DOCSLIB.ORG

Lapwortharchitects

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lapwortharchitects LAPWORTHARCHITECTS Our Ref: 2577 Your Ref: PP-09810726 10 May 2021 Lichfield District Council Lapworth Architects Ltd Frog Lane 4 Edward Street Lichfield Birmingham Staffordshire B1 2RX WS13 6YZ T: 0121 455 0032 E: [email protected] Dear Sir or Madam, Re: Planning Application in respect of rear extension. At: Hollybank, Walsall Road, Pipehill, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 8JW This statement has been prepared by Mr M Singh of Lapworth Architects Limited on behalf of Mr Lee Goodwin of Hollybank, Walsall Road, Pipehill, Lichfield, Staffordshire, WS13 8JW ("the Property"). The statement has been made in support of a Planning Application for basement works and a rear single storey extension. The local planning authority is Lichfield District Council ("the Council"). The Council’s concern about the acceptability of the application is likely to centre around three propositions: a) The house itself is non-designated heritage asset; and b) The relevance of the GDPO on the case c) The impact on the openness of the Greenbelt. I shall address them in turn. The Non-Designated Asset 1. The Property is located within the Green Belt and is within the 0-8km Zone of the Cannock Chase Special Area of Conservation (“the SAC”). However, it is my understanding that the Property’s location within the SAC does not mean that it is within a ‘Conservation Area’ or ‘Article 2(3) land, as confirmed by the Pre- Application Advice request 20/01177/PREAPP published on 29th September 2020. 2. Historical mapping shows that the property pre-dates the first edition of maps on the system dated from 1882. www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS 1882 OS Map 3. From this we deduce the form of the original dwelling and additions which have not changed substantively since the dates of these maps. Please refer to drawing 2577 02 which shows the extent of what we understand to be the original dwelling in relation to the post-1948 extensions. 4. As the site is outside of a Conservation Area there is no Conservation Area Appraisal which could provide an independent, objective assessment of the asset and those features which are considered especially characterful and important. 5. I note that the existing property may have some historic merit, albeit that it is not considered to possess sufficient architectural or historic interest to warrant listing. In these circumstances, it could be regarded as a non-designated heritage asset. This does not engage any statutory duty, but the Council may have regard to para 197 of the revised NPPF. This provides: The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account in determining the application. In weighing applications that directly or indirectly affect non-designated heritage assets, a balanced judgement will be required having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. 6. The NPG provides the following guidance: A substantial majority of buildings have little or no heritage significance and thus do not constitute heritage assets. Only a minority have enough heritage interest for their significance to be a material consideration in the planning process. 7. It goes on to say: How are non-designated heritage assets identified? Local lists incorporated into Local Plans can be a positive way for the local planning authority to identify non-designated heritage assets against consistent criteria so as to improve the predictability of the potential for sustainable development. 8. Whether the existing dwelling on the application site should be characterised as a non-designated heritage asset is quintessentially a matter of planning judgement. Plainly, not every building of this age will be a non-designated heritage asset, and it is www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS not for me to say whether the Council is right or wrong to characterise the existing dwelling as a non-designated heritage asset and, in this instance, I am doubtful that much turns on it. Whether one characterises the existing house as a non-designated heritage asset should not have an overbearing decision of the final planning balance. 9. It is worth noting that the NPPF provides a permissively worded statement that: The effect of an application on the significance of a non-designated heritage asset should be taken into account. As such, there cannot be good grounds to refuse an application based on “taking into account” the effect on the significance of the house as a non-designated heritage asset by demolition of an ancillary part, and we would argue that the Council cannot simply label the house a “non-designated heritage asset”, preserve it “in aspic” and argue that demolition or large-scale changes would be unacceptable. Quantum of work in GDPO precedent 1. Lapworth Architects would argue that 21/00152/PNH set a precedent for a quantum of built work falling within the tolerances permitted by the GDPO, and so would not require planning permission. This has been certified by the Council. The physical extent of what is capable of being permitted development is now a matter of common ground. 2. In order for this ‘PD fall-back’ to be a material consideration, it also be realistic: ie it must not simply be a theoretical possibility whose implementation is fanciful. 3. As we understand it, there is no requirement for the extension to be substantially completed before regard can be given to it. To this end, the digging of the footings for the extension in accordance with the certificate is plainly sufficient in my view to commence the development. 