PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 8Th January 2008

Agenda Item No: 6

Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM

Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date: 8th January 2008

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 (8th January 2008)

REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO

Bilston North

07/01420/FUL Moseley Park School 5 Holland Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV14 6LQ

Bushbury North

07/01294/FUL Texaco Garage 11 Stafford Road Wolverhampton West Midlands

Bushbury South and Low Hill

07/01449/FUL Land Opposite Junction Of 14 Mammoth Drive With Coxwell Avenue Wolverhampton West Midlands

07/01450/FUL The Lewisham Arms 22 69 Prosser Street Heath Town Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 9AS

07/01452/FUL 47 Lambert Road 28 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 9RF

Ettingshall

07/00703/CPL 220 Wellington Road 33 Bilston Wolverhampton West Midlands WV14 6RL Graiseley

07/01441/FUL 132 Birches Barn Road 40 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 7BG

Heath Town

06/01300/FUL Land At Horseley Fields/Union Mill 46 Street Horseley Fields Eastfield Wolverhampton West Midlands

07/01112/OUT New Cross Hospital 63 Wolverhampton Road Heath Town Wolverhampton West Midlands WV10 0QP

07/01436/LBC Building F 78 & Former Springfield Brewery 07/01437/FUL Cambridge Street Wolverhampton West Midlands

07/01640/FUL New Crown 88 Nordley Road Wolverhampton West Midlands WV11 1PX

Oxley

07/01442/FUL 5 Clewley Drive 95 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV9 5LB

Penn

07/01451/FUL 23 Wells Road 100 Penn Wolverhampton WV4 4BQ

07/01654/FUL 11 Dewsbury Drive 104 Wolverhampton WV4 5RH

3 St Peter’s

07/01507/REM Retail Core Expansion 109 & Development Site 07/01508/FUL Worcester Street Wolverhampton West Midlands

Tettenhall Regis

07/01510/FUL 18 Saxonfields 120 Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 8SX

Wednesfield South

07/01505/FUL Kennicott House 125 Well Lane Wolverhampton West Midlands WV11 1XR

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01420/FUL WARD: Bilston North DATE: 12-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 11-Jan-08 RECEIVED: 08.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Moseley Park School, Holland Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Extension to School to provide additional teaching facilities

APPLICANT: AGENT: Lifelong Learning Cabinet Resources And Support Wolverhampton City Council Wolverhampton City Council

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 Moseley Park School is located on the corner of Holland Road and Cumberland Road in Bilston North. The site has an area of approximately 7.2ha. Buildings are located in the south-east part of the site and comprise the original school building (circa 1950’s) and later additions (the Diploma block, the English block and the Sports Hall) to the north. The buildings vary in design but are mainly constructed of dark brown brick with coloured window frames.

1.2 The main entrance to the school is from Holland Road, to the south. The main car parking areas are located along the eastern boundary. A parking area with 5 spaces is located to the east of the English Block, within the site of the proposed extension. To the north of the buildings are tennis courts and playgrounds, with extensive playing fields further north and to the north-west. A wooded area with TPO’d trees is located in the north-east corner of the site, adjacent to Freeman Place, a residential cul-de- sac. The perimeter of the site is well screened by trees and shrubs, with mixed heights of fencing.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposed development is for an extension on the east side of the existing English block, adjacent to the Sports Hall and Diploma Block. The area of the proposed extension would be 370s.q.m. and it would provide additional teaching facilities for 50 to 60 children between the ages of 14 and 19. The additional students would only be on site on Tuesdays and Thursdays, arriving and departing mainly by minibus at 9:00am and departing at 3:00pm.

2.2 The proposed building would be approx. 0.30m higher than the adjoining block and approx. 1.5m lower than the surrounding main buildings (Diploma Block and Sports Hall). 2.3 The design of the proposed building is modern, characterised by a large gabled roof that projects approx. 4m from a glazed main entrance to create a canopy supported by two columns. The building would have two entrances, one to the north and one to the south.

5 2.4 Plan No. AD007 0502-A-WD-002 shows existing windows protected. This refers to temporary protection for the duration of the building contract, which would be removed once construction is complete.

2.5 The extension would have external walls of cedar and aluminium cladding and render, under a standing seam metal roof. Doors would be aluminium.

2.5 It is proposed to create a temporary access to Freeman Place, for construction traffic. This would result in the removal of five of the TPO’d trees from the wooded area. It is proposed that replacement trees would be planted elsewhere on the site, in locations to be agreed.

2.6 According to the applicant, the temporary access would be in use by 3 - 4 vehicles at the start and end of day (7.30am and 4.30pm). There would be an additional 3 to 4 delivery vehicles a week using the access during the daytime for the first 2 months. This would then increase to 5 to 6 vehicles at the start and end of the day, with deliveries reducing to 2 to 3 a month. The construction would last 38 weeks. The removal of the temporary access road is included within that timescale, although it may be possible to remove it once the summer holidays begin.

2.8 Drawing AD007 0502-A-WD-002 shows an existing grassed area on the south side of the Sports Hall to be reconfigured to provide a new car park. However, this is not part of the current application and will be the subject of a separate application.

3. Planning History

3.1 97/0590/FP - Single storey building comprising 12 Classrooms. Granted on 6 August 1997.

3.2 92/0515 - Temporary accommodation, 6 classrooms to accommodate increased pupil numbers. Granted on July 1992.

3.3 92/0705 - Technology suite in the grounds of existing school. Granted on September 1992.

3.4 93/0262 - Science block in grounds of existing school. Granted on May 1993.

3.5 93/0302 - Temporary classroom accommodation. Granted on May 1993.

4. Constraints

4.1 Moseley Road Open Space.

4.2 Millennium Urban Forest - Location: Prouds Lane Open Space.

4.3 Mining Areas.

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG13 Transport

5.2 UDP 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 D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM14 Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Com. AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

6. Publicity

6.1 The application publicised by press and site notices and 43 letters were sent to the nearest residential properties. Three letters of objection and a petition letter with 10 signatures have been received. The majority of the objections relate to the temporary access and include:

Anticipated parking problems. Loss of screening. Anticipated obstruction of residential road. Detrimental to highway safety. Damage to TPO’d trees. Insufficient information regarding ancillary works, signage, security and lighting.

6.2 More general objections include:

Insufficient information relating to site management. Previous application refused on highway safety grounds (Officer’s note – there is no record of this). The increase of the number of students in to the area. Poor standard of drawings.

7. Internal Consultees

7.1 Transportation – No objections, based on the estimated increase in traffic flow to the site as a result of the development. The timescale of the works and temporary access is also acceptable.

7.2 Archaeology – No archaeological implications.

7.3 Tree Officer – To allow temporary access 5 trees will need to be removed. Pruning of trees adjacent to the entrance will be needed to allow vehicle access. To prevent root damage to the remaining trees steel plates on a no-dig system such a cell web should be laid over the proposed route. Four replacement trees will be required, species to be agreed.

