Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Agenda Item No: 6

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 2nd October 2007

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 (2nd October 2007)

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

Bilston North

07/00972/FUL City Of Wolverhampton College 4 Bilston Campus Wellington Road Bilston Wolverhampton West Midlands WV14 6BT

07/01111/FUL Stowlawn Primary School, Green 12 Park School And Stowlawn Community Centre Green Park Avenue Wolverhampton West Midlands WV14 6EH

Blakenhall

07/00562/CPL 21 Jeremy Road 18 Blakenhall Wolverhampton West Midlands WV4 5BX

07/00967/FUL 44 Himley Crescent 25 Blakenhall Wolverhampton West Midlands WV4 5DE

Heath Town

07/01045/FUL New Trust Community Centre 29 1 Wolverhampton Road Heath Town Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 0PD

Park

07/00607/FUL 118 Compton Road 36 Finchfield Wolverhampton WV3 9PZ

2 07/01024/FUL 155 Clark Road 41 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9PD

St Peter’s

07/00917/FUL 206 Staveley Road 46 Whitmore Reans Wolverhampton West Midlands WV1 4RP

Spring Vale

07/01131/FUL Land To The Side Of 30 Foster 52 Avenue Wolverhampton West Midlands WV14 9PT

Tettenhall Wightwick

07/00446/FUL Castlecroft Garage Limited 58 Finchfield Hill Finchfield Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9EN

07/00677/FUL The House In The Trees 71 Wightwick Bank Wightwick Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8DR

07/00690/CPL 4 Captains Close 76 Compton Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9EA

07/01013/FUL 21 Finchfield Road West 84 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 8AY

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00972/FUL WARD: Bilston North DATE: 09-Jul-07 TARGET DATE: 08-Oct-07 RECEIVED: 09.07.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: City Of Wolverhampton College Bilston Campus, Wellington Road, Bilston, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing Sports, Civil Engineering and Construction Buildings. Erection of new two storey teaching accommodation (Sports, Civil Engineering and Construction Buildings). Erection of single storey nursery. Reconfiguration of car parking area/assoc.works and new landscaping.

APPLICANT: AGENT: The City Of Wolverhampton College Nightingale Associates Bilston Campus 1-4 Portland Square Wellington Road Bristol Bilston BS2 8RR Wolverhampton WV14 6BT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Application Site, Findings and Background

1.1 This application relates to the College’s Bilston Campus which is located approximately two miles south-east of Wolverhampton City Centre along the main A41 Wellington Road. The existing campus site occupies an area of 6.9 hectares within a predominately residential area.

1.2 The site has been subject to major redevelopment work in recent years. This work has resulted in the demolition of a number of teaching buildings that dated from the 1960’s and their replacement with modern, functional and architecturally pleasing buildings, including a new landmark building and new access to Wellington Road. Beyond the new buildings, to the north of the site are two substantial, detached, teaching buildings, dating from the 1960’s. The site to the south and west of the buildings is given over to level grassland containing sports pitches and pockets of planting. Along the entire eastern boundary is a Greenway Route, as designated by Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan that gives the area a leafy and open character

1.3 The existing College contains parking provision for 328 vehicles, accessed off Wellington Road. The site has good public transport links with bus routes operating on nearby Wellington Road, Hadley Road and Wolseley Road and with the nearest Metro stop within 500 metres.

2. Planning History

2.1 00/0147/OP Erection of new learning resource centre and teaching block with associated parking and landscaping, to include existing teaching block. Approved 5.09.2000

4 2.2 00/0148/FP Erection of new three story building to provide Learning Resource Centre, refectory and student services (Phase 1). Approved 5.09.2000.

2.3 01/0149/RM Submission of reserved matters (design, external appearance, and landscaping). Granted 6.04.2001. Pursuant to 00/0147/FP

2.4 02/0290/FP Temporary retention of part of teaching blocks and T block, sports hall and nursery and associated alterations, and formation of temporary car park. Granted 03.05.2002.

3. Constraints

Flood Risk Zone 1 and 2 Open Space Designation Site Name: Stow Heath Open Space Millennium Urban Forest Mining Area Sites and Monuments Entry.

4. Application Details

4.1 The proposals seek permission for the demolition of the older building on the north of the site, existing Civil Engineering, Sports and Nursery buildings and construction of new two storey teaching accommodation (Sports, Civil Engineering and Construction Buildings). A new single storey nursery is also proposed as is the reconfiguration of the existing car parking area and associated landscaping.

5. Relevant policies

Central Government Planning Policy

PPS 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPG 13 - Transport PPG 16 - Archaeology and planning PPG 17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPG 24 - Planning and noise PPS 25 - Development and Flood Risk

Circular 04/2006 Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007.

Unitary Development Plan Policies

D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D3 - Urban Structure D4 - Urban Grain D5 - Public Realm Public Open Private Space D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part D12 - Nature Conservation and Nature Features D13 - Sustainable Development D14 - The Provision of Public Art

5 EP1 - Pollution Control EP3 - Air Pollution EP4 - Light Pollution EP5 - Noise Pollution EP6 - Protection of Groundwater, Watercourses and Canals EP7 - Protection of Floodplains EP9 - Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development N7 - Urban Forest C1 - Health, Education and other Community Services C4 - Educational Facilities R4 - Development Adjacent to Open Space R6 - The Greenway Network R7 - Open Space Requirements for New Development R8 - Dual-Use of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities R9 - New Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities H8 - Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. AM9 - Provision for Pedestrians AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision

6. Publicity and neighbour notifications

6.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site and neighbour notifications. No reply or response has been received.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation Development:

• Extensions to the existing no parking Traffic Regulation Orders (to improve visibility for emerging vehicles) and a splitter island to protect vehicles turning right into the site are required before the proposed buildings are occupied, and must be funded by the developer (approximate value £7,500). • The existing traffic barrier to the car parks should be brought back into use as part of the car park management plan before the proposed buildings are occupied. • The overspill car park requires improvement (parking bays to be remarked and lighting improved). • The proposed parking allocation is acceptable as long as the targets within the Travel Plan would mitigate for possible increases in staff/student numbers following the proposed improvements. • The provision for the disabled and for motorcycles is now acceptable. Details of additional cycle shelters required. • Travel Plan unacceptable, does not meet Wolverhampton City Council Guidelines.

7.2 Archaeology - No archaeological implications.

7.3 Trees - Development would result in the loss of approximately 9 mature trees. The construction of the nursery play area could be of detriment to the remaining trees. Compensatory planting required. The retained trees to be protected during redevelopment.

7.4 Planning Policy - No objections provided that the proposals overcome the objection raised by the Environment Agency with regard to the submitted Flood Risk Assessment.

7.5 Landscape - Make detailed landscape comments. They point out that compensatory planting is required for the loss of over 30 trees.

7.6 Building Control - Make detailed Building Regulation comments which have been passed to the agents.

7.7 Access Officer - Any pedestrian crossings across car parks must have buff blister tactile paving and flush dropped kerbs. The disabled persons parking bays must have 1.2 metre access strips at the sides and ends of the bays.

7.8 Children & Young People – Comments awaited.

7.9 Environmental Services - The submitted acoustic report will need to be extended to include an assessment of the actual noise levels from the service plant and machinery to determine compliance with the recommended noise levels. Details of any noise mitigation measures where they are required to ensure compliance with the recommended noise levels will need to be provided. This could be a condition.

The previous use of the site may have led to unacceptable levels of contamination, which could affect the redevelopment strategy for the site. A condition should require submission and implementation of a methodology for carrying out a site investigation, the submission of the results of the approved site investigation together with a schedule for any necessary remedial works and a timetable for the carrying out of those remedial works.

8. External consultees

8.1 Environment Agency raise objections to this proposal on the basis that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment is flawed.

8.2 Police - There are recesses on the building lines on the front and rear entrances of the Sports Building and the rear goods entrance of the civil engineering and construction building. These recesses may produce hidden spaces and it is recommended that they are avoided wherever possible.

The proposed nursery building may be targeted by intruders who may force entry to steal valuable items.

One of the sides of the boundary to the new nursery building will be protected by an existing weld mesh 1.8m security fence. It is recommended that the other three sides of the site be secured be a 1.8m robust fence. This will create a defensible space and discourage intruders as well as protect children playing outside of the building.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues for consideration are as follows; • Design and Layout • Parking and Access • Implications for Residential Amenity • Floor Risk Protection • Landscaping

Design and Layout 9.2 The proposed development includes three distinct buildings to accommodate: • Sports • Construction and Engineering • Children’s Nursery.

7 9.3 The proposed Sports Building and Construction and Engineering Building would extend northwards in line with the new main College building. This would have the effect of creating a linear development along the central axis of the campus. The pedestrian routes would pass the main elevations of the new buildings thereby creating good access and legibility.

9.4 The single storey nursery building would be located to the east of the site, to the south of the car parking area. It would be situated within an existing landscaped area adjacent to the Greenway Route. Adjacent trees would screen the proposed building from nearby houses to the east.

9.5 The proposed Sports Building would accommodate a café, multi-gym, dance studio and sports hall. It would be lower in height than the new main College building, having two storeys instead of three. It would therefore appear subservient to the existing building. The architectural treatment of the building is innovative and visually interesting and the application has been revised to remove the recesses that were previously proposed to the east and west elevations of the Sports Building (mentioned by the Police).

9.6 The proposed building would have its own entrances on either side, to make it accessible from the car park and football pitches, but would also be physically connected to the existing main college building.

9.7 The proposed two storey Civil Engineering and Construction Building would be located to the north of the proposed Sports Building. The main entrance to the building would include large sections of glazing and well proportioned built elements, giving the building a contemporary feel that would significantly enhance the appearance of the site. The building would be used for teaching typical construction trades such as brick/block laying; carpentry; plumbing; electrical installations; decorating and civil engineering. To the north of the building, there would be an external yard to service the building and its teaching activities.

9.8 The proposed single storey nursery building would have at its centre a piazza space, a mixed use area for group teaching, small group working, dining and assembly. The proposals have been revised so that the nursery would be surrounded on all sides by 1.8m solid round rod metal fencing. This style of fencing is robust and visually appropriate.

Parking and Access 9.9 The existing vehicular access from Wellington Road would remain unaltered by the proposals. However, a local safety audit of this stretch of highway has identified some necessary improvements, being; extensions to the existing no parking Traffic Regulation Orders (to improve visibility for emerging vehicles) and a splitter island to protect vehicles turning right into the site. These are required before the proposed buildings are occupied and could be required by condition.

9.10 The existing traffic barrier within the site, which should control individual vehicles entering the car parks, needs to be brought back into use before the proposed buildings are occupied. This could be required by condition.

9.11 The College currently has an existing car parking provision of 328 spaces, and this compares with a proposed 298 spaces. The short fall in spaces is minimal and would be satisfactory as long as the Travel Plan is acceptable. Transportation Officers have raised objection to the submitted Travel Plan. The submission of a revised Travel Plan that meets Wolverhampton City Council Guidelines could be required by condition.

8 9.12 The provision for the disabled and for motorcycles is now acceptable. Additional cycle shelters are indicated on the drawing but details of these have not been submitted. Such details could be required by condition.

Implications for Residential Amenity 9.13 The proposed Sports Building and Nursery would be a sufficient distance away from houses to safeguard the amenity of residents. The Greenway Route with associated trees and shrubs provides a visual and physical screen between the College site and adjacent houses.

9.14 The Civil Engineering and Construction Building and its external yard would involve teaching practices that may result in a level of noise that may disturb occupiers of nearby houses. The applicant has provided an acoustic report, however this is unacceptable and needs to be extended to include an assessment of the actual noise levels from the service plant and machinery to determine compliance with recommended noise levels. Details of any noise mitigation measures, where they are required to ensure compliance with the recommended noise levels, will need to be provided. This could be required by condition.

Landscaping 9.15 The submitted proposals fail to provide detailed information about proposed planting. The outline plan shows the removal of in excess of thirty trees. The loss of these trees should be compensated for by planting a similar number as part of an overall landscaping scheme. This could be required by a condition.

Flood Risk Protection 9.16 The application site is designated within Flood Risk Zones 1 and 2. Circular 04/2006 Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007 provides guidance regarding proposed development in flood risk areas. Amongst other things this guidance requires that where a Local Planning Authority is minded to grant permission for a development in a flood risk area, (Zones 2 and 3 or areas in Zone 1 which have identified critical drainage problems) despite there being an objection from the Environment Agency on flood risk grounds, the Local Planning Authority must notify the Secretary of State of the application. The Secretary of State then has the opportunity to check the application’s general compliance with the policies in PPS25 and to consider whether it would be appropriate to call it in for determination.

9.17 The Environment Agency has raised its objection to this application, stating that the submitted Flood Risk Assessment has used a number of assumptions without any supporting evidence that can be concurred with. The Flood Risk Assessment states that the flood risk to the site has been significantly reduced and potentially removed. However the Environment Agency’s argument is that this view is based on a scheme designed and completed twenty years ago using the best techniques of the time. There is no evidence presented within the Flood Risk Assessment to show that the design parameters of this scheme have been checked using current industry accepted techniques and that these meet current techniques. Due to the age of the scheme not all of the original design parameters may still be relevant. Therefore the statement within the Flood Risk Assessment, whilst potentially still being true, has not been substantiated. The applicant has also failed to prove that the current scheme design can cope with the potential flows predicted within Table B2 Annex B within PPS25 associated with climate change. It is understood that the applicant has engaged in discussions with the Environment Agency with respect to these matters but has been unable to overcome the objection.

Conclusion 9.18 The proposal is broadly acceptable. Most unresolved issues could be resolved by conditions. However, the flood risk issue needs to be resolved before planning permission is granted.

10. Recommendation:

10.1 Recommendation – Grant, providing the Environment Agency Objection is withdrawn, with conditions to include:

• External materials • Boundary treatments / colour finishes • External Lighting Scheme • Access barrier and car parking layout • Car Park Management Plan • Travel Plan • Extension to Traffic Regulation Orders/Splinter Island • Cycle Stores • Landscape Plan • Drainage details / surface water run-off • Contamination Remedial Works • Acoustic Report • Tree Protection Measures • Target Recruitment and Training

Refuse if the Environment Agency objection is not withdrawn, for the following reason:

The submitted Flood Risk Assessment is unacceptable and fails to demonstrate that there would not be a flood risk as a result of the proposals. The proposals are contrary to PPS 25: Development and Flood Risk and Circular 04/2006 Town and Country Planning (Flooding) (England) Direction 2007. The proposals are also contrary to Wolverhampton UDP Policies EP6 Protection of Groundwater, Watercourses and Canals and EP7 Protection of Floodplains.

Case Officer : Phillip Walker Telephone No : 555632 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: 07/00972/FUL Location City Of Wolverhampton College Bilston Campus, Wellington Road,Bilston,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 393869 297196 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 69359m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/01111/FUL WARD: Bilston North DATE: 06-Aug-07 TARGET DATE: 05-Nov-07 RECEIVED: 06.08.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Stowlawn Primary School, Green Park School And Stowlawn Community Centre, Green Park Avenue, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: New school (conjoined) and community facility.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Ms Sue Philpott Mark Lunley Architype Ltd Children's Services Upper Twyford Wolverhampton City Council Hereford St Peter's Square HR2 8AD Wolverhampton WV1 1RL

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description and Background

1.1 The site is approximately 4.45 Ha and is presently occupied by three separate school buildings, a caretaker’s house and a community centre building. The combined floor space is currently 4432sq metres.

1.2 Green Park Avenue is a long straight road with the schools on the northern side and a late 20th century residential area on the southern side. The schools are set on the edge of a large area of public open space on the northern and western sides and adjacent to housing estates on the eastern side. There is a residential area to the north west of the site off Warsash Close.

1.3 Burlesdon Walk, a public footpath, runs along the western boundary of the site to Warsash Close housing area and open space beyond.

1.4 Since the application has been made, temporary classrooms have been erected to accommodate the Infants school and a new Multi Use Games Area has been constructed on the western part of the site.

1.5 There are some notable landscape features existing on the site including an earth mound half way along the site frontage with a variety of plants growing on it; and trees peppered throughout the site in the play areas around the three schools.

1.6 Green Park School is a primary and post primary facility for children with special needs who require specialist equipment and transport arrangements.

1.7 Stowlawn Primary occupies two separate school buildings on the same site.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal is for the replacement of the existing three separate school buildings and community centre on the site with a single building to accommodate Green Park

12 School and Stowlawn Primary School along with community facilities including outdoor sporting facilities to be shared with the pupils.

2.2 The application is accompanied by the following documents and by a 3 dimensional model.

• Design and Access Statement • Flood Risk Assessment • School Travel Plan for Stowlawn Primary and Green Park Schools • Ecological Survey and Assessment • Tree Report • BREEAM Report – a system for assessing the environmental performance of new and existing buildings

2.3 The proposed new building will occupy a floor space of 6750 sq metres largely on the ground floor but with the front portion on two levels.

2.4 Green Park School would occupy the ground floor part of the eastern end of the school. Stowlawn Primary would occupy the western part of the ground floor and the administration area of the new school, to be known as ‘The Willows’, would occupy part of the ground floor and the upper floor of the two storey entrance area of the building. The remaining part of the entrance area would have a community meeting room, shared reception and associated toilets and refreshment facilities.