4. This is relevant as whatever work is done under the auspices of PD establishes the lawful baseline of an impact which is acceptable. Or, put another way, if that which requires planning permission gives rise to the same impact or a lesser impact to that which the Council has certified may be undertaken lawfully it cannot reasonably be said that the proposed development is unacceptable. 5. Accordingly, if it is concluded that the proposed demolition and replacement will give rise to a lesser impact or one that is not materially worse than the alternative [ie Mr Goodwin extending the existing property in accordance with the certificate] this would be a potent material consideration in favour of the application. Impact on the openness of the Green Belt 1. As noted in Policy NR2 of the Lichfield Local Plan Strategy, all development within the Green Belt must retain its character and openness. 2. The concept of openness of the Green Belt in the NPPF is strictly defined in para. 87 of the NPPF: The openness of the Green Belt has a spatial aspect as well as a visual aspect, and the absence of visual intrusion does not in itself mean that there is no impact on the openness of the Green Belt because of the location of a new or materially www.lapwortharchitects.com [email protected] Lapworth Architects is a trading style of Lapworth Architects Limited Company Number 07402725. VAT: 140 9495 05 LAPWORTHARCHITECTS larger building there. But, as observed above, it does not follow that openness of the Green Belt has no visual dimension. 3. We would contend that determining the nature and extent of the impact on the Green Belt is quintessentially a matter of planning judgment for the decision maker. The size of the footprint and volume of the built development are important factors to be weighed in the balance [compared against what is there now, and what could be built under PD]. This is particularly so when reaching a conclusion on the impact of the development on the openness of the area. 4. The proposal looks to extend the existing cellar to meet the rear wall of the proposed extension. However, we contend that it would not increase the footprint of the building and would not have a material effect on the external appearance of the building or on its visual bulk in the green belt. Accordingly, we would argue the development could be categorised as not amounting to a “disproportionate addition” to the existing building and, hence, as “not inappropriate” development in terms of green belt policies. 5. It can be seen from the plan and volumetric calculations attached comparing the footprints of the 2 buildings that the proposed replacement occupies a smaller area and volume than the existing property and outbuildings with the permitted extension which the Council has certified may be lawfully constructed. 6. However, we would note an arithmetic comparison of area is not the be all and end all. Also relevant will be the shape, form, design and appearance of the proposed building as a key subjective part of any planning decision. Further, the location and orientation of the proposed replacement may have a bearing on the extent of any impact. We believe that careful design and feedback from the council will help to reduce the visual impact on the Green Belt and on the site’s prominent location at the crossroads. 7. Given this visible location, we are keen to assure the council that that the replacement building will be of a high-quality design and is built in a way which is sympathetic to its surroundings [and so congruent with chapter XII of the revised NPPF]. 8. We would argue the following: provided that the design quality is high, and the proposed extension would occupy a lesser footprint than the existing house with the PD extension this will point strongly towards the grant of planning permission for the latest revised design, as per policy NR2 of the Lichfield Local Plan Strategy.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Neighbourhood Plan
    HAMMERWICH NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN 2018-2040 August 2020 CONTENTS: PAGE 1 Background to Plan 3 2 Hammerwich’s History and Context 6 3 Planning Framework 9 4 Consultation 15 5 Issues and Vision 16 THE POLICIES 6 Parish and Community Facilities 19 7 Housing 23 8 Traffic and Transport 31 9 The Local Environment 39 10 The Local Economy 49 11 Education 50 12 Monitoring and Reviewing the Neighbourhood Plan 51 13 The Next Steps 52 Appendix 1. Projects Identified as Important to the Parish, to be Pursued by the Parish Council, Through Various Funding Sources Including Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 53 2 1 Background to the Plan 1.1 The Localism Act 2011 promoted neighbourhood engagement in the planning process. It introduced a new kind of Plan, called a Neighbourhood Development Plan (or Neighbourhood Plan, for short), that could be prepared by Parish Councils. One of the key aims of the legislation is to enable people to contribute to the long term development of their own community. A Neighbourhood Plan can make a real difference to how development is carried out in the Parish, because once it has been through all the stages of preparation and been “made” (adopted) by Lichfield District Council (LDC), it becomes part of the District’s Development Plan, alongside the LDC Local Plan. Its planning policies will therefore be used in the decision-making process when planning applications within the Parish are considered by the Local Planning Authority. This Neighbourhood Plan supports the delivery of strategic policies contained in the Lichfield District Local Plan in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework 2019 para 13.