7 7.4 Building Control – Provision should be made of vehicle access for fire fighting appliances and fire hydrants located 90m within of an entry point to the building and no more than 90m apart.

7.5 Environmental Services – Methodology of Investigation of physical and chemical contamination condition and implementation condition.

7.6 Access Officer – Comments awaited.

8. Appraisal

8.1 The following key issues are: Principle of development. Design & layout. Access and parking. Impact on protected trees. Impact on surrounding area.

The principle of development

8.2 The application is for the extension of an existing school to provide additional teaching facilities and is therefore acceptable in principle.

Design & Layout

8.3 The height and bulk of the extension would be in keeping with the existing buildings. Materials would be contrasting but complimentary.

Access and Parking

8.4 The site currently has an existing car parking provision of approximately 65 parking spaces, 5 of which would be lost to the proposed extension. The additional student capacity will be increased by 50-60 people who would mainly arrive by 2 mini buses twice per week. Hence, the increase in traffic flow would not be considerable.

8.5 The existing access to the site would remain unaltered by the proposal. However, there is a proposed temporally access that would be used throughout the period of construction of the proposed development. The applicant has supplied details of the working times and period of duration of the proposed works. The development would last a total of 38 weeks, with work starting at 7:30am and finishing at 4:30pm. Anticipated traffic movements would not be extensive.

8.6 Due to its temporary nature and the number of traffic movements anticipated, it is considered that the proposed access through Freeman Place would be acceptable. Hours of use could be controlled by condition.

Impact on Protected Trees

8.7 The proposed temporary access would result in the removal of five TPO’d trees that form part of a wooded area that provides screening to the existing residential properties at Freeman Place and makes an important contribution to the amenity of the area. The applicant states that the trees would be replaced with semi-mature trees in locations to be agreed. This is considered acceptable and could be required by condition.

8.8 To ensure that no harm is caused to the roots of other trees in the wood, a condition could be imposed to require a ‘no-dig’ method and approval of details.

Impact on Surrounding Area

8.9 The proposed extension would be well away from the boundaries of the school and would be largely screened from view by existing buildings. It would therefore have little impact on the surrounding area.

8.10 Subject to a condition limiting hours of use, it is considered that the proposed temporary access onto Freeman Place would be acceptable.

9. Recommendation

11.1 Grant, subject to the conditions to include:

1. Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved details prior to occupation. 2. Submission of Materials. 3. Large scale architectural details. 5. Replacement trees. 8. Temporary access - details of the means of construction (no-dig). 9. Temporary access only to be used between the hours of 07:30 hours and 16:30 Monday to Saturday hours and to be secured at other times. 10. Temporary access – only for a period of 38 weeks from commencement of development and thereafter stopped up. 11. Physical and chemical site investigation and remediation.

Case Officer : Marcela Quiñones Telephone No : 555607 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: 07/01420/FUL Location Moseley Park School, Holland Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 395153 297541 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 71014m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01294/FUL WARD: Bushbury North DATE: 21-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 16-Dec-07 RECEIVED: 11.09.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Texaco Garage, Stafford Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of 1.8m close boarded fence to rear of plots 3-9

APPLICANT: AGENT: Dunton Contracting Armstrong Burton Planning C/O Agent 260 Lichfield Road Four Oaks B74 2UH

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description and Background.

1.1 The application site is a residential development on the site of the former Texaco garage, located on A449 Stafford Road, just to the north of Vine Island. The development, which is currently under construction, comprises 7 terraced houses, 6 apartments and 2 detached houses (ref.05/0461/FP).

1.2 Car parking for the apartments and terraced properties will be provided in a rear parking court, accessed through electronically controlled entrance gates.

1.3 Boundary treatments have mainly been agreed (as required by condition), including the retention of some existing ones on the southern (brick wall) and eastern (fence over wall) periphery of the site.

2 Application details

2.1 The application is for the erection of a 1.8m high close boarded fence between the rear gardens of plots 3-9 and the parking court (with the exception of the northern boundary to plot 3). This would run for a total of 39 metres on the eastern boundary and a further 11 metres on the southern boundary to the side of plot 9.

3. Planning History

3.1 05/0461/FP/M for Erection of 7 terraced house, 6 apartments and 2 detached houses - Granted 06.05.2005.

4. Relevant policies

4.1 PPS 1 Delivering Sustainable Development

4.2 Unitary Development Plan Policies:

11 D1 Design Quality D5 Public Realm (public space/private space) D6 Townscape and Landscape D9 Appearance D10 Community Safety

4.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance No. 3 - Residential Development

5. Publicity and Neighbour Notifications

5.1 The application was publicised by letters to neighbouring occupiers. No comments have been received.

6. Appraisal

6.1 A timber boarded fence is proposed on the boundary between rear gardens of the terraced houses and the parking court. While such fences are acceptable between private rear gardens, they are not suitable for communal areas, such as the parking court.

6.2 Timber fencing does not have the longevity of a brick wall and without regular maintenance will fall into disrepair in a fairly short time, which would be detrimental to visual amenity. Such maintenance would normally include the application of coloured finishes. Differential maintenance, by the owners of different lengths of fence, would result in an un-harmonious appearance, detrimental to visual amenity.

6.3 Timber fences provide a less secure boundary than a brick wall, particularly if not well maintained.

7. Recommendation

Refuse: –

1. The proposed boundary treatment is not a high quality design, it would be inappropriate in its context and would fail to take the opportunities available for improving the character and appearance of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to UDP policies D1, D5, D6, D9 and D10.

Case Officer : Katie Dickson Telephone No : 551132 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

Planning Application No: 07/01294/FUL Location Texaco Garage, Stafford Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391558 303399 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 3441m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01449/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill DATE: 26-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 25-Jan-08 RECEIVED: 12.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land Opposite Junction Of Mammoth Drive With, Coxwell Avenue, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Erection of 2 No. four storey office buildings and 1 No. five storey office building, including associated car parking and landscaping.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Adonis Construction Ltd Turnbull Tweedale Ham Lane 61 Oaken Lanes Kingswinford Codsall West Midlands Wolverhampton DY6 7JU WV8 2AW

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Application Site, Findings and Background

1.1 The application site is located within Wolverhampton Science Park which is 1.2 miles to the north of the City Centre, and is accessed off the A449 Stafford Road. It has an area of approximately 0.41 hectares. The site is relatively rectilinear in shape.

1.2 The site fronts onto Coxwell Avenue, opposite the junction with Mammoth Drive. The western boundary borders the Birmingham Canal (Wolverhampton Level) which is a Conservation Area and includes the Grade II listed Lock 15. The southern boundary closely borders the Grade II listed viaduct which carries the West Coast mainline. To the north and north-west lie the completed Phase 1 and Phase 2 Use Class B1 Office developments.

1.3 The site is generally level but for an earth bank along the western boundary, which forms an edge with the Birmingham Canal (Wolverhampton Level). The site currently contains grassland and pockets of planting (trees and shrubs).