2.5 The building proposed has a rectilinear floor plan, with its long axis running parallel to the road. There are projections to the rear and the front. There are two courtyard spaces included within the building. The whole building is approximately 6.5 metres high, with lantern roofs including clerestory windows to the three halls which are 7.5 metres high.

2.6 The roofs take the form of a single pitch, sloping away from the central flat roofed section where the lanterns are located. The mono pitches have sky lights and other forms of roof light and on the southern side the roof continues as a brise soleil which over-sails the elevation to create shaded areas. Photovoltaic panels are shown placed on the south facing roofs. Sedum planted roofs are proposed where the pitch allows.

2.7 The main entrance of the building is located at the front, in the two storey section where the administration and staff facilities are located.

2.8 The whole building is set back from the street by about 50m with an area of parking for staff and transport for the disabled pupils to the front with planting and landscaped areas. To the eastern end of the frontage is further parking for the 126 staff and a secure compound for the garaging of mini-buses, which is set back from the building line.

2.9 The whole building proposes to use a combination of glass, timber and locally sourced bricks in the elevations and a combination of membrane and sedum planted ‘green’ roofs.

2.10 The proposal includes the levelling of the existing earth mound along the road frontage and significant landscape works, including planting to the courtyard spaces.

2.11 Sports pitches would be located to the west of the building adjacent to the road and to the north [rear] of the building.

13 3. Planning History

3.1 There are two applications of relevance to the current proposal.

• 07/00520/DEM - Demolition of caretaker's bungalow. Granted - 07.09.2007. • 07/00657/FUL – Construction of temporary accommodation for Stowlawn Infants School - erection of 3 no. portable buildings, paths, fencing, play area and multi- use games area. Granted - 20.07.2007.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zones – close to Landfill Gas Site No.01 - Stowheath Lane.

4.2 Millennium Urban Forest planting Stowlawn Primary School - scheme ID: 636

4.3 The site falls within Flood Risk Zone 2.

5. Relevant policies

D1 - Design Quality D9 - Appearance D12 - Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 - Sustainable Development [natural resources and energy use] R3 - Protection of Open Space, Sport and Recreation R7 - Dual-Use of Open Space, Sport and Recreation Facilities C3 - Community Meeting Places AM1 - Access, Motability and New Development AM7 - Travel Plans EP1 - Pollution Control EP7 - Protection of Flood Plains EP15 - Landfill Activities

6 Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised by press and site notices and letters to neighbouring occupiers. No responses have been received.

6.2 The agents state that consultation took place with the families and communities using the school prior to the application being received therefore local people have been involved and kept informed.

7 Internal consultees

7.1 Parks & Contracts (Leisure) – written comments awaited. Verbally have some concerns regarding number of entrance and exit points from shared sports areas from a safety perspective.

7.2 Environmental Services - Reclamation and remediation of the site required. Written comments awaited.

7.3 Transportation Development – written comments awaited but verbal indications are that there are no issues subject to suitability of School Travel Plan.

7.4 Planning Policy Section - no adverse comments.

7.5 Landscape - comments awaited.

7.6 Children & Young People - no comments as the scheme is part of the Council’s programme.

7.7 Access Officer - comments awaited.

8. External consultees

8.1 Sport England (West Midlands) - Comments awaited.

8.2 Police - Ian Jones - Comments awaited.

8.3 Environment Agency – verbally there are some concerns regarding the findings of the Flood Risk Assessment. A formal response is awaited.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues in considering this application are:

• Principle of Replacement of a Community and Education Facility • Environmental Protection • Flood Risk • Transportation • Design and sustainability

Principle of replacement. Policies C3, R7 9.2 There are no Policy objections to the proposal relating to the replacement of the community facility or sports fields as the slight overall reduction in the level of sports provision which will result is balanced by the improved quality and practicality of the areas available for school and community use.

Environmental Protection. Policies EP1, EP15 9.3 The buildings are to be constructed with gas protection measures to reduce the likelihood of landfill gas migrating into the premises. This will need to be a condition in any permission.

Flood Risk. Policy EP7. 9.4 The school is within Flood Risk Zone 2. The Environment Agency has some concerns regarding the measures being put forward to reduce the risk of flooding and therefore improvements to these measures must be received before the application could be approved.

Transportation. Policies AM1, AM7 9.5 The application includes a School Travel Plan which has been the subject of discussion. A condition requiring the implementation of an acceptable plan will be required before the proposal is implemented.

9.6 Other Transportation matters are being considered,

Design and appearance. Policies D1, D9, D12, D13. 9.7 The proposal meets a BREEAM rating of excellent and scores 73.77%. It is partly reduced by the necessity to use vehicular transport for the pupils of Green Park School.

15 9.8 The impact on nature and ecology is significant but mitigated for in the detailed proposals for habitat creation on the site which will be required as part of the landscape strategy, secured through a condition. There will be trees lost in the development which will need to be replaced with planting in appropriate areas.

9.9 The building elevations are modern and designed to minimise the use of energy in the scheme. The parkland setting allows the use of materials including timber cladding, brickwork and glass. The roofs are designed to maximise natural lighting and collection of sun in photovoltaic panels. It is considered that the overall appearance of the building is acceptable and the layout, setting and facilities proposed are acceptable. Verbal concerns regarding some of the arrangements for the gates and entrances and exits from the games area have been raised and some revision to this is required before approval is given.

9.10 Details of the external materials proposed in the buildings and spaces will be required along with a comprehensive planting plan and protection measures for trees to be retained.

9.11 All small ancillary external buildings including bin stores and garages will need to match the main buildings in their design and use of materials. This may be controlled through condition.

10. Recommendation

Grant, Subject to the receipt of supporting consultation comments from the Environment Agency, comments from Sport England and with conditions including the following:

• Exterior of the development to be completed in accordance with the approved details • Submission and use of approved materials for the exterior of the building • Submission and implementation of details of bin stores, cycle storages, garages and energy centre • Submission and implementation of external surface treatment • Submission and implementation of landscape strategy which includes tree and other planting and habitat creation appropriate to the scheme • Tree protection measures for those trees being retained • Details of gates and fences and implementation • External lighting details and implementation • Implementation of an approved School Travel Plan • Submission and implementation of gas protection measures • Submission and implementation of Flood Protection Measures [to be approved]

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

Planning Application No: 07/01111/FUL Location Stowlawn Primary School, Green Park School And Stowlawn Community Centre, Green Park Avenue,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:5000 National Grid Reference SJ 394135 297626 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 44093m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00562/CPL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 18-May-07 TARGET DATE: 13-Jul-07 RECEIVED: 16.04.2007 APP TYPE: Certificate Proposed Lawful Use/Dev

SITE: 21 Jeremy Road, Blakenhall, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Application for a certificate of proposed lawful use, to use the property as a childrens care home

APPLICANT: AGENT: Miss Millicent Vernon 53 Lea Road Pennfields Wolverhampton WV3 0LR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Procedure

1.1 This application was considered at 4 September Committee and deferred for a site visit.

2. Site Description

2.1 21 Jeremy Road is a semi-detached three bedroom house. It consists of;

Ground floor – hall, front room, rear dining room, kitchen, side extension (former garage) comprising a utility and shower/toilet room and an equipped office.

First floor – front small bedroom, front main bedroom, rear bedroom, bathroom/toilet/shower.

It has front and rear gardens, the rear being approximately 13m x 8m. There is a front drive that can accommodate 2 cars.

2.2 The house is in a good state of internal and external decoration and is carpeted throughout. It is not currently lived in and is not furnished apart from a limited amount of office type equipment in the office.

3. Application Details

3.1 This application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 for a proposed use as a children’s care home. It is not a planning application for this proposed use. The purpose of the application is to establish whether or not this house can be used as a small care home without planning permission.

18 3.2 The applicant has provided the following information to support this application;

(a) No physical alterations to the house are required. (b) The proposal is to accommodate and care for a maximum of two children between 10 and 17 years old. The length of residence for each child will depend on their care plan. A short term placement could be between 1-12 months. With respect to long term placement, the children will remain in our care until they are ready to move into independent accommodation or until they reach the age of 18. The potential “turnover” of children will be minimal. (c) Children residing at the property will have experienced some behavioural difficulties, but we will not be providing care to children who present extremely challenging behaviours. The type of support that will be provided for the children is direct one to one work undertaken by experienced staff. This will address any personal difficulties the young person is experiencing and support with any educational challenges being identified. (d) The home will be managed on a 24 hour care basis. Two care staff plus a manager will be in attendance during the day. During the night two staff will be present. The day manager would attend approximately 9.00am to 5.00pm, normally Monday to Friday, but would need to be able to offer support at weekends if necessary. The two care staff would start at 8.00am and work a 24 hour shift through to 8.00am the following morning, when new staff would take over. Sleeping accommodation for staff would be provided in the small bedroom. (e) All children will receive education at local authority schools. If children are in mainstream education they will either walk to school or travel by public transport. If children are at special schools taxis would provide them with transport. (f) Children in short term care will receive home visits from their social worker on a six weekly basis, while those in long term care can receive home visits on a three monthly basis dependent upon their care plans. These visits are usually between 9.00am to 5.30pm weekdays. Statutory assessment meetings with the children will be carried out at their schools or within local authority offices.

4. Planning History

4.1 Previous occupancy; the applicant states (and has reconfirmed when interviewed) that this house was last occupied by seven people, three adults and four children. Three vehicles were kept at the property.

4.2 A letter from residents at No 12 Jeremy Road states that the last occupancy consisted of two parents and three adult children, the youngest being 19 years old. Three vehicles were kept at the property. A letter from No 17 Jeremy Road states that the last occupancy was a family of two adults and two teenage children and one child under 10. Other step children would sometimes visit at weekends. They only had one vehicle.

5. Policy and Legislation

5.1 As this is an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness, the planning merits or demerits of the proposal cannot be considered. Unitary Development Plan policies are not therefore a material consideration. The assessment is based on the facts of the case and planning law.

5.2 Government Circular 10/97, with respect to Certificates of Lawfulness, advises that ….. “the Courts have held that the relevant test of evidence on such matters is “the balance of probability” ….. a Local Planning Authority should not refuse a Certificate

19 because the applicant has failed to discharge the stricter, criminal burden of proof, namely “beyond reasonable doubt”.

5.3 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987;

Class C2 Residential Institutions includes use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within Class C3 Dwellinghouses).

Class C3 Dwellinghouses, includes use by not more than six residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents).

5.4 The following extract is taken from the supporting Government Circular 03/2005 to the Use Class Order;

Class C3: Dwellinghouses ….. “the key element in the use of a dwellinghouse for non- family purposes is the concept of a single household. The single household concept will provide more certainty over the planning position of small group homes which play a major role in the Government’s community care policy which is aimed at enabling disabled and mentally disordered people to live as normal lives as possible in touch with the community. In the case of small residential care homes or nursing homes, staff and residents will probably not live as a single household and the use will therefore fall into the residential institutions (Class C2) Class, regardless of the size of the home”.

6. Publicity

6.1 There is no legal requirement to publicise an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. Government Circular 10/97 advises that any views on the planning merits of the case are not relevant.

6.2 However, in the interests of open government and in line with previous similar cases, surrounding residents have been notified for replies by 13 June. 73 responses have been received including a petition of objection containing 538 signatures. Views are summarised as;

• Children accommodated here will have “challenging behaviour”, there is no explanation of this. There is a suggestion that anti-social behaviour in the area will increase. Encouragement to increase crime rates in the area is not wanted. Elderly residents will be made to feel vulnerable. Local children may feel unsafe. • Disturbance to residents caused by staff and services provided at this house. Possibly more traffic and visitors than a normal house, especially at staff change over time. • The property is semi-detached on a small plot, potential impact on neighbours will be considerable, it is not large enough for a care home. • The property has limited parking facilities for staff and visitors. • Businesses have been excluded from Goldthorn Park, it is a quiet residential area. The proposal would develop this property as a business premises which is a material change of use. It is an inappropriate location for a care home. • It will have an adverse social impact on Goldthorn Park residents. • There are no children’s play facilities in Goldthorn Park. • Further concentration of care homes in this part of Wolverhampton is unfair to residents. • Two letters make reference to previous occupancy at this house, this is referred to in paragraph 3.2 above. • Will there be adequate staffing to care for and control the children?

6.3 Councillors Judith Rowley and Bob Jones of Blakenhall Ward have made representations. They comment as follows;

“we do not have an ‘in principle’ objection to the establishment of children’s care establishments in residential areas. However, we are concerned at the appropriateness of Certificates of proposed Lawful Use and consider that such proposals should constitute full planning applications.

In the case of 21 Jeremy Road, we note the following: • The plot size is relatively small and close to a road junction, • The property itself is semi-detached, • There is parking space for three vehicles but these cannot be manoeuvred within the curtilage of the site.

We are concerned about the potential nuisance to residential neighbours, given that it is proposed that two young people aged between 10 and 17 who have behavioural problems will be accommodated. We also have some concerns re highway safety issues.

Accordingly, we urge that this application is refused”.

6.4 Dr S Taylor of 39 Dudley Walk, Goldthorn Park has requested to speak to the Committee about this application on behalf of the Goldthorn Park Residents Association.

7. Internal Consultation

7.1 Legal and Procurement – on the information provided it will be a change of use to Class C2 but it will not be a material change of use.

7.2 Between 8.00am and 8.30am in the morning at shift change times there could be four adults and two children at the property. The car movements at this time may be marginally different to those one would expect from a residential dwelling but in view of three working individuals previously at the property the difference in vehicle movements is likely to be small.

7.3 Children are to be educated off site so from this perspective this would not differ from the former use.

7.4 There have been some internal alterations to the property namely the study and utility room but these would not be regarded as materially changing the character of use.

7.5 In terms of visits from external professionals these do not seem excessive but may be affected by the duration of stay of the children (in that they may have more visits early on in a placement) so if there is a high turnover of children the number of visits could be higher. However, as only two children are proposed to be accommodated this would not make a marked difference to residential amenity given the frequency of visits proposed.

7.6 Recommendation that a Certificate be granted. Limitations to the Certificate as follows; Maximum of two children aged 10 to 17 at the premises at any time, A maximum of three cars at the premises, A maximum of two carers at the property working a 24 hour shift pattern. The children to be educated off site.

8. Appraisal

8.1 The main considerations with this proposal are;

(a) Whether or not the proposal for a small children’s care home is a change of use from the existing use of 21 Jeremy Road as a private house, and (b) If it is determined that there is a change of use from Class C3 Dwellinghouses, whether this change is material enough in planning terms to be considered as a change of use requiring planning permission.

8.2 Two children would live at this house as their temporary home. The care staff would not live with them “as a family” but would be essential to provide care and supervision. From advice in Circular 3/2005 and recent case law it is considered that this could not be regarded as a single household and the proposed use would therefore fall within Class C2: Residential Institutions.

8.3 The next question to determine is whether in the circumstances of this case this change of use is material and therefore requires planning permission. The Planning Encyclopaedia advises that development is not involved merely because a new use would fall within a different class from the previous use. If there has not been a material change, the Use Classes Order is irrelevant.

8.4 Information about past occupancy of this house has been provided by the applicant and by two local residents. It is considered that “on the balance of probability” at least two adults and two children have recently lived at this house. The proposed home would be for two children with three staff during the day and two at night. This number of adults and children is not materially different from the size of family previously living here.

8.5 The aim of the home would be to create a care environment which would be as close as possible to a family environment. There would be some administrative activity by virtue of the presence of a manager at the home and this is different from a normal home. The study/office in the side extension would be for this purpose. It is not anticipated that the use of the office will impact on the normal use of the dwelling as a home sufficiently to alter the character of the use than had it been used as a study by a resident family.

8.6 The applicant has stated that the children could have experienced some behavioural difficulties but children who present extremely challenging behaviour would not be accommodated. Any anti-social behaviour would be capable of affecting amenity of local residents if realised on a significant scale. The scope for such problems to arise would depend on the quality of management of the home, which would be a matter for the Registration Authority. Having regard to the extent of staff presence at this home on a 24 hour basis and the small scale of the facility involving only two children, it is not considered that incidents of the kind feared by neighbours would be an inherent part of the use bearing on its overall character.

8.7 The comings and goings of staff, visitors, social work professionals etc needs to be considered. Between 8.00am and 9.00am Monday-Friday the manager and two care staff would arrive and two staff would depart. At weekends the two care staff would arrive and depart. This may be more than a “normal” residential pattern. With respect to the reported former occupation of this house it would not be unusual for the adults to regularly leave for work in the morning and return in the evening. Regular parking of two or three cars at this house would not be regarded as out of the ordinary at this locality or at this house if it had continued as a family house.

22 8.8 Home visits by social work professionals may take place and the applicant has indicated the frequency that this might be expected. Other comings and goings by staff and residential service providers would not be expected to be any greater than for a normal household of four or five people.

