 0EH B18 6HN

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 This site, which was a vacant area of land, is on the corner of Grassy Lane and Cannock Road. To the north-east is 252 Cannock Road a large detached house approx. 6 years old. Grassy Lane runs behind the new dwellings to the south and in an east/ west direction. The road is a dead end which leads to a business premises. Pedestrian access is still achieved along this roadway to the east. To the south of this highway is green belt open space used for grazing for horses.

1.2 There is a slight change in levels with the rear garden at the application site gently sloping down from the road towards the house.

1.3 There are trees on the south boundary which would be removed to accommodate the approved parking areas. There is a 1.8m high boundary fence on the boundary with 252 Cannock Road with side facing ground floor windows serving a kitchen (furthest away), and two windows serving a living room.

2. Application details

2.1 The application forms part of another application for a garage next door at 246 Cannock Road. The proposed garages comprise one large block across the rear garden of both houses. (06/01392/FUL)

41 2.2 The proposal involves a single storey garage block to accommodate 4 cars and in the rear garden of 246 and 248. It would measure 11.8m wide and 5.3m deep and 3m high at the ridge. The internal dimensions would be 5.6m for each garage and 5m deep.

2.3 The position of the building would be 2.3m closer to the boundary fence with 252 Cannock Road than the position of the approved parking bays. The doors to the garage would be electrically operated and have a metal external finish.

3. Planning History

3.1 Planning permission has been granted on appeal for 2 detached dwellings - ref 03/01415/FP dated 27th October 2004. The dwellings are near completion.

4. Relevant policies

AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

D1 - Design Quality

D8 - Scale - Massing

D9 - Appearance

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 Neighbour letters sent and expired 15th November 2006. One letter has been received from 252 Cannock Road. The main concerns would be over development, loss of light to rear facing living rooms and negative impact on visual amenity. This neighbour has asked to speak to the Committee.

5.2 A letter of objection has been received from Cllr Steve Evans on the grounds of “disruption to the public footpath and loss of light”

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Trees - no comments have yet been received.

6.2 Transportation Development - suggest that the internal dimensions be increased to 5.5m in length from the proposed 5m.

7. Appraisal

7.1 The issues in respect of this proposal is the likely impact of the bulk of the garages on the house/garden area of 252 Cannock Road, reduction of amenity space and effect on visual amenity.

7.2 The proposed garage would be 2.2m to eaves and the north east most corner would abut the boundary with 252. The angles and views from 252 Cannock Road would be obscure from the rear living room window and very obscure from the kitchen window. This would be approx 6m from the south-west facing ground floor windows. Due to the obscure angle, and existing fence it would be difficult to argue loss of outlook to this room. There are other windows to this room, which overlook the garden and enjoy a satisfactory outlook. There would be no loss of light.

7.3 The garden area adjacent to the fence at 252 Cannock Road is not the main focus of outdoor living. On this basis it is unlikely that the proximity of the garage to the boundary with 252 would result in any adverse affect by reason of loss of outlook.

7.4 The principle of this use of part of the garden space for the parking of vehicles has already been addressed under the appeal application. The proposed garage block would however, require a slightly greater area of land than the approved parking spaces. The building would be closer to the boundary with 252 which in terms of loss of usable garden space would have little impact as the approved use of this quite awkward space was limited due to its shape and size. But this is the plot with the smaller garden and any loss of amenity space may be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers. However, 16.5m2 is not a significant amount to lose. On this basis it would be difficult to justify refusal on grounds of loss of amenity space.

7.5 The proposed electric garage doors would have a very solid appearance, particularly as they are both double width. The location however is very remote overlooking a field and would not be visible from anywhere but Grassy Lane which is a closed road to through traffic. Electronic doors have the minimum impact on the highway. On this basis the design is acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Grant planning permission.

Subject to the following conditions:

- matching materials

Case Officer : Jenny Davies Telephone No : 555608 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01391/FUL Location 248 Cannock Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV10 0BE Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392473 299913 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 343m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/0933/FP/C WARD: Fallings Park DATE: 18-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 13-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 21.07.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land junction of, Cannock Road/Blackhalve Lane,, (formally known as 1 & 3 Blackhalve Lane), Wednesfield, PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing units and erection of a two storey building containing 2 new shop units, comprising a financial or professional service (Use Class A2) unit and a hot food takeaway (Use Class A5) unit with separate offices at first floor

APPLICANT: AGENT: SEP Properties Ltd Silk Rowson Plant 30 Hateley Drive Longbow Professional Centre Park Fields West Longbow Close Wolverhampton Battlefield WV4 6SF Shrewsbury SY1 3GZ

REPORT:

1. Site Description and Site Findings and Relevant Background

1.1 The application relates to a prominent site located at the junction of Cannock Road and Blackhalve Lane, Bushbury. There are existing single storey brick shop buildings on the site ,(one was formerly a convenience store, currently a shop selling fireworks, the other is closed ). There are high walls surrounding a rear yard facing Blackhalve Lane. There are three advertisement hoardings adjacent the Cannock Road frontage and one advertisement hoarding mounted on the wall of the shop building along the Blackhalve Lane frontage. The three ground mounted hoardings screen part of the site and there is a large tree within the rear yard that is visible above these hoardings.

1.2 There is a difference in ground levels between the Blackhalve Lane and Cannock Road site frontages. Cannock Road descends as you go northwards away from the roundabout junction with Blackhalve Lane. At the northern edge of the site the level difference to Cannock Road is of the order of 0.7m to 1.0 m, but level with adjacent shop premises to the north, which on the Cannock Road frontage have steps down to Cannock Road and those on the Blackhalve lane frontage are level to Blackhalve Lane.

1.3 Application 06/1154/FUL relating to change of use of 144 Cannock Road to hot food take away/cafe is currently under consideration and an update will be given at Committee as to its determination. Residential accommodation exists directly above 144 and adjacent premises.

45 2. Planning History

2.1 The planning history reveals consent to display an externally illuminated fascia sign (A/C/A103/86) granted in October 1986 and an application for “demolition of existing units and erection of a new two storey building containing 2 new retail units”, reference 05/1211/FP/C, which was withdrawn on 28th September 2005.

2.2 More recently permission has been given for the demolition of existing units and erection of a new two storey building containing two new retail units with associated parking and access under ref 06/0250/FP/C on 19 April 2006.

3. Constraints

3.1 Within The Scotlands Local Shopping Centre as identified in the adopted UDP.

4. Application Details

4.1 This new proposal is also for demolition of the existing shops and removal of the hoardings and construction of a two storey contemporary building, now of a slightly different modern design to that already permitted but this time to create two units, the larger one to be used for A5 take away and the smaller one for A2 betting office. As before, the application forms identify that the present amount of retail floor space is 273m², and that the proposal is to replace this with 415m² of floor space. There is presently no on-site parking and the proposal includes provision of 11 parking spaces, plus one disabled parking space, with an intended one-way system to circulate traffic in from Blackhalve Lane and out onto Cannock Road. Bicycle parking provision is included plus bin storage and circulation space for vehicle deliveries.

4.2 As before the proposed building is contemporary in design and wraps around both frontages with a tower feature at the junction. The proposed building forms two separate rentable ‘shop’ units. The only change to the design is to the tower element which is now octagonal rather than circular.

4.3 In support of the application the applicants specify that up to 20 employees can be expected to be working within the new units. applied for. The proposed Class A5 take-away proposes hours of opening of between 09.00am hours and 11.00pm six days a week. The applicant recognises that restricted opening hours would apply on Sundays but leaves the actual hours to the Local Authority to determine.

4.4 It is understood from the applicants agent that the occupier of the betting shop is likely to be William Hill and of the hot food unit is likely to be Domino’s Pizza. The first floor above the hot food unit would be let separately as offices.

46 5. U.D.P. Policies

5.1 D1 – Design Quality - D2 – Design Statement - D3 – Urban Structure - D4 – Urban Grain - D5 – Public Realm (public space/private space) - D6 – Townscape and Landscape - D7 – Scale – Height - D8 – Scale – Massing - D9 – Appearance - D10 – Community Safety - D11 – Access for People with Disabilities - SH1 – Centres Strategy - SH2 – Centre Uses - SH8 - Local Centres - SH10 - Protected Frontages - SH14 - Catering Outlets - S7 – District Centres – Cannock Road ( The Scotlands) - AM1 – Access, mobility & New Development - AM4 – Strategic Highway Network - AM9 – Provision for Pedestrians - AM10 – Provision for Cyclists AM12 – Parking & Servicing Provision

5.2 SPG5 Shopfront Design Guide

6. Publicity

6.1 Neighbour letter expiry date 23. 10. 06. Press notice expiry date Site notice expiry date 6. 11. 06. Up to the time that this report was written, 5 residents support the proposal and 18 residents and Councillor Steve Evans oppose the proposal. 9 identical letters of objection have also been received. Grounds of objection are :- too many take aways busy road / junction late night noise too much litter already smell not enough parking appearance of any flues Ken Purchase M.P. has written in supporting the scheme of demolition and redevelopment but emphasising care in relation to traffic issues.

7. External Consultees

7.1 Severn Trent Water Authority. no objection.

47 8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Transportation – The gradient of the vehicle access at 1:10 is satisfactory. One way access through the development from Blackhalve Lane to Cannock Road is also satisfactory. A satisfactory visibility splay of 2.4m X 90m is available along the kerb line at the Cannock Road site exit. The applicant has provided plans to demonstrate that large vehicles can access the site satisfactorily. Customers should be able to access all shops directly from the car park to ensure its use. Cycle parking is provided. Trees – No trees of TPO value, as they are self-set Sycamores. One of these is of reasonable form and has some amenity value but no objection to its loss. Policy – The site is within the Cannock Road (Scotlands) Local Shopping Centre as identified in policy SH8 of the adopted UDP. Within Centres the Council will support proposals for new retail developments appropriate in scale to the function of the centre and its catchment subject to environmental and traffic considerations. Generally the question of whether the provision of non-retail uses in a centre or local centre will be satisfactory will depend on the number and any clustering of such uses in the particular centre. In this case it is considered to be inappropriate to allow this whole corner block to be given over to non retail uses with offices above. Building Consultancy – Access for fire is satisfactory. Level access for disabled is provided and lift access is provided to the first floor. Access Officer – One more disabled space would be preferred. W.c’s need to be amended to comply with Part M Building Regs. Enviromental Services - Need for details of any flues and chiller units. Trading hours of 0900 to 2300 are considered appropriate. Refuse storage is provided.

9. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment

9.1 Not required

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues are: - • Retail policy • Layout • Design • Parking • Access • Amenity

10.2 Retail policy – The site falls within the Cannock Road (Scotlands) local shopping centre as defined in the UDP. As such retail redevelopment of an appropriate scale is acceptable. The proposed floor space of each unit is not above the threshold considered where a demonstration of need is required. The site previously operated as a Class A1 retail convenience store. Whilst redevelopment for Class A1 retail purposes is considered appropriate (and a satisfactory scheme of two units has already been permitted for that use with

48 similar access and parking arrangements ), this proposal for A5 (take away) and A2 (betting office) with offices at first floor, does not actually create policy problems in terms of the increase in the number of non A1 uses. The Council supports proposals for new units within the boundaries of local shopping centres subject to environmental and traffic conditions, but has specific policy to ensure that the retail provision is safeguarded by controlling the number and location of non-retail uses. Whilst the shop on this site has closed, a new Aldi supermarket has opened a short distance away along Blackhalve Lane so the loss of a convenience store is not an issue. From a policy point of view the introduction of one additional A5 use will only result in a total of six hot food sales premises across the centre; one fish and chips, two Chinese ,one Indian (associated with a restaurant), one McDonalds ( at the southernmost end of the centre) and this. There is also a small café. The betting office use will be in the slightly smaller ‘tower’ unit. There is one other betting office in the centre.

10.3 Layout – As before the layout provides a new two-storey building with its main frontages along Cannock Road and at the prominent highway junction with Blackhalve Lane. The parking and servicing areas are located between the building and Blackhalve Lane. Although still visible within the street scene it is considered that the proposed boundary treatments are appropriate. Also as before, the siting of the new building immediately adjacent the corner and the roundabout frontage in a more prominent position offers a visual improvement in the street scene. The location of the parking on the Blackhalve Lane frontage is considered, as before, to be a visually acceptable design solution. The design includes low brick walls to the back of pavement boundary. The agent has been requested to amend the design of the units to include direct access from the rear parking area.