1.4 Phase 1 of the Science Park development was completed in 1995 and consisted of two buildings, of two and three storeys high. Phase 2 buildings are three and five storeys high and were completed relatively recently. The proposed development constitutes Phase 3 of the overall Science Park development.

2. Constraints

2.1 Authorised Process

14 3. Application Details

3.1 The application is for the erection of three detached multi- storey office buildings. Buildings one and two would be four storeys and building three, which is the southern- most building, would be five storeys. The proposed development would create 2,687 square metres of B1 floor space and each building would include under-croft parking. There would be 102 car parking bays, including 6 disabled car parking bays (2 for each block), 3 separate cycle bays (1 for each block) and one motor cycle bay (for block 3).

4. Relevant policies

Central Government Planning Policy

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPG13 - Transport PPG24 - Planning and noise

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 EP1 - Pollution Control EP3 - Air Pollution EP4 - Light Pollution EP5 - Noise Pollution EP6 - Protection of Groundwater, Watercourses and Canals EP9 - Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development B3 - Business Development Allocations B5 - Design Standards for Employment Sites B6 - Offices B9 - Defined Business Areas B12 - Access to Job Opportunities R4 - Development Adjacent to Open Space AM9 - Provision for Pedestrians AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision

15 5. Publicity and neighbour notifications

5.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site and neighbour notifications. One letter of objection received at the time of writing this report. The following comments were raised:

• Concerned that the applicant has not made reference to the adjacent Wolverhampton Locks Conservation Area. • The proposed development would be too close to the Canal. • The modern materials of the proposed buildings are inappropriate. • The outlandish blue strip proposed along the exterior of building 3 would appear as a deliberate snub to the conservation area. • The white scalloped roofs that appear to have no respect for the conservation area. • The lack of landscaping that would screen the development from the canal side. The present environment is heavily overgrown and screens the derelict land from the canal corridor. The use of shrubs and bushes rather than trees would not recreate the current environment and associated habitats that this development would remove. • Object as the application does not include an Environmental Impact Assessment. • The principle of underground parking is welcomed.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Transportation Development:

• The car parking provision is in excess of UDP Policy requirements for a development of this size. A maximum of 90 car parking spaces should be provided on this site (102 spaces are proposed). Movements between under- croft parking areas should be restricted in the form of a barrier with controlled operation, to stop through movements. • Motorcycle parking is shown provided on site, but is limited to only one space to the front of block 3. The number of PTW spaces should be increased and made easily accessible for each block. • Pedestrians and vehicles would be brought into conflict in front of building 3, where they must cross a parking area to reach the front entrance. • The applicant has provided no details of the servicing arrangements for the site, particularly refuse collection.

6.2 Trees: No trees of individual merit at this site.

6.3 Planning Policy: Comments awaited.

6.4 Landscape: Insufficient information of landscape planting is provided. A condition could require the submission and implementation of a landscaping scheme, together with a timetable for carrying out the approved details.

6.5 Building Control: Access for fire fighting appliances is acceptable.

6.6 Access Officer: Comments awaited.

6.7 Environmental Services:

• Operational hours during construction phases, including commercial vehicle movements to or from the site should be restricted to 0800 to 1800 hours Mondays to Fridays and 0800 to 1300 hours Saturdays, and at no time on Sundays or Bank and Public Holidays. This could be a condition.

16 • All plant and machinery should be enclosed with sound insulating material and provided with facilities for the control of vibration. This could be a condition. • A condition should require the submission and implementation of a scheme to control noise, vibration and odour from ventilation equipment. Any chimney serving the ventilation system should terminate one metre above eaves level, with no caps, cowls or other outlet restrictions. • The lighting should be of a specification, siting and direction, that there is no loss of amenity by way of glare and spillage to other properties within the vicinity. This could be a condition. • The submitted ground investigation report which sets out the remediation proposals, particularly those relating to landfill gas protection in the buildings are acceptable. With regard to further works, the report highlights that there were some limitations to the original remediation of the site due to physical constraints. Some of these same constraints prevented a full investigation from being carried out by the applicant, who cautions that those areas of the site not yet investigated may contain limited contamination. A condition should be required, in line with the statement in paragraph 10.1 of the ground investigation report, that further investigation works be carried out in those areas, once they become accessible following clearance.

7. External consultees

7.1 Environment Agency: The ground water beneath the site is designated as Major Aquifer and the site is close to the Birmingham Canal/ Wolverhampton Level and located within the source protection of zone III. The applicant has not carried out a groundwater investigation. The Environment Agency are concerned that there may be a significant concentration of metals and hydrocarbon present within the groundwater. Therefore it is recommended that a detailed site investigation be undertaken to assess the risk the site poses to controlled waters. A condition could require that the applicant submit and implement a scheme to deal with the risks associated with contamination of the site.

7.2 Severn Trent Water: A condition is required in respect of provision and approval of drainage details prior to commencement of development. There is a public sewer which crosses the site. In order to maintain essential access for maintenance, repair, renewal, and to protect the structural integrity of the sewer system a condition should be that no buildings shall be erected or trees planted within close vicinity of these sewers.

7.3 British Waterways Board: No objections subject to a condition relating to drainage and surface-water run-off.

8. Appraisal

8.1 The key issues for consideration are as follows;

• Compliance with Policy • Design and Layout • Parking and Access • Landscaping

Compliance with Policy 8.2 Unitary Development Plan Policy B3 “Business Development Allocations” identifies the site as B3.4 (Wolverhampton Science Park) and says that it is of sub-regional importance having the potential to attract regional, sub-regional and national operators. UDP Policy B3 also says that the site has excellent links to the strategic

17 highway network and as such development proposals should be able to attract inward investment and indigenous high technology research and development organisations. The applicant proposes a Use Class B1 office use at this site and this would be in accordance with the UDP Policy allocation.

Design and Layout 8.3 The original Master Plan for the Science Park required high quality frontage development of a modern design with landscaping facing the road, with parking and servicing concealed from general view. It is considered that the design and layout of the proposed development scheme would be in accordance with this guidance.

8.4 Each of the proposed three buildings would be of a modern design which is appropriate to the Science Park and to the proposed B1 office use. The buildings would be aligned along a north-west/south-east axis and positioned adjacent to the western boundary alongside the Birmingham Canal/ (Wolverhampton Level).

8.5 Buildings one and two would be four storeys and building three, which is the southern most building would be five storeys. The sloping terrain allows for a larger building in this location, giving the overall development a greater prominence whilst not detracting from the surrounding natural and built environment.

8.6 The materials proposed include facing brick work, cladding panels and steel colour coated balconies. The areas of cladding would be broken down by balanced areas of solar reflective tinted glass panels. These materials would complement the canal side location and reflect those materials associated with existing developments at the Science Park. The use of panels, curved roof forms and deep overhanging eaves continue the Science Park vernacular whilst providing a waterside feel to the scheme which integrates successfully with the Wolverhampton Locks Conservation Area and Grade II listed viaduct. The inclusion of balconies and protruding bays create balanced and legible facades. These balconies include galvanised balustrades with tensile wire ropes.