8.9 In terms of impact on surrounding properties it would appear that there would be some difference in the comings and goings associated with this small care home compared with its use as a private house. However, it is not considered that these vehicle and person movements would be so different or so significantly greater as to be materially different in planning terms than the vehicle and person movements that would have been attracted to this house in the recent past.

8.10 Comments by respondents about covenant restrictions on houses in Goldthorn Park to prevent their use as businesses is not relevant to this Certificate of Lawfulness application.

8.11 With respect to the response from the Legal and Procurement Officer, any Certificate would need to permit three professionals at the home during the day and two during the night, because of registration authority requirements. It is not considered realistic or enforceable to state a maximum number of cars at the premises.

9. Recommendation

9.1 That a Certificate of Lawfulness be granted for a children’s care home at 21 Jeremy Road, Goldthorn Park subject to the following limitations;

(a) A maximum of two children between the ages of 10 and 17 to live at the house. (b) Shift change times to be between 8.00am and 9.00am. (c) During the hours of 8.00am through to 9.00am the following day a maximum of two support staff to work at the house. During the hours 8.00am to 6.00pm one manager may also work at the house. (d) The children to be educated off site.

Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 550141 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 07/00562/CPL Location 21 Jeremy Road, Blakenhall,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391097 296327 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 246m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00967/FUL WARD: Blakenhall DATE: 31-Aug-07 TARGET DATE: 26-Oct-07 RECEIVED: 06.07.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 44 Himley Crescent, Blakenhall, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Two storey side and single storey rear extension.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs Devsi Mr Jasdeep Singh Lall 44 Himley Crescent 95 Derley Road Goldthorn Park Southall Wolverhampton Middlesex West Midlands UB2 5EW WV4 5DE

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 No. 44 Himley Crescent is a semi-detached dwelling. It is located in a predominantly residential neighbourhood. No.155 has an existing single storey rear extension and side extension to form the existing garage. The existing single storey rear extension projects along the common boundary with No.46 approximately 3.1m, and extends across the full width of the original dwellinghouse.

1.2 The immediately adjacent dwellings are No.s 46 and 42 Himley Crescent. No.46 is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, with No. 42 located immediately to the east.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is a re-submission following the refusal of a previous application, DC/07/00196/FUL. Following the refusal of this application a meeting was held on site with the applicant to discuss possible amendments to the proposal, also in attendance was Cllr Bob Jones. Although alternative proposals were suggested to overcome the reasons for refusal, both the applicant and Cllr Bob Jones requested that the application as proposed should be presented to the Planning Committee. Cllr Judith Rowley also verbally requested that this planning application be presented to the Planning Committee.

2.2 The application is for a 1st floor side extension, garage conversion and a single storey rear extension.

2.3 The 1st floor side extension would project across the existing ground floor side extension approximately 4.6m, and the existing ground floor garage use would be converted to form habitable accommodation. The first floor extension would be set back from the front building line and the roof ridgeline would be set slightly lower than the existing.

2.4 The proposed single storey rear extension would project approximately 3.1m, remaining in line with the existing single storey rear extension.

3. Planning History

3.1 07/00196/FUL for Two storey side and single storey rear extension - Refused, dated 03.04.2007.

3.2 C/1732/90 for proposed kitchen, shower, garage and bedrooms extension - Granted, dated 15.08.1990.

4. Relevant policies

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

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 Neighbour letters were sent out 10th September 2007

5.2 The consultation period expires on 1st October 2007. At the time of writing no letters of representation had been received. Any subsequent letters will be presented verbally to the committee members

6. Internal consultees

None

7. External consultees

None

8. Appraisal

8.1 The proposed first floor side extension would project approximately 4.6m across the existing garage. The original width of the house is 6m. It is considered that a 1st floor sideward projection at this size would appear out of proportion with the existing appearance and scale of the dwelling. This extension would detract from the original appearance of the dwellinghouse and therefore would detract from the character and appearance of the street scene.

8.2 The proposed single storey rear extension would project approximately 3.1m from the existing rear building line. The proposed extension would be addition to the existing single storey rear extension that extends from the boundary with No.46 in a north easterly direction. As it would be attached to the existing single storey rear extension the proposal would not adversely affect the current neighbour amenity levels at No.46. It is also considered that the other adjacent dwelling would be set at a sufficient distance away so as not to be adversely affected by the proposal.

26 9. Conclusion

9.1 The proposed 1st floor side extension would, due to the size of the sideward projection, appear out of scale with the existing appearance of the dwelling. The proposed front elevation drawings are inaccurate as there is no step in the roof tiles between the existing and proposed.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Refuse – The proposed first floor side extension would, by reason of its sideward projection, appear out of scale, character and detract from the appearance of the existing dwelling and therefore also detract from the character and appearance of the street scene, contrary to UDP Policy D1, D4, D8 and D9

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

Planning Application No: 07/00967/FUL Location 44 Himley Crescent, Blakenhall,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390990 296160 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 428m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/01045/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 02-Aug-07 TARGET DATE: 01-Nov-07 RECEIVED: 20.07.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: New Trust Community Centre, 1 Wolverhampton Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: New Church and Community Centre.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Pastor I Willis Frank R. Humphreys, Architect New Testament Church Of God Cavalier House Wolverhampton Road 22 Woodcote Road Heath Town Tettenhall Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV6 8LP

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site is currently occupied by a community centre (former Traveller’s Rest public house) on the corner of Wolverhampton Road and Woden Road.

1.2 The community centre is a 1960’s building set well back (approximately 20m) from Wednesfield Road and Woden Road, and surrounded by car parking. Around the road frontages is a narrow grass verge with trees, with railings over 2m high on the back edge of the footway.

1.3 There is a row of shops adjacent in Wednesfield Road. Adjacent in Woden Road is part of the Chubb housing site. On the opposite side of Woden Road is Hampton View, a residential tower block.

1.4 Approximately 45m to the south west, beyond the Wednesfield Road shops, is St Barnabas’s Church which currently accommodates the New Testament Church of God. It is a Victorian Church, with rendered front, located on the back edge of the footway. There is no on-site parking available. The Chubb housing site is adjoining, to the side (south-west) and rear (north-west).

2. Background

2.1 A design and access statement explains the following:

2.2 The existing church is troubled with damp and rot. Heating and lighting are outdated and would be prohibitively expensive to replace. There may be asbestos, and there are no facilities for disabled people.

2.3 The church has a large membership and at special functions the congregation can reach over 700, most of whom arrive on foot. There is no parking at the existing

29 church and so all weddings, funerals and functions must drop-off and pick-up on the main Wolverhampton Road.

2.4 The community centre is managed by the church, as a senior citizens’ Welfare Centre, and provides crèche, youth and other community facilities. A fleet of 5 minibuses transport senior citizens to and from the centre.

2.5 The number typically attending Sunday morning worship is 280, with 100 attending the evening service. Approximately 35 senior citizens attend the welfare centre, Monday to Friday between 10:00 and 15:00. Other activities take place weekday and Saturday evenings 19:30 to 22:00 and are attended by up to 25 people, except on Thursdays when about 90 attend.

2.6 In addition to the on-site parking at the community centre, a minimum of 20 parking spaces are available to church users on Sundays, at the Watson’s Glass Limited. Premises on the Mander’s Estate, Old Heath Road, approximately 500m to the south west (further by road). Mr Watson of Watson’s Glass is Chairman of the Church and Community Centre Development Committee. He has written to confirm that the parking facilities at Watsons Glass, which are unused at weekends, will be available to church and community centre users at weekends as long as he has control of those premises.

3. Planning History

3.1 95/0493/FP Change of use of Traveller’s Rest to community centre, with outline permission for a community hall at the rear. Granted 16th August 1995.

3.2 04/1243/OP Part of Chubb Safes Ltd. – 130 dwellings, including siting and access. Granted 18th August 2005.

3.3 05/1999/RM Reserved matters (design and external appearance and amended siting) pursuant to 04/1243/OP. Granted 21st March 2006.

3.4 06/0774/FP New church/community centre on corner site, demolition of St Barnabas Church and creation of car park. Refused 17th August 2006 on the following grounds:

• Replacement of existing church – an historic building and local landmark – with car park. • Inappropriate siting, design and materials for new church/community centre.

3.5 06/01651/FUL New church/community centre on corner site. Refused on the grounds that the lack of on-site parking would be likely to lead to on-street parking, to the detriment of highway safety.

3.6 07/00540/FUL New church/community centre on corner site. Recommended for approval but refused on the grounds that the lack of on-site parking would be likely to lead to on-street parking, to the detriment of highway safety.

4. Application Details

4.1 It is proposed to demolish the existing community centre and construct a new building which would serve as a church and community centre. The new building is designed to accommodate:

• Worship hall to seat 385. • Dining hall to seat 50 to 60 diners – doubles as 176 seat overspill to worship hall.

30 • Multi-purpose hall for youth club/play ground/crèche/functions – doubles as 150 seat overspill to worship hall. • Offices. • Staff facilities. • Kitchen, toilets, stores etc.

4.2 The new church building, which would provide 1044 sq.m. of floorspace, would have an almost square floor plan, measuring approximately 28.5m by 33.5m, and would approximately align with both adjacent roads. The height to the ridge would be approximately 10m.

4.3 The proposed materials are ‘multi-coloured’ brick walls under an artificial slate roof with a partially glazed ridge and spire. The existing railings on the road frontages are proposed to be replaced with railings over a dwarf brick wall, total height 1.8m.

4.4 The main church entrance would be off Wolverhampton Road, near to the corner with Woden road. The entrance to the crèche/youth/community room would also be off Wolverhampton Road, but at the end closest to the shops. The main entrance to the senior citizens luncheon club would be from the car park, on the north side of the building, but near to the frontage onto Woden Road. This entrance would also be used for hearse and wedding car drop off and pickup.

4.5 Vehicular access would be from Woden Road, giving access to a car park with 50 parking spaces (including 2 disabled and 3 minibus spaces) to the north of the building. Covered cycle and motorcycle parking is also shown. The vehicular access would be provided with a sliding gate to match the boundary railings. The layout plan indicates that the car park would be tarmac.

4.6 The current application is a resubmission of the previously refused application, but the currently proposed building has been reduced in size. The main differences are:

• Reduction if total floor area from 1195 sq.m to 1044 sq.m. • Relocation of some offices, stores, toilets and a meeting room to a first floor, to give a ground floor area of 930 sq.m. • Reduction in length/width from 32m by 36m to 28.5m by 33.5m. • Reduction in capacity of worship hall from 500 worshipers to 385. • Reduction in capacity of dining hall from 100 diners to 50 and from 280 worshipers to 175. • Reduction in capacity of multi-purpose hall from 180 worshipers to 150. • Total reduction in capacity from 960 worshippers to 711. • Increase in on-site parking provision from 29 spaces to 50.

4.7 A travel survey has been provided for Easter Sunday. It reveals a total congregation of 167 and the following modal split:

• Walk 35 • Church Bus 5 • Lift 45 • Bus 15 • Taxi 20 • Car 47

4.8 The agent points out that in addition to the 20 spaces available at Watson’s Glass, there are many other parking spaces on that site which can be used at weekends and the church minibuses will be used to take people who park there to and from the church.

31 4.9 In support of the application the agent has submitted details of fairly recent places of worship, their floor area and car parking provision.

• Mosque, Well Lane, Wednesfield 1800 sq.m. 34 spaces • Cranmer Church, Newhampton Rd West 500 sq.m. 9 spaces • Al Mu’min Mosque, Dunstall Road 1500 sq.m. 12 spaces • Church, Gloucester Street , Whitmore Reans 32 spaces • St Andrew’s, Whitmore Reans 960 sq.m. 12 spaces • Nanaskar Temple, Retreat Street 15 spaces • Buddha Vihara, Upper Zoar Street 15 spaces • Ukrainian Church, Merridale Street West 13 spaces • Lea Road United Reformed Church 12 spaces • Guru Nanak, Sedgley Street , Blakenhall 0 spaces

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 The following UDP policies are relevant:

S2 Strategic Regeneration Corridors D1 Design Quality (Part 1) 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 (Part 1) D11 Access for People with Disabilities (Part 1) D13 Sustainable Development (Natural Resources and Energy Use) HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness (Part 1) AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists.

5.2 SPG6 Places of Worship is relevant.

6 Publicity

6.1 The application was publicised by site and press notices and letters to local occupiers. There has been no response.

7. External Consultees

7.1 The Police have no objection and consider that the change in parking arrangements should prevent any problems for road users or nearby residents.

8. Internal Consultees

8.1 Planning Policy has no objections.

8.2 The Access Officer makes some detailed Building Control comments. These have been passed to the agent.

8.3 Transportation:–

• SPG6 advises a minimum number of parking spaces, for a development of this size in a highly accessible location such as this, of 71 parking spaces plus 4 disabled spaces. The proposed on-site provision falls short of this but the proposed off-site provision and shuttle bus service would help make up the shortfall. • There are some detailed criticisms of the car park layout. These have been passed to the agent. An amended layout could be required by condition if not received prior to determination.

8.4 Landscape make detailed landscape comments.

8.5 Environmental Protection:-

• Extract ventilation system required for kitchen. • Provision must be made for the safe storage of refuse. • Church activities and ventilation system could disturb adjacent residents. Recommend that all windows are double glazed as a minimum. • Recommend conditions to control demolition works – 08:00 to 18:00 Monday to Friday, 08:00 to 13:00 Saturday and none on Sunday and Bank Holidays – no burning. • Site could be contaminated, recommend condition approval and implementation of site investigation and any necessary remedial works.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues are:

• The retention of the existing church • Siting and design of the new church • Boundary treatments • Parking • Noise.

Retention of Existing Church 9.2 The existing St Barnabas Church is not included in the application. There is therefore a risk that, if permission is granted, both churches could be in use, thus potentially increasing the potential for parking problems. However, considering the poor condition of the church, and the development potential of the site adjacent to new residential development , the risk appears to be low.

Siting and Design of the New Church 9.3 The building would relate satisfactorily to the adjacent streets. It would define the corner and help to screen the end elevation of the adjacent terrace of shops. Parking is shown contained to the north of the building which would reduce its visual impact.

9.4 The proposed building would be approximately the same height as the adjacent row of shops and is acceptable.

9.5 The design of the building is acceptable as are the proposed materials, subject to approval of samples.

Boundary Treatments 9.6 The proposed replacement of the existing railings with a lower railing/wall combination would represent a significant visual improvement. 33

Parking 9.8 The church has been designed to seat up to 711 worshippers, although it is stated that in a normal week the maximum occupancy is 280, on Sunday mornings. There are only 50 on-site parking spaces. Therefore, although the capacity of the building has been reduced compared to the previous application, and the number of parking spaces has been increased, there would remain a potential for parking problems to arise.

9.9 However, anecdotal evidence suggests that current parking problems are associated with special functions, such as funerals and weddings. As the new building is to accommodate the existing church community, it is not envisaged that this situation would change with the new development. By utilising off site parking and using the church minibuses to operate a shuttle system it would be possible to reduce the occasional parking problems that do occur in the vicinity of the church. It is therefore recommended that a Travel Plan, to minimise car journeys to/from the site, is required by condition.

9.10 Tarmac is not considered to be an acceptable material for the car park. Details of surface materials can be required by condition.

Noise 9.11 Comings, goings and acts of worship have the potential to generate noise and there are houses under construction close by. Advice from Environmental Services is that the matter can be controlled adequately by double glazing and this can be controlled by condition. Details of the extract ventilation system can also be controlled by condition.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The siting and design of the proposed new church are acceptable. Although there is a potential for on-street parking to be a nuisance, it is considered that the proposed development would not be likely to generate significantly more parking demand than is currently the case and that this could be managed more effectively by the operation of a travel plan.

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant subject to conditions to cover:

• Materials, including surface treatments. • Boundary treatments • Operation of entrance barrier. • Landscaping • Travel Plan • All windows to be double glazed as a minimum • Details of extract ventilation system • Details of refuse storage • Parking (car, cycle, motorcycle) – provision and retention • Cycle/motorcycle parking to be covered and secure – details required • Drainage • External lighting.

Case Officer : Ian Holiday Telephone No : 555630 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander 34

Planning Application No: 07/01045/FUL Location New Trust Community Centre, 1 Wolverhampton Road,Heath Town,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 392674 299408 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 2744m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00607/FUL WARD: Park DATE: 21-May-07 TARGET DATE: 16-Jul-07 RECEIVED: 26.04.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 118 Compton Road, Finchfield, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Two storey and single storey rear extension

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr A Burton & Ms C Harrison 118 Compton Road Finchfield Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 9PZ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Introduction

1.1 This application was considered at the meeting of your Committee on 4 September and was deferred to allow Members to visit the site.

2. Site Description

2.1 The application site contains a three-bedroomed end-of-terrace house on the northern side of Compton Road and backs directly onto the highway in Rupert Street. The house is set back about 3 metres from the main road. There is a part single-storey and part two-storey wing building to the rear of the house. Amenity space is confined to the garden/yard area to the side of the wing building and to its rear, much of this space being taken up with a car parking space with direct access from Rupert Street through an up-and-over gate.

2.2 To the east is the terraced house No 116. To the west is the detached house at No 120; this house is unusually sited in that it is set back over 15 metres from Compton Road and its rear-facing wall is built on the back of footway in Rupert Street .