10.4 Design – The contemporary design and “tower” feature will create a landmark building giving a strong identity to this prominent junction offering a much- improved visual identity. The repositioning of a new building closer to the back edge of pavement and incorporation of unit frontages at ground floor level will also offer better surveillance to the street enhancing community safety. The change in the detailed design of the tower element from a circular one to an octagonal one is considered to satisfactory. The design of the shopfronts is similar to before and is satisfactory.

10.5 Parking and site access– The proposal identifies 11 parking spaces plus one disabled parking space. As no off-street parking provision is currently available at this site the proposal to provide 12 spaces is considered to be an improvement. Also, as the units are located within an established retail centre close to residential areas and on a main arterial road where there are frequent bus services then the level of parking is considered adequate. In addition, cycle parking provision has been included to encourage alternative means of transport. There are currently waiting restrictions on the frontage. The gradient of the access onto Cannock Road is 1 in 10 and visibility splay of 2.4m X 90m is provided along the kerb line at the Cannock Road access. A satisfactory one-way system of traffic flow will provide a safe and convenient means of access and egress.

10.6 Access – A lift to the first floor has been included in this scheme. Satisfactory disabled parking is provided.

10.7 Amenity – There are residential properties in Blackhalve Lane, Chesterton Road, Primrose Lane and Willow Avenue which surround the Scotlands centre. Within the centre there are opposite in Blackhalve Lane; a fish and chip shop and a Chinese take away. On the same side there is a Chinese take away plus an Indian restaurant which does some take away trade. On Cannock Road frontage there is a café just to the north of the application site. At the south end of the Scotlands centre is a MacDonalds which provides both eat in and take away facilities. There are a currently therefore a total of five take aways and a café within the centre. It is considered that the distance between the residential and commercial uses is reasonable and that the provision of a additional but different type of take away will be satisfactory in terms of residential amenity but will also add to the range of facilities available in this centre. The betting shop and the offices should not raise any amenity issues.

10.8 Opening hours. It is considered that opening hours can be satisfactorily controlled by Environmental Health legislation rather than planning condition, as the units are within a local shopping group.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The principle of retail and retail related redevelopment in this established shopping centre is considered acceptable. The present site is run down and its redevelopment with a contemporary style “landmark” building will offer a visual improvement to the locality and create improved surveillance and activity within the street as well as providing off-street car and cycle parking for customers. This principle has been established already by the granting of an almost identical building under reference 06/0250/FP on 16 April 2006. 11.2 The inclusion of an A5 use will result in six hot food facilities spread over the Scotlands shopping centre. The scheme will also deliver new purpose built modern buildings and add to the range of facilities available at the centre. Late night activity should not be such as to cause detriment to amenity for residents bearing in mind the presence of the centre and the busy adjacent road junctions. The betting shop would fit into the scheme. There is one other betting shop nearby.

50 12. Recommendation

12.1 Subject to receipt of amended drawings showing access to the units direct from the car parking area, grant subject conditions relating to :- landscaping scheme details, samples and sample panel of all facing materials details of and materials for all boundaries and external surface treatment full large scale architectural details shop front display to be maintained in all shop windows provision of disabled access vehicular access to be only as shown details of any air handling and flue systems

Case Officer : Alan Gough Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/0933/FP/C Location Land junction of, Cannock Road/Blackhalve Lane,,(formally known as 1 & 3 Blackhalve Lane), Wednesfield, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393437 301738 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01392/FUL WARD: Fallings Park DATE: 16-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 16.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 246 Cannock Road, Wednesfield, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached double garage to the rear

APPLICANT: AGENT: Clark Brothers Developments Brophy Riaz & Partners 8 High Street 48A Hylton Street Bilston Jewellery Quarter Wolverhampton Birmingham WV14 0EH B18 6HN

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 This site, which was a vacant area of land, is on the corner of Grassy Lane and Cannock Road. To the north-east is 252 Cannock Road, a large detached house approx. six years old. Grassy Lane runs behind the new dwellings to the south and in an east/west direction. The road is a dead end which leads to a business premises. Pedestrian access is still achieved along this roadway to the east. To the south of this highway is open countryside. The site itself was a vacant area of land and now the two approved dwellings are under construction.

1.2 There is a slight change in levels with the rear garden at the application site gently sloping down from the road towards the house.

2. Application details

2.1 The application forms part of another application for a garage next door at 248 Cannock Road (06/01391/FUL). The proposed garages comprise one large block across the rear garden of both houses.

2.2 The proposal involves a single storey garage block to accommodate four cars in the rear garden of both 246 and 248 Cannock Road. It would measure

53 11.8m wide and 5.3m deep and 3m high to the ridge. The internal dimensions would be 5.6m for each garage and 5m deep.

2.3 The position of the building would be 2.3m closer to the boundary fence with 252 Cannock Road, than the position of the approved parking bays. The doors to the garage would be electrically operated and have a metal external finish.

3. Planning History

3.1 Planning permission has been allowed on appeal for two detached dwellings ref 03/1415 dated 27th October 2004. The dwellings are near to completion.

4. Relevant policies

AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

D1 - Design Quality

D8 - Scale - Massing

D9 - Appearance

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.2 A letter of objection has been received from Cllr Steve Evans on the grounds of “disruption to the public footpath and loss of light”

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Trees - no comments have yet been received.

6.2 Transportation Development - suggest that the internal dimensions be increased to 5.5m in length from the proposed 5m.

7. Appraisal

7.1 The issues in respect of this proposal is the likely impact of the bulk of the garages on the house/garden area of 252 Cannock Road, reduction of amenity space and effect on visual amenity.

54 7.2 The proposed garage would be 2.2m to eaves and the north east most corner would abut the boundary with 252. The angles and views from 252 Cannock Road would be obscure from the rear living room windows and very obscure from the kitchen window. This would be approx 6m from the south-west facing ground floor windows. Due to the obscure angle, and existing fence it would be difficult to argue loss of outlook to this room. There are other windows to this room, which overlook the garden and enjoy a satisfactory outlook. There would be no loss of light.

7.4 The principle of this use of part of the garden space for parking of vehicles has already been addressed under the appeal application. The proposed garage block would however, require a slightly greater area of land than the approved parking spaces. This is the plot with the larger garden but any additional loss of amenity space could be detrimental to the living conditions of the occupiers. However, the difference between parking spaces and a garage would be minimal. On this basis it would be difficult to justify refusal on grounds of loss of amenity space.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Grant Planning Permission

Subject to the following Conditions:

-matching materials

Case Officer : Jenny Davies Telephone No : 555608 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01392/FUL Location 246 Cannock Road, Wednesfield,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393783 302346 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 239m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/0918/OP/M WARD: Graiseley DATE: 14-Jul-06 TARGET DATE: 03-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 14.07.2006 APP TYPE: Outline Application

SITE: Land to the West side of Raglan Street bounded by St Marks Road, and adjoining Highways and Market Car Park,, Wolverhampton, PROPOSAL: Mixed use development comprising 13000m2 of A1 retail use, 1212m2 of either A2 or A3 or A4 or A5 use and 140 flats, including a minimum of 40 very sheltered flats (OUTLINE APPLICATION)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Tesco Stores Ltd Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Cirrus Building 14 Regents Wharf Shire Park All Saints Street Welwyn Garden City London AL7 1AB N1 9RL

REPORT:

1. Site Description

Site Location and Boundary

1.1 The application site is located to the west of the city centre core and covers some 8.1ha. The main site is bounded by Raglan Street/Ring Road St Mark’s to the east, Great Brickkiln Street to the south, the rear of predominantly residential blocks on Lord Street to the west and St Mark’s Road to the north

1.2 The site boundary also includes a strip of land across Ring Road St Mark’s and a small shoppers car park (Markets Car Park) located on the east side of the Ring Road, to the south of the Retail Market Hall. The boundary also includes roads and junctions where it is proposed to make highways improvements.

1.3 The application site area excludes the Co-op Funeral Parlour on St Mark’s Road and Kwik-Fit on Raglan street.

Topography

1.4 The site is predominantly flat, though sloping gently down from the south-east to the north-west by about 7m. However, there is a noticeable change in level from the area round Stephenson Street to St Mark’s Road; a fall of some 1.5m- 2m. The Ring Road falls below the existing site level in the north, adjacent to the Chapel Ash roundabout, but rises towards the south to join Great Brickkiln Street.

57 Buildings and Land Use

1.5 The site was mainly occupied by large single-storey industrial and warehouse buildings of various ages and areas of car parking. Some of the buildings (e.g. The Lord Raglan PH, Blakemore’s cash and carry and the pub on the corner of Raglan Street and St Marks Street) have been demolished. On a recent site inspection the existing buildings appeared to be disused and many have been subject to vandalism.

1.6 The site includes one locally listed building - Attwood House, a vacant 1930’s commercial building with a distinctive tower. It is located at the northern end of the site, on the corner of Raglan Street and St. Marks Road. The application proposals retain its façade and tower.

1.7 The site also includes open car parks used by Beatties department store (150 spaces). These are located to the north of Stanhope Street and on the south side of St Mark’s Road respectively.

1.8 An oak tree located on the south west side of St Mark’s Street is the subject of a Tree Preservation Order (TPO).

Existing Public Highways

1.9 The main part of the site includes the following public highways:

Raglan Street St Mark’s Street Stephenson Street Alexander Street Herrick Street Stanhope Street

1.10 Outside the developable area, the site boundary also includes parts of Great Brickkiln Street, St Mark’s Road and Raglan Street and parts of Ring Road St Mark’s and Great Brickkiln Street.

1.11 Currently the main vehicular access points into the site are from Chapel Ash (A41) via St Mark’s Road to the north and Great Brickkiln Street to the south. Great Brickkiln Street is single carriageway distributor road which provides access from the Ring Road to the residential and commercial uses around and within the application site and to the Merridale residential area to the west. It is a designated cycle route in the Wolverhampton cycle network.

The Surrounding Area

1.12 The city centre retail, business and leisure core is located inside the Ring Road to the east of the site. It is a mix of 19th and 20th Century architecture, with ‘modern’ buildings predominating close to the application site (eg the Market Hall, the Portman Building society offices fronting the Ring Road and the recent Market Square development).

58 1.13 The mainly residential area to the south of the site was developed by the Council in the mid 20th Century and includes a number of 11 storey tower blocks as well as a smaller 4-8 storey apartment blocks; all set within landscaped grounds. The tower blocks have recently been refurbished.

1.14 Lord Street, to the west, has a mix of 2-3 storey commercial and residential properties, including the newly developed Thomas Pocklington House - a block of sheltered flats.

1.15 The Chapel Ash area to the north of the site is a mixed residential and commercial area, with local secondary shops along Chapel Ash itself. The Grade II listed St Mark’s Church (now used as offices) is situated opposite Attwood House, to the north of the site. The area immediately to the north of the site is designated as the Chapel Ash Conservation Area.

1.16 There are two ‘locally listed’ buildings located adjacent to the site:

Eagle Works: a three-storey brick-faced industrial/warehouse building located on the corner of Alexander Street and Great Brickkiln Street; and Gates to the Wolverhampton Electricity Sports Club on St Mark’s Road.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application is in outline but with siting and access included for determination. All buildings and structures on the site will be demolished, with the exception of the façade and corner tower of Attwood House. The proposed mixed use development comprises:

Supermarket 13,000 sq.m.

Petrol filling station with car wash 110 sqm (kiosk)

11 commercial units (A2, A3, A4, A5) in Attwood House 1,102 sq.m

105 flats (7x1 bed, 87x2 bed 11x3 bed)

Very sheltered housing for the elderly – min. 40 dwellings with associated facilities

Car Parking:- 957 short stay spaces for shoppers; 105 (basement) spaces for flats; 73 spaces (70 existing) in remodelled market car park; 12 spaces for very sheltered housing (total parking 1,147 spaces).

Supermarket & Petrol Station

2.2 The new supermarket would be located on the south–east corner of the site, adjacent to Ring Road St Mark’s and Great Brickkiln Street, reflecting the alignment and positioning of the permitted Sainsbury’s supermarket.

2.3 The new store would be arranged on two levels. The lower (main) floor would be ‘at grade’ – roughly at the same level as the adjoining Ring Road St Mark’s and Great Brickkiln Street. Above this would be a smaller mezzanine floor.

2.4 The illustrative drawings show that the main store entrances would be located on the northern elevation, with another entrance on the eastern elevation, facing the Markets area. The service bay would be on the west side of the building.