8.7 The submitted Design and Access Statement says that the cladding panels would be finished in silver but the submitted elevation drawings show the cladding panels finished in “goosewing grey”. This colour would be inappropriate and give the buildings a bland and dull visual appearance. The applicant has been requested to revise the plans, prior to the Planning Committee meeting, to show the cladding panels finished in silver.

8.8 The majority of the car parking would be sited in under-croft parking areas, under each office block, below the level of the canal towpath, and this enables occupants of the buildings easy access and surveillance of activity along the canal side. The use of under-croft parking means that the level of external car parking is minimised and this allows for the creation of pleasant and verdant areas of planting and communal space. The landscaping would contribute towards the creation of a spacious and open environment, particularly when viewed from the road. The pedestrian routes would pass through the landscaped areas and along the main elevations of the new buildings thereby creating good access and legibility.

8.9 The submitted plans indicate that there would not be any boundary treatment around the perimeter of the site. Without boundary treatments the site would have a lack of “defensible space” and would be vulnerable to crime. The agents have been requested to provide amended plans which show satisfactory boundary treatments in advance of the Planning Committee meeting.

18 8.10 The layout plan shows that there would be three smoking shelters. However the applicant has not provided details of the external design and materials of the proposed smoking shelters. Further, only very limited information is provided of the proposed external seating areas. The applicant has been requested to provide more detail in respect of these matters prior to the Planning Committee meeting.

Parking and Access 8.11 The application is for B1 office use which would create a total of 2,687 square metres of new floor space. In accordance with PPG 13 and Wolverhampton UDP, there should be a maximum parking provision of 1 space per 30 square metres and a total of 90 spaces are required for this development. There are proposed to be 102 car parking spaces. Therefore the number of parking bays should be reduced. The applicant has been requested to revise the parking provision prior to the Planning Committee meeting.

8.12 The disabled parking is now acceptable. However, there is only one motorcycle parking bay proposed and this would be insufficient to meet expected demand. The applicant has been requested, prior to Planning Committee meeting, to revise the plans to show additional motorcycle bays.

8.13 The applicant proposes cycle parking beneath each building. However it is not confirmed whether this parking provision would be enclosed or secure. These details could be required by condition.

8.14 Access to under-croft parking needs to be gated in the interests of security. The agents have been asked to show gates.

8.15 Cars would be required to cross the main pedestrian route to building 3. This would be detrimental to pedestrian safety and amended plans have been requested which address this issue.

8.16 The applicant has not provided details of servicing arrangements for the site, particularly refuse collection. The agents have been asked to provide details.

Landscaping 8.17 The submitted proposals fail to provide detailed information about proposed planting. Details of the proposed landscaping of the site could be required by a condition.

9. Conclusion

9.1 The proposal is broadly acceptable. However, there are matters of detail which need to be satisfactorily addressed:

• Confirmation that the cladding will be silver • Details of boundary treatments • Details of smoking shelters • Reduction in parking bays • Increase in motorcycle provision • Details of cycle parking • Details of refuse stores • Gates to under-croft car parks • Solution of vehicles/pedestrian conflict

10. Recommendation

10.1 Grant subject to receipt of satisfactory amended plans and details, with conditions to include:

• External materials • Boundary treatments • External lighting scheme • Provision of car parking • Car park management including security • Details and provision of motorcycle and cycle parking • Smoking shelters • Revised colour finishes to cladding panels • Landscape plan • Drainage details / surface water run-off • Contamination remedial works • Hours of construction • Noise / vibration attenuation and insulation for plant and machinery • Target recruitment and training • No vents/flues/air conditioning units etc without prior written approval • Public art

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

Planning Application No: 07/01449/FUL Location Land Opposite Junction Of Mammoth Drive With, Coxwell Avenue,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391486 300389 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 4200m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01450/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill DATE: 14-Nov-07 TARGET DATE: 09-Jan-08 RECEIVED: 15.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: The Lewisham Arms, 69 Prosser Street, Heath Town, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Proposed conversion of first floor function room into 3 No flats.

APPLICANT: AGENT: MR MOHAN SINGH MR PETER TYLER LEWISHAM ARMS BRINDLEY 69 PROSSER STREET 20 BRIDGNORTH ROAD WOLVERHAMPTON WOMBOURNE WV10 9AS WOLVERHAMPTON STAFFORDSHIRE WV5 0AA

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Application Site, Findings and Background

1.1 The application site is located at a prominent corner site at the junction between Prosser Street and Stratton Street, which is approximately 1.5 miles to the north of the City Centre and is accessed off the A460 Cannock Road.

1.2 The application building is a traditional public house that retains much of its original character. The ground floor is used as a bar and lounge and there is a large function room and two existing bed-sit style residential flats at first floor. Servicing and parking provision is to the rear of the building and the access is from Prosser Street. The immediate area surrounding the application building is predominately residential in character and appearance, consisting of two storey terraced properties with no off street parking.

2. Planning History

2.1 06/1246. Proposed change of use of the first floor function room to residential accommodation (four flats), demolition of derelict outbuildings to provide off-street parking and residential amenity space. Refused 13.04.2006.

2.1 06/01042/FUL. Change of use and conversion of first floor function room to create three residential flats, demolition of outbuildings to provide off-street parking and residential amenity space. Refused 24.10.2006.

22 3. Constraints

None

4. Application Details

4.1 The application seeks permission to change the use of the first floor function room to create three residential flats, and including alterations to rear yard to create five off- street car parking spaces.

4.2 The application includes a justification for the loss of the function room. The reasoning is as follows;

• There are two existing facilities, in locations that are reasonably accessible including on foot by members of the community served and these have full parking facilities available to accommodate social events. • There is no longer a need for the function room at the application site it is currently used as storage space.

5. Relevant policies

Central Government Planning Policy

PPS 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPG 13: Transport PPG 24: Planning and noise

Unitary Development Plan Policies

23 6. Publicity and neighbour notifications

6.1 The application was advertised by site and neighbour notifications. One letter of objection received at the time of writing this report. The following comments were raised:

• Proposals would further degrade the area.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation Development:

• The level of parking provision at one space per flat contained within the premises (5No.) is acceptable. • Vehicular and pedestrian visibility is restricted at the entrance to the parking area due to the high walls to either side of the access and the applicant has not provided evidence that acceptable visibility splays can be achieved. The manoeuvring space behind the separate parking bay located nearest to the gates is below recommended dimensions to allow access into the parking bay. • Secure, covered cycle storage should be provided at a rate of 1 cycle per flat including existing flats (5No.). • The application should include motorcycle parking. • The applicant has not supplied any details regarding access for servicing vehicles to either the Public House or the proposed flats. This should include proposals for refuse storage/collection and dray vehicle/delivery vehicle access.