    [Show full text]
  • Deltabridge Investments Ltd, Persimmon Homes & Miller Homes
    Phil Jones Associates Transport Planning Consultants Deltabridge Investments Ltd, Persimmon Homes & Miller Homes Lichfield District Core Strategy Preferred Options - Transportation January 2009 Project Code 552 Phil Jones Associates Ltd The Courtyard 147 Worcester Road Hagley Stourbridge West Midlands DY9 0NW Tel: 01562 887550 Fax: 0870 130 7622 Email: [email protected] www.philjonesassociates.co.uk Deltabridge Investments Ltd, Persimmon Homes & Miller Homes Lichfield District Core Strategy Preferred Options - Transportation CONTENTS PAGE 1 Introduction 1 2 Existing And Committed Transport Situation 2 3 Framework Proposals 9 4 Mitigation Of Development Impact 17 5 Summary 20 FIGURES Figure 1 Lichfield – Strategic Location Figure 2 Lichfield – Principal Routes Figure 3 Lichfield Urban Area – Existing Cycle Links APPENDICES Appendix A Indicative Framework Development Plans Appendix B TravelSmart Information Lichfield District Core Strate gy Deltabridge Investments Ltd, Persimmon Homes & Miller Homes Deltabridge Investments Ltd, Persimmon Homes & Miller Homes Lichfield District Core Strategy Preferred Options - Transportation 1 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Phil Jones Associates has been commissioned by Deltabridge Investments Ltd, Persimmon Homes and Miller Homes to prepare this report, which considers the transportation effects of development that would create sustainable urban extensions to the north-east and south of the existing built-up area of Lichfield. This report forms part of a submission in response to the Core Strategy Preferred Options made by Pegasus Planning on behalf of the developers. 1.2 In preparing this report we have had close dialogue with the local Highway Authority, Staffordshire County Council, and have agreed the general approach of the study. Staffs CC have provided us with recent traffic data for the Lichfield area and the results of public transport accessibility testing carried out on their behalf by Atkins.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Environment Character Area Overview Reports This Appendix
    Appendix 2: Historic Environment Character Area Overview Reports This appendix provides an overview of the historic environment for each of the Historic Environment Character Areas (HECAs) which fall within Lichfield District. It should be noted that the information and any recommendations contained within each of the documents is subject to amendment should any new information become available. For further information regarding the Historic Environment Record (HER); Historic Landscape Characterisation (HLC) and designated sites please contact: Cultural Heritage Team Environment & Countryside Development Services Directorate Staffordshire County Council Riverway Stafford ST16 3TJ Tel: 01785 277281/277285/277290 Email: [email protected] Staffordshire County Council February 2009 1 Historic Environment Character Area (HECA) 2a Introduction This document forms an overview of the HECA which specifically addresses the potential impact of medium to large scale development upon the historic environment. The character area covers 5,645ha lies wholly within Lichfield District boundary and to the west of Tamworth. Archaeological and Historic Documentation Archaeological work within the character area has tended to concentrate along the A5 and the M6 (Toll) roads. The information on this character area mostly comes from the HER data, whilst VCH has covered part of the area. Historic Environment Assets Summary The current understanding on the later prehistoric landscape of the character area suggests that it had mostly been heavily wooded until Bronze Age, when some clearance may have begun to take place to support a small scale pastoral economy. The earliest evidence for human activity from the character area dates to the Mesolithic period; however, this comes from flint artefacts and probably represents the presence of mobile hunting groups and transitory occupation.