2.5 The agents state that the proposed 13,000 sq.m Tesco ‘Extra’ store would offer the complete range of Tesco food and non-food products and services (including a cafe) and that it would be open seven days a week, 24 hours a day (excluding Sundays and Bank Holidays).

2.6 The new petrol filling station is proposed to be located to the west of the supermarket. It would include an automatic car wash and air and water facilities. A small kiosk measuring 110 sq.m would sell a limited range of food, drink and motoring goods.

Independent Commercial Units

2.7 Up to 11 independent commercial units (total 1,102 sq.m.) for uses within Class A2 (financial and professional services) and A3-A5 (bars, cafes and restaurants) are proposed on the ground floor of the retained Attwood House.

Housing

2.8 A total of 145 dwellings are proposed - 105 private dwellings at the north eastern end of the site, partly behind the retained Attwood House façade (1st to 3rd floors) and partly within new apartments blocks located behind it and fronting St Mark’s Road and the new area of public open space.

2.9 A total of 105 car parking spaces would be provided within a secure basement car park with access from Raglan Street.

2.10 The proposals include an area of 1.24 acres located at the north-western end of the site which would be transferred by Tesco to the City Council for the provision of very sheltered elderly persons housing. This area is sufficient to accommodate a minimum of 40 units, together with an associated social club, hobby and crafts room, ancillary office space and 12 parking spaces.

Parking, Vehicular Access and Servicing

2.11 Access/egress for cars is proposed from Raglan Street to the north-east of the site and from Great Brickkiln Street to the south-west.

2.12 In addition to the residential parking described above, a total of 958 short-stay shopper car parking spaces are proposed, which would serve both the supermarket and other parts of the city centre. Of these, 41 spaces would be for the use of disabled badge holders only and 37 for parents with children. Staff and shopper cycle and motorcycle parking are also proposed. The car park would be on two levels: with 621 spaces provided at surface level and 337 spaces provided above, on a deck at store level. Escalators, travelators, stairs and lifts would provide access from the lower level to the store.

60 2.13 A service yard for the supermarket would be provided on the west side of the building. It would be enclosed by walls and gates.

Cycle and Pedestrian Access

2.14 The proposals include a number of new points for pedestrians to enter and leave the site, together with new north-south and east-west footways across the site. Cyclists would be able to use the new roads within the site, which will link the cycle-route along Great Brickkiln Street, but would not be permitted to use the footways.

2.15 A new ‘at grade’ crossing is proposed across Ring Road St Mark’s, together with an improved route through to the markets area.

Public Square

2.16 A new public square, of approximately 1,538 sq.m, is proposed in the northern part of the site, opposite the listed St Mark’s Church, as part of the north south pedestrian route through the site. It would also serve to open up views of the listed Church from the south. The mature oak tree currently located on St Mark’s Street (which is subject to a TPO) would be retained within the space.

Highways Works

2.17 Various improvements are proposed to the local highway network, including: • A new ‘at-grade’ pedestrian crossing to Ring Road St Mark’s, linking the site with the markets area. • The introduction of traffic signals at the junction of Ring Road St Mark’s and Great Brickkiln Street, to include a pedestrian controlled crossing of Great Brickkiln Street. • The widening of the Graiseley Street/Great Brickkiln Street/Alexander Street and the provision of signal controls. • The widening and reconfiguration of the Ring Road St Mark’s/Chapel Ash junction. • The introduction of traffic signals and pedestrian crossing facilities to the Penn Road/Lea Road junction, together with traffic calming measures. • The opening up of the west end of St Mark’s Road, to enable vehicles to enter and exit Lord Street from/to St Mark’s Road, with the termination of St Mark’s Road moved to the other side of Lord Street.

2.18 The application included the following documents:

Environmental Statement (plus Addendum) Planning Statement Town Centre and Retail Statement Design & Access Statement Transport Assessment Independent Safety Audit of the proposed Ring Road Crossing Statement of Community Involvement Flood Risk assessment

61 3. Relevant Planning History

Approved Sainsbury’s Scheme – 01/0052/OP

3.1 The Sainsbury’s application was submitted to the Council on 11 January 2001 and proposed a mixed-use development comprising retail uses (A1, A2, A3), residential, leisure (D2), car parking, access and associated highways works. The application was made in outline with all matters expect access and siting reserved for later approval. In summary, the approved Sainsbury’s proposals comprised:

Demolition of all buildings on the site, excluding the façade of Attwood House;

A new 8,361 q.m Class A1 retail store located on the southern part of the site with frontages to the Ring Road and Great Brickkiln Street and the main entrances located on the north-east and north-west corners;

Three Class A1 retail warehouses total 8,361 sq.m located on the western part of the site;

Smaller independent retail and restaurant units and a health and fitness centre located behind the retained façade of Attwood House and fronting Raglan street;

A total of 143 private residential flats located on the northern part of the site and above the southern part of the Sainsbury’s store;

Provision of an area of 1.24 acres for very sheltered housing (40 units);

An area of public open space located on the northern part of the site, opposite St Mark’s Church;

A total of 1,308 car parking spaces for shoppers, residents and employees of Beatties department store and the Staffordshire Building Society; and

Alterations to the local highways network, including the removal of the Ring Road central reservation car park and realignment of the carriageways.

3.2 The application was considered by the Council’s Planning Committee on 9 October 2001. At the meeting, Committee resolved to delegate authority to the Chief Planning Officer to grant conditional outline planning permission, subject to conditions and the Secretary of State (SoS) not deciding to ‘call-in’ the application.

3.3 The application was ‘called-in’ for decision by the SoS under Section 77 of the 1990 Act Direction on 19 December 2001. Following a ‘call-in’ Public Inquiry, the SoS granted conditional planning permission on 12 November 2002 (APP/D46356/V/01/1080146) in accordance with the Inspector’s recommendation. The SoS and Inspector’s main conclusions were that:

The proposals accorded with the relevant UDP shopping, housing, environment, leisure and recreation and transportation policies.

There was a quantitative need for significant additional retail convenience floorspace of at least the size proposed and, in qualitative terns, the City would benefit from a large food retailer being situated within close proximity to the primary shopping area.

There was a quantitative and qualitative need for additional bulky comparison goods floorspace.

Furthermore, there were no sequentially preferable sites available in an edge-of-centre location to meet these retail needs.

The proposals would have a significant potential benefit to the city centre and there was likely to be little impact on individual convenience stores in the city centre except for Sainsbury’s existing St George Street store. The issue is considered in the accompanying Town Centre and Retail Statement.

The development was unlikely to act as a separate shopping destination or result in a substantial increase in the number of shopping trips overall. Indeed, the proposals would divert trips from elsewhere and result in reduced travel distances overall. The proposals would also result in a high level of linked trips between the city centre and the proposal, thus potentially benefiting the city centre.

The proposals would contribute to competition and choice, thus serving the needs of the local community.

The housing elements were sustainable and an efficient use of previously developed urban land.

3.4 Consent was granted on 2 August 2005 to amend conditions 3 and 34 of the 2002 permission in order to extend the period for the submission of reserved matters until 12 November 2007 (05/1002/VVM). The Sainsbury’s permission therefore remains extant.

4. Constraints

Authorised Process (Env H) - Historical - Authorised Processes Near to: Conservation Area 50m - Historical - Near to Conservation Area (50m) Intergrated Pollution (Env A) - Historical - Intergrated Pollution Near to: Listed Building 20m - Historical - Near to Listed Building (20m) S330 - Request for Information - Historical - S330 Request For Info St John's Urban Village - Historical - St. Johns Urban Villiage

63 5. Relevant policies

CC1 - City Centre Shopping Strategy CC2 - City Centre Business and Employment CC3 - City Centre Housing CC4 - City Centre Environment CC5 - City Centre Access and Mobility CC10 - Chapel Ash SH1 - Centres Strategy SH2 - Centres Uses SH3 - Need and the Sequential Approach SH4 - Integration of Development into Centres SH5 - Wolverhampton City Centre SH11 - New Retail Development Comp. Goods SH13 - New Retail Development Foodstores H1 - Housing H3 - Housing Site Assessment Criteria H6 - Design of Housing Development H9 - Housing Density and mix H10 - Affordable Housing H11 - Special Needs Accommodation H12 - Residential Care Homes D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D3 - Urban Structure D4 - Urban Grain D5 - Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part D12 - Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy D14 - The Provision of Public Art HE4 - Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE17 - Develop. Affecting the setting of a LB R1 - Local Standards for Open Space, Sport R7 - Open Space Requirements for New Develop. R9 - New Open Space, Sport and Rec Facilities AM1 - Access, Motabaility and New Development AM9 - Provision for Pedestrians AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision EP3 - Air Pollution EP4 - Light Pollution EP5 - Noise Pollution SPG2 - Access & Facil. people with Disablities SPG3 - Residential Development SPG16 - Provision of Public Art

64 6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised in the Express & Star newspaper on 04.11.2006, for the following reasons:- Affects the Char./App. Conservation Area; Environmental Statement Submitted; Affects the setting of a Listed Building; Major Application; Departure.

6.2 A site notice was posted on 6 November 2006, for the following reasons:- Affects the Char./App. Conservation Area; Environmental Statement Submitted; Affects the setting of a Listed Building; Major Application; Departure.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 Councillor John Reynolds has written to confirm his agreement with the letter from Penn Fields Neighbourhood Management which expressed support for the application but also the view that there should be no access routes through the Graisley Estate.

7.2 Turley Associates, acting for Sainsbury’s Supermarkets Ltd object to the application on the following grounds:

• The proposal contains no leisure or bulky comparison goods retail and so is contrary to UDP policies. • The proposal would undermine the UDP strategy for the provision of bulky goods retailing. • There is insufficient quantitive need to support the scale of the proposed supermarket. • The increase in unrestricted comparison goods floorspace will compete with existing and proposed retail developments within the City Centre. • The proposed unrestricted comparison goods floorspace could be located on more centrally positioned sites within the City Centre and so fails the sequential approach to site selection. • The proposed large, amorphous bulk of the supermarket building with expansive car parking, including decked parking, would not contribute positively to the local character and distinctiveness of the City’s townscape. • Pedestrian linkages are impeded by the supermarket building, which would prevent views of other routes and thereby discourage pedestrian flows. • The retained Co-op undertakers would have a negative ‘perceptual’ impact on the very sheltered housing.

7.3 Drivers Jonas, acting for Prudential, owners of the Mander Centre, have submitted a ‘holding response’.

7.4 A local resident has written to express the view that there should be adequate access and parking for cycles and that parking should be available for customers of the Markets.

65 8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Penn Fields Neighbourhood Management have written to express support for the application but also the view that there should be no access routes through the Graisley Estate.

8.2 The City Archaeologist recommends conditions requiring:- a programme of building assessment and structural recording of buildings to be demolished (brick building and former rope walk west of Alexander Street, warehouse complex on corner of Alexander Street and Herrick Street, Attwood House)and ; a programme of archaeological work.

8.3 Leisure - In accordance with UDP policy H8, there is a requirement for public open space to serve the occupants of the proposed private flats. As the requirement is not being met on-site a financial contribution for off-site provision is required (£1,367.67 per resident).

8.4 Environmental Services – A3 to A5 uses - Extract ventilation systems need to be carefully sited. Food waste needs to be appropriately store. Consider restricting hours of operation and delivery hours. Noise – an indicative assessment has been submitted but further information, including noise mitigation measures for the new flats, will be required at the reserved matters stage. Piling operations during construction could cause disturbance to residents. Further information is required regarding the car wash. Recommend noise conditions as extant Sainsbury permission. Contaminated land – recommend a ground contamination condition.

8.5 Building Consultancy - Fire service vehicles need to get to within 45m of the entrance to each flat.

8.6 Transportation have serious concerns about the submitted Transport Assessment which does not address a number of pertinent issues.

9. External Consultees

Dudley MBC were consulted on the 20 July 2006,and their comments dated 04.09.2006 can be summarised as follows, No adverse comments.

South Staff's District Council were consulted on the 20 July 2006,and their comments dated 04.09.2006 can be summarised as follows, No objections.

Walsall MBC were consulted on the 20 July 2006,and their comments dated can be summarised as follows, No data recorded.

Severn Trent Water Ltd were consulted on the 20 July 2006,and their comments dated 01.08.2006 can be summarised as follows, No objection subject to a drainage condition.

Environment Agency were consulted on the 20 July 2006,and their comments dated 15.08.2006 can be summarised as follows, Objection - lack of information regarding how surface water drainage will be dealt with, to reduce run-off. If a satisfactory Flood Risk Assessment is received that overcomes objection, recommend conditions.