7.2 Environmental Services – The proposed flats would be situated directly above a public house which is licensed for alcohol sales and recorded music until 11pm. Based on the very close proximity of the proposed flats, it is likely that further complaints would be received. This could result in the service of statutory nuisance legal notices and/or a review of the premises licence attached to the premises. On this basis, and the fact that no information has been provided in relation to noise attenuation to minimise the impact of this development, the application should be recommended for refusal.

7.3 Access Officer – Comments awaited.

7.4 Building Control – Comments awaited.

8. External consultees

8.1 None

9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues for consideration are as follows;

• Compliance with Policy • Design and Layout • Car Parking and Access • Noise

Compliance with Policy 9.2 The proposed application results in the loss of a function room that could carry out a role as a community meeting place, as defined under Policy C3 of the Wolverhampton

24 Unitary Development Plan. The submitted evidence states that the function room is no longer needed, and is now used as a storage area. It also says that there is a community centre and social club within walking distance (400m) that would be able to cater for the loss of the public house. As such, it is considered the application complies with Policy C3 – Loss of Community Meeting Places.

Design and Layout 9.3 The proposals do not include any provision of private shared amenity space for the flats and there would therefore be unsatisfactory living conditions for future residents.

9.4 In terms of orientation, each of the proposed flats, including principal rooms would face north-west and north-east, contrary to policy D13 ‘Sustainable Development’ of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan.

Parking and Access 9.5 The proposed car parking arrangements are broadly acceptable. However, the manoeuvring space behind the separate parking bay that is located nearest to the access gates is below recommended dimensions to allow safe access into the parking bay. Vehicular and pedestrian visibility are also restricted at the entrance to the parking area due to the high walls to either side of the access and the applicant has not provided evidence that acceptable visibility splays can be achieved.

9.6 The proposals do not include provision for motorcycle and bicycle parking.

9.7 The applicant has not supplied any details regarding access for servicing vehicles to either the Public House or the proposed flats. The Local Planning Authority is therefore unable to fully assess the implications of the proposals upon the amenity of the surrounding area.

Noise 9.8 The ground floor of the building is used as a licensed premises and restaurant. The bar and lounge areas would be directly below the proposed living accommodation which may create the potential for unacceptable noise disturbance. The applicant has failed to submit a full noise assessment to determine any potential impact of the licensed premises on the living quality of future residents of the proposed flats. The applicant has also failed to provide details of any noise attenuation measures. For these reasons the Council is unable to fully consider the impact of the ground floor licensed premises on the amenities of future residents of the proposed flats.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Recommendation – Refuse for the following reasons:

1. The substandard car parking, lack of motorcycle parking and cycle storage, means that the proposal would be detrimental to highway safety and the free flow of traffic on Prosser Street and Stratton Street. The proposals would also fail to promote sustainable modes of transport, contrary to UDP policies D1, D3, D10, AM10, AM12, AM14, AM15 and the Council’s SPG No.3.

2. The applicant has not supplied any details regarding access for servicing vehicles to either the Public House or the proposed flats. The Local Planning Authority is therefore unable to fully assess the implications of the proposals upon the amenity of the surrounding area. The proposals therefore conflict with UDP Policy D1, AM12, AM14, AM15 and SPG No.3.

3. The proposals do not include any provision of private shared amenity space for occupants of the proposed flats. The proposals would therefore provide an

25 unsatisfactory level of residential amenity for future occupants, contrary to UDP Policies D1, H6, H7 and the Councils SPG No.3.

4. The three proposed residential flats would have a north-west and north-east orientation. As a result the flats would not create acceptable living conditions for future residents and not maximise the potential for solar gain, contrary to the principles of sustainable development. The proposals therefore conflict with UDP Policies D1, D13, H6, H7 and SPG No.3.

5. The proposal is not supported by any noise attenuation methods or noise assessments which would enable the Local Planning Authority to fully consider the impact of the ground floor licensed premises on the amenities enjoyed by those who would reside at the proposed first floor residential flats. For this reason the proposed change of use of the existing function room to residential accommodation is contrary to UDP Policies H6, H7 and the Council’s SPG No.3.

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

Planning Application No: 07/01450/FUL Location The Lewisham Arms, 69 Prosser Street,Heath Town,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392276 300038 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 532m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01452/FUL WARD: Bushbury South And Low Hill DATE: 15-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 10-Dec-07 RECEIVED: 15.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 47 Lambert Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV10 9RF PROPOSAL: Two storey side and single storey rear extension

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Sandhu Mr Stan Ceney 47 Lambert Road 27 Cannon Road Heath Town Wombourne Wolverhampton Wolverhampton West Midlands South Staff's WV10 9RF WV5 9HR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The property concerned is a traditional semi detached property, located on a prominent corner location, with Lambert Road and Inchlaggan Road, which has a street scene of similar properties within an area which is predominantly residential.

1.2 The property has been previously extended to both the side with a single storey extension and to the rear with a detached garage.

1.3 The property is enclosed along the side and rear with a 2m high fence and garden, and around the front with a 1m high enclosure.

2 Application details

2.1 The proposal is for a two storey side extension, projecting out to the rear, and a single story rear extension. The extension provides a study, w.c. kitchen and dining room extension to ground floor and two additional bedrooms and an extension to an existing bedroom at first floor. There will be five bedrooms in all.

2.2 The two storey side extension measures 2.5m wide, set back from the existing front elevation at first floor by 0.75m, a length of 8.5m, projecting out past the existing rear elevation by 2.15m, and a width of 4.9m, as the extension wraps around the existing rear elevation to the property.

2.3 The single storey rear extension measures 2.5m long and 3.05m wide.

2.4 There area discrepancies between the measurements of the ground floor plans and the first floor plans, displaying different projections to the rear and different lengths to the side.

28 2.5 A letter of support was provided by Walsall Council “Family Placement Services”, dated 24 July 2007, on the grounds that the applicants foster a child and the proposed extension would allow them to foster more children in the future.

3 Planning History

3.1 This application follows a long process of negotiation including local Councillors, Agent, Applicants and Planning Officers, following a refusal of a previous application similar to the proposal now applied for.

3.2 Ken Purchase MP, the Agent, and the Applicants, were informed by letter of 11 July 2007 that the proposed scheme would need to be significantly reduced to address the reasons for the previous refusal. Another letter dated 25 July 2007, was also forwarded to the Agent and copied to Ken Purchase MP and Mrs and Mrs Sandhu (the applicants), again referring to the reasons for amendments, and possible alterations which would be considered likely to be acceptable.

3.3 06/01526/FUL for Two storey side and single storey rear extension, Refused, dated 03.01.2007. 04/2135/FP/R for Erection of a detached garage, Granted, dated 03.02.2005.

4 Constraints None

5 Relevant policies AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance SPG4 - Extension to Houses

6 Neighbour notification and representations No objections received.

7 Appraisal

7.1 Key Issues:

• Design • Street Scene • Private Amenities (Parking and Garden) • Neighbouring Amenities ( Outlook, light, sunlight, privacy)

7.2 The application has been amended in line with some of the alterations recommended in a letter of 25/7/07, by reducing the width of the two storey side extension, the projection to the rear, and providing a window in the side elevation at first floor. However, the proposal has not been satisfactorily set back from the front elevation.