2.3 The applicants, who have lived at the application property for over 20 years, actually own the adjoining property at No. 120 and apparently make regular and active use of the large garden in front of that house, there being a direct link to that garden from the rear garden of the application property.

3. Planning History

3.1 05/1374/FP. First floor and single-storey extensions to the rear. Refused 10.10.05 for the following reasons:

• Adverse impact on No 116 Compton Road by reason of loss of light and overbearing impact. • Loss of privacy to No 120 by reason of overlooking from a new side window at first floor level.

36 4. Application Details

4.1 The proposed first floor extension would be constructed above the existing single storey element of the wing building and would have dimensions of 2 metres projection x 3.12 metres wide. The existing ridged roof would be continued over and a new hipped end would be formed (the existing end to the wing building is gabled). The extension would provide additional space for an existing bedroom.

4.2 The proposed single-storey extension would be constructed immediately behind the wing building, projecting a further 5.17 metres towards the Rupert Street and again having a width of 3.12 metres. It would have a ridged roof, again with a hipped end. It would contain a lobby and WC and allow extension of the existing kitchen area into the existing lobby/WC area.

4.3 This is a resubmitted application following a previous refusal (see Planning History above). The applicants submit a supporting statement and set of photos and request that your Committee takes this information into account when considering the application. Points made can be summarised as follows.

• The bedroom in question is used as the main bedroom but is too small. The much larger front bedroom is unsuitable as a bedroom because of noise from the main road traffic and from the nearby pub and, being south-facing, because of uncomfortable heat on sunny days.

• The existing kitchen is too small

• The applicant refers to the “view” from the rear of the house at No. 116 and state that impact of the proposal on such a view would be only small.

• The neighbours have no objections to the scheme.

• The proposed development would greatly improve the applicants’ quality of life and they find it difficult to understand why the quality of their life should be so affected in favour of a future purchaser of No. 116.

• The scheme has been amended to provide for hipped ends to the extensions (instead of the gable ends proposed in the refused application) and to provide a lower window in the bedroom to reduce overlooking.

5. Relevant Planning Policies and Guidance

5.1 UDP Policies D1: Design Quality D4: Urban Grain D7: Scale – Height D8: Scale – Massing D9: Appearance.

5.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No 4 - Extensions to Houses.

6. Publicity

6.1 Neighbour letters sent to three properties. No representations received.

37 7. Consultations

7.1 Environmental Services (Authorised Process). No observations.

8. Appraisal

8.1 I consider the determining issues to be the impact on the street scene in Rupert Street, the impact on the amenities of neighbouring property and the resultant private amenity space provision at the application property.

8.2 Impact on Street Scene The proposed development, as now amended, would introduce hipped roof elements to a terrace generally characterised by gable roof profiles. However, in the context of this rear garden situation backing onto a short stretch of Rupert Street, it is considered that the proposal would not result in any significant detriment to the street scene.

8.3 Impact on the Amenities of Neighbouring Property The adjoining house at No 116 has a similar design to that of the application property, including a part single-storey and part two-storey rear wing building. The arrangement of the buildings has resulted in a narrow well of less than 2 metres width to the rear of the main house at No 116, between the two wing buildings. This adjoining property has two rear windows, apparently to habitable rooms, facing down the well, one on the ground floor and one on the first floor. There are also windows in this property in the side elevation of its own wing building and facing towards the existing wing building at No 118, again at both ground floor and first floor level.

8.4 The rear of No 116 is already adversely affected in terms of its light and outlook by the existing projections at the application property of 4 metres at first floor level and 6.5 metres at ground floor level. The proposal would increase the first floor projection to 6 metres approximately and it is considered that the resulting increased adverse impact would be unacceptable, notwithstanding the proposal to provide a hipped roof in an attempt to reduce that impact.

8.5 It should be noted that Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No 4 – Extensions to Houses indicates that even single-storey extensions will not normally be permitted in circumstances such as this and the application proposes an additional ground floor extension of over 5 metres. However, there is an existing timber structure built along the mutual boundary and the flank wall of the proposed single storey extension would not be much higher. In these circumstances it could be argued the proposed single- storey extension would not have a materially adverse impact.

8.6 The proposed extension would be set 3 metres approximately away from the boundary with the other adjoining property No 120 but the relationship between the properties is such that there should be no material impact on the outlook from or the light to that property. There is existing close overlooking, partly screened by vegetation, to the garden of No 120 from an existing side window in the bedroom and the previous proposal for an additional side window in the first floor extension would have resulted in significantly increased overlooking, hence the second reason for refusal of application 05/1374. However, the current proposal for an additional window would be a lower “half” window that could not be easily seen through by a person standing and, bearing in mind the constraints on furniture arrangements imposed by the narrow shape of the bedroom, is unlikely to result in unacceptable overlooking. The scheme is therefore now considered acceptable in this regard.

8.7 Impact on Private Amenity Space The construction of the single-storey extension would reduce the private rear amenity space available to the application property. However, there would still be a

38 reasonable, circa 3 metre wide strip of garden up to 14 metres in length and an additional 3 metres x 3 metres space immediately behind the proposed extensions. It is considered that this would be acceptable in the circumstances of this terraced property.

9. Conclusion

9.1 Whilst the applicants’ reasons for wanting to extend the bedroom are understandable, the first floor extension would have an unacceptably adverse impact on No. 116 and would be clearly contrary to adopted policy and guidance.

9.2 The single-storey element of the scheme is considered to be acceptable.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Refuse permission for the following reason:

The proposed first floor extension would, by reason of its height, bulk and position relative to the house on the adjoining property No 116 Compton Road, have an unacceptable overbearing impact on the outlook from that property and unduly reduce the light to that property.

For the above reason it is considered that the proposal is contrary to the provisions of UDP Policies D4: Urban Grain, D7: Scale – Height and D8: Scale – Massing and to the provisions of Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No. 4 - Extensions to Houses.

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

Planning Application No: 07/00607/FUL Location 118 Compton Road, Finchfield,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390132 298710 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 137m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/01024/FUL WARD: Park DATE: 25-Jul-07 TARGET DATE: 19-Sep-07 RECEIVED: 18.07.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 155 Clark Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 9PD PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension and loft conversion with dormer windows

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Shokat Intergrated Designs (Midlands) Ltd 155 Clark Road 38 Old Walsall Road Finchfield Birmingham Wolverhampton B42 1NF West Midlands WV3 9PD

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 No.155 Clark Road is a semi-detached dwelling located in a predominantly residential area, St Jude’s Church of England Primary is located to the north east of the application site. No.155 has an existing two storey side and single storey rear extension.

1.2 The immediately adjacent dwellings are No.s 153 and 157 Clark Road. No. 153 is the adjoining semi-detached dwelling, with No. 157 located immediately to the south; this dwelling is set forward of the application site approximately 1m and has an existing single storey rear extension.

2. Application details

2.1 The application is a re-submission following the refusal of a previous application, DC07/00422/FUL.

2.2 The application is for a single storey rear extension, dormer windows to rear roof elevation and conversion of existing garage into habitable accommodation.

2.3 The proposed rear extension would be partly attached to the existing single storey rear extension. The existing living room extension projects approximately 2.1m from the rear of the dwelling and is set along the boundary with the adjacent dwelling, 153 Clark Road. It is not proposed to extend this element of the extension any further. The proposed extension would be set approximately 3.3m off the boundary with 153 Clark Road. It would project approximately 4m from the rear of the original dwelling and would extend across the remaining rear elevation of the dwelling.

2.4 The proposed dormer window would be located on the rear elevation of the dwelling and would not rise above the ridge of the roof of the dwelling. It would project approximately 2.3m from the slope of the roof. To provide additional natural light to the converted loft the development would also include the installation of three skylights, to

41 the side and front elevation. The proposed loft conversion would create an additional two bedrooms.

2.5 The existing garage would be converted into habitable accommodation.

3. Planning History

3.1 07/00422/FUL for Single storey extension and a conservatory to rear elevation, loft conversion with dormer windows and a bay window to front elevation - Refused, dated 08.06.2007.

3.2 C/2029/89 for Garage, lounge and bedroom - Granted, dated 12.09.1989.

4. Constraints

4.1 None identified

5. Relevant policies

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

SPG4 - Extension to Houses

6. Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 Neighbour letters were sent on 26th July 2007

6.2 The consultation period expired on 16th August. Two letters of representation were received.

6.3 The content of these letters objected to the proposal on the following grounds

6.4 - The application has failed to address objections to the previously refused application (07/00422/FUL)

6.5 - The property has already been extended increasing ground floor coverage from 45m sq to 95m sq. The proposed extension would increase this to 118m sq over two and a half times to original size of the house. Such increases are excessive, would over- dominate the existing building and are not in keeping with the character or scale of the original building.

6.6 - No provision has been made for the increase in drainage and sewerage

6.7 - The proposed extension is sited directly above a vital drainage culvert that is needed to prevent localised flooding. Work has already been carried out on this property that it is understood could endanger the operation of this culvert, with further development being detrimental to the long term effectiveness of this resource.

6.8 - Many dwellings along Clark Road and Paget Road have been converted into bed sits/flats, concern that the dwelling would follow this route, cause traffic problems.

42 6.9 - The proposed development may exacerbate existing flood problems.

7. Internal consultees

Transportation Development 7.1 The submitted plans do not detail the intended use of the garage conversion. For the purpose of my comments I have assumed that the garage is to be used for living area space and not bedroom space, and therefore the total number of proposed bedrooms is 6. Should the applicant intend to use the garage conversion as a bedroom(s), I would have to reassess my position regarding this development.

7.2 The site is located in an area that has been identified as having low levels of accessibility to public transport services and therefore residents are likely to be highly dependent on their own methods of transport. I would therefore expect a 6 bedroom property such as that proposed in this location to create a parking demand of approximately 4 spaces. I note that the entire area to the front of the property is hard standing (measuring approx 11m by 5.5m), and I estimate that it is large enough to accommodate 4 vehicles. Therefore the level of parking provision is acceptable

7.3 I have no Transportation objections in principle to the proposed development since there is sufficient off-street parking in of the property to meet the likely demand.

8. External consultees

8.1 None

9. Appraisal

9.1 Following the refusal of planning application DC/07/00422/FUL a number of amendments were made to the proposal. The rearward projection of the single storey element was reduced from 5.7m to 3.9m, and the conservatory, originally sited along the common boundary with 153 Clark Road, was removed from the proposal. The dormer window proposed on the southern elevation (side) of the roof was replaced by a rooflight and the bay window to the front of the dwelling was taken out of the scheme.

9.2 It is now considered that the proposed single storey rear extension would not adversely affect residential amenity, in terms outlook, loss of light or privacy, currently enjoyed by the occupiers of those immediately affected adjacent dwellings.

9.3 The proposed extension would project approximately 3.9m from the rear of the dwelling, however it would be set approximately 3.3m off the boundary with 153 Clark. It is considered that this is adequate distance to avoid the proposal significantly obstructing natural light or having an overbearing impact on the outlook from the adjacent dwelling.

10.4 157 Clark Road has an existing single storey rear extension. Therefore the proposed single storey rear extension would only project approximately 2.5m beyond the rear building line of the adjacent dwelling, 157 Clark Road, and would not significantly affect the existing amenities currently enjoyed by the occupiers of this dwelling.

10.5 It is acknowledged that the dwelling has previously had a two storey side extension to provide an additional two bedrooms to the dwelling, and the proposed loft conversion would create an additional two bedrooms to provide a total of six bedrooms. However

43 the dwelling does have a fairly large rear garden area measuring approximately 30m in length and it is considered that this is ample space to meet needs of the residents.

10.6 The conversion of the garage to habitable accommodation would result in the loss of an off street parking space, however the space to the front of the dwelling has been block paved and in line with the comments received from the Transportation Officer would be able to accommodate up to four vehicles and this would be adequate to meet the parking needs of the residential dwelling.

11. Conclusion

11.1 It is considered that the proposed development would not significantly affect the existing amenities currently enjoyed the occupiers of either adjacent dwelling, and that the existing parking provisions and rear garden amenity space would be adequate to support the needs of the dwelling and its occupiers.

12. Recommendation

12.1 Grant, subject to conditions

• Matching materials

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

Planning Application No: 07/01024/FUL Location 155 Clark Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV3 9PD Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389509 298855 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 631m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00917/FUL WARD: St Peter's DATE: 27-Jun-07 TARGET DATE: 22-Aug-07 RECEIVED: 27.06.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 206 Staveley Road, Whitmore Reans, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Change of use from retail shop to a pizza takeway, including single storey rear extension

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mrs C Ghera Mr J. Kumar 206 Staveley Road 65 Albert Road Whitmore Reans West Park Wolverhampton Wolverhampton West Midlands WV1 4RP

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Application Site and Background

1.1 The application site is a vacant terrace premises with A1 Retail Use Class rights, with first floor accommodation above. The premises is situated approximately 1km north of the City Centre, it is positioned adjacent to a corner junction between Staveley Road and Mostyn Street.

1.2 Although, not designated as a local centre in the UDP, it appears that this shopping parade functions similarly to one, with a variety of retail units, medical centre, religious facilities and other community meeting places.

1.3 The parade of shops, at my time of visit consisted of:

200: - Empty (previous use as a bookmaker) 201 – 204: Previously individual shops due to reopen as a single clothing store 205 – Minimarket 206 – (Application Site) Empty. Permission currently sought for a change of use to Hot Food Takeaway A5, external rear flue and single storey rear extension (07/00341) 207 – Electronic Store 208 – 209 – Minimarket 210- 211 – Hot Food Takeaway 212 – Chemist (Pharmacy) 213 – (Empty - Permission currently being sought for change of use to café / restaurant A3 Use Class – Application Reference Number 07/01075/FUL)

1.4 Apart from this cluster of retail and other uses, the area is predominantly residential. Most of the properties in the vicinity are terraced, with no set back from the rear of the footpath.

1.5 The application states that the applicant has owned the subject premises for the past seven years during which time the shop operated as a retail outlet for the first four years of the applicant’s ownership. The retail shop then closed due to a lack of

46 business and the applicant advises that in the time that has elapsed the shop has stood vacant. The applicant advises that the shop has remained vacant despite the efforts of the owner to market the premises, by way of ‘word of mouth’ and an advertisement in the shop window. The applicant stresses that there is not a demand for A1 retail shop at this location. On the other hand the applicant feels that there is a need for an additional hot food takeaway at this location. A petition of support, including 325 signatures is submitted as part of the application to demonstrate this demand. The applicant advises that a search for a suitable unit, to operate a hot food takeaway from, in adjacent local centres has been undertaken. However the applicant claims that there is a lack of available units in the adjacent designated centres, and the vacant units that are available would be too expensive to rent. Therefore this proposal has been made to change the use of the premises, to a Hot Food Takeaway A5 Use Class (Pizza). The proposals also include for the erection of a flue extraction system to the rear elevation and a small single storey rear extension.

1.6 The applicant proposes to operate the Hot Food Takeaway from 12 noon to 11pm Monday to Saturday and 6pm to 10.30pm on Sundays. I am advised by the applicant that the residential premises above the subject shop, is currently unoccupied. It is intended to use the first floor accommodation as storage space for the proposed hot food takeaway.

1.7 An application to change the use of another unit in this parade, number 213 Staveley Road, from A1 to A3 Café / Restaurant is currently being considered by the Local Planning Authority.

2. Planning History

2.1 An application (Reference Number 07/00341/FUL) for change of use to A5 hot food take away, single storey rear extension and erection of external flue was refused permission on 8 May 2007. That application was refused for the reasons that catering outlets should be located within defined centres except where a proposal would comply with UDP Policy SH9. No information was provided to demonstrate compliance with Policy SH9 and therefore the proposal was contrary to that policy. The applicant also failed to provide detailed information about the proposed use and the Local Planning Authority was therefore unable to assess the likely implications of the proposals on the surrounding area. The height, design and appearance of the proposed flue was considered to be unacceptable and detrimental to visual amenity, contrary to UDP Policies D1 and D9.

3. Constraints

3.1 None

4. Relevant policies

4.1 D1 Design Quality D9 Appearance SH9 – Local Shops and Centre Uses SH14 – Catering Outlets EP1 – Pollution Control EP3 – Air Pollution EP5 – Noise Pollution AM12 – Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 – Road Safety and Personal Security

47 5. Publicity and Neighbour notifications

5.1 Site Notice Expiry Date 25.07.2007 Press Notice Expiry Date 21.07.2007 Neighbour Letters Expiry Date 23.07.2007 No reply or response received. A petition of support with 325 signatures accompanied the application

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Environmental Services – Recommend that should the application be granted permission it should be on the condition that a scheme to control cooking odours and also noise and vibration from ventilation equipment be submitted to and approved by the Local Planning Authority. Any works contained in the approved scheme should be carried out to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority. The applicant should also submit, for approval, a noise insulation scheme, to ensure against noise disturbance to adjoining residential units. Hours of trading should be consistent with those of similar establishments in the vicinity

6.2 Transportation Development – Object to the proposals. The proposals fail to provide any off street parking provision for customers and this would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic. Service vehicles may stop adjacent to the premises and this may also be detrimental to the free flow of the traffic.