Centro were consulted on the 20 July 2006,and their comments dated 15.09.2006 can be summarised as follows, Recommend: - further dialogue to secure appropriate public transport improvements. - Affiliation to Company TravelWise. - A residential travel plan for the dwellings.

Police were consulted on the 20 July 2006 and their comments dated 31.08.2006 can be summarised as follows, No objection. Recommend provison of CCTV. Request a Section 106 agreement to secure the employment of Police Community Support Officers, as for the Retail Core Expansion. Car parking should be to 'Safer Parking Park Mark' standard. Buildings should be to Secured by Design standards. The subway under the Ring Road, close to Great Brickkiln Street, should be closed or upgraded to improve security. Landscape planting should not obscure CCTV coverage. The public square needs to be carfully managed to avoid conflict between residents and young people who may gather there or go there in the early hours to eat take-away food bought in Chapel Ash. Hot food take-aways (A5) within the development could lead to traffic congestion as occurs in Chapel Ash..

Sandwell MBC were consulted on the 20 July 2006,and their comments dated can be summarised as follows, No data recorded.

Natural England were consulted on the 8 November 2006,and their comments dated can be summarised as follows; No objection.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The key issues are:

• The principal of the development and compatibility with retail policy. • Transport implications, including pedestrian and cycle links, traffic management implications, the physical and environmental capacity of the surrounding road network, the safety of road users, the level of parking, road junction amendments and off site traffic calming measures. • The relationship between the different elements of the proposal and its surroundings including the impact on adjoining residential properties and the juxtaposition of residential accommodation within the development and noise generating operations. Urban design and sustainability issues. • The compliance of the proposal with UDP policy on provision of special needs and affordable housing. • The compliance of the proposal with UDP policy on open space provision.

The Principle of the Development and Retail Policy

10.2 An application for significant retail development (including both major convenience and comparison goods floorspace), together with significant areas of parking and residential development, has been considered in depth by both the City Council and, following a Public Inquiry, by the Planning Inspectorate and the SoS. Both the City council and the Inspector/SoS considered the proposals to be acceptable and outline planning permission was granted.

67 10.3 The principle of a major retail-led, mixed-use development, together with the associated parking and highways works, on this site has been long established and the approved scheme could still be implemented.

10.4 The current application site is almost the same as the site of the extant Sainsbury’s permission. The nature of the proposed development is also similar. The main differences are:

a. The current application site does not include the existing Co-Op funeral parlour and Kwik-Fit Tyre and Exhaust Centre, which are therefore unaffected by the scheme.

b. The Tesco proposal would provide 14,212 sq.m of retail and commercial floorspace - 5,283 sq.m less than the extant permission.

c. The proposed Tesco supermarket would be 4,639 sq.m larger than the approved Sainsbury’s store.

d. The current application does not include retail warehouses.

e. The current application proposes 11 small A2, A3, A4 and A5 – The extant permission would provide 742 sq.m. more, but for A1 only.

f. The current proposal include a petrol filling station with kiosk and carwash.

g. The current proposal does not include a health and fitness centre.

h. The current application proposes 105 private and a minimum of 40 very sheltered residential units. The extant permission would provide provided an additional 38 dwellings.

i. The current application does not propose flats above the supermarket.

j. The current application proposes a total of 1,148 car parking spaces - 90 less than in the extant permission.

k. The amount of public open space currently proposed is larger than proposed in the extant permission and its location, together with the location of the buildings on the site, would open up views of St Mark’s Church from the south.

l. The current proposals do not require the removal of the Ring Road central reservation car park (although there may be a small reduction in the number of spaces).

10.5 The application site is allocated as an Opportunity Development Site in the UDP and is subject to policy CC10 (i) which proposes:

“Development of a high quality mixed use scheme at Raglan Street, including a retail foodstore, bulky goods comparison retail uses, housing and leisure uses, with strong links to the Shopping Quarter.”

68 10.6 The UDP allocation reflects the extant Sainsbury permission. The most significant differences between the extant permission and the current application are therefore the omission of bulky goods comparison retail (retail warehouses) and leisure uses. Because of these omissions the current application does not fully comply with the requirements of policy CC10(i).

10.7 Additionally, the retail element of the Tesco proposal is different from that associated with the permitted scheme in terms of its scale, role and function. The overall quantum of retail floorspace delivered, and it is composition, would both be different, particularly in terms of:- the balance between convenience and comparison goods in the proposed superstore; the overall level of convenience goods to be delivered and; the amount of bulky comparison goods to be provided. These differences, and other material changes in circumstances that have arisen since the original scheme was granted planning permission, mean that the Tesco application needs to be carefully considered in relation to retail planning policy and the shopping strategy of the newly adopted Wolverhampton UDP.

10.8 The reference to retail warehousing as being an acceptable use for the site results from the assessment of retail need undertaken through the UDP process. The City centre is not currently well served by attractive, modern retail warehouse space capable of enhancing and reinforcing its role and function. It does not appear that the substantial quantitative need that exists for additional comparison retail in the City will be met by current proposals, and the contribution that the Raglan Street site could make to address this need will be reduced by the implementation of the Tesco proposals. In this context, there may be a sizeable comparison need with no sites identified to accommodate it if the Tesco scheme comes forward. This has implications for the Council’s consideration of proposals for retail warehouse development on sites not allocated for such development, and conversely, on the degree to which other, needed and allocated development will come forward. This issue is not adequately addressed in the applicants supporting statement, and additional justification on this issue has been sought.

10.9 There is a clear qualitative need for a new food superstore to serve the city centre. Moreover, there is sufficient quantitative need to support comparison retail of the scale proposed by Tesco. However, in terms of convenience goods, the work underpinning the UDP does not support the provision of a store larger than that already permitted. The convenience element of the Tesco store is much larger than that associated with the permitted store. In this regard, the UDP does not support a foodstore of the scale proposed by Tesco. However, it must be recognised that the calculation of quantitative need is not an ‘exact science’, and the issue of need should be considered in the round.

10.10 Raglan Street is sequentially the best site to meet the need for, inter alia, a new superstore for Wolverhampton. In general terms, food superstore development on the application site is consistent with the provisions of the sequential test and allocated in the UDP. However, compliance with the sequential test, has not been demonstrated, particularly with regard to the comparison retail element.

69 10.11 It is not considered that the overall level of comparison trade diversion associated with the Tesco proposal would be any greater than that associated with the permitted scheme; indeed, it may well be less. However, an issue of concern is the extent to which the scheme discourages conventional comparison goods retailers from occupying city centre space. The agents have been invited to consider this issue.

10.12 In terms of convenience impact, there are concerns regarding the impact on the Sainsbury’s supermarket at St George’s Parade.

10.13 As a general principle, superstore development to serve the city centre is appropriate in functional terms. However, the scale of such development needs to be carefully considered in the context of need and impact.

10.14 Tesco’s agents have been asked to respond to the concerns raised above.

10.15 Should planning permission be granted, then it is recommended that conditions are imposed to limit floorspace and comparison sales, and preventing further horizontal or vertical subdivision.

Transportation

10.16 The application includes a number of alterations to the road network in the vicinity of the site, as summarised in paragraph 2.17.

10.17 As with the extant permission, the site would be accessed from the Raglan Street junction with Chapel Ash to the north and from Great Brickkiln Street to the south. The main difference between the current application and the extant one is that whereas the previous scheme proposed the realignment of the northbound carriageway of Ring Road St Mark’s with the subsequent removal of the car park within the central reservation, this is not proposed in the current application.

10.18 Because the current proposal would not result in the loss of the car park within the Ring Road, there would be no requirement to relocate those 140 parking spaces within the site, as with the extant permission.

10.19 Although the current proposal is for 1,147 parking spaces compared to 1,238 for the extant permission, when taking account of the 140 spaces which would not be lost, the figures are much closer (1, 287 spaces compared to 1,238).

10.20 The proposed development would be well served by existing public transport provision.

10.21 The application proposes a north/south pedestrian route linking Great Brickkiln Street with St Mark’s Road, near to the church. No north/south route is proposed for cyclists. The current road layout within site provides a north/south route for pedestrians and cyclists, via Alexander Street, Stephenson Street and St Mark’s Street. The proposed layout would therefore be less permeable for cyclists which would be contrary to the aims of sustainability and UDP policies AM1 and AM10. The agents have been asked to widen the north/south route

70 and make provision for cyclists. This may result in the loss of a relatively small number of parking spaces.

10.22 The north/south route is shown passing between the car wash and petrol station kiosk and the west elevation of the supermarket building. At its narrowest the route would pass through a gap between the buildings 11m wide. In order to provide a north/south route that is overlooked and spacious enough so that pedestrians and cyclists can feel secure using it, the agents have also been asked to relocate the carwash and demonstrate that the petrol station kiosk and the elevation of the supermarket building opposite, would have windows to active areas overlooking the route.

10.23 A new pedestrian crossing of St Mark’s Road is proposed close to the northern end of the north/south route. A pedestrian/cycle crossing is proposed across Great Brickkiln Street.

10.24 Like the Sainsbury’s proposals, a new ‘at grade’ pedestrian/cycle crossing is proposed across Ring Road St Mark’s, together with an improved route through to the markets area of the City Centre core. This crossing would replace the existing pedestrian/cycle crossing close to the Great Brickkiln Street junction.

10.25 Discussions are continuing between Council Transport Officers and consultants acting for Tesco. The submitted Transportation Assessment is inadequate and further information is being sought.

Site Layout, Disposition of Uses and Design

10.26 The application is in outline with only layout (previously siting) and access submitted for determination. The applicant also seeks approval for the general quantum of development (commercial floorspace and number of dwellings) and height and massing of the buildings. Drawings showing the external treatment of the buildings are illustrative only but are intended to indicate that Tesco intend to deliver a high quality, contemporary scheme.

10.27 It is proposed to site the supermarket in the south east corner of the site, the very sheltered housing in the north-west corner of the site. The ground floor of the development behind the Attwood House Façade would accommodate commercial units with residential above. These aspects of the proposal are broadly the same as the extant permission and are considered generally acceptable.

10.28 Additional flats are proposed in the northern part of the site, between the retained Co-op undertakers and Attwood Houser. The detailed siting of the proposed flats next to the Co-op undertakers is the subject of negotiations with the agents to ensure that the relationship between the existing and proposed buildings is satisfactory.

10.29 The scale of the proposed buildings, which is shown illustratively, is considered acceptable.

10.30 One aspect of the current proposal that is not a feature of the extant permission is the car parking deck that would extend out on the northern side of the supermarket. Because the land slopes from the south down towards the north,

71 while the southern end of the supermarket would be at the same level as Great Brickkiln Street, at its northern end it would be above ground level. The proposed development seeks to utilise this change in levels by providing a parking deck on the north side of the supermarket, at the same level as the main supermarket floor. Further parking would be provided below the deck. It is essential that the decked parking structure is provided with a satisfactory elevational treatment and internally provides a safe and welcoming entrance to the supermarket. It is considered that these issues can be satisfactorily addressed at the reserved matters stage

Affordable Housing

10.31 UDP policy H10 requires affordable housing to be provided on all suitable private sector housing developments larger than 1 hectare or comprising 25 dwellings or more. Within the City Centre Inset area 20% affordable housing will be sought.

10.32 To meet the requirement for affordable housing the applicant proposes to transfer an area of 0.5ha (1.24 acres) in the north-west corner of the site, to the City Council for the provision of very sheltered housing for the elderly. This area is sufficient to accommodate a minimum of 40 residential units with associated social club, hobby and craft room, ancillary office space and 12 parking spaces. The very sheltered housing would be located adjacent to the existing sheltered housing at Thomas Pocklington House in Lord Street, which would facilitate joint management.

10.33 The applicant’s offer with regard to affordable housing is considered acceptable. It would need to be secured through a Section 106 Agreement.

Recreational Open Space

10.34 UDP policy H8 states that any housing development of 10 dwellings or more will be required to contribute towards the provision and/or enhancement of open space, sport and recreation facilities sufficient to serve new residents. New residents requirement for recreational open space can be met either on site or by a financial contribution towards improving the quality and capacity of existing open space and facilities nearby.

10.35 The agents consider that open space proposed within the development should be considered as on-site provision of recreational open space. However, they cite private balconies, private amenity space and a private communal courtyard, none of which can be considered towards meeting the requirements of policy H8.

10.36 They also cite the 1,538sq.m. public square in the north of the site, opposite St Mark’s Church. However, the main function of this space is to provide a satisfactory townscape and a commodious pedestrian route. It would not serve the recreational needs of new residents. A financial contribution for off-site provision/enhancement is therefore required. This would need to be secured by a Section 106 Agreement.

72 11. Conclusion

11.1 The layout, access, size of buildings, provision for very affordable housing and number of private flats are generally acceptable. However, issues that remain to be resolved/clarified are:

• Compliance with retail policy • Inadequate Transport Assessment • Permeability for cyclists • Providing active frontages • Detailed siting of flats adjacent to Co-op undertakers

12. Recommendation

Delegated Authority to the Director of Sustainable Communities to grant subject to the provisions set out below:

(A) Provisos

1. Subject to the submission of satisfactory transport related information and proposals. 2. It being established that the proposals are not contrary to retail policy. 3. Satisfactory resolution of outstanding design issues, including routes for cyclists. 4. Subject to the Secretary of State not wishing to call in the development, following notification under the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans and Consultations)(Departures) Direction 1999 or the Town and Country Planning (Shopping Direction) (England and Wales)No.2 Direction 1993. 5. Subject to a Section 106 Agreement to include: - Public Art - Financial contribution for recreational open space - Provision of land for very sheltered housing - Highway improvements/alterations - Financial contribution for provision of Variable Message Traffic Signs - Provision of new bus stop at Chapel Ash - Local training and employment

(B) Any conditions to include:

1. Reserved matters. 2. Details of road improvements. 3. Supermarket not to trade until road improvements implemented. 4. Supermarket not to trade until private flats are built. 5. Provision of Green Travel Plan. 6. Supermarket and commercial units not to trade until parking (car & cycle) /service areas are provided. 7. Car park management plan. 8. Site investigations for contamination, gas and instability and mitigation measures. 9. Drainage details. 10. Retention of protected oak tree and submission of tree protection measures. 11. Additional noise information and mitigation measures.

73 12. All plant to be located in buildings unless otherwise agreed. 13. Measures to control transmission of noise between commercial units and flats above. 14. Restriction on hours of use of supermarket service area. 15. Extent of the retention/refurbishment of the Attwood Building. 16. New bus stop, to be provided prior to Supermarket trading. 17. Programme of building recording and archaeological work. 18. Security measures, to include lighting and CCTV. 19. Facilities for cyclists employed in the supermarket. 20. No sub-division of the supermarket without prior approval. 21. Limit supermarket sales area. 22. Limit percentage of comparison goods sales area in the supermarket. 23. Provision of motorcycle parking

Case Officer : Ian Holiday Telephone No : 555630 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/0918/OP/M Location Land to the West side of Raglan Street bounded by St Marks Road, and adjoining Highways and Market Car Park,,Wolverhampton, Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390881 298377 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01247/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 11-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 11.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Low Level Station Site Bounded By Sun Street, Wednesfield Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Change of use of existing station buildings including external and internal alterations and car park also included are mixed use facilities incorporating A1,A3, A4, B1,D2 and Casino uses.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Helical Retail Ltd Nicol Thomas Ltd C/o Agent Gateway House 53 High Street Birmingham B4 7SY

REPORT:

REPORT NOT ATTACHED - TO BE REPORTED AT COMMITTEE 5 DECEMBER 2006

Case Officer : Alan Gough Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01247/FUL Location Low Level Station Site Bounded By Sun Street, Wednesfield Road,Heath Town,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392074 298910 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 6784m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01248/LBC WARD: Heath Town DATE: 11-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 06-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 11.09.2006 APP TYPE: Listed Building Consent

SITE: Low Level Station Site Bounded By Sun Street, Wednesfield Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Refurbishment of existing station building including external and internal alterations and proposed associated car park

APPLICANT: AGENT: Helical Retail Ltd Nicol Thomas Ltd C/o Agent Gateway House 53 High Street Birmingham B4 7SY

REPORT:

REPORT NOT ATTACHED - TO BE REPORTED AT COMMITTEE 5 DECEMBER 2006

Case Officer : Alan Gough Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01248/LBC Location Low Level Station Site Bounded By Sun Street, Wednesfield Road,Heath Town,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392074 298910 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 6784m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01334/FUL WARD: Merry Hill DATE: 03-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 28-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 03.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 75 Uplands Avenue, Merry Hill, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Single storey front and rear extension

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr M A Richens 75 Uplands Avenue Merry Hill Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 8AJ

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application is for a semi-detached, hipped roof dwelling, located in a predominately residential neighbourhood with similar housing stock.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is for a single storey front extension to form a new study and a rear extension for a new dining room with the existing dining room being converted to a dayroom. The study is approximately 3.3m by 2.3m and connects flush with the western side and front elevation. The extension also connects flush to the existing front elevation of the dwelling at 77 Uplands Avenue. The proposed study has a flat roof with a parapet and window in the front elevation. The proposed rear dining room projects to the side boundary and approximately 1.4m past the existing rear elevation of both the application dwelling and adjacent dwelling at 73 Uplands Avenue. The dinning room has a flat roof and patio doors in the rear elevation.

3. Planning History

3.1 C/2659/89 - Launderette at ground floor with bedroom over – Refused (Nov 1989).

4. Constraints

4.1 No relevant constraints

5. Relevant policies

5.1 D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D4 - Urban Grain D7 - Scale Height D8 - Scale Massing D9 - Appearance

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

6. Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement nor did it require a site notice to be posted.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 Surrounding neighbours were notified. No responses to date.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Not required.

9. External consultees

9.1 Not required.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The proposed extensions are in keeping with the character of the existing dwelling and surrounding neighbourhood. A number of neighbouring dwellings on Uplands Avenue have single storey front extensions that connect flush with existing front elevations and it was therefore considered unnecessary to set the extension back. The parapet fitted to the front of the extension ties the extension in with the application dwelling. The rear extension only projects approximately 1.4m from the existing rear elevation at 73 Uplands Avenue and will have no significant adverse effect on this adjacent property.

81 11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant

Subject to the following Conditions:

• matching materials.

Case Officer : Sarah Luxmoore Telephone No : 555631 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01334/FUL Location 75 Uplands Avenue, Merry Hill,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388865 297619 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 252m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01280/FUL WARD: Oxley DATE: 20-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 15-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 20.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 22 Earlswood Crescent, Pendeford, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: First floor side extension, ground floor front extension to exisitng garage and conservatory to rear

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr R C Lue 22 Earlswood Crescent Pendeford Wolverhampton West Midlands WV9 5RL

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 No.22 Earlswood Crescent is a detached dwelling located in a fairly modern residential neighbourhood. The majority of dwellings are detached, with integral garages of differing widths and minor variations on the design of each house. Some of the dwellings have been extended over the existing garage, however all of the dwellings have small gaps approximately 1m either side of the dwelling, this results in a very compact frontage.

No.22 Earlswood Crescent is set amongst a row of four detached houses, the adjacent dwellings being No.20, 24 and 26. The dwelling is set in line with the adjacent properties on a slightly curved building line. To the rear, No.1 Welney Gardens abuts the rear boundary.

2. Application details

2.1 This is a resubmission of a planning application (05/1829) which was refused planning permission on 14.12.05, as it was considered the proposal would create an unacceptable terracing effect.

The application proposes a first floor side extension, ground floor front extension, to the existing garage and a conservatory to the rear.

The rear conservatory will project about 3.1m from the rear of the dwelling, it will be 4m wide and 3.5m at the top of the pitched glazed roof.

The 1st floor extension proposed would extend over the existing garage the full length of the house. To the rear the extension would not protrude beyond the 84 rear building line and would be built flush with the front of the building. The roof line would be set lower than the existing.

The ground floor front extension proposes to extend the garage at the front approximately 1m, finishing with a small gable end over the garage entrance.

3. Planning History

3.1 DC/05/1829/FP/R - First floor side extension, ground floor front extension to existing garage and conservatory to rear. The application was refused, on 14 December 2005, as it was considered that the proposed extension would create an unacceptable terracing effect and would thereby be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene/locality.

Previous to this the applicant had pre-application correspondence with the Local Planning Authority (letter dated 07.08.05). The applicant was advised to set back the proposed extension at least 0.75m from the front face of the existing dwelling and have a step down from the existing roof.

Further correspondence (letter dated 04.01.06) with the applicant occurred following the decision to refuse the planning application DC/05/1829/FP/R. Again the applicant was advised to set the 1st floor extension back and lower its roof in order to avoid any terracing effect in the interests of visual amenity of the street scene. This would then comply with the Local Planning Authority’s policy.

4. Constraints

4.1 None

5. Relevant policies

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

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

6. Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement.

The nature of the proposal did not require a site notice to be posted.

85 7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 The consultation period expired on 23 October 2006. No letters were received.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Archaeology

No archaeological implications.

9. External consultees

9.1 None

10. Appraisal

10.1 Planning application DC/05/1829/FP/R was refused as it was considered that the proposed extension would result in an unacceptable terracing effect which would be detrimental to the street scene. The same issues are arising with regards to this planning application.

It has been noted that since the refusal of the previous application the applicant as set the proposed roofline lower than the existing dwelling. However, despite the previous application being refused by the Local Planning Authority the applicant has chosen not to set the first floor extension back from the building line, and it remains flush with the front of the dwelling.

As such, despite setting the roofing at a lower level, the proposals are still likely to lead to a terracing affect which would adversely affect the rhythm and character of the street, this would be contrary to policy D1,D4 and D9 as well as guidance provided in SPG 4 ‘Extension to Houses’.

The proposed conservatory to the rear has not altered since the previous application. Despite projecting approximately 3m, SPG 4 advises a maximum of 2.5m on a common boundary, the proposal is set away from the boundary with the adjacent dwellings, about 0.8m. As a result it is not considered that neighbour amenities would be adversely affected by this aspect of the proposal.

The extension to the front does protrude beyond the front building line approximately 1m. However upon visiting the site is not considered this aspect of the application would be detrimental to the existing pattern of the street scene and or have a negative impact with regards to buildings relationship with the adjacent dwellings.

Overall, as the applicant has not set back the 1st floor side extension from the front building line, as informally requested and following the refusal of a previous planning application, the submission in its current format can not be supported.

86 11. Conclusion

11.1 This application is a re-submission of a previously refused proposal. The proposal largely remains the same although the applicant has lowered the roof level of the proposed first floor side extension. As a result the previous reasons for refusal are still valid.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Application recommend for refusal. The extension would be built flush with the front of the property and would create an unacceptable terracing effect and would thereby be detrimental to the character and appearance of the street scene/locality.

Contrary to Policy D1, D4, D9 and SPG 4.

Case Officer : Mark Elliot Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01280/FUL Location 22 Earlswood Crescent, Pendeford,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390192 303353 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 243m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01341/FUL WARD: Oxley DATE: 13-Oct-06 TARGET DATE: 08-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 04.10.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 1 Hampton Road, Oxley, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Attached garage

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr M Butcher 1 Hampton Road Oxley Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 6UX

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application is for a hipped roof semi-detached dwelling located in a predominately residential neighbourhood of mainly semi-detached dwellings. The majority of the application site is obscured from the road by a dense hedge located on the front boundary of over 2m in height. The dwelling and proposed location of the garage can be seen from the north along Hampton Road. The adjacent neighbour at 3 Hampton Road has two windows in the southern side elevation for the first storey landing and ground floor entranceway. The neighbouring property also has a covered access way with a lean-to roof and an out house located on the common side boundary. Across Hampton Road from the application site is a strip of terraced buildings comprising of retail on the ground floor and flats on the first and second stories.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is for the construction of a garage attached to the north east side elevation of the application dwelling. The garage is 5m wide, 4.9m long and 3.2m high (approximately) with a pitched roof. The vehicle access door is obscured from the road, due to the orientation and boundary hedge.

3. Planning History

3.1 No planning history recorded.

89 4. Constraints

4.1 No relevant constraints.

5. Relevant policies

5.1 D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D4 - Urban Grain D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

6. Publicity

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

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 Letters were sent out to the surrounding neighbours. No response received to date.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Transportation Development were consulted on the 17 October 2006. No response received to date.