29 7.3 The property is located on a prominent corner location with a strong building line running along the side in Lambert Road. The extension would project out closer to the highway in Lambert Road, forward of the established building line, resulting in an extension which would appear unduly dominant, especially on this corner location, to the detriment of the street scene.

7.4 In pre-application discussions it was recommended that the two storey side extension be reduced in width to 2.5m, which would be in keeping with the existing character and appearance of the property, and the neighbouring semi detached property which the applicants have addressed. However, a recommendation of a 3.7m set back from the front elevation at first floor to reduce the impact on the street scene due to the projection past the established building line, has not been addressed, and therefore, the amended application has a detrimental impact on the existing character and appearance of the street scene and is therefore, considered unacceptable.

7.5 The projection out to the rear would be within close proximity to the neighbouring property at No. 45 Lambert Road, with a distance of 10m from proposed bedroom no.5 (window to wall), and 11m from the extension to bedroom 3 (window to wall). The agent has satisfactorily addressed this by placing a window in the side elevation (bedroom 5), facing Lambert Road, providing a second means of light and outlook from this proposed bedroom.

7.6 The Pre-application discussion also requested that the application be reduced in scale due to the level of existing garden space, which would not support an extension of this size and usage. The reduction requested would downscale the property to four bedrooms, with an increase in size to bedroom three, and although the garden would is still be a little small, would be considered as an acceptable size to support this reduced extension.

7.7 However, the proposal as submitted has not been significantly downscaled, as recommended, but has in fact detailed a larger extension than previously proposed, with two additional bedrooms (5 in all) and an extension to one of the existing bedrooms (number 3). Therefore, it is considered that the private amenity space would not support an extension of this size.

7.8 The property has sufficient parking provision to both the frontage and to the rear, although if in use to the rear, would reduce the amenity space further.

7.9 There would be no detrimental impact to any of the neighbouring properties, such as outlook, loss of light, loss of sunlight, or privacy. There have been no objections to the proposal.

8 Conclusion

8.1 Whilst the applicants requirements for extensions to the dwelling are understood, the detriment to the character and appearance of the street scene, and the insufficient level of private amenity space to support an extension of this scale would be to such an extent, that the proposal cannot be supported.

8.2 It must also be noted that there are discrepancies between the dimensions detailed on the layout plans at ground and first floor, which display different projections, and in this respect an accurate assessment cannot take place.

30 9 Recommendation

9.1 Refuse, For the following reasons:

1. The proposed extension would project beyond the established building line at Lambert Road thus making the building unduly prominent and obtrusive, detracting from the existing character and appearance of the street scene.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D7 & D8

2. The proposed extension would, by reason of its scale and position in this corner location, appear out of scale/over prominent/obtrusive, detracting from the street scene.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D7 & D8

3. The proposed two storey and single storey extension would by reason of its scale and position, result in an unacceptable loss of private garden area to the existing house, which would not support a property of this proposed size.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1/D7/D8

4. There are discrepancies between the dimensions on the proposed floor plans.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1

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

Planning Application No: 07/01452/FUL Location 47 Lambert Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV10 9RF Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392705 300697 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 343m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/00703/CPL WARD: Ettingshall DATE: 31-Jul-07 TARGET DATE: 25-Sep-07 RECEIVED: 16.05.2007 APP TYPE: Certificate Proposed Lawful Use/Dev

SITE: 220 Wellington Road, Bilston, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Application for a certificate of proposed lawful use, to use property as a childrens care home

APPLICANT: AGENT: Elijah Collins 9 Paganel Drive Dudley DY1 4AZ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Application Site, Findings and Background

1.1 This application follows the refusal of permission for an application for a certificate of lawful use (07/00187/CPL) to use the property as a children’s care home, in April 2007. That application was refused because the applicant had failed to submit sufficient information in support of the application.

1.2 The application site consists of a vacant four bedroom detached house with associated car parking space and amenity area to the rear. The street scene is characterised by a mix of large detached residential properties and terrace row housing. Although the adjacent premises operate as a dentists (218 Wellington Road). It is proposed to use the application premises as a young persons care home. The ground floor would have a lounge, kitchen, dining room, wash room/WC and a room to be used as an office. The first floor would contain four bedrooms, a bathroom and a staff room.

1.3 The site is situated approximately 2.8 miles to the south east of Wolverhampton City Centre and within one mile of Bilston Town Centre. The application house is located fronting onto the Wellington Road, a busy vehicular route into and out of the City.

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 young persons 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.

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

a) The premises were previously used as a single family household including four adults and one child. Three vehicles were parked within the curtilage of the site. One of the adults worked as a dentist, another as a doctor, a third adult worked in a similar type of health care profession, and a fourth adult was unemployed.

33 b) Four young persons would reside at the property for not less than six months and up to two years.

c) The young persons who would reside at the property would be aged sixteen – twenty one years.

d) The young persons would be referred to the care home after being residents in Local Authority care. The young persons would be likely to come from a wide range of social backgrounds, for example, they may be orphans, or be from broken homes or have previously been the victims of physical / sexual abuse.

e) No staff would live at the property. There would be two staff carers in total on site at any one time, rotating shift pattern involving changes on a twenty four hour basis.

f) Shift patterns would be 7am-3pm; 3pm-9pm; and 9pm-7am. Shift changes would take place at 7am, 2.30pm and 9pm.

g) A maximum of three cars would be parked within the curtilage of the site.

h) No tutors would visit the site.

i) No child psychologist would visit the site. One social worker would visit the site on one occasion in every six month period.

j) Visits to the care home by contractors would take place when required but this is unlikely to be more than one visit per month.

k) No physical alterations to the property are proposed.

l) No internal changes are proposed other than those shown on the submitted plans.

m) A letter dated 11 June 2006 to Dr Ratra from LL Jacobs at Redfern Solicitors pertaining that the previous use of the premises was a dwelling house.

n) A document entitled S & B Pathways Leaving Care – Statement of Purpose and Function.

3. Planning History

3.1 07/00187/CPL. Application for a certificate of proposed lawful use, to use property as a children’s care home. Refused - 18.04.2007.

3.2 94/0925/FP. Conversion of five dwellings into 1 No. self contained dwelling. Approved - 18.10.1994.

3.3 95/0269/FP. Double garage extension. Approved - 27.04.1995.

3.4 C/0894/89. Demolish existing house and erect a block of 5 flats. Approved - 23.08.1989.

3.5 C/1916/91. Change of use and conversion of property to form 5no. units 1 no. 2 bed and 4no. 1 bed. Approved - 24.12.1991.

3.6 C/2141/90. Change of use from offices to hairdressers at ground floor with flat above. Approved - 24.09.1990.

34 4. Constraints

Authorised Processes Landfill Gas Zones Mining Area

5. Relevant Policies

5.1 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.