6.3 Planning Policy – No objection

7. External consultees

7.1 None

8. Appraisal

8.1 Issues to consider as part of this application are:

• The effect of the proposal on the vitality of this location • The effect of the proposed change of use on the living conditions of nearby residents by reason of noise and disturbance. • The effect on highway safety arising from customer vehicle parking and manoeuvring.

8.2 As stated above this site does not form part of a designated district or local centre, the nearest local centre (Whitmore Reans) is approximately 500m away. Therefore, in this case, Policy SH10 "Protected Frontages" does not apply. However, Policy SH9 “Local shops and Centre Uses outside Defined Centres” states that the Council will seek to ensure the provision and retention of local shops. The policy states that proposals for new local shops and centre uses by new build or change of use and for extensions to premises used as local shops or for centre uses which are located outside the defined boundaries of local centres will only be permitted where it can be shown that the criteria outlined have been met. This includes demonstrating that there is a local need for the use and that it would have no adverse impact on highway safety.

8.3 The applicant advises that there is no longer a demand for an A1 Retail Use at this location. This argument is based on the fact that the premises, was marketed, by way of an advert in the shop window. The applicant confirms that no positive response was received. The applicant also advises that a search has been made to locate the

48 proposed use within a defined centre and that this search found that there are no suitable, affordable premises available within an adjacent local centre. In addition to marketing the premises and undertaking a search of adjacent local centres, the applicant has submitted a petition of support for the proposed change of use containing 325 signatures.

8.4 Unfortunately the information submitted, does not satisfactorily justify the proposed change of use of this retail premises to a hot food takeaway. The application fails to demonstrate that there would be no adverse impact upon the viability of this parade of shops, residential amenity and highway safety as a result of these proposals.

8.5 The proposals would be likely to generate a significant level of disturbance to residential amenities of those living above the shops and in residential properties in the surrounding area, by way of noise, litter and smells, particularly late into the evenings.

8.6 The site proposals will offer no off-street parking, although limited off-street parking is available on the opposite side of Staveley Road. During the site visit it was noted that the off-street parking detailed above were close to full, giving little scope for coping with any increase in demand. It is not considered that the parking generated as a result of these proposals could be accommodated by existing facilities and this would be detrimental to the free flow of traffic, placing in jeopardy highway and pedestrian safety.

8.7 With respect to the other elements of the proposed application, the single storey rear extension would be in keeping with the character, design and appearance of the existing building and would not project unduly beyond the neighbouring property extension and thus would not be detrimental to any amenities enjoyed by neighbouring occupiers. The proposed flue would be visible to occupiers of neighbouring properties and would be prominent when looking towards the rear of the premises from Mostyn Street. Its height, position and appearance would be unacceptable and it would form an obtrusive feature within the built environment, having an adverse impact on appearance of the application building and street scene.

9. Recommendation

9.1 Refuse permission for the following reasons:

1. Policy SH14 “Catering Outlets” states that catering outlets A3, A4 & A5 should be located within defined centres except where a proposal would comply with SH9. The proposal fails to satisfactorily demonstrate that there is a demand for the proposed use and that there would be no detrimental impact upon residential amenities and highway safety. The proposals are therefore contrary to SH9 and SH14.

2. It is not considered that the parking generated as a result of these proposals could be accommodated by existing facilities. It is also likely that service vehicles may stop adjacent to the premises. This would have a detrimental effect on the free and safe flow of traffic on the adjacent highway and reduce pedestrian safety on the pavement. As a result the proposal is considered to conflict with policies SH10, SH14, AM12, AM14 and AM15

3. The proposed hot food takeaway and external flue would be detrimental to the amenities of existing and future residents of the surrounding area by way of generating noise, litter and other forms of general disturbance, particularly at night. As a result the proposed change of use of the subject property, to hot food takeaway is considered contrary to SH9 and SH14.

49 4. The height, position, and stainless steel materials of the proposed flue mean that it would appear as an obtrusive feature, which would have a seriously detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the street scene. For this reason the proposals are contrary to UDP policy D9.

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

Planning Application No: 07/00917/FUL Location 206 Staveley Road, Whitmore Reans,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391017 299642 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 97m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/01131/FUL WARD: Spring Vale DATE: 07-Aug-07 TARGET DATE: 06-Nov-07 RECEIVED: 07.08.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land To The Side Of 30 Foster Avenue, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV14 9PT PROPOSAL: Residential development comprising of 12No. apartments

APPLICANT: AGENT: Fortmere Properties Tweedale (Wolverhampton) Ltd C/O Agent 265 Tettenhall Road Wolverhampton WV6 0DE

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site consists of the former Woodley Nursery School. The building has been demolished. The hardstanding remains with some open landscaped areas. These contain a number of trees, at least some of which are of significance. The site is screened off from Foster Avenue by a dense hedge.

1.2 To the north are the school playing fields and woodland associated with Manor Primary School. To the south-east is an area of public open space. This area is very well screened on all boundaries by existing hedges. The boundary with the open space consists of a tree screen (hedge) and 2.5m post and wire fencing. The fencing itself is not visible due to the presence of a substantial element of trees and shrubs in the area of open space. On the opposite side of the road to the site are a pair of bungalows and a two storey house. The majority of Foster Avenue consists of two storey houses.

2. Application details

2.1 The applicant seeks permission to create 12 one-bedroom flats with associated landscaping and car parking. The proposed building runs almost parallel to Foster Avenue and is mostly two stories in height, increasing to three stories to the south of the site, closest to Shaw Road.

2.2 Fifteen parking spaces, including two disabled spaces and a space for motorcycles, are provided to the rear of property. Vehicular access to this courtyard passes beneath the three storey section of the building. Spaces for cycle and bin stores are also indicated to the rear of the property, away from the public realm.

2.3 A shared private amenity space, of approximately 320sqm, is also incorporated at the rear of the property with an additional landscaped area to the front of the proposed building, adjacent to the road frontage which provides some visual amenity and a buffer zone. The perimeter of the site is defined by brick walls with piers and railings providing a secure frontage.

2.4 Overall the building has a contemporary appearance, with a number of architectural components utilised in its design, including projecting bay windows on all floors and brise-soleil canopies, whilst the roof would be a curved ‘barrel’ style. The property would mostly be a brick construction although, render and also terracotta panelling would be used. There are three points of pedestrian access to the property

3. Planning History

3.1 In 2005 (05/1053/FP/M) an application was refused, on the same site, for the ‘erection of 14 No (this was reduced to 12 in application process) 1 bedroom flats with associated car parking’. The reasons for refusal were primarily to do with the overall poor design of the building, both in terms of architectural proportions but also the poor definition of public/private realms and the amount of private space. It was also considered that the access would result in an unacceptable visibility splay.

4. Constraints

4.1 Landfill Gas Zone Mining Areas

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policy

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development PPS3 - Housing

5.2 Local Policy

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 H6 - Design of Housing Development H8 - Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 - Housing Density and mix AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security 5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 - Residential Development

53 6. Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised via Press and Site Notices and letters were also sent to neighbouring occupiers. Two letters of response have so been received from local residents. They are opposed to the principle of apartments and also their proposed appearance and raise concerns about loss of privacy. A petition signed by 29 people against the development has been received but does not provide any reasons for objective.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Building Control: Access for Fire is satisfactory. They also provide detailed comments regarding disabled access.

7.2 Environmental Services: Have no objections in principle to the proposed development. However, due to the close proximity of residential premises they recommend various processes be implemented during possible demolition and subsequent construction.

7.3 They also state that the previous use of the land may have led to unacceptable levels of contamination which may effect the redevelopment of the site. The therefore request a condition on any approval for development on this site to require a methodology for a site investigation of possible physical and chemical contamination and landfill gas, and any remedial works which are then necessary.

7.4 Leisure Services: Comments Awaited

7.5 Transportation: Comments Awaited

7.6 Trees: The site contains many young and semi mature trees, including oak, pine and maple, some of which are worthy of retention. The existing shrubs and trees on the boundaries offer good screening. Selected larger trees could be retained with the use of ‘no dig’ surfacing of a porus type. A tree survey should be undertaken.

7.7 Landscape: Comments Awaited

7.8 Parks & Contracts: Comments Awaited

8. External consultees

8.1 Dudley MBC: No observations on the proposal

8.2 Seven Trent: Comments Awaited

8.3 Police: Comments Awaited

9. Appraisal

9.1 The proposal is to be considered in light of the following key issues:

• Principle of Residential Development • Layout & Design • Residential Amenities • Open space requirements

Principle of Residential Development 9.1 In principle, the site is suitable for residential development. As specified in Policy H9 of the Wolverhampton UDP, a residential development should have a density of between 30-50 dwellings per ha, however a higher density may be considered in locations with good access to public transport infrastructure. The density for the submitted scheme is approximately 80 dwellings per hectare but considered acceptable in this location.

Design Layout 9.2 The site occupies a prominent position on Foster Avenue, near to the junction with Shaw Road. It is important that in such a location, the building is positioned to create an appropriate streetscape. The proposed apartment building, addresses the street frontage, reinforcing a sense of enclosure to the street and clearly defining the public and private realms. The front access doors onto the adjoining street are important in maintaining vitality and giving clear and direct pedestrian access to the dwellings. Overall, the layout of the building is considered to be an appropriate form of development, which takes into account the characteristics of the site and surrounding road network.

9.3 Surrounding buildings are of two stories and the height of the new development generally reflects this. However, an element of three storey development has been provided at the southern part of the site, away from the boundaries with adjoining houses. This is considered acceptable.

Residential amenity 9.4 The proposed redevelopment will improve the general environment for surrounding properties in that the current vacant site will be replaced by an attractive building in a landscaped setting.

9.5 The positioning of the building respects the privacy, daylight and outlook from adjacent dwellings as well as providing acceptable amenities for potential occupiers. The orientation of habitable rooms provides a more active frontage with overlooking of the public realm.

9.6 The private shared amenity area, approximately 320 sqm in size, is considered a sufficient size to support the proposed development.

Planning Obligation requirements: 9.7 Open space contributions as set out in policy H8 of the adopted UDP will be required to offset the cost of providing additional recreational, sport and open space facilities within the City. The figure required through S106 is £15,330.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The general principles and layout of the proposal are considered appropriate given the surrounding context and would help create a secure residential environment. The means of access and proposed parking levels are acceptable. The design of the buildings and palette of materials compliment those within the surrounding context. Residential amenities in terms of outlook, privacy and daylight are preserved. The redevelopment of the site will bring a prominent brownfield site back into positive use assisting in improving the visual appearance of the street scene. For these reasons the proposal is considered acceptable.

55 11. Recommendation

Delegated authority to grant permission, subject to:

• The submission of a satisfactory tree survey and no major issues being raised from outstanding consultees.

• Satisfactory minor design amendments are also required to be submitted.

Conditions are recommended to cover:

A S106 agreement to provide an open space contribution (BCIS indexed) Public Art Submission of Materials Architectural Details Landscaping Scheme Tree protection measures Drainage Car Parking External lighting Details of cycle stores Bin stores Remote control gates to communal parking Construction management plan Parking Provision as shown Car Park Management Plan Amenity space provided as shown No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation

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

Planning Application No: 07/01131/FUL Location Land To The Side Of 30 Foster Avenue, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV14 9PT Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393601 294456 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00446/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 28-Mar-07 TARGET DATE: 27-Jun-07 RECEIVED: 28.03.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Castlecroft Garage Limited, Finchfield Hill, Finchfield, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Neighbourhood foodstore and car parking.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Lidl UK GMBH PO Box 11675 Solihull B93 0YW

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site consists of the former Castlecroft Garage and car showroom. The site is located in a prominent position at the junction of Finchfield Hill, Oak Hill and Finchfield Road West. Opposite the front of the site (east) lie two parades of shops with flats above, the Local Centre of Finchfield. The shops are set at a higher level than the site. The southern site boundary is alongside St Thomas’s Church a locally listed building (currently vacant) with its northern boundary adjacent to an existing residential property No 42 Finchfield Hill, which is also owned by Lidl. The western boundaries and the rear of the site are surrounded by existing residential development . 1.2 Following acquisition of the site by Lidl, a high timber screen fence has been erected, and the former Castlecroft Garage buildings and hardstandings have now been removed from the site.

2. Relevant Planning History

2.1 In 2001 a planning application was submitted for a retail development (Waitrose) reference 01/1621/FP. This application was withdrawn on 15 May 2002.

2.2 In 2003 an application for residential development of the site was submitted reference 03/1068/FP/M. This application was granted planning permission in April 2004.

2.3 In 2004 an application was submitted for retail development (Marks and Spencer Food) reference 04/0678/FP/M. This application was refused planning permission in July 2004.

3. Constraints

3.1 Possible ground contamination of the site.

58 4. Application Details

4.1 The proposal is for the development of a single storey food retail unit for Lidl UK of 790 square metres net retail floor area (approximately 1,232 square metres gross internal floor area). The overall area of the application site is some 5,144 square metres (0.514 hectares). The remainder of the site is given over to hard and soft landscape planting to the frontage and side and rear boundaries with adjacent properties and car parking for 70 vehicles including 4 disabled parking spaces, 4 parent and child parking spaces and an additional 2 motorcycle spaces.

4.2 The footprint of the proposed store is in a similar position to the previous car sales showroom and is of a similar size. The proposed store would be sited on the eastern boundary which is also the main frontage to the highway. The building frontage would be situated on the back of an extended pavement. Along this frontage, the proposal is to enhance the frontage with brick paving and the provision of a formal planted area and associated external seating. The proposed car parking would be located to the side and rear of the building which would be approached by the provision of a new vehicular access off the existing roundabout. The car park would have landscape buffers around the rear and side boundaries with adjoining neighbouring residential properties, the actual boundary proposals include the provision of a mixture of 1.8 metre high timber fences and 1.8 metre high brick walls.

4.3 The proposed building would have an overall length of 43 metres with an average of 29.5 metres in width. The proposed eaves height of the building would be approximately 3.5 metres with a ridge height of 10.3 metres. The proposed main entrance to the store would be towards the rear of the southern façade of the building and set well into the car parking area. The proposal details the building to be constructed in red brickwork with buff coloured detailing and tiled pitched roof. The frontage of the building facing toward Finchfield Road West would be mainly glazed with two panels of obscured glass to provide an internal area for freezer units. The proposed side elevation into the car park would again be mainly glazed with an arched canopy providing an area to store shopping trolleys, the facades to the rear (west) and side toward the dwelling at No 42 (east) would be finished in blank facades of brickwork.

4.4 In respect of servicing and deliveries to the store the proposed service area would be located to the rear of the building. The application confirms that a 16.5 metre long articulated HGV would deliver to the store at a frequency of one per day. Appropriate autotrack information has been submitted to confirm highway accessibility and manoeuvring into the service yard.

4.5 The application submission is supported by documentation including a design and access statement, a transport assessment and a retail impact assessment and a statement of community involvement.

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 Relevant UDP Policies include the following:

D1 - Design Quality D2 - Design Statement D3 - Urban Structure D4 - Urban Grain D5 - Public Realm D5 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale – Height D8 - Scale – Massing

59 D9 - Appearance D10 - Community Safety D11 - Access for People with Disabilities SH1 - Centres Strategy SH2 - Centre Uses SH3 - Need and the Sequential Approach SH4 - Integration of Development into Centre SH8 - Local Centres AM1 - Access, Mobility and New Development AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security HE1 - Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness S4 - Mixed Use Development .

Other relevant planning guidance includes the following:

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPS6 - Planning for Town Centres CABE - By Design PPG13 - Transport.

6. Publicity

6.1 Neighbouring residents were informed of the application by letter with time for comment expiring on 4 May 2007. A notice was displayed on the application site and a notice was placed in the Express and Star newspaper with time for comment expiring on 11.5.07.

6.2 In response to the publicity, 44 individual letters of objection have been received and a petition of objection containing 287 signatures. The letters of objection are from residents at 2 Maple Grove, 1, 31 West Hill, 25, 26, 29 and 30 Finchfield Hill, 10 Wootton Road, 4 and 8 The Dingle, 1, 15 Coppice Road, 35 Birches Barn Road, 1A The Parklands, 56 The Avenue, 49, 67, 85 and 89 Castlecroft Road, 10 Yeadon Gardens, 39, 59, 61 White Oak Drive, 30 The Spinney, 17, 22, 24, 26, 34A and 38 Oak Hill, 8, 9 and 11 The Terrace, 3, 4, 5 Birch Glade, 21, 27 Broadway, 10 Westfield Grove, 16, 88 Linden Lea, 4 The Pines, 3 Washington Court. 40, 42, 44, 48, 59, 65, 67A Finchfield Road West. A letter of objection has been received from Councillors Stevenson, Thompson and Wynne. The issues of concern to these residents include the following:

• Volume of traffic/traffic congestion. • Proximity to school. • Not a local store/attracting customers from across the City. • Impact on other adjacent food stores. • Increased noise and air pollution. • Anti-social behaviour. • Security along rear boundary. • Loss of light. • Unacceptable design of store.