    [Show full text]
  • 35S Bus Time Schedule & Line Route
    35S bus time schedule & line map 35S Lichƒeld - Aldridge View In Website Mode The 35S bus line Lichƒeld - Aldridge has one route. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Aldridge: 7:52 AM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 35S bus station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 35S bus arriving. Direction: Aldridge 35S bus Time Schedule 38 stops Aldridge Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 7:52 AM Bus Station, Lichƒeld City Centre A5127, Lichƒeld Tuesday 7:52 AM Frog Lane, Lichƒeld City Centre Wednesday 7:52 AM St John Street, Lichƒeld Thursday 7:52 AM Old Library, Lichƒeld City Centre Friday 7:52 AM Swan Road, Lichƒeld City Centre Saturday Not Operational The Friary, Lichƒeld Festival Gardens, Sandƒelds Maxtock Avenue, Lichƒeld 35S bus Info Chesterƒeld Road, Lichƒeld Direction: Aldridge Stops: 38 Deykin Road, Lichƒeld Trip Duration: 27 min Line Summary: Bus Station, Lichƒeld City Centre, Stonneyland Drive, Lichƒeld Frog Lane, Lichƒeld City Centre, Old Library, Lichƒeld City Centre, Swan Road, Lichƒeld City Centre, Walsall Road, Lichƒeld Festival Gardens, Sandƒelds, Maxtock Avenue, Lichƒeld, Deykin Road, Lichƒeld, Stonneyland Drive, Royal Oak Close, Sandyway Lichƒeld, Walsall Road, Lichƒeld, Royal Oak Close, Sandyway, Fosseway Lane, Pipehill, Pipehill Farm, Fosseway Lane, Pipehill Pipehill, Water Works, Pipehill, Clevelands, Muckley Corner, Hall Lane, Muckley Corner, Watling Street, Pipehill Farm, Pipehill Muckley Corner, Boat Lane, Muckley Corner, Pouk Lane, Hilton, Whitacre Lane, Hilton, Barracks
    [Show full text]
  • Independent Examination of the Lichfield Local Plan Staffordshire
    Independent Examination of the Lichfield Local Plan Staffordshire County Council Statement on issues arising from Main Modifications (12, 13, 14, 22, 23 and 24) Proposed changes to Lichfield District Integrated Transport Strategy 1.0 Introduction 1.1 The Transport Appraisal of the Spatial Strategy for Lichfield City Addendum (CD2-14) assesses the transport implications of the District Council’s spatial strategy published in the Submission Local Plan and examined between June and July 2012. The Lichfield District Integrated Transport Strategy 2013-2026 forms part of that Addendum and details the specific interventions that need to be delivered with public and private monies to make the Local Plan proposals acceptable in transport terms. The Transport Strategy was updated in November 2013 and extended to 2028. It can be found at: http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/transportplanning/localtransportplan/ districtintegratedtransportstrategies.aspx 1.2 The Local Plan was found unsound only in respect of inadequate provision of housing need, and to rectify this Lichfield District Council propose to extend the plan period to 2029, allocate 900 additional new homes at Deans Slade Farm and Cricket Lane (both currently within the Greenbelt), a further 200 homes at various sites within the City and 250 homes at the Fradley SDA. Some 12ha of employment land previously allocated at Fradley will be decanted to Cricket Lane to increase the supply of jobs within Lichfield. 1.3 The County Council has now considered the potential impact of these development proposals on the local highway network (reported in ‘Transport Implications of the Proposed Main Modifications - August 2014’) http://www.staffordshire.gov.uk/transport/transportplanning/localtransportplan/ districtintegratedtransportstrategies.aspx Based on the available evidence, we have concluded that should the Inspector find these Main Modifications acceptable in planning terms, our transport strategy will need to be modified and expanded.
    [Show full text]
  • Mondays to Fridays Saturdays Sundays