5.2 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).

5.3 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”.

6. Neighbour notification and representations

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 recent cases, surrounding neighbours and Ward Councillors have been notified. The application was advertised by site notice, press notice, and letters to neighbour occupiers.

6.3 One petition with 243 signatures and 90 letters of objection were received. The comments raised are summarised as follows;

• This application is no different from a similar proposal (application number 97/00187/CPL) that was refused permission in April 2007. • Detriment to property values in the area • The proposals would involve an unacceptable change of use from a dwelling house to a commercial business • Unsuitable use adjacent to bus stops, schools, colleges and temples • Too close to vulnerable elderly residents and young people • Proposed use is motivated by financial and not altruistic gain

35 • The proposed use would result in detriment to safety of those living in the area and give rise to criminal activity, noise and vandalism. Increase local people’s perception and fear of crime. • There are already a number of other similar institutions in the area. No further care homes should be allowed to operate in this area. • Potential to generate racial tensions • Proposals would give rise to parking problems and result in a detriment to pedestrian and highway safety • Young adults can not expect to be treated with respect and dignity as a right; respect and dignity can only be earned. • If all local objections are over-ruled then it should be required that a local resident represent the community on the car home management board/committee • Local residents should be able to discuss their concerns with the Police • If a resident is given a ‘notice to quit’ the care facility what is the next step to protect the safety of the community • The supporting evidence suggests that residents may come from outside of the area and they may therefore feel alienated and disaffected • The applicant has provided inaccurate information about the previous occupancy of the subject house. • The information submitted by the applicant in support of the application is insufficient, misleading and inaccurate. • The supporting document states that the accommodation is housed over three floors however the application building is two storeys • Alarm and concern is raised that care staff are proposed to be trained in self defence and that visitors are only allowed by prior arrangement and agreement of care staff. • The applicant fails to provide sufficient explanation as to how the community will benefit from the proposals. • Should this application be granted then the human rights of local residents will have been violated in that Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1988. • The applicant claims that the ‘Pathways Leaving Care’ is registered as a children’s home by the Commission for Ofsted Inspection. However local residents have investigated this claim, and could find no evidence that the care service is registered by Ofsted.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation – No objections.

7.2 Children and Young People Resource – This proposal would not be a registered children’s home due to the age range of the young people residing there. There are currently a number of children’s homes in the Bilston area and this proposal may have an impact on services and resources within the area.

7.3 Environmental Services – No reply or response.

8. External consultees

8.1 Police – No objections.

8.2 OFSTED (Care Homes) – No reply or response received.

36 9. Appraisal

9.1 The main consideration with this case is whether the proposed use would be lawful. However, the decision to be reached does not rely on the planning merits or otherwise of the use as such. Whether the proposed use would be lawful is a matter of fact and degree.

9.2 The onus of proof in such cases is on the applicant and the test to be applied to the evidence is that of ‘on the balance of probability’. In this case the applicant relies on either of two propositions;

(a) that both the lawful use and the intended use are dwelling house uses as defined for purposes of Class C3 of the Town and Country Planning (Use Classes) Order 1987 (UCO). If that is so, by virtue of s55(2) (f) of the 1990 Act and part 3(1) of the UCO, by definition no development would be required. (b) alternatively, even if the proposed use is not considered to be a dwelling house for purposes of Class C3, but come within class C2 the use would nevertheless not be materially different to the lawful use of the property and again development as defined by s55(1) would not be involved.

9.3 UCO Class C3 ‘Dwelling houses’ is comprised of;

Use as a dwelling house (whether or not as a sole main residence) -

(a) by a single person or by people living together as a family, or (b) by not more than six residents living together as a single household (including a household where care is provided for residents)

9.4 It is considered that the proposal would come within the existing Class C3 use. This category has three elements to be considered – (a) the existence of any ‘care’ which may be provided to ‘residents’, as defined by the use classes order, (b) the number of ‘residents’ and (c) whether those residents live together as a single household.

Care

9.5 Care of the residents as defined by the use classes order, is not a principle component of the proposed use. The residents who will be aged 18-21 may not have any care needs at all as defined by the use classes order. The applicant has advised that the reason for their accommodation being to encourage the residents to live independently. Consequently, the proposed use, falls within Class 3(b).

9.6 In the event that the proposal may be considered to come within Class C2, ‘Residential Institutions’, this would be for the reason that the 9.00pm shift is not characteristic of its use as a dwelling house. However it is considered that this would not amount to a material change in the use of the property.

Number of residents

9.7 The four residents are clearly to be included in the calculation of those to be accommodated at the property. Circular 13/87 advises that resident care staff should also be included in the calculation. In this case, none of the staff involved would use the premises as a permanent residence.

9.8 The use, however, proposes members of staff to be present. There will be up to two available ‘at any one time’, although this is also described as ’24 hours per day’. These staff should not be taken to be residents for the purpose of the calculation, although they may take meals with the residents. Even so, the staff would be a significant

37 component of the activity. The evidence is that the property is to be a base for at least six persons at all times. I consider the implications below.

Living as a single household

9.9 An assessment has been made as to whether the proposed arrangements point to a house in multiple occupation or hostel, but it is not considered that they do. Although the young people have "tenancies" there does not appear to be evidence of exclusive possession within the property, and there are communal areas which all residents are required to help to keep clean as part of their programme for learning independence. This is pointing to them working together as a single house hold sharing tasks in shared areas.

9.10 In respect to vehicular movements and parking, it is stated by the applicant that there would be a maximum of three vehicles parked within the curtilage of the premises at any one time. When comparing this to the previous household living at this property it is not considered to be a material change.

9.11 In conclusion, the applicant has provided sufficient evidence to show that the proposed use would be lawful and that permission can be granted for a certificate of lawful use.

10. Recommendation:

Grant the certificate of lawful use.

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

Planning Application No: 07/00703/CPL Location 220 Wellington Road, Bilston,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393894 297014 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 417m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01441/FUL WARD: Graiseley DATE: 11-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 10-Jan-08 RECEIVED: 11.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 132 Birches Barn Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV3 7BG PROPOSAL: Change of use from mixed light industries (B1) and residential dwellings (C3) to a mixed residential and retail (A1) use (Asian Sweet Shop) and associated external flue and alterations to the external elevation. Hours of opening Mon- Sat 1000-1930 and Sundays 1000-1400.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr A Singh AJM Planning Associates 132 Birches Barn Road The Westlands Wolverhampton 132 Compton Road West Midlands Wolverhampton WV3 7BG WV3 9QB

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1.1 Site Description

1.1 The application site is situated approximately 1 mile to the south of the City Centre and consists of a large two storey detached building which is set back from the road. There is a driveway access with parking to the front and rear of the building. The property is gated and the front boundary is defined by a brick wall with metal railings.

1.2 The application building has been sub-divided at ground floor level. There is residential accommodation to the rear and vacant Use Class B1 (all sub-classes) space to the front at ground floor level. At first floor level there is residential accommodation.