A commercial objection has been received from Somerfield Stores Limited (Tettenhall and Warstones Road) stating:

• The applicants have not provided robust evidence that quantitative need exists for the proposed development; • The applicants have not presented a realistic assessment of the impact of the proposed development on existing centres and anticipate that the proposed 60 development will result in the detriment to the vitality and viability of existing centres within the shopping hierarchy.

An objection has been received from Kimberley Developments who own the adjacent land stating:

• It is considered that in planning policy terms the proposal is both contrary to the Development Plan and to national planning policy guidance in PPS6 Planning for Town Centres.

6.3 There have also been 24 letters of support for the proposed development and two petitions of support containing 72 and 6 signatures respectively. The individual letters of support are from residents at 77 Finchfield Lane, 3, 5, 9, 11, 16, 20 and 22 Finchfield Road West, 1 Linden Lea, 29 Windmill Lane, 12, 43, 47, 49, 51 55 White Oak Drive, 68 Limehurst Avenue, 8A Westacre Crescent, 4 New Street, Kingswinford, 2B Westacre Crescent, 36 The Spinney, 2 College View, 115 Broad Lane. A letter of support has also been received from Rob Marris MP.

7. Internal Consultations

7.1 The Council’s Tree Officer confirms no effect on trees.

7.2 Building Control confirm that the proposed access road appears to be designed to allow sufficient space for access for fire fighting appliances. They also confirm that Part M applies.

7.3 The Council’s Landscape Officer has made comments in respect of type and number of shrubs and trees to be planted.

7.4 Environmental Services make comment that any proposed chiller unit should be located and constructed so as not to cause noise to occupiers of surrounding premises, that sufficient space is provided for a refuse unit, that there should be no deliveries to the premises after 8.00am (Monday-Friday) and 9.00am (Saturday- Sunday). The Officer also comments that the previous use of the land may have led to unacceptable levels of contamination which could affect the redevelopment strategy of the site and request a condition in respect of site investigation and mitigation.

7.5 The Council’s Transportation Officer confirms no objection in principle, however, is awaiting a working design in respect of access from the mini island and also awaiting an accumulation survey to support the theoretical traffic generation.

8. External Consultations

8.1 The West Midlands Police Architectural Liaison Officer is concerned that the canopies proposed on the building would provide a gathering point for youths “out of hours” or during dark evenings. Similarly the proposed seating area to the street frontage could encourage such gatherings. There is also a concern in respect that if the proposed car park has unrestricted access, this could be used for the congregation of vehicles and consequent loud music, shouting and “showing off” with wheel-spinning and hand brake turns etc. There is also a concern that doors to the western elevation, including the roller-shutter style loading bay door, may be vulnerable to attack due to lack of a natural surveillance. Similarly, the main entrance doors are not well overlooked. The Liaison Officer suggests that all external doors be certified to a security specification, attractive but robust fencing and appropriate gating is erected to the driveway entrance and between the building and No 42 Finchfield Hill to prevent access to the rear of the building and that the proposed 1.8m high timber fence to the southern boundary of the

61 site separating the car park from the redundant St Thomas Church grounds require something more robust and difficult to climb.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The main issues for consideration with this proposal are:

(i) Retail impact (ii) Traffic assessment (iii) Character, urban design and local distinctiveness and impact on neighbour amenities, security.

Retail Impact 9.2 In assessing the retail impact of the proposed development, it is relevant to assess the relatively recent applications for food retail at this site. In December 2001, a planning application was submitted for a Waitrose store of 3,252 square metres (gross), 1,858 square metres (net) along with a further small retail unit and 3 dwellings. This was to be situated on a larger site including some existing residential properties. Consultants (CBRE) appointed by the Council at the time to assess the application advised that the proposal was in an out-of-centre location and that the applicants had not demonstrated a need for the form and scale of development proposed. The planning application was subsequently withdrawn in 2002.

9.3 An application for a Marks and Spencer store was received in May 2004. The application involved a 1,394 square metre (gross) store providing a net sales area of 929 square metres and 12 residential units. The application also proposed using the former Church for retail use amounting to 107 square metres (gross). Consultants CBRE again advised the Council that: a quantitative need for the store had not been demonstrated; the site was out-of-centre and that there were a number of sequential preferable locations; and the scale, function and likely catchment were inappropriate to the proposed status of Finchfield. Other reasons for refusal included the provision of inadequate information to demonstrate that the proposal was acceptable in transport terms, that the siting of the building did not adequately relate to its surroundings, that the proximity of the service unit to the rear of No 6 The Terrace would be likely to harm the amenity of the occupiers. The application was refused planning permission in July 2004.

9.4 Since the consideration of the above planning applications the planning policy context for the site has changed. Following a public local enquiry a new Unitary Development Plan was adopted in June 2006. The Unitary Development Plan identifies Finchfield as a Local Centre. Policy SH8: Local Centres states that the role of local centres is to provide for mainly the day-to-day shopping needs of a population mostly living within walking distance. The site is now in an edge-of-centre location being immediately adjacent to the Finchfield Local Centre. Due to its edge-of-centre location, and in line with Policy SH3: Need and the Sequential Approach (and Policy SH9), the applicants must demonstrate that:

• There is a need for the proposed development in terms of quantitative need (the availability of expenditure) and the qualitative need (the demand for a particular service/quality of goods); • A sequential approach to site selection has been adopted (the first preference being a site within a defined centre appropriate to the role and scale of the proposed development, followed by appropriate edge-of-centre sites and finally out-of-centre locations); and • The proposed development is of a scale and nature appropriate to the location concerned. The UDP identifies a need for an additional 2,140 square metres of

62 convenience floor space in the City up to 2011. This assessment is made on the basis that the existing Sainsbury store at St George’s parade ceases to trade and is not replaced by another food store operator, following completion of the Raglan Street development. Obviously, this position may be subject to change and it is important to add that these kinds of projections are subject to margins of error due to the assumptions that underpin them and that the proposed development is relatively small scale when considering the wider picture.

9.5 Policy SH13 states that additional convenience goods floor space will be encouraged to locate within the identified city, town, district and local centres. The supporting text to this policy adds that the introduction of additional convenience goods floor space into a number of district and local centres of a size appropriate to the scale and function where they are currently absent is to be welcomed.

9.6 Should a need be identified then, in principle, the Finchfield Local Centre could accommodate a small food store appropriate in scale and character to the role of the centre. Obviously this has to be accommodated satisfactorily on the site taking other conditions such as design, layout, parking, access into account.

9.7 The local centres in the south-west of the City are less well served by anchor food stores than other local centres across the City with Merry Hill, Bradmore, Castlecroft, Upper Penn, Tettenhall Wood, Newbridge, Compton Village and Finchfield not served by an anchor food store. This view is supported by examples of food stores (with a gross food store above 1,000 square metres) in local centres across Wolverhampton, including:

• Somerfield, Fallings Park – 1,393 square metres (gross). • Somerfield, Bushbury Lane – 1,254 square metres ( gross). • Aldi, Parkfield – 1,151 square metres (gross). • Morrisons, Pendeford – 2,926 square metres (gross). • Somerfield, Warstones Road – 1,130 square metres (gross). • Netto, Heath Town – 1,021 square metres (gross).

9.8 The current proposal involves the development of a new Lidl store of 1,240 square metres (gross) with a net sales area of 790 square metres. Consultants GVA Grimley have prepared a Retail Assessment in support of this proposal.

Need: 9.9 The Retail Assessment identified £2.9 million of residual expenditure (having accounted for development commitments) available to support additional convenience retail facilities within the catchment area, and that the estimated turnover of the Lidl store is 1.8 million. GVA Grimley therefore deduce that a clear quantitative need exists. Even accounting for differing assumptions in sales efficiency growth and expenditure growth (as suggested in the letter from Roger Tyms and Partners on behalf of Somerfield dated 14 June 2007) a range of between 1.89 and 2.94 million of residual expenditure is available, sufficient to support Lidl’s estimated turnover.

9.10 considering qualitative need, it is important to consider the issue of social inclusion, that is to say the extent to which current provision is meeting the needs of the less affluent members of the local community. Currently, there are six deep discount supermarkets in operation within Wolverhampton (operators included in this category are Lidl, Aldi, Netto and Kwik Save). Apart from the Kwik Save store within the Warstones Road Local Centre, there is an apparent shortfall in the provision of deep discount food retail in the western part of the City. This position may well be exacerbated as a result of the intended disposal of the Kwik Save store following the placing of the Kwik Save Group into administration.

63 Sequential Test: 9.11 Grimley have considered other alternative sites within and adjacent to other defined centres within the catchment area of the proposed store (including the centres of Bradmore, Castlecroft, Merry Hill, Tettenhall, Compton Village and Newbridge). GVA Grimley conclude there are no sequentially preferable sites that could accommodate the proposed store even if an unwarranted degree of flexibility were adopted by the applicant.

Impact: 9.12 There are a number of differences between the “business model” of a Lidl store and M&S including:

• Range of goods sold – Lidl stocks a more limited product range (around 1,000 product lines) and does not stock convenience goods such as newspapers, magazines, tobacco, lottery tickets and stocks only a limited range of meat, fruit and vegetable products. M&S can stock up to three times as many products. • Price. • Quality. • Catchment area – trade is generally concentrated (approximately 85%) within a 5 minute drive time area. The 5 minute drive time catchment encompasses the local centres of Tettenhall Wood, Compton Village, Castlecroft, Bradmore and Merry Hill. • Turnover.

9.13 As a result of these differences, a Lidl store is likely to have less of an impact on existing retailers within the Finchfield Centre and other nearby local centres than an M&S store or other retailer. GVA Grimley estimate the trade impact on the local centres within the catchment area at 2.3% on all convenience floor space combined. The impact on the closest named stores ie the Somerfield and Kwik Save in Warstones Road and the Somerfield in Tettenhall Village are expected to see small impacts of between 2.1% and 2.6%.

Scale 9.14 Policy SH8 states that the Council will support proposals for new retailing and centre uses (in local centres) appropriate in scale to the role and function of the centre and its catchment. As considered above, a comparison of store sizes in local centres across Wolverhampton identifies a range of stores between 1,000 and 2,300 square metres gross. At 1,240 square metres gross the proposed Lidl store is at the upper end of the range of that which would be considered appropriate a local centre. However, the applicants have demonstrated that there is a need and that it can be accommodated satisfactorily on the site.

Retail Impact Conclusions: 9.15 The planning context for this site has changed since previous proposals for a Waitrose and M&S store were considered following the adoption of the UDP in June 2006.

• The former Castlecroft Garage site is now considered an edge-of-centre location. • The Finchfield Local Centre could potentially accommodate a food store of a size appropriate to its role and function. • The business model of the Lidl store is materially different from a Waitrose and M&S store. • Local Centres in the south-west of the City are less well served by anchor food stores and, in particular, by deep discount stores. • The applicant has identified a need for the proposed store and no sequentially preferable site has been identified within the catchment area. • Although the scale of the store is at the upper end of what would be considered for a local centre, the applicant has identified that there is a need for the store and that it can be accommodated satisfactorily on the site. 64 • The impact of the proposed Lidl store is unlikely to have an unacceptable detrimental effect on the vitality and viability of existing retailers and nearby centres.

Transport Assessment 9.16 The Transport Assessment report submitted with the application has been prepared by Bettridge Turner and Partners on behalf of Lidl UK. This report was carefully considered by the Council’s Transportation Officers who concluded that the report had certain deficiencies and some of the proposals in the report were not practicable. Following discussions with the Road Safety Engineering Section, a revised junction design has been submitted and their recommendation is for two additional zebra pedestrian crossings (on the Oak Hill and proposed store entrance arms) in the interest of pedestrian safety. These would be in similar locations to the crossing places indicated by tactile paving on the layout drawings. Estimates are being prepared but the cost of the traffic calming plus the two crossings is likely to be greater than the £20,000 already agreed by Lidl.

9.17 With regard to surfacing materials for the revised mini island, the advice is that these could be agreed with Project Management Section who would oversee any Section 27a/Section 38 Agreements. In addition, tactile pavement and road markings/signage could also be agreed once a finalised design is reached.

Car Parking: 9.18 The latest submission from the applicants’ Transport Consultants (BTP) regarding parking provision compares the parking provision at the existing Lidl store off Blackhalve Lane to the proposed store:

• Blackhalve Lane gross floor area 1,521 square metres – 77 spaces. • Proposed store gross floor area 1,258 square metres (-17%) – 70 spaces (-9%).

Whilst the comparative figures suggest that 70 spaces would be adequate at the proposed site (on the basis that the existing store has operated successfully following the initial opening period) the demographics of the two catchments are totally different which would result in a higher demand for parking spaces in Finchfield. In this respect, the Council’s Transportation Officer has requested that an accumulation survey from an existing Lidl store at a comparable location is provided.

Travel Plan 9.19 The Council’s travel Plan Co-ordinator has confirmed that a workplace travel plan would not be required for the proposed store due to the relatively low number of employees. However, the Transportation Officer would still expect store management to encourage staff and customers to adopt sustainable travel modes wherever possible. This is typically achieved by provision of dedicated notice boards in staff and public areas giving local travel information eg bus timetables. Staff cycle storage has already been discussed and will be provided within the warehouse.

Traffic Calming: 9.20 BTP (Lidl’s agents) have confirmed the initial contribution figure of £20,000 for a traffic calming scheme along Oak Hill is acceptable. This would be subject to a clause within any Section 106 Agreement requiring the Council to refund the contribution if it is not spent within five years on the specified highway works.

Transport Assessment Conclusions 9.21 The revised design of the roundabout is acceptable on the proviso that the safety measures recommended by the Road Safety Engineering Section can be accommodated in the layout. As stated above, a parking accumulation survey is still required from the applicants and the cost of implementing safety measures is likely to rise above the initially agreed level.

Character, Urban Design and Local Distinctiveness and Neighbour Impact 9.22 The vacant, former car showroom site, is located in a very prominent, pivotal position at the intersection of Finchfield Hill, Oak Hill and Finchfield Road West. It forms the terminus of the important vista from the top of Finchfield Road West, from the traffic island westwards, through the local shopping centre. The northern parade of shops is raised above the level of Finchfield Road West and is bordered by an avenue of large urban trees within a strip of open space. The elevated public footpath along the avenue of trees also provides an important vista towards the application site for pedestrians.

9.23 The overall character of the area surrounding the site is of a “leafy suburb” with a spacious feel. The housing surrounding the site is largely detached or semi-detached, two storeys in height. The dwellings consist of a mix dating from the latter half of the 19th Century to the late 20th Century. They are of a pleasant traditional design generally, including several examples of distinguished design such as the 1879 detached villa, Fern Place at 42 Finchfield Hill which abuts the site to the north. The former St Thomas Church, which abuts the south of the application site, is also of distinguished design; it is built of course red sandstone rubble with a distinctive bell tower. This building dates form 1875 and has planning permission for conversion to a dwelling.

9.24 The shopping parades are largely in terraced form, consisting of individual small shop units with residential accommodation above. They are of intimate human scale with generally wide shop fronts and low stallrisers. The mixed use residential element above the shops adds to the vitality and security of the area and helps to provide active use over 24 hours.

Siting/Layout and Neighbour Impact 9.25 The broad location of the proposed store fronting Finchfield Hill, incorporating a pedestrian paved and landscape forecourt, with parking and servicing to the rear, is appropriate. However, the rigid, unbroken frontage, of extensive length does not follow the curved street alignment and is not in sympathy with the small, intimate broken down scale of adjoining buildings in the area. The building frontage should have been indented and set back in line with No 42 Finchfield Hill’s façade. It should also have been better inflected to acknowledge the transition to the St Thomas’s façade building line.

9.26 The proposed food store would be sited far too close to the adjoining residential boundaries and dwellings to the north. This would cause severe loss of amenity due to overshadowing and the overbearing effect of the bulk and height of the proposed building. The frontage between adjoining dwellings in Finchfield Hill (viz Nos 42 to 40 and Nos 38 to 36) is 6 metres. Only three metres separation is proposed between the store and No 42 Finchfield Hill. The situation has been exacerbated by the demolition of the detached garage to No 42 and the incorporation of the land into the application site to create a larger store.

9.27 No 42 Finchfield Hill and Nos 6 and 7 The Terrace (cul-de-sac) would suffer from overshadowing of their gardens, as the store would be located in a southerly direction and therefore the sun would cast a shadow into these properties. Furthermore, the outlook from the gardens and windows would be adversely affected by the overbearing effect of the bulk, height and extent of the store building. The argument by the architect in their Design and Access Statement that the situation would be no worse than when the demolished garage existed is not sustainable. Such development would not have been permitted today under the high standards demanded by the Government’s and Council’s policies.

66 9.28 The shoppers parking is far too near the boundaries of the surrounding residential properties and there are very inadequate landscaped buffer strips provided. The relatively modest size of adjacent gardens and the proximity to the boundary of the dwelling houses would mean that residents would suffer a serious loss of amenity due to noise, disturbance and fumes from the intensively used shoppers’ car park. Other than in some corners of the site where a reasonable depth buffer planting strip has been provided (only because these spaces could not be used for car parking) the buffer strips are totally inadequate and ineffective. They average about 1.5 metres in width and in several places they are as narrow as 0.9 metres. By comparison, the depth of a standard parking space is 4.8 metres. The proposed 1.8m high timber screen boundary fencing and walls would be of little effectiveness against noise and disturbance to neighbours. No 8 The Terrace would be most adversely affected as it would be surrounded along the eastern and southern sides by parking and servicing.