9. External consultees

9.1 No external consultation required.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The design of the proposed garage is complementary to the existing dwelling. The garage is partly obscured from Hampton Road even though it is attached to the front elevation. There will be no effect to the adjacent neighbour at 3 Hampton Road as the only windows in the side elevation are a landing and entrance window, which are considered to be unaffected by the proposed garage.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant

Subject to the following Conditions:

• Matching materials

Case Officer : Sarah Luxmoore Telephone No : 555631 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 06/01341/FUL Location 1 Hampton Road, Oxley,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390694 302133 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 339m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01244/VV WARD: Park DATE: 13-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 08-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 13.09.2006 APP TYPE: Vary of Condition(s) of PreviousApproval

SITE: 4 Horsehills Drive, Finchfield, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Part Retrospective - Partial mezzanine floor to existing extension and removal of condition on earlier consent preventing insertion of flooring within the roof space of the extension then approved

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs D Mathauru Central Design Consultants Ltd 4 Horsehills Drive The Old Chapel Finchfield Bilston Street Wolverhampton Sedgley West Midlands West Midlands WV3 9JL DY3 1JB

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The property concerned is a traditional detached bungalow located in a cul-de- sac of detached properties, of individual design and character. The close consists mainly of detached bungalows within an area which is predominantly residential.

1.2 This application follows a similar part retrospective application which was refused via Planning Committee on 27 June 2006. That application is currently under appeal, and running parallel to this application.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal consists of the removal of condition number 3 of planning application 05/1239/FP/R which was granted on 27 October 2005, which is as follows:

“No living space shall be created by the insertion of flooring (or any other means) in the roof space of the extension hereby permitted without prior consent of the planning authority”, and the retention, completion and use therefore, of the partial mezzanine floor within the roof space of the extension permitted under 05/1239.

2.2 The application is partly retrospective in the sense that the floor area in the roof space is already under construction. The application proposed a gallery type bedroom in part of the roof space of the single storey extension, and one small velux roof light in the north/west elevation. The bedroom is set well back from the proposed rear glazed elevation (5.7m) of the single storey rear extension. 93

3. Planning History

3.1 05/1239/FP/R – Single storey rear extension and creation of additional dormer windows – Granted 27 October 2005. 06/0666/VV/R – Retrospective removal of condition 3 of planning permission 05/1239/FP/R to allow the insertion of a floor in the roof space of previous approved ‘single’ storey extension – refused 28 June 2006.

4. Relevant policies

4.1 D1 - Design Quality D8 - Scale - Massing SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Publicity

5.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement.

The nature of the proposal did not require a site notice to be posted.

6. Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 No objections received at time of writing report, neighbour time expires on 14 November 2006, any future objections to be reported verbally at Planning Committee.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Archaeology were consulted on the 2 October 2006,and their comments dated 09.10.2006 can be summarised as follows, No archaeology implications.

8. External consultees

8.1 None necessary

9. Appraisal

9.1 The original planning application for the erection of the single storey rear extension was conditioned specifically in consideration of neighbouring properties, in respect of the possible loss of privacy due to direct overlooking from any future habitable rooms placed within the roof space, and the consequent insertion of velux roof lights.

9.2 The proposal incorporates a gallery designed bedroom in part of the roof space of the extension, which is set some 5.7m back from the rear facing glazed elevation, and one small velux roof light on the north west elevation. The application also proposes a bedroom in the roof space of the existing property, which would be permitted development, with light and outlook afforded from the previously granted rear dormer window.

9.3 The key issue with this proposal is the possible impact on the privacy of the neighbouring properties, due to actual and perceived overlooking, from the gallery bedroom through the proposed glazed rear elevation, the velux roof light and the rear facing dormer window.

9.4 It was apparent when officers visited the site whilst that there was sufficient screening to the property, by mature trees, which are positioned along the western and southern boundaries of the site, some of which are protected with tree preservation orders, and are located within the garden of the neighbouring property, at 8 Waterdale. A recent visit did display a reduction in the screening due to the time of year, and loss of foliage; however, this was limited, with restricted views into the bottom part of the garden to 8 Waterdale only, which is some distance from the property.

9.5 Permission was given on 7 December 2005 to cut back some of the trees along this boundary, which was apparent on site. However, there is still substantial screening by mature trees, restricting views across neighbouring properties.

9.6 Access to officers was provided to the roof area of the bungalow, both on the previous application and the current proposal, which is undergoing conversion, and the rear facing dormer window, where they were able to assess the possible impact to privacy due to overlooking. The views were restricted by screening from mature trees, and it was very difficult to see into any of the neighbouring properties.

9.7 In light of the above, it is considered that there would be no significant loss of privacy to any of the neighbouring properties south/west of the site, from the rear dormer window, the gallery bedroom or the small velux roof light.

10. Conclusion

10.1 Although there would be no direct impact on any of the neighbouring properties, from this proposal, it is considered that the decision should be conditioned, so as to restrict any further openings, such as dormer windows or velux roof lights, into the roof space, of the extension and original house, to prevent any possible detriment to neighbouring amenities, and loss of privacy due to actual or perceived overlooking, especially to those properties south/east of the site.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant - Subject to the following Conditions:

95 11.2 Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any other revoking, replacing and re- enacting that Order with or without modification) no windows or other form of opening above ground floor level shall be introduced into any elevation of the building.

Reason: - In the interests of residential amenity. Relevant UDP Policies D8, D4, H6

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

Planning Application No: 06/01244/VV Location 4 Horsehills Drive, Finchfield,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389258 298594 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 1173m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01018/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 12-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 07-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 27.07.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land At Rear Of 147-151 Aldersley Road, Aldersley, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of a detached dwelling with garage

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr I Moore Enterprise Planning Services 11 The Orchard Newton Court Albrighton Westland Wolverhampton Pendeford Business Park WV7 3RE Wobaston Road Wolverhampton

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site once formed part of garden land to properties 147 – 151 Aldersley Road, which has now been sold off for possible development.

1.2 The site is quite elevated from those properties in Aldersley Road, rising to the north west, along Lynton Avenue, where the site will be accessed. The land is well screened at present behind a high privet hedge which is quite overgrown.

1.3 The application has been reported to committee by the request of a neighbour in support of the application.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is for the erection of a detached three bedroom house with a garage. The proposed property is to be located along the south east boundary, adjacent to the neighbouring gardens to No. 147 – 151 Aldersley Road.

2.2 The proposed house is located 4.8m back from the boundary with 153 Aldersley Road, and 9.5m from the side boundary with 121 Lynton Avenue north-west of the site. Private garden land will run along the rear but mainly to the north-west side of the proposed house. There is a front garden area with drive leading to the garage from Lynton Avenue.

2.3 The house measures – 9m deep, and 5.8m wide, with a garage measuring 3m wide and 9m deep.

3. Planning History

3.1 04/0343/OP/R Land rear of 147-151 Aldersley Road, Wolverhampton – Erection of a dormer bungalow (Outline Application) – refused 10 May 2004 – Appeal Dismissed 1 March 2005.

3.2 03/1515/OP/R – land rear of 147-151 Aldersley Road, Wolverhampton – New dormer bungalow (outline) – refused 16 January 2004.

3.3 02/1480/OP – Land rear of 147 to 153 Aldersley Road, Wolverhampton – Residential Development comprising the erection of 2 semi detached dwellings – Granted 27 March 2003.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zones - Name: 250m buffer around: Landfill Gas Site No.04 - Sandy Lane, Aldersley.

5. Relevant policies

5.1 D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D4 - Urban Grain D5 - Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy EP11 - Devel. on Contaminated Unstable Land H6 - Design of Housing Development AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision

6. Publicity

6.1 The nature of the proposal did not require the application be the subject of press advertisement.

6.2 The nature of the proposal did not require a site notice to be posted.

99 7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 There have been three letters of objection and two letters of support to the proposal as follows:

Objections –

153 Aldersley Avenue – Reduction of sunlight into the garden and house. Inconvenience from noise during construction, and too close to the boundary fence, and loss of privacy due to overlooking.

149 Aldersley Avenue – Due to the natural incline to the eastern end of Lynton Avenue, the proposed dwelling will be substantially higher than those properties within Aldersley Avenue, will clearly block our light and outlook, and impose on privacy. The dwelling will appear quite imposing with a huge brick wall blocking all outlook. It will be difficult to maintain the rear boundary fence due to the close proximity of the garage wall, and possible future restrictions to development at this property, again due to the close proximity of the new dwelling.

147 Aldersley Avenue – Due to level differences within Lynton Avenue the property will be higher than the properties within Aldersley Road. Maintenance to boundary fences will be difficult, loss of privacy due to overlooking and loss of light.

Support –

155 Aldersley Road – The land is a local eyesore, due to the land being sectioned off due to the sale of the land, and not being maintained by the previous owners. A modest house, flat or bungalow on the site would be of benefit to someone and the area, as long as the immediate neighbours are happy that their privacy will be respected by the developers.

151 Aldersley Road – Some of the previous objectors to the proposal now have no issues to the current proposal, therefore the original objections should not automatically apply to the present plans. Request to speak at committee in support of the proposal.

8. Internal consultees

8.1 Access Officer - internal doors should have a clear opening of 750mm or wider.

8.2 Building Control - Access for Fire acceptable, entrance to front door to be level accessible threshold front door to the min 775 clear opining.

8.3 Environmental Services - Gas Note 1 required as within 250m of a former landfill site.

8.4 Transportation Development - the driveway needs to be widened to 3.2m from 2.8m.

100 9. External consultees

9.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd - No objection condition required for sustainable drainage detail to be submitted and agreed by the Local Planning Authority.

10. Appraisal

10.1 The site once formed part of large rear garden areas to properties 147 – 151 Aldersley Road. There are significant level differences between the properties within Aldersley Avenue and those within Lynton Avenue as the garden land raises North West to the rear of the properties. The immediate area is predominantly residential with the majority of surrounding properties being either semi detached or detached of a similar traditional design. There is an established pattern within the street scene including characteristic building lines and plot depth and widths.

10.2 The land which also fronts Lynton Avenue is currently screened behind a high privet hedge which is well overgrown. The site will be accessed from Lynton Avenue, and the design of the property is similar to those properties, North West of the site, along Lynton Avenue. The proposed dwelling will be located along the eastern boundary adjacent to the rear gardens of 147 -151 Aldersley Road. The dweling is set back 5.5m from Lynton Avenue, and 4.8m back from the rear boundary north of the site, which adjoins the garden land to 153 Aldersely Road. Although there is a small piece of garden land to the rear of the property, the majority of the amenity space to this proposed dwelling will be located to the side, alongside the neighbouring property at 121 Lynton Avenue, where there is a distance of 9.6m between the proposed dwelling and the boundary to this neighbouring property.

10.3 The property itself will measure 5.8m wide with a depth of 9m, and attached garage measuring 3m wide and 8.85m long. The design of the property incorporates a hipped roof which is in keeping with those properties neighbouring the site.

10.4 I feel that the proposed dwelling is out of keeping with the surrounding street scene, due to the limited amount of garden land to the rear of the property, with the majority being to the side, which is out of keeping with the rest of the street scene, which have equal sized gardens of a particular depth and width directly to the rear of each property.

10.5 The proposed dwelling is also positioned along the eastern boundary of the site, very close to the back boundary of 149 Aldersly Road. The layout would result in a development, which would be cramped in appearance, and again out of keeping with the existing pattern of the street scene, detracting from its character and appearance.

10.6 The elevated position of the proposed dwelling, due to the significant level differences, would appear quite overbearing especially from the rear garden area to the neighbouring property at 149 Aldersley Road, having a detrimental impact on the outlook.

101 10.7 The close proximity of the proposed dwelling with neighbouring garden areas (149 to 153 Aldersley Road), and the location of first floor side and rear facing windows, would also effect the privacy enjoyed by those properties, which will be significantly reduced, due to perceived overlooking, having a detrimental impact on the amenities which occupiers of adjoining and nearby properties should reasonably expect to continue to enjoy.

10.8 I also feel that the outlook from the rear facing windows(Dining /Kitchen Area)of the proposed dwelling, directly out onto a boundary fence, just over 4m away, would be poor, having a detrimental impact on any future occupants of the dwelling.

10.9 Although out of keeping with the surrounding rear garden areas within the immediate location, the size of the proposed garden area, would support the proposed dwelling, and there is sufficient car parking to the property with a 5.5m length drive and a garage space.

11. Conclusion

11.1 Due to the siting of the dwelling, level differences, and the limited space to the rear of the property, I feel that the proposal is unacceptable having both a detrimental impact on the surrounding street scene and the amenities of the neighbouring properties and future occupants of the proposed dwelling, and is therefore unacceptable.

12. Recommendation

Refuse for the following reasons:

1. The proposed dwelling would result in a form of development of a cramped appearance not in keeping with the existing density, form and layout of the established pattern of development in the street/locality, thus detracting from this established character and appearance of the street scene/locality, creating a development less spacious in appearance and character.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D4 & D6.