    61 Chase Terrace - Boney Hay - Lichfield Chaserider Direction of stops: where shown (eg: W-bound) this is the compass direction towards which the bus is pointing when it stops Mondays to Fridays Burntwood Town Centre, adj Sankeys Corner 0911 11 1411 § Burntwood Town Centre, adj Griffin Close 0912 12 1412 § Burntwood Town Centre, adj Chapel Street 0912 12 1412 § Burntwood Town Centre, opp Eastgate Street 0913 13 1413 § Burntwood Town Centre, adj Biddulph Park 0913 13 1413 § Burntwood Town Centre, opp Holly Grove Lane 0914 14 1414 § Boney Hay, opp Duke Road 0915 15 1415 § Boney Hay, adj Chorley Road 0916 16 1416 § Boney Hay, adj The Crescent 0916 16 1416 § Boney Hay, adj North Street 0917 17 1417 Boney Hay, adj Longfellow Road 0918 18 1418 § Boney Hay, adj Beaudesert 0918 18 1418 § Boney Hay, opp Birch Terrace 0918 18 1418 § Burntwood, Highfields (Stop op) 0920 20 1420 § Burntwood, adj Keble Close 0921then 21 1421 § Burntwood, opp Laurel Drive 0922at 22 1422 § Burntwood, opp Hudson Drive 0923these 23 1423 § Burntwood, adj Mease Avenue 0924mins 24until 1424 Burntwood, adj Farewell Lane 0925past 25 1425 § Burntwood, opp Edial House Farm 0925each 25 1425 § Pipehill, adj Woodhouses Road 0927hour 27 1427 § Pipehill, adj Edial Farm 0928 28 1428 § Pipehill, opp Broad Lane 0929 29 1429 § Pipehill, opp Pipe Marsh 0929 29 1429 § Pipehill, Walsall Road 0930 30 1430 § Sandyway, opp Royal Oak Close 0931 31 1431 § Sandyway, adj Sorrel Close 0932 32 1432 § Leamonsley, adj Christchurch Lane 0933 33 1433 § Leamonsley, adj Angorfa Close 0933 33 1433 § Leamonsley,
    [Show full text]
  • Hillcrest Walsall Road Pipehill
    Hillcrest Walsall Road, Pipehill, Lichfield Hillcrest Walsall Road, Pipehill, Lichfield, WS13 8JU An individually designed and built detached bungalow of traditional design offering superb further potential and occupying a mature garden plot of approximately 0.25 acre. Within 2 miles or so of Lichfield city centre and its vast range of amenities. Entrance Porch, Reception Hall, Through Lounge, Dining Kitchen, Two Bedrooms, Shower Room/W.C, Garage, Spacious Driveway, Private Mature Gardens NO UPWARD CHAIN With a long and imposing frontage to Walsall Road, Hillcrest occupies an appealing plot of approximately 0.25 acres with gardens that broadly encircle the bungalow and provide a feeling of generous external space, some of which could perhaps provide room for enlargement of the current bungalow (subject to Planning Permission). Perfectly located for easy access to Lichfield and ideally placed for commuters needing the A5, A38, M6 or M6 Toll road. Gas centrally heated and uPVC double glazed throughout. Accommodation Storm porch entrance with double glazed sliding door. Hardwood main door with feature glass brick side panel windows. Reception Hall of almost square size and giving central access to all principal rooms. Radiator. Well proportioned through Lounge enjoying good natural light courtesy of windows to the front and rear, two radiators. Feature stone fireplace, semi-circle hearth and TV platform, cast iron log burner stove. Dining Kitchen enjoying a front aspect and having two windows, a range of timber fronted base, wall and drawer units with contrasting worktops, stainless sink, space for an electric cooker, fridge/freezer, washing machine, quarry tiled floor, radiator, gas fired boiler and room for a table and chairs.
    [Show full text]
  • 835 Bus Time Schedule & Line Route
    835 bus time schedule & line map 835 Aldridge - The Friary School View In Website Mode The 835 bus line (Aldridge - The Friary School) has 2 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Aldridge: 3:20 PM (2) Christ Church: 8:02 AM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest 835 bus station near you and ƒnd out when is the next 835 bus arriving. Direction: Aldridge 835 bus Time Schedule 47 stops Aldridge Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday Not Operational Monday 3:20 PM The Friary School, Christ Church Tuesday 3:20 PM Kean Close, Christ Church Wednesday 3:20 PM Lyn Avenue, Christ Church Thursday 3:20 PM Abnalls Lane, Christ Church Friday 3:20 PM Beacon Gardens, Christ Church Saturday Not Operational Cleveland Mews, Lichƒeld Anson Avenue, Christ Church Beacon Park, Christ Church 835 bus Info Bird Street, Lichƒeld Direction: Aldridge Stops: 47 Beacon Park, Lichƒeld Trip Duration: 46 min Line Summary: The Friary School, Christ Church, Old Library, Lichƒeld City Centre Kean Close, Christ Church, Lyn Avenue, Christ Church, Abnalls Lane, Christ Church, Beacon Friars Alley, Lichƒeld Gardens, Christ Church, Anson Avenue, Christ Frog Lane, Lichƒeld City Centre Church, Beacon Park, Christ Church, Beacon Park, Lichƒeld, Old Library, Lichƒeld City Centre, Frog Lane, St John Street, Lichƒeld Lichƒeld City Centre, Bus Station, Lichƒeld City Bus Station, Lichƒeld City Centre Centre, Frog Lane, Lichƒeld City Centre, Old Library, Lichƒeld City Centre, Swan Road, Lichƒeld City A5127, Lichƒeld Centre, Festival Gardens, Sandƒelds, Maxtock
    [Show full text]
  • 835 Aldridge
    835 Aldridge - The Friary School Mondays to Fridays Operator: DIA Notes: ST Aldridge Shopping Centre (at) 0802 Aldridge, The Glades (before) 0803 Druid’s Heath, Aldwych Close (before) 0804 Druid’s Heath, Lazy Hill Road (opp) 0804 Leighswood, Glendower Road (opp) 0805 Leighswood, Jessie Road (before) 0806 Leighswood, Herbert Road (adj) 0806 Castlefort, Laburnum Road (adj) 0809 Castlefort, Streets Corner (opposite) 0810 Shire Oak, Shire Oak Hill (on) 0810 Shire Oak, Shire Oak Close (opposite) 0811 Shire Oak, Shire Oak House (adjacent) 0811 Sandhills, Sandhills Home Farm (adjacent) 0812 Stonnall, Barracks Lane (Adj) 0813 Hilton, Pouk Lane (Opp) 0815 Muckley Corner, Boat Lane (Opp) 0815 Muckley Corner, Walsall Road Cottages (Opp) 0816 Muckley Corner, Muckley Corner Hotel (opp) 0817 Muckley Corner, Clevelands (Opp) 0817 Muckley Corner, Wall Lane (Adj) 0818 Pipehill, Water Works Cottage (Adj) 0820 Pipehill, Pipehill Farm (Nr) 0823 Pipehill, Hollybank Cottage (Adj) 0824 Sandyway, Panache Restaurant (Adj) 0826 Lichfield, Deykin Road (Adj) 0829 Lichfield, Maxtock Avenue (Adj) 0830 Sandfields, Victoria Place (Adj) 0831 Lichfield, Clock Tower (Opp) 0832 Lichfield City Centre, Swan Road (Adj) 0833 Lichfield, Swan Mews (Opp) 0834 Christ Church, The Close (Opp) 0834 Christ Church, Anson Avenue (Opp) 0835 Christ Church, Beacon Gardens (Opp) 0836 Christ Church, Abnalls Lane (Adj) 0837 Christ Church, Lyn Avenue (Opp) 0838 Christ Church, Kean Close (Opp) 0839 Friary High School (Adj) 0840 Saturdays no service Sundays no service Notes ST School Term Time
    [Show full text]
  • Abbeyfields - Brockmoor) Quality Town (Broomhill, Cannock) Quality
    Water Water Town (Abbeyfields - Brockmoor) Quality Town (Broomhill, Cannock) Quality Zone Zone ABBEYFIELDS, HALESOWEN HG BROOMHILL, CANNOCK CH1 ABBOTS BROMLEY, RUGELEY BUR1 BROWNHILLS, WALSALL BB1 ADMASTON, RUGELEY BUR1 BURNTWOOD, WALSALL CH2 ALDRIDGE, WALSALL BB BURTON ON TRENT BUR1 ALREWAS, BURTON ON TRENT BUR1 CALF HEATH, WOLVERHAMPTON RCL AMBLECOTE, STOURBRIDGE SP CANNOCK CH1 AMINGTON, TAMWORTH GLA CANNOCK WOOD, RUGELEY CH2 ANSLOW, BURTON ON TRENT BUR1 CASTLE GRESLEY, SWADLINCOTE WIN ARMITAGE, RUGELEY RCL CHADSMOOR, CANNOCK CH1 ASHBOURNE UTT CHASE TERRACE, WALSALL CH2 AUSTREY, ATHERSTONE WIN CHASETOWN, WALSALL CH2 BARTON UNDER NEEDWOOD, BURTON CH2 CHESLYN HAY, WALSALL RCL ON TRENT BASSETTS POLE, SUTTON COLDFIELD SU CHESTALL CH2 BELGRAVE, TAMWORTH GLA CHORLEY, LICHFIELD CH2 BESCOT, WALSALL WA CHURCH HILL CH1 BILSTON SGD CHURCHBRIDGE, CANNOCK WA1 BIRCHILLS, WALSALL WA CLAYHANGER, WALSALL BB1 BITTERSCOTE, TAMWORTH GLA CLIFTON CAMPVILLE, TAMWORTH WIN BLACKFORDS, CANNOCK CH1 COALPOOL, WALSALL WA BLAKENALL, WALSALL WA1 COLDWELL CH2 BLITHBURY, RUGELEY CH2 COLTON, RUGELEY CH2 BLITHFIELD, RUGELEY BUR1 COSELEY, BILSTON SV COTON IN THE ELMS, BLOUNTS GREEN, UTTOXETER UTT WIN SWADLINCOTE BLOXWICH, WALSALL WA1 COVEN, WOLVERHAMPTON RCL BOBBINGTON, STOURBRIDGE SGD CRADLEY HEATH, WARLEY SP BOLEY PARK, LICHFIELD HW CRESWELL GREEN CH2 BONEHILL, TAMWORTH GLA DARLASTON, WEDNESBURY SGD BONEY HAY, BURNTWOOD CH2 DENSTONE, UTTOXETER UTT BRANSTON, BURTON ON TRENT BUR1 DERBY BUR1 BRERETON, RUGELEY CH2 DOSTHILL, TAMWORTH GLA BRETBY, BURTON ON TRENT WIN DRAKELOW,