9.29 A most unsatisfactory aspect of the application is that the shoppers’ entrance to the store has been located to the side and towards the rear of the building and not on the main elevation fronting Finchfield Hill and facing the local shopping centre. The orientation towards the car park rather the street is unsatisfactory. It is considered essential that the main entrance and orientation to the store is towards the local shopping centre, in the interest of linked trips and synergy, for the revitalisation of the area.

9.30 The wide paved and landscaped forecourt is appropriate but its usefulness is very much diminished by the absence of an “active frontage”, and the entrance leading directly off it. The raised planting beds act as a barrier to pedestrian flows from the area and the local shopping centre in particular.

Architectural and Urban Design 9.31 The architectural and urban design quality of the scheme is considered to be poor and inappropriate to the location and character of the area.

9.32 The external appearance of the food store and street scene can be described as that of an over blown bungalow. This is dominated by a huge barn-like pitched roof which is unrelieved by any features such as fenestration or broken ridgeline to create an interesting silhouette. The projected height of the pitched roof on elevation is far greater than the height of the façade below, producing a squat, crushing appearance. The opposite is the case for the adjoining traditional buildings such as Nos 42, 40 and 30 Finchfield Hill, where the two storey elevation height is much higher than the projected roof height.

9.33 The proposed store has a horizontal emphasis on the street elevation due to the long, unbroken roofline and the strip fenestration below. This is not in harmony with the vertical emphasis of the traditional surrounding buildings. The “grain” of the store elevation is course and inadequately modulated (ie the architectural scale and detail is not broken down). This is in contrast to the fine grain, well modulated and articulated design of adjacent traditional buildings and the general character of the area. The proposed building therefore lacks the human scale and proportions and visual interest of the locality and is damaging and inappropriate to its character.

9.34 The cill heights of the proposed fenestration are far too high for at least half the length of the front elevation, inhibiting or prohibiting views into the store and substantially undermining the desirability for an active frontage. The last two of the six frontage bays are in fact completely blanked off. This is in contrast to the traditional shop fronts in the shopping parade which generally incorporate large glazed shop fronts with low stall risers. In combination with the absence of the store entrance on the street frontage, the main elevation lacks the necessary level of activity and synergy with the street scene and local shopping area. The “bolted-on” gabled porticos at the centre of the street elevation and the south-west corner are a sham, servicing no functional

67 purpose, while suggesting an entranceway there. These seem to have been introduced to break up the elevation but they do not break up the unrelenting horizontality of the roofline and give confusing signals to shoppers and the public.

9.35 The proposed design does not satisfactorily terminate the important vista from Finchfield Road West. Although the height of the roof ridge is appropriate, it is not punctuated by a feature such as a clock tower in order to create a focal point of interest. Furthermore, most of the vista would be closed by the huge barn-like roof, lacking fenestration and visual interest. It is considered essential that accommodation be included on top of the foodstore along the street frontage in order to resolve the townscape problem and to be in character with the scale and mixed use nature of the local shopping centre where residential uses are incorporated at first floor.

9.36 The detail of the external building elements of the store are course grain and crude compared to the adjoining “Fern Place” villa and the former St Thomas Church.

Local Distinctiveness 9.37 The architectural design and external appearance of the proposed store is essentially of a standardised, off-the-peg type erected by Lidl in many parts of the country, with few, if any, meaningful modifications to take account of the character and local distinctiveness of the area. The proposed design does not respect or enhance, and is alien to the locally distinctive characteristics of the area, as analysed in the above sections.

9.38 Local distinctiveness is a key aspect of sustainable development. The Government has adopted the CABE document “By Design” as having status of Planning Policy Guidance, to be followed in the preparation and determination of planning applications. The document requires new developments to be designed with its context in mind to respect or enhance the local distinctiveness of the area. It defines “Local Distinctiveness” as “the positive features of a place and its communities which contribute to its special character and sense of place”. “By Design” also requires high standards of architectural and urban design and advocates mixed use vitality. Similar requirements are contained in Planning Policy Statement No 1 – Delivering Sustainable Development, which states that development should create or reinforce local distinctiveness. It also states that good design should contribute positively to making places better for people and that design which fails to take opportunities for improving the character and quality of the area should not be accepted. The proposed Lidl store using off-the-peg standardised design, constitutes “anywhere architecture” failing to create a sense of place and to enforce local distinctiveness.

9.39 The Lidl proposal also fails the Council’s UDP Design Policies, including Policy D6 which requires that proposals should create or reinforce local distinctive by comprising site specific solutions that respond explicitly to the site and its context. The proposals also fail to respect the UDP’s Strategic Policy HE1: Preservation of Local Character and distinctiveness and Policy S4 - mixed use development.

Character, Urban Design and Local Distinctiveness Conclusions 9.40 The main shortcomings of the Lidl proposals stem from:

(a) the fact that the applicants are trying to accommodate too large a store in terms of footprint and size into a relatively small site with an awkwardly shaped “tongue” of land at the rear, penetrating deep into a quiet residential area; (b) the use of standardised, off-the-peg design and not a design specifically evolved to respect the site characteristics and the character and local distinctiveness of the area.

9.41 If the above fundamental shortcomings are to be overcome, the size of the store and the amount of parking need to be substantially reduced, pulling away from the

68 boundaries of surrounding housing and introducing adequate landscaped buffer strips to safeguard the amenities and quality of life of surrounding residents. In addition, a high quality architectural and urban design proposal of distinction and local distinctiveness, specific to the site, would need to be evolved.

9.42 The proposal fails to provide adequate security arrangements (to prevent vehicular and pedestrian access to the site and neighbouring residential rear boundaries) for when the store is closed.

9.43 As it stands, the application fails to respect fundamental Government and Council Policies.

10. Recommendation

10. Refuse planning permission for the following reasons:

• Unacceptable adverse effect on the amenities and wellbeing of surrounding residents due to overshadowing, overbearing effect, noise, fumes and disturbance as a result of size and siting of the proposed building and parking in an unacceptably close proximity to surrounding residential properties.

• Poor urban design quality, failing to respect or enhance the local character of the area and failing to produce a building of distinction as a key pivotal point in Finchfield Local Centre and area.

• The development would fail to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area.

• Lack of sense of place and local distinctiveness.

• Inadequate security proposals to offset any possible anti-social behaviour.

• Unacceptable integration with the existing Local Centre.

• Unacceptable adverse impact on the setting of the adjacent Locally Listed St Thomas’s Church.

• The proposed development would not accord with Wolverhampton’s UDP Strategic Policies D1 (Design Quality), HE1 (Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness), S4 (Mixed Use Development) and Part 2 Design Policies.

• The proposed development would not accord with Government Policies PPS 1 and CABE - “By Design”.

Case Officer: Martyn Gregory Telephone Number 551125 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 07/00446/FUL Location Castlecroft Garage Limited, Finchfield Hill,Finchfield,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:2500 National Grid Reference SJ 388401 298128 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 5153m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00677/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 14-May-07 TARGET DATE: 09-Jul-07 RECEIVED: 14.05.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: The House In The Trees, Wightwick Bank, Wightwick, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of 1 No. dwelling and alterations to access

APPLICANT: AGENT: J McLean & Partners Developments Ltd Eric Hudson Architects PO Box 324 15 Cranmere Avenue Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV6 7EP WV6 8TR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The application site comprises part of the extensive wooded grounds of “The House in the Trees”. The land falls away to the south-east from Wightwick Bank. There are many fine trees on this site, several subject to Tree Preservation Orders, and also protected by the Wightwick Bank Conservation Area. The land comprising the site of the dwelling and the proposed access is maintained lawn.

1.2 “The House in the Trees” is a 1950s/60s split level house. Elmsdale Hall to the south- west is a 19th Century former house, now used as apartments. The detached houses in Wightwick Grove are relatively recent.

2. Application Detail

2.1 One detached two storey four bedroom dwelling. Access taken from the existing entrance to “The House in the Trees” from Wightwick Bank. The house is of contemporary design. Its proposed siting is some 37 metres back from the Wightwick Bank Road boundary. It would have a garage detached from the house in a position approximately 6 metres back from the road.

2.2 The proposal includes a new 1.6 metre high stone wall either side of the existing entrance.

3. Planning History

3.1 Application 02/1263 for a detached house in these grounds was dismissed on appeal. The principal concern was the close proximity to the house to some of the mature trees in these grounds and the risk this would pose to such trees by future occupants seeking their removal. A similar application 06/1482 was also refused for similar reasons and has been appealed.

71 4. Constraints

4.1 The site straddles part of the Wightwick Bank Conservation Area boundary. Many of the surrounding trees are protected by TPO’s or the Conservation Area.

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 National Planning Policy Guidance and legislation on development in Conservation Areas states that such development must preserve (ie neutral impact) or enhance the character and appearance of a Conservation Area.

5.2 Unitary Development Plan Historic Environment Policies HE1: Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness and HE5: Control of Development in Conservation Areas. Design Policies D1: Design Quality, D4: Urban Grain, D6: Townscape and Landscape, and D9: Appearance.

6. Publicity

6.1 This application has been advertised by neighbour letter, press and site notice. Four letters have been received and a petition signed by 18 people from 10 local addresses. Views are summarised as;

• A mature Cedar tree was cut down to make this building plot available. If it was diseased, it should be replaced. The loss of this tree has had a negative impact on this area. • It would adversely affect the character of the Conservation Area, including many fine trees. • Sewers in Wightwick Bank are unable to cope with current flows. • Wightwick Bank is narrow and hazardous to pedestrians and drivers. Construction traffic will compromise safety. The driveway will exit onto a hazardous bend with poor visibility. It will add to the traffic on Wightwick Bank. • Construction of another house would change the rural character of Wightwick Grove and spoil the views from other houses and apartments.

7. Internal Consultations

7.1 Environmental Services – no objections in principle. Condition advised to control construction hours, guidance provided on best construction practice to minimise environmental problems.

7.2 Transport Strategy – applicant should demonstrate that vehicles can enter and leave in forward gear. The proposal includes a new wall built along a 2.5 metre visibility splay line in both directions. This is a significant improvement compared to the existing access. The layout has been checked with Autotrack (computer programme – large car), it is possible to drive up Wightwick Bank and into the proposed site in one movement.

7.2.1 Traffic calming is to be installed on Wightwick Bank with priority to vehicles going up the Bank, this should reduce the speed of vehicles passing this access.

7.2.2 The 4.5 metre setback of the gates from the edge of the carriageway is less than our normal requirement of 6 metres, due to the site constraints. An alternative is to have two recessed gates for each property but this is may not be acceptable in Conservation Area terms.

72 7.3 Property Management – a covenant exists on this site, not to use the land for anything other than a woodland. If planning permission is granted the existing covenant will have to be redefined for which there will be a charge.

7.4 Conservation – reservations expressed about the principle of a dwelling here but in view of the planning and appeal history of the site, a refusal would be difficult to sustain provided that there is no current or likely future impact on trees. Advise conditions on any permission to secure quality of building finishes, implementation of new stone wall on Wightwick Bank, details of garage, removal of permitted development rights.

8. Appraisal

8.1 The principal issues are;

• Principle of detached house in this part of the Wightwick Bank Conservation Area. • Relationship between the proposed dwelling and surrounding trees. • Access from Wightwick Bank. • Design and appearance of proposed dwelling.

8.2 Principle of detached house in this part of the Wightwick Bank Conservation Area. In dealing with the previous application on this site and the dismissed appeal it was established that a new house in these grounds would share the Conservation Area characteristic of detached properties set in mature grounds. The Inspector agreed that the proposed house would preserve the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. However these applications were refused because of the proximity of these proposed dwellings to the mature trees in these grounds.

8.3 Relationship between proposed dwelling and surrounding trees. This new proposal is for a house with a smaller area than previous proposals (approximately 12 metres x 10 metres footprint), positioned in a more open area of the site. It is however surrounded by many large protected trees. A Beech and Acacia (both TPO trees) are the closest, being approximately 9 metres away from the house (trunk position) and 5 metres away (branch canopy position). The house is designed and positioned to take advantage of space around the site and between groups of trees to allow light to reach the house and its surrounding garden. It would not be an oppressive location. It is considered that occupation of the proposed house would not pose a long term threat to the surrounding protected trees. Permitted development rights would have to be removed by condition to facilitate control over any future extensions or garden buildings.

8.4 A specialist tree survey has been prepared to demonstrate that construction can take place without causing damage to trees or root systems. Areas for protective fencing around the trees are advised. The Appeal Inspector in considering the previous application accepted these recommendations.

8.5 Access from Wightwick Bank. The proposal includes the reconstruction of a 1.6 metre high stone wall either side of the entrance. This will be a welcome enhancement of Wightwick Bank and the Conservation Area. The access is satisfactory, particularly in view of the proposed traffic calming for Wightwick Bank.

8.6 Design and appearance of the house. The house is of contemporary design, with pitched slate roof and walls part in brickwork and part timber boarding. It is an interesting design and an acceptable addition to the Conservation Area.

73 8.7 Neighbour representation and amenity issues. The nearest residents at No 1 Wightwick Grove and No 9 Viewlands Drive will not be adversely affected by this proposal. Access will not be from Wightwick Grove. The house would be seen from Wightwick Grove and from the front of Elmsdale Hall, however it is not considered that this alteration of view would damage this part of the Conservation Area. Severn Trent Water have been consulted on site drainage, any relevant responses will be reported.

9. Recommendation

9.1 Grant permission, subject to conditions that will include:

Submission of all materials, implementation of tree protection measures, construction specification of drive and paths, drainage details, service route details, landscaping and planting specifications, implementation of new Wightwick Bank wall, details of detached garage, removal of permitted development rights, times of construction work.

Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 550141 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 07/00677/FUL Location The House In The Trees, Wightwick Bank,Wightwick,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 387133 298762 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 2339m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/00690/CPL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 01-Jun-07 TARGET DATE: 27-Jul-07 RECEIVED: 14.05.2007 APP TYPE: Certificate Proposed Lawful Use/Dev

SITE: 4 Captains Close, Compton, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Use of property as home for children with learning difficulties/autistic, aged between 8 - 17 years old

APPLICANT: AGENT: Keinan Care Holdings Ltd Keinan Care (Birmingham) Ltd C/o Agent 184 Stoney Lane Yardley Birmingham B25 8YJ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 This application was reported to Planning Committee on of 31 July 2007. At that time, members of the Planning Committee resolved that the application be deferred to enable the Solicitor to the Planning Committee more time to fully assess new information received from the applicant in respect of the previous occupancy and proposed staff shift patterns and car use.

1.2 The application site is located a distance of approximately 1.9 miles to the west of Wolverhampton City Centre. It contains a vacant, four bedroom, detached dwelling house set back from Compton Road West and situated within a residential cul-de-sac. Car parking space is provided on the front driveway and there is an integral garage. The property has a large rear garden. The surrounding street scene is characterised by large detached residential dwelling houses set within generously spaced plots, and this has the effect of giving the street scene an open aspect that creates a sense of spaciousness.

1.3 It is proposed to use the application premises as a children’s care home. The proposals involve converting the existing garage into a staff office / sensory room and utility room. The remaining internal ground floor layout will remain unchanged. The first floor would contain three bedrooms, to be used by the children who would reside at the dwelling. A fourth bedroom would be used by staff. There would be a separate bathroom for staff and children.

2. Application Details

2.1 The application is for a Certificate of Lawfulness under Section 192 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, for a proposed use as a children’s care home. It is not a planning application for this proposed use. The purpose is to establish whether or not this house can be used as a small care home without planning permission.

76 2.2 The applicant has provided the following information to support this application:

a) A supporting statement that sets out that the property has four bedrooms, two bathrooms on the first floor, with lounge, dining room, conservatory, kitchen and double garage. The property has a small to medium garden at the rear and a small front garden. The property can accommodate four parked cars on the front driveway. There are also a further two, off road car parking spaces.

b) There would be up to three children residing at the property and the duration of their stay would range between one to nine years.

c) The proposed age of the children who would reside at the property would be 8 – 17 years.

d) The children who would reside at the property would have learning difficulties and may also be autistic.

e) Total number of staff at the premises on a regular basis per shift would be three. Occasionally a child may initially need two staff working with them, to help them settle in, or if they are attending a community facility that is unfamiliar. Where this does take place this would mean that four staff would be on site.

f) The children would be provided with twenty four hour care with three staff for the morning shift 0700 – 1500, three staff in the evening 14-30-2130 and two staff during the night.

g) It is intended to restrict the number of cars parked outside of the property to three. In addition to this it is now proposed not to hold full staff meetings at the premises (therefore there would never be eight cars at the premises as previously proposed).

h) There will be no tutors on the site. The children will attend local schools, but if this is not the case, an alternative education / social service will be involved and a form of offsite education will be provided.

i) It is not anticipated that the number of staff or contractors visiting the site will be more than any other large family households.

j) There are no proposals to make any external changes to the property.

k) The only proposed internal alteration to the premises will be to change the garage to a sensory area / office.

l) A letter and Tenancy Agreement dated 13 August 2007 about the most recent tenants and occupancy of the dwelling, from the owner of the property, Mr RK Kanda. The letter states that four adults and four children occupied the property. The letter states that during the tenancy there were three cars habitually parked on the front driveway. Two of the adults worked in a bank as IT Specialists, a third adult worked as a Psychiatrist for the NHS, and a fourth adult worked as a Nanny who lived at the premises. The tenants decided to end the tenancy in December 2006. The property has been marketed for sale since March 2007. With regard to the submitted Tenancy Agreement, this states that there were four adults last living at the premises but it does not make reference to the children.