1.3 The premises were originally constructed as a mixed dwelling and shop. It was formally used as a driving test centre between 1969 and 1989. Following the closure of the test centre, and a planning appeal, a part of the premises were subsequently used as a clothing workshop, employing up to fifteen people until 2006. The extant Use Class B1 permission provides for hours of operation 08.00 – 18.00 Monday to Saturday inclusive.

1.4 The western and northern boundaries of the site adjoin residential properties, the eastern boundary of the site adjoins the Pennfields Local Centre as defined on the proposals map of the UDP. The shops are located around Birches Barn Road, Jeffcock Road and Lea Road. This is a vibrant local centre which is predominately a focus for retailing and banking uses as well as social, community and leisure uses which serve the immediate local area. Parking is provided primarily on an open forecourt in front of the premises within the local centre. The forecourt areas are not laid out. It is not contained by bollards and just forms part of the pavement.

2. Application details

2.1 The application seeks permission to change the use of the premises from mixed light industries (B1) and residential dwellings (C3) to mixed residential (C3) and retail (A1) uses. The proposed retail use would be Asian Sweet Shop. The food provided on site would predominately be cold food and very little cooking would take place within the premises. Indeed, it is proposed that the majority of food served will be sourced and delivered to the premises and sold directly without any cooking being required within the shop. Customers would not be encouraged to eat within the shop and there would be no provision of table and chairs for customers.

2.2 The proposals also seek permission for external flue and alterations to the external elevations of the building. New door ways would be created for staff and customers and the windows in the front elevation of the shop would be altered to clear glazing. The proposed opening hours of the premises would be Monday - Saturday (10am - 19.30 and Sunday 10.00 - 14.00). The proposed Asian sweet shop would employ three to four people.

3. Planning History

C/0652/93. Proposed change of use of part of ground floor premises to Use Class B1 (appeal aganist condition number 3). Granted 20.10.1993.

06/0744/FP/C. Proposed change of use to Asian Sweet Shop (Use Class A5). Refused 1 August 2006.

4. Constraints

Authorised Processes Mining Areas

5. Relevant policies

Unitary Development Plan Policies

6. Publicity and neighbour notifications/ represntations

6.1 The application was advertised by site notice and neighbour letters. One petition with 331 signatures and four letters of objection were received including a letter from MP Rob Marris. The comments received are summarised as follows:

• The proposals would increase existing parking problems • Detriment to highway and pedestrian safety • Recommend that the further parking restrictions be introduced in and around the site to reduce the traffic problems • There are already three food outlets (including an existing Asian sweet centre), a supermarket, and a petrol station, which sells food within this parade. A second Asian sweet shop would unbalance the shopping mix at this local centre and threaten the economic viability of existing shops.

7. Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation Development

• Amended proposals show acceptable pedestrian visibility for vehicles exiting the site. • The applicant proposes six on-site car parking bays (including one disabled bay). Since five of the proposed car parking bays would be to the rear of the site the applicant should ensure that the rear car park is clearly signed from the front of the building.

7.2 Environmental Services

• Full ventilation and odour control system will be required. The extraction system detailed in the application vents at ground floor level. It is unclear whether the likelihood of nuisance from odour / steam and noise to occupiers of the adjacent ground floor and first floor accommodation will be eliminated. • Refuse stores are required. These are not indicated on the submitted plans. • It is recommended that conditions be imposed upon any prospective permission to restrict the opening hours to those proposed in the application. Also recommend that full use of the food areas is also restricted to 09.00 - 19.30. as there is likely to be heavy use iof the kitchen for preparation and cooking for orders outside the hours that the shop is open to the public. • If there are independent occupiers above the commercial kitchen, then the likely impact of kitchen activities through the existing building structure should be determined. This is particularly relevant since details of the nature of occupancy, layout, and existing construction detail are not provided.

8. External Consultees

8.1 None

42 9. Appraisal

9.1 The key issues for consideration are as follows;

• Compliance with Policy • Design and Layout • Parking and Access • Residential Amenity

Compliance with Policy

9.2 The application proposes mixed residential (C3) and Retail (A1) uses. A previous application (06/0744/FP/C) to use this building as mixed residential accommodation and Asian Sweet shop was refused permission. At that time the proposed Asian Sweet Shop was considered to fall within Use Class A5 (hot-food takeaway). It was resolved that a hot-food takeaway would not be suitable at this location and be likely to give rise to unacceptable levels of disturbance to local residents. Following the refusal of that application, the applicant clarified the precise nature of the proposed use. It is proposed that the shop would retail almost exclusively in cold food and there would be very little hot food cooked on site. Further, customers would not be encouraged to eat within the premises, with no seating areas or late night opening proposed. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposed Asian Sweet Shop would constitute an A1 (Retail) and not an A5 (hot food takeaway) use.

9.3 The application site is located immediately outside of the boundary with the Pennfields Local Centre and has B1 Use Class rights and also includes C3 uses. Although located outside of the local centre, its close proximity means that it is not unreasonable to apply UDP Policy SH8 'Local Centres' to this application. That policy says that the Council will support proposals for new retailing uses appropriate in scale to the role and function of the centre and their catchments. It also says that complementary residential use may also be appropriate. The applicant proposes A1 and C3 uses at this site and this would be in accordance with the UDP Policy allocation.

Design and Layout

9.4 The applicant proposes to carry out internal alterations to the front of the premises to create a cooking and preparation area and a front serving area with display counter. A new doorway will be created to the front and side of the premises to allow for segregated access to the shop for customers and staff. There would be very minor alterations to the existing large window that faces onto Birched Barn Road. These proposed alterations would not be detrimental to the visual appearance of the building or be unduly detrimental to neighbour amenity. The extraction system would be positioned along the western side elevation of the building and would not be visible from the public realm.

Parking and Access

9.5 The applicant has provided amended plans which show proposed revisions to the existing front boundary wall and access. The pedestrian visibility for vehicles exiting the site would now be acceptable.

43 9.6 The area surrounding the site suffers from high levels of on-street parking associated with the retail shops nearby. It is important that sufficient off-street parking provision is provided within the site so that on-street parking issues are not exacerbated as a result of the proposed retail use of the site. The applicant proposes six on-site car parking bays (including one disabled bay). Since five of the proposed car parking bays would be to the rear of the site the rear car park should be clearly signed from the front of the building and the applicant should maximise the number of spaces available to customers during trading hours. These details could be required by condition.

Residential Amenity

9.7 Full ventilation and odour control system will be required. The extraction system detailed in the application vents at ground floor level and would be positioned hard up against the close boarded boundary treatment. The presence of first floor windows to residential accommodation, directly above the extraction vent, would mean that it would be likely that the extraction system would create nuisance from odour / steam and noise to occupiers of the adjacent residential accommodation. The applicant should submit further details of the ventilation and odour control system and also submit an amended design. The amended extraction system should not vent at ground floor level. These details could be required by a condition.

9.8 The application does not include details of the proposed refuse stores. These