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Environment Character Assessment
    Historic Environment Character Assessment Final Report for Lichfield District Council February 2009 www.staffordshire.gov.uk Copyright © Staffordshire County Council Cultural Heritage Team Environment and Countryside Development Services Directorate Staffordshire County Council Riverway Stafford ST16 3TJ Tel: 01785 722785 Email: [email protected] Mapping in this volume is based upon the Ordnance Survey mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationary Office © Crown copyright and/or database right 2009 all rights reserved. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Staffordshire County Council Licence No. 100019422 February 2009 2 Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.2 Integrated Environmental Assessment 1.3 Historic Landscape Character 2. Aim 3. Project Methodology 3.1 Overview 3.2 Phase 1 – Historic Environment Character Areas 3.3 Phase 2 – Historic Environment Character Zones 3.4 Potential uses for the document 4. Summary Analysis of the Lichfield District HECAs 4.2 HECAs 13a, 13d, 13e and 13g 4.3 HECAs 2a – 2e & 2i 4.4 HECAs 10a and 10b 4.5 HECA 11 5. Summary Results of the Lichfield District HECAS 6. Glossary 7. Bibliography Appendix 1: The scoring of Historic Environment Character Zones (adapted from Essex County Council) Appendix 2: Historic Environment Character Area Overview Reports Appendix 3: Historic Environment Character Zone Assessments: Lichfield Appendix 4: Historic Environment Character Zone Assessments: Burntwood Appendix 5: Historic Environment Character Zone Assessments: Tamworth 3 1. Introduction 1.1 Background 1.1.1 This project was commissioned by the Development Plans and Implementation Section at Lichfield District Council, with funding support from English Heritage, to form part of the evidence base for their preferred housing options of their local spatial strategy.
    [Show full text]
  • The Assessment Concludes That Multi-Typology Open Spaces Should Be Encouraged So Biodiversity Is an Integral Part of Recreational Open Space
    The assessment concludes that multi-typology open spaces should be encouraged so biodiversity is an integral part of recreational open space. Description of provision in Walsall Metropolitan Borough 7.40. Walsall Metropolitan Borough falls in the southeast of the study area. The less densely urban eastern half of the borough is included within the study boundary. Figure 7.1e shows distribution of current open space provision by typology as assessed in the Walsall Green Space Strategy 2006-2011 (Draft for consultation July 06). The strategy did not set out any standards for analysis or for future provision, however the Urban Open Space SPD, April 2006 provides further summary of the current quantity of provision and targets for future provision. This information is summarised in Table 7.5 below. Table 7.5: Current open space in Walsall Metropolitan Borough Open space type Existing quantity Existing quantity Quantity Accessibility standard (ha) per 1000 standard population Parks and gardens 259.54 ha WGSS:1.02 ha per SPD: 1.0 ha per 1000, SPD:1.0 ha 1000 (the Council per 1000 intends to improve and maintain improvement to all parks and gardens). Natural and semi- 675.46 ha WGSS: 2.66 ha per SPD: 0.0 ha per ANGSt used to assess natural green 1000 (0.97 ha per 1000 (The existing. spaces 1000 of Local emphasis will be on Nature Reserves) coping with SPD: 3.7 ha per increased pressure 1000 on existing provision) Amenity green 120.65 ha SPD: 0.5 per 1000 SPD: 0.4 ha per spaces 1000 Provision for 38.69 ha SPD: 0.2 ha per SPD: 0.2ha per 240m
    [Show full text]