3. Constraints

Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00045/TPO

77 4. Relevant Policies

4.1 As this is an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness, the planning merits or demerits cannot be considered. Unitary Development Plan Policies are not therefore a material consideration. The assessment is based on the facts of the case and planning law.

4.2 Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987;

• Class C2 Residential Institutions includes use for the provision of residential accommodation and care to people in need of care (other than a use within Class C3 dwelling houses).

• Class C3 dwelling houses, includes use by not more than six residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents).

4.3 The following extracts are taken from the supporting Government Circular 03/2005 to the Use Classes Order;

• Class C3: Dwelling Houses ….. “The key element in the use of a dwelling house for non family purposes is the concept of a single household. The single household concept will provide more certainty over the planning position of small group homes which play a major role in the Government’s community care policy which is aimed at enabling disabled and mentally disordered people to live as normal lives as possible in touch with the community. In the case of small residential care homes or nursing homes, staff and residents will probably not live as a single household and the use will therefore fall into the residential institutions class, regardless of the size of the home”.

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 There is no legal requirement to publicise an application for a Certificate of Lawfulness. Government Circular 10/97 advises that any views on the planning merits of the case are not relevant.

5.2 However, in the interests of open government, and in line with previous recent cases, surrounding neighbours and Ward Councillors have been notified.

5.3 Site Notice Expiry Date – 04.07.2007

5.4 Neighbour letter Expiry Date – 27.06.2007

5.5 Two petitions with 34 and 68 signatures and 43 letters of objection had been received when the application was reported to Planning Committee at its meeting of 31 July 2007 including letters of objection from Rob Marris, MP, and Councillors Wynne, Mrs Thompson and Mrs Stevenson (Ward Councillors), with 1 letter received in support of the application. Views are summarised as; • The proposals would be detrimental and out of character and appearance with this quiet residential area. • The proposals would be detrimental to amenities and quality of life of those people who live in the immediate area. • Motivated by private financial interest. • Loss of property values. • Increase in Police and Ambulance presence in the area, particularly at unsociable hours.

78 • Information submitted by the applicant is unclear/insufficient/inaccurate and unsubstantiated, particularly relating to parking provision capacity, and frequency of visits from carers etc. • Children would be of ages that are likely to be most disruptive. • Lack of privacy. • The conversion of the garage would require external alterations that would be out of character and not of a visual appearance in keeping with surrounding dwellings. • Result in Crime and risk to personal safety. • Create noise disturbance/anti-social behaviour. • Too close to elderly residents and vulnerable residents at Compton Hospice. • Insufficient parking provision, access arrangements. Unacceptable access for emergency vehicles. Detrimental to pedestrian and highway safety. • Too close to Compton Road – this is a busy and dangerous road. The children who may reside at the property may be at risk of traffic accident. • Children who may reside at the premises would be able to access alcohol with ease from nearby shops/public houses. • Suggest that a care home for children would be better located in an area with mixed age residents rather than an area, such as the subject site – occupied predominately by older people. • There is a covenant on the deeds on properties in this area that would restrict the commercial use of these dwellings • Previous residents with autistic children have had to move house because this house has proven unsuitable for their needs

5.6 Since the application was considered by members of the Planning Committee on 31 July 2007 three further letters have been received, from two objectors who have previously raised objection to the proposals. The following additional comments were raised;

• The applicant has provided inaccurate information about the previous occupancy of the subject house. • The house has been empty since the start of December 2006 and thus the proposed use of the property as a care home would naturally result in a change of use. • The electoral roll shows that for this address there was only 1 person living at the address in 2006/2007 and no one was registered in 2005/2006.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 CSCI –

• No reply or response at the time of writing.

6.2 Children & Young People –

No objections. However the supporting letter states that the Local Authority would utilise this resource. This has not been agreed and there is no guarantee of Council usage.

6.3 Legal Services –

• Legal Services have commented on this report and their views are reflected in this report.

79 6.4 Transportation Development –

• No reply or response at the time of writing.

7. External consultees

7.1 Police –

• No objections

8. Appraisal

8.1 The main considerations with this case are;

(a) Whether or not the proposal for a small children’s care home is a change of use from the existing use of No 4 Captains Close as a private house, and (b) if it is determined that there is a change of use from Class C3, dwelling houses, whether this change is material enough in planning terms to be considered as development requiring planning permission.

8.2 It is proposed that the there would be a maximum of three children residing at the house as their temporary home. The care staff would not live with the children but would be essential to provide care and supervision. From the advice in Circular 3/2005 and planning case law it would appear that this could not be regarded as a single household and the proposed use would therefore fall within Class C2: Residential Institutions.

8.3 The leading case on this matter can be referred to. North Devon District Council v The First Secretary of State (2003) determined that children are not capable of forming their own household. In order for it to be a proper functioning household (and by implication fall within Class C3) the carer must reside at the property. This would not be the case at 4 Captains Close where the carers will “not live” at the house.

8.4 In view of the above, it is considered that the proposed use at 4 Captains Close would be a Class C2 Residential Institution.

8.5 The next question is to determine whether in the circumstances of this case this change of use is material and therefore requires planning permission. The Planning Encyclopaedia advises that development is not involved merely because a new use would fall within a different class from the previous use. If there has not been a material change, the Use Classes Order is irrelevant.

8.6 A Court of Appeal case (Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions v Waltham Forest London Borough Council) in 2002 found that judgements about the materiality of a change of use should be made against the previous actual use of the property, not the potential maximum lawful use (within Class C3) for which the property could be used.

8.7 Before consideration can be given as to whether a material change of use has occurred a decision needs to be reached on the factual discrepancy about the last former occupancy of the premises.

8.8 In terms of the factual discrepancies about the former occupancy of the premises, we have now received two letters, one from Keinancare dated 26 July 2007 and the letter from R K Kanda, the owner, dated 13 August 2007, attaching documentary evidence

80 about the former tenants and occupancy, and this has to be set against the testimonies from residents some, longstanding in the Close who indicate that this may not be the case. In this respect, four pieces of correspondence from residents seem to be particularly relevant:

(a) A letter dated 27 July 2007 to Development Control from a resident of Ashfield Road, who disputes it was a residence for eight people. This assertion should be given relatively little weight. I would suggest, as it appears to be based on the assertions of friends who live in an adjacent property to 4 Captains Close, not on personal knowledge.

(b) A letter to Development Control dated 27 July 2007 from a resident of Captains Close, and claims he has “not noticed” two former families at the premises or three cars.

(c) A letter to Development Control dated 27 July 2007 from a resident of Captains Close, which claims one family of four and a nanny occupied the dwelling at 4 Captains Close and disputes it was occupied by eight people, and that there were three cars at the property.

(d) An e-mail to Development Control dated 27 July 2007 from an individual, whose address is not included in the e-mail, which states that he does not recall there being eight people and three cars at the premises.

8.9 You may recall from previous applications of this type, that when considering what amounts to a material change of use, you have to consider the last use, not impose a notional maximum use under the former C3 use. To this end, the documentary evidence and letters in support of the Application have to be balanced against those submitted by the residents, in determining the starting point against which to judge the materiality of the proposed change of use.

8.10 The material from Mr R K Kanda, the owner, is specific on the issue of the former occupants and vehicles and supported by searches and the Tenancy Agreement. However, it is noted that the Tenancy Agreement does not make reference to the children, (and you would not expect it to do so), and is, therefore, not conclusive of their occupancy. The owner’s evidence is supported by the Applicant, in terms of the characteristics of the former occupancy of the dwelling and the number of occupants. This evidence has to be set against that of the residents. The evidence of the residents is characterised by personal observation or hearsay. No Statements have been produced, (although these are not required), and the observations seem to be in two cases at least that the occupancy of eight was either “not noticed” or “not recalled”, rather than a definitive statement that no such occupancy existed. Therefore it is concluded that this evidence should be afforded less weight.

8.11 On the balance of probabilities, one would, therefore, be minded to accept the assertion that the last occupancy of the premises was as detailed in Mr Kanda’s letter dated 13 August 2007, and this should be the starting point against which any material change of use should be measured.

8.12 Turning to the issue of the materiality of the change of proposed use, I note from the Applicant’s letter dated 27 July 2007, that there would generally be three staff on the early morning shift, 0700 hours to 1500 hours, three staff on the afternoon shift from 1430 hours to 2130 hours and two night staff. When one looks at occupancy of the premises on this basis in terms of strict numbers, and considering the staff ratio of one-to-one, say at change over, where there could be eight or nine persons on the premises, I would suggest this would not be materially different to the eight residents previously occupying the premises, especially given that three residents will be children. This would be marginally different if one child had two carers, in those

81 circumstances there could be up to eleven persons at the premises (at afternoon change over). This would, however, be for a relatively short period of time, and therefore, on its own, I do not think that this could be used to say that the proposal would necessarily be a material change of use.

8.14 However, in respect of vehicular movements and parking, it is clear from the letter of 26 July 2007 that they propose to limit the number of cars to three at the premises. However, it is not considered that this would necessarily resolve the issue if there could potentially be six vehicles on the ratio of one-to-one and up to 8 vehicles, if one child requires two carers at the premises at change over. Notwithstanding that only three cars were on the drive, there could potentially be some five vehicles parked on the street or in the vicinity of the premises. This in itself does not take into account any potential visits to the premises for any of the children during the course of any day.

8.15 In considering the change of use, it is the character of the use, not the purpose of the occupier that should be considered. It is also relevant to consider the character of the premises and its location and in addition, offsite effects. This is a small cul-de-sac with limited on road parking, with an open and spacious aspect. The residents have expressed concern that the vehicles associated with the premises could cause disruption. It is fair to say that the change over of staff could cause a pattern of vehicular movements that would be significantly different to the use of the house by a family, or indeed, two families with three cars. In particular, the night time change over would be particularly different to the occupation of the premises by two families, where the majority of adults work normal office hours.

8.16 Therefore, notwithstanding the restriction proposed to on site parking and the applicant’s decision not to hold staff meetings on site, taking everything into consideration, on balance, the proposed use would involve a material change of use and would require planning permission.

9. Recommendation:

Refuse the certificate of Lawfulness. The proposed use would involve a material change of use and would require planning permission

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

Planning Application No: 07/00690/CPL Location 4 Captains Close, Compton,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388567 298746 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 587m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 02-Oct-07 APP NO: 07/01013/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE: 18-Jul-07 TARGET DATE: 12-Sep-07 RECEIVED: 17.07.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 21 Finchfield Road West, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 8AY PROPOSAL: Change of opening hours from 8.00am - 5.00pm Mon - Sat to 8.00am - 11.00pm Mon - Sat

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mrs B Kapoor Adam Design 21 Finchfield Road West The White House Wolverhampton 194 Penn Road West Midlands Wolverhampton WV3 8AY WV3 0EQ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1.0 Site Description

1.1 The application has been submitted following the approval of planning application 06/0815/FP/C approved at Planning Committee on 3 October 2006 for the change of use to coffee shop/cafe. Condition 3 of this approval restricted the opening hours of the premises to 08.00 – 17.00 Monday to Saturday with no openings on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays.

1.1 Planning application 06/0815/FP/C has been implemented and the premises are now in use as a coffee shop/café. The décor of the premises has been carried out to a high standard as has the shopfront adding vitality and viability to the parade of shops. The property also has a flat above and is situated in a local centre on Finchfield Road West. The application site is within an area of predominantly residential properties although the properties to the south-west of the site comprise shops with various uses and to the north of the site is the Westacre Infants School.

2.0 Planning History

2.1 07/00903/FUL Land Including and Garage Site Rear Of 1 to 21 Finchfield Road West Extension and refurbishment of existing building to form 14No. 1 & 2 bed apartments with associated parking and landscaping No Decision at time of writing this report.

2.2 06/01623/FUL for New shopfront and external repairs Granted dated 06.02.2007

2.3 06/0815/FP/C for Change of use to Coffee Shop/Cafe Granted dated 03.10.2006

84 2.4 01/0739/FP for Change of use from Retail (Class A1) to Cafe food and drink (Class A3) Refused dated 20.07.2001

2.5 05/1036/FP/C for Erection of additional floor of residential accommodation to provide 5 No. 2 bed flats and 4 No. 1 bed flats, Granted dated 28.09.2005.

3.0 Relevant policies

3.1 Unitary Development Plan Policies: SH1 - Centres Strategy SH2 - Centres Uses SH8 - Local Centres SH9 - Local Shops and Centre Uses SH10 - Protected Frontages SH14 - Catering Outlets

4.0 Publicity

4.1 The application has been advertised by neighbour letter and site notice with deadline date for comments to be received by 6 September 2007.

4.2 Eight letters of objection and one letter in support of the application have been received. Of the eight letters of objections, one is from the three ward councillors namely Joan Stevenson, Wendy Thompson and Andrew Wynne. The main reasons for opposing the application are an increase in traffic, noise and general disturbance, reduction in amenity, problems with refuse, vermin and odour

4.3 The letter of support refers to several policies within the UDP and comments on the proposal in particular as to not adversely impacting on the residential amenities, reinforcing the role of supporting businesses to enhance Wolverhampton prosperity and that the increase in hours will not significantly affect parking provision.

5.0 Internal consultees

5.1 Environmental Services - noise from ventilation should not cause noise nuisance to properties within the vicinity and that in view of the location, it is strongly recommended that delivery times are restricted to 08.00 - 18.00 Monday to Friday and 08.00 - 13.00 Saturday and at no time on Sunday or Bank or Public Holiday.

5.2 The comments of the Highway Engineer are that of the 9 shops on the north side of Finchfield Road two are currently open for evening trade. These are Threshers Wines (next door) and the Chinese Takeaway. On the opposite side of the road the Fish and Chip Shop and the Co-op are also open late. Customer parking is available on the two service roads and there is a car park behind the Co-op. On balance it is unlikely that extending the opening hours for the coffee shop would cause parking problems during the evening and therefore they have no objections to the proposal.

6.0 Appraisal

6.1 The application has been submitted to change the opening hours of the business which have been restricted in condition 3 of 06/0815/FP/C from 8.00am to 5.00pm Monday to Saturday with no openings on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays to 8.00am - 11.00pm Monday to Saturday. In the accompanying statement, the increase in

85 opening hours is as a result of customers request and as a result of evening activities within the area and the premises providing a ‘stop off’ point. The statement also comments on the majority of the premises closing in the parade at 5pm thus less traffic in the evening.

6.2 Of the shops within this parade, many of the shops appear to close at 5pm although the Chinese Take-Away and the adjacent Threshers close at 11pm and 10pm respectively. The hairdressers shop in the parade also has two late evening openings with the latest being 8pm on a Thursday.

6.2 The proposal has generated eight letters of objection with primary concerns including an increase in traffic, noise and general disturbance, reduction in amenity, problems with refuse, vermin and odour. From the comments of Environmental Services there have been no history of complaints and on the noise from ventilation, their comments state that any systems should not cause noise nuisance to properties within the vicinity. The comments of the highway engineer considers on balance that the extension in opening hours for the coffee shop is unlikely to cause parking problems during the evening and have no objections to the proposal.

6.3 The policies in the development plan, particularly in respect of catering outlets recognises that these uses provide a useful and necessary service to the community and can add to the vitality of the shopping centres. The issues on the effect of the proposal impacting the neighbouring amenities have been considered and the extent of the opening hours will not significantly impact their amenities to an extent to refuse the application.

7.0 Conclusion

7.1 The proposal is considered to be acceptable and whilst it is considered the proposal will generate an increase in noise and potentially fumes and odours, it will not adversely affect residential amenity to an extent to justify refusal of this application. The use operating during evening hours is considered as to not adversely impact on vehicular and pedestrian activity during the evening and in conclusion is recommended for approval.

8.0 Recommendation

8.1 Grant subject to the following conditions: - Opening hours 8.00am to 11.00pm Monday to Saturday with no opening on Sundays, Bank or Public Holidays - Retention of adequate means of access for persons with mobility difficulties - Ventilation systems to control cooking odours - Delivery times 08.00 to 18.00 Monday to Friday, 08.00 to 13.00 Saturday and at no time on Sunday, Bank or Public Holidays

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

Planning Application No: 07/01013/FUL Location 21 Finchfield Road West, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV3 8AY Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388500 298082 (approx) Plan Printed 19.09.2007 Application Site Area 168m2