2. The proposed dwelling would, by reason of its height/bulk and position relative to the gardens at 149 - 153 result in an unacceptable loss of privacy and have an overbearing effect on the outlook presently enjoyed by these gardens.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D7 & D8

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

102

Planning Application No: 06/01018/FUL Location Land At Rear Of 147-151 Aldersley Road, Aldersley,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389739 300834 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 310m2

103

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01223/COU WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 29-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 24-Nov-06 RECEIVED: 11.09.2006 APP TYPE: Change of Use

SITE: 59 Pendeford Avenue, Aldersley, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Change of use to hot food takeaway (Use class A5)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr D Singh Paul Turner 30 Manor Road PLG Consultancy Oxley Suite 4 Wolverhampton 'House By The Square' WV10 6DT 10-12 Wood Road Codsall Wolverhampton WV8 1DB

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 No.59 Pendeford Avenue is within a designated Local Centre as specified within the adopted UDP. The premises are currently vacant; however they were formerly occupied by a newsagent. No.59 is located amongst a block of four retail units, consisting of a Hairdresser, Butchers and liquor store, all falling within an A1 class. There are four residential flats that are located above the four units.

1.2 There is a further set of units located to the south of those already mentioned, these are of a similar design and style with residential flats located above. In between these two blocks is a Co-op Superstore. The block of shops to the south consists of a gift shop, a hardware store, a ‘Costcutter’ and a plumbing centre. During the site visit it was noted that the original greengrocer store appeared unoccupied.

1.3 The lay-by area does provide off road parking for a number of vehicles. During the officer’s site visit, on a weekday morning, it was noted that the parking provision was already close to capacity and that a number of vehicles were parking on the Pendeford Avenue roadside for convenience. The Co-op Superstore does have its own parking provision within the lay-by area. Adjacent to this there is an access leading to a gated ‘private’ parking area at the rear of No.55-61 Pendeford Avenue.

1.4 There is a bus stop located on Pendeford Avenue, directly adjacent to the block of shops.

104 1.5 The area surrounding this ‘local centre’ is predominantly residential; there are dwellings to the north of the south of the group of shops and also housing lining opposite side of Pendeford Avenue.

2. Application details

2.1 The application proposes a change of use to hot food takeaway (Class A5) with an extraction duct, located centrally, to the rear which projects above the eaves level. The applicant proposes to close the premises at 8.30pm every evening.

3. Planning History

3.1 A previous application for a change of use to hot food take-away was made 04/1887/FP/C, dated 20 October 2004. The application was refused planning permission on 4th January 2005. A subsequent appeal was made against the refusal to grant planning permission – the appeal was dismissed at a hearing held on 12 April 2006.

3.2 There have also been several other applications at other properties along the parade.

3.3 04/0842/FP/C – No.51a Pendeford Avenue, planning permission for hot food take-away withdrawn on 2 November 2006.

3.4 02/0641/FP – No.47a Pendeford Avenue had planning permission refused for a hot food take-away and first floor flat on 10 October 2002.

3.5 99/0649/FP – No.51a Pendeford Avenue had planning permission refused for a hot food takeaway on 13 September 1999.

3.6 C/0629/93 – No.51a Pendeford Avenue has planning permission refused for a fish and chip shop on 10 August 1993 and an appeal dismissed on 20 May 1994.

3.7 C/1432/92 – No.51a Pendeford Avenue has planning permission refused for a hot food take-away on 18 February 1993.

3.8 In the above decisions, the reasons for refusal were the likely increase in nuisance, primarily noise and disturbance in the evening, to residential amenities to the occupiers of the flats above and nearby residential properties. The effect of cooking smells although controlled by fume and filter extraction rarely completely remove the smells and these reasons for refusal were also re- iterated in the appeal decision dismissed on application C/0629/93.

4. Constraints

4.1 The proposal is within the Aldersley (18) Local Centre as stipulated by the adopted Unitary Development Plan.

105

5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D9 - Appearance

SH8 - Local Centres SH9 - Local Shops and Centre Uses SH10 - Protected Frontages SH14 - Catering Outlets

6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised in the Express & Star newspaper on 14.10.2006.

A site notice was posted on 26.10.2006.

7. Neighbour notification and representations

7.1 The application has been publicised by neighbour letter, press and site notice with a deadline date for comments to be received by 16 November 2006. One petition has been received against the proposal containing 118 signatures. Two neighbours and the agent acting on behalf of the applicants have requested to speak at Committee.

7.2 The petition received on 18 October 2006 contained 118 signatures objecting to the proposed application. A further 22 letters objecting to the proposal have also been received during the consultation period. The points raised in the letters of objection are summarised below;

• Litter – the area already suffers and the proposed fish and chip take-away would exacerbate the problem and possibly attract vermin. • Increase in traffic, with particular concern from local residents about additional noise in the evening, danger to pedestrians and overflow parking blocking driveways • An increase in anti-social behaviour, with particular regard to youths that reside around the fish and chip shop providing a general disturbance to neighbours. • The fish and chip shop would result in an increase in criminal activity in what is already a ‘crime hot spot’. • The proposed extraction duct would not be able to completely remove the cooking smells that would affect neighbour amenity. • Despite proposed closing time of 8.30pm neighbours were concerned that later license would be applied for and granted should the application be approved. • Adequate fish and chip facilities in the surrounding area, one objector noting 3 hot food takeaways within a one-mile radius. • Concerns were raised from the local school headmaster, that it would encourage students to leave to school premises and would undermine that campaign to promote healthy eating amongst students.

106 • The fact that previous applications within the precinct for hot food take-away had been refused, and also that the previous application had been refused and dismissed at appeal, therefore questioning why an application had been made.

7.3 11 letters of support were also received during the consultation period these stated that;

• Most residents in the area were in favour a fish and chip at 59 Pendeford Avenue, as there is a need for a takeaway facility in this row of shops. • It was considered that there is sufficient parking facilities and that as other shops remain open until 10-11pm that a fish and chip is not going to cause any additional problems • It will bring custom to other stores. • Following the proposal to close the store at 8.30pm and the installation of a decent odour control system this resolved neighbour concerns.

8. Internal consultees

Environmental Services

8.1 It was recommended that a system for the effective control of cooking odours, to be designed and approved by a suitably competent person, must be installed prior to the use of the food room. A copy of the scheme for odour control should be submitted to the Food and Occupational Safety Division for information. A scheme to control noise/vibration from any ventilation system should be designed and approved by a suitably competent person, and submitted for written approval by the LPA. Ventilation systems should be located and constructed so as not to cause nuisance from both noise and odour to occupiers of surrounding premises.

8.2 Adequate provisions must be arranged for the safe storage of refuse awaiting disposal, which is preferably capable of being paved and drained, so as to prevent a nuisance occurring.

8.3 Hours of trading and access times for delivery and waste collection should be consistent with those of similar establishments in the nearby vicinity. Opening hours 12pm-2pm Monday to Saturday, 4.30pm-8.30pm Monday to Saturday and closed on Sundays.

Transportation Development

8.4 No objections to this application as there is sufficient parking in the shopping parade to cope with the likely generated parking demand.

107 9. External consultees

Police

9.1 Analysis of police reports since the original 2004 application, indicate that the parade of shops remains problematic regarding crime and disorder. Amongst other crimes, three reports of burglary, fourteen thefts and two armed robberies have been reported. In addition, twenty-three incidents of an ‘anti-social behaviour’ type have been recorded. Thirty seven of the recorded police incidents occurring in Pendeford Avenue are classified as ‘disorder’. These incidents have occurred since the submission of an original report for the previous planning application in November 2004.

9.2 It was claimed that 59 Pendeford Avenue had not suffered any reported crime; this was confirmed by West Midlands Police. However, as the premises have been void, burglary would be futile, robbery impossible and criminal damage pointless. As the premises have been unoccupied, incidents of disorder could not have been noticed from there.

9.3 It was noted of the proposal to restrict the opening of the premises to 8.30pm. And it was considered that this would reduce the effect that the proposed change of use would have. However, there were concerns that an application to vary this could be made and granted, allowing later hours opening at a future date.

10. Appraisal

10.1 A previous planning application was made to change the use of 59 Pendeford Avenue to a hot food take-away in 2004 (04/1887/FP/C). The application was refused at committee on 4 January 2005. A subsequent appeal was also dismissed, this was despite the applicant offering to limit the opening hours of the take-away, closing the premises at 8.00pm. It was still considered that ‘there would remain scope for behavioural problems well into the evening, when ambient noise levels have dropped and many people are at leisure.’

Following the officer site visit it was appreciated that the parade of shops in their current format are a bustling and popular destination amongst residents, with a mixture people arriving on foot, public transport and by car. Therefore during the day, when the majority of the businesses operate, it is acknowledged that there will be a general degree of noise and disturbance. However towards the evening time the area is generally quieter.

It was noted that the Co-op Superstore and the ‘liquor store’ do remain open until approximately 10-11pm at night. However with regards to these types of shop, whilst food and drink is purchased there the general customer will leave the parade immediately upon completing the purpose of their visit. In the case of a fish and chip takeaway, it is considered that there would be an increase in general noise and disturbance as a result of customers eating there food or waiting to be served that would inevitably occur with this form of business. West Midlands Police and neighbour correspondence have also raised the existing problems with youths hanging around area causing disturbances and other forms of anti-social behaviour.

108

The introduction of a hot food take-away into the parade of shops would detract from amenities currently enjoyed, in terms of peace and quiet that those living nearby have come to expect in the evening, with reference to the reason mentioned above and additional influx of customers. It is acknowledged that whilst a percentage of customers will arrive on foot, many of the consumers would arrive at the premises by car. With the provision of the lay by, vehicles would be starting and stopping and the slamming of car door throughout the early evening period would be a source of additional noise and disturbance.

With regards to the fume extraction, the location of the proposed systems has been revised from the previous application, so that that the fume would be central to the rear elevation of the application property. However there would still be concerns regarding the complete eradication of cooking smells, despite the fully submitted details of proposed odour control. Therefore as raised in the appeal report, the small sitting-out area at no. 57A and 61A would both be adversely affected while equipment was in use, and to a lesser extent adjoining dwellings as well.

11. Conclusion

11.1 The proposed hot food take-away would adversely affect the amenity of residents in the flats above the premises and the residential dwellings in the immediate vicinity by virtue of smells, noise, general disturbance and anti-social behaviour. For these reasons the proposed application would be contrary to Policy SH14: Catering Outlets,

12. Recommendation

12.1 Recommendation Refuse – by reason of its location the use of the 59 Pendeford Avenue as a hot food take-away would be likely to result in general noise disturbance, and increased levels of anti-social behaviour, primarily in the evening when the locality is generally quieter. This would be detrimental to the amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of the flats above and the adjacent properties. The use would also result in cooking smells emanating from the extraction unit to the detriment of neighbouring amenities. Contrary to policies D1 and SH14 of the adopted UDP.

Case Officer : Mark Elliot Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

109

Planning Application No: 06/01223/COU Location 59 Pendeford Avenue, Aldersley,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389156 301479 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 214m2

110

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 05-Dec-06 APP NO: 06/01166/REM WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 18-Sep-06 TARGET DATE: 18-Dec-06 RECEIVED: 05.09.2006 APP TYPE: Approval of Reserved Matters

SITE: Turners Garage, School Road, Tettenhall Wood, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Reidential development for 20 flats (Further amended plans now received)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr J Turner Kaye Roberts Rose Cottage MM3 Design Ltd Stockwell End Threshers Barn Tettenhall Ledwell Wolverhampton Oxfordshire WV6 9PH OX7 7AN

REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site consists of in part, a Vehicle repair, service and sales garage, comprising a large building fronting onto School Street where the sales room is located with workshop to the rear. Outside is a large yard area. The premises have vehicular access to the showroom from School Street. The yard and workshop has access from Shaw Lane. The remainder of the site is a council owned site containing four blocks of lock-up garages and parking and service area to the rear of the row of shops facing onto School Road from which access is also taken.

1.2 The site is adjoined to the north by the garage court and shops; to the south by a Public House on the opposite side of Shaw Lane; to the south east by two bungalows and to the south west by a pair of semi-detached houses. On the opposite side of School Road is the Tettenhall Wood special School and the entrance to Tanfield Close.

1.3 The site contains two semi-detached houses which will need to be demolished to make way for the scheme.

2. Planning History

2.1 This application is for approval of reserved matters following the grant of outline planning permission for ‘residential development’ .

2.2 Outline planning consent was first given in 2000 (ref; 00/1609) for ‘residential development’ with all matters reserved apart from the access from school Road.

111

2.3 The life of this outline consent was ‘extended’ by planning consent ref; 04/0452.

2.4 Since then, discussions have continued with the applicant and his agents and a large number of schemes have been advised upon, many of them unsuitable. The general format of the scheme now the subject of this application has been encouraged. It has also been the subject of a pre-planning application public consultation exercise by Neighbourhood Renewal, who are involved in the redevelopment of the garages which is part of this application.

3. Application Details

3.1 The application is for the approval of matters of layout, design, external appearance and detailed access, following the grant of outline planning approval in 2000 and 2004.

3.2 In its initial form the application was for 23 flats, but following negotiations, this has been reduced to 20, in order for the scheme to better comply with the councils guidelines in respect of the amount of amenity space and the level of parking that is recommended for this type and scale of development.

3.3 Therefore the scheme now proposes 20 two-bedroom units in the form of two blocks of buildings. The first fronts onto Shaw Lane and consists of a two- storey building with space in the roof. Its vehicular access is from School Street, as is the whole scheme. The existing access onto Shaw Lane is to be closed off. The design of this block is less traditional than that of the main block, incorporating mono-pitch roofs and render finish to most walls.

3.4 The main block is situated on the School Road frontage. It mainly consists of two storey elements, but rises to three stories as it turns the corner into the access road from School Street into the site. It is of a more traditional design, in brick with an element of render finish and a traditional pitched roof. An indication is given that the per-cent for art element might be placed on the three storey element of the building.

3.5 To the rear the scheme includes an open garden/amenity area and car-parking for the use of the new residents, accessed from the private access road which comes off School Road.

3.6 The other element of the application is the redevelopment of the council garages situated to the rear of the site. This involves replacing the current dilapidated 36 garages, with 19 new ones, the detailed design of which will need to be conditioned.

4. Constraints

4.1 The site is situated adjoining the Tettenhall Wood Conservation Area.

112 5. Relevant policies

5.1 AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality D14 - The Provision of Public Art R2 - Open Space, Sport and Rec. Priority Areas D2 - Design Statement D6 - Townscape and Landscape H6 - Design of Housing Development H9 – Housing Density & Mix HE4 - Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area R7 - Open Space Requirements for New Develop. D2 - Design Statement D6 - Townscape and Landscape

SPG3 - Residential Development PPG3 - Housing

6. Publicity Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 The application was advertised by means of letters to adjoining residents and site and press notices. At the time of writing a second round of letters to neighbours has been undertaken on the scheme as now amended. The time limit for which is 17 November and the responses to which will be reported verbally at committee. Also a third round has now been undertaken, following further changes to the scheme resulting from comments made by consultees. This period will not expire until 27 November.

6.2 The scheme for 23 units on the site was the subject of a public consultation exercise carried out by Neighbourhood Renewal prior to the application being submitted. This consisted of an exhibition and public meeting with comments recorded on slips which have been submitted with the application. No changes were made to the scheme following the consultation.

6.3 In summary the responses received so far from both the Neighbourhood Renewal consultation exercise and first round of planning application consultation are; • Overdevelopment of the site • Too much traffic already • Insufficient car parking • Design inappropriate to the adjoining conservation area • Density contrary to UDP policy • Conflict with the school traffic • Loss of aspect and outlook • Interference with a private right of way through the garage site • The scheme ignores a right of way to a domestic garage off Shaw Lane • Scheme should include for the comprehensive redevelopment of the council garage site also. • Lack of public open space • Need for a public meeting to discuss the scheme

113

6.4 One letter signed by three residents of 2 Woodland Avenue has been received. This supports the application on the basis that the council site has become a source of nuisance from ant-social behaviour.

6.5 Any additional matters which may be raised following the expiry of the subsequent two rounds of neighbour consultation will be reported verbally at committee.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Access Officer was consulted on the 22 September 2006, and their comments are awaited.

7.2 Building Control were consulted on the 22 September 2006 and their comments where that a turning area for Fire appliances be provided. This is now shown on the amended plans.

7.3 Environmental Services were consulted on the 22 September 2006,and their comments dated 31.10.2006 can be summarised as follows, Recommends Hours restriction for building works 0800 to 1800 Mon-Fri and 0800 to 1200 Sat and no work Sundays or bank holidays; scheme for dust and noise suppression; scheme for assessing and dealing with any contamination on site..

7.4 Planning Policy Section were consulted on the 22 September 2006, and their comments are; No objections.

7.5 Transportation Development were consulted on the 22 September 2006,and their comments dated 13.10.2006 can be summarised as follows; Acceptable in principle; car parking provision now acceptable for this location on bus route; no vehicular access from Shaw Lane welcome; potential conflict with school time traffic (Christ Church Infants/Nursery and Tettenhall Wood Special Schools) but site visit confirmed most parents visiting Christ Church School walked or parked responsibly, but congestion evident 8.50 to 9.10 am caused by mini-buses to the Special School and the school crossing patrol. There is a similar period of congestion when the children are collected in the afternoon. These will not be significantly worsened by the proposed development. Suggests need for; Leasing of parking bays rather than spaces being allocated—recommend condition. Scheme needed to prevent unauthorised parking on the new access roadway- condition Scheme for tactile paving/crossing at the access-- condition Need for footpath links from car-park to flats--condition Need to dedicate strip to widen pavement on school Road frontage--106 Agreement needed

7.6 Property Services were consulted on the 27 September 2006 and their comments dated 31 October can be summarised as follows; none of the council garages will be set aside for use in connection with this development, which should be self-supporting in this respect.

114

7.7 Neighbourhood Renewal were consulted on the 27 September 2006,and their comments dated 27.09.2006 can be summarised as follows, The scheme should be self sustaining in respect of parking-- no council garages to be set aside for residents of the scheme.

7.8 Conservation Officer was consulted on 27 September and comments are; No objection subject to several minor changes which have now been incorporated into the amended scheme.

8. External Consultations

8.1 Police - were consulted on the 22 September 2006 and their comments dated 29 September can be summarised as follows; Overall support; concern re; details of CCTV not shown; lighting bollard design needs amending.

8.2 Severn Trent Water. No objection subject to a condition that details of all surface water drainage be submitted and agreed.

8.3 Fire Service- Were consulted on 27 October and their comments received 16 Nov. requested a T-shaped turning head to access the rear car park to the site. This has now been incorporated into the amended scheme.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues in this scheme are considered to be as follows; • The scale and nature of the development in relation to council UDP policies and planning guidance. • The traffic effects. • Appropriateness of the design, scale and external appearance- • Effect on adjacent conservation area • The need for a 106 Agreement to cover financial contribution towards POS; per-cent-for-art and dedication of land to widen the footpath.

9.2 The application scheme has been developed in consultation with Officers of the Council over a lengthy period prior to its submission. Even so, in its submitted form, it still fell short of the guidance and advice offered and the standards set by the council in several important respects. Both in terms of the amount of amenity space shown and the level of car parking and a whole number of more detailed respects, the submitted scheme was considered unacceptable. Further discussions however have led to amendments since the receipt of the application which have brought these aspects up to a more acceptable standard.

9.3 The overall level of development is now acceptable for the size and particular nature of this site. At 20 units on the 0.2423 h of the housing part of the site, its density would be approximately 83 dwellings per hectare. Whilst UDP policy H9 aims for an average density for ‘most housing development sites’ of up to 50 per hectare, it does’ not preclude densities of up to 90 units per hectare on suitable sites. This site’s location in an established built-up residential area of the village, adjoining the conservation area, particularly calls for a style and

115 density which respects the existing form of development. It needs a solid terrace built-form along the School Street and to a lesser extent along Shaw Lane. It needs a building of some height for it to successfully compete with the modern, rather bland, three-storey block of shops which adjoins the site in School Street. This therefore needs a scheme of higher than normal density and the amended scheme now does this, providing modern flatted units to a suitable layout, design and density. The form of development consisting of perimeter buildings which respect the street building-lines and are of a scale which both reflects that which it adjoins and adds a new scale and presence of its own as it turns the corner. The scheme is an interesting mix of new and traditional building design and materials, reflecting its location on the edge of the conservation area.

9.4 The scheme involves the demolition of two houses. These are not considered to be of any merit in street-scene terms, or to affect the conservation area, the boundary to which is some distance away adjoining the southern boundary of the site, on the other side of Shaw Lane.

9.5 The scheme now satisfies the council’s requirements for car parking without the need to utilise any of the council garages on the adjacent part of the site. It shows 28 spaces for the 20 flats. This includes disabled parking, cycle and motor-cycle parking. Whist the site is on several bus routes, it is not entirely sustainable in this sense and so car-parking will help to reduce on-street parking. Highways are recommending several other measures to help reduce any such impact. The scheme will clearly add to the traffic problems presently experienced when the adjacent special and other schools are attracting traffic, but not sufficiently to justify refusal, especially given the trip generating potential of the present authorised use of the site as a car sales, service and repair garage.

9.6 In terms of shared amenity space appropriate for flatted schemes such as this, the scheme provides a total area of approximately 830 sq.m. This would more than meet the council’s standard of 800 sq.m. for the expected occupancy rate of 50 persons, as advised in SPG No. 3. This however includes a number of smaller areas separate from the main amenity area, which, whilst visually important, will not be readily ‘usable’ as amenity space. Excluding these areas, the total would be approximately 662sq.m. It is felt that given the urban nature of this site and consequent nature of the proposed scheme and the need in this location, to ensure more than the minimum level of car-parking, this amount of shared amenity space, layed out in the proposed form, will provide an acceptable usable and visually important aspect for future residents.

9.7 The site is such that it is not suitable for it to provide for its own Public Open Space in accordance with the set standards and so it will be necessary to make provision for this by means of a commuted payment in lieu in accordance with the scale set by the council’s Leisure Services. The applicant has agreed that this be secured by means of a 106 Agreement.

116 9.8 The development costs of the residential scheme are likely to be in excess of the £500,000 threshold figure set out in the council’s policy for the provision of public art. This can be a condition of the 106 Agreement. The plans show a possible art feature in the form of a clock attached to the building. The applicant has been informed that this does not imply the acceptability of this approach and that what the art feature might be, needs to be based on the involvement of a suitably qualified artist engaging with the local community.

9.9 The scheme proposes the widening of the public footpath along School Road and in order to secure this as a ‘planning gain’ it is proposed to include the dedication and making up of this section of widening also a condition of the 106 Agreement.

9.10 The second element of the scheme is the re-development of the council garages. They are in a very poor state of repair and some will need to be demolished soon for safety reasons. Their replacement with new garages of a suitable design and suitable materials would represent a considerable improvement. The detailed design and materials are not specified and so should be conditioned. The scheme for the garages also shows a new means of securing the garages and the service yard to the rear of the shops. A resident of Long Lake Avenue objects to the fact that the scheme would remove a rear access that they claim is a right of way across the council garage court. Property Services confirms that this right of way has never been formally extended and is therefore no longer in force. The house still has the original access to the property from the front.

9.11 A resident of one of the cottages adjoining the site at the junction of school Road and Shaw Lane appears to have a right of vehicular access over part of the site to a free-standing timber domestic garage off Shaw Lane. This garage and access is shown to be removed as part of this scheme. Clearly if consent is granted for this scheme the two parties would need to come to an agreement on this matter before the scheme could be implemented.

117

10. Recommendations

10.1 That Delegated authority be granted to the Director to grant planning permission subject to the signing of a 106 with the following terms; • Commuted sum to be paid to the council in lieu of POS before 50% of the units are occupied. • Details of a per-cent-for-art feature to be agreed before development commences and implemented before the units are occupied. • Dedication of land and carrying out of works to widen the public footpath at School Road And subject to the receipt of plans dealing with outstanding details set out above and to standard conditions including the following; • Landscaping details • Details of the new garages and surface treatments • Drainage details • Details of all external facing materials • Boundary treatment details where these are not specified • Scheme to ensure leasing of car-parking spaces to individual residents and a strategy for dealing with potential parking on the access roadway proposed and tactile paving at crossings. • Details of internal footpath system in the rear garden area. • Details of front boundary walls and railings.

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

118

Planning Application No: 06/01166/REM Location Turners Garage, School Road,Tettenhall Wood,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387711 299230 (approx) Plan Printed 21.11.2006 Application Site Area 3709m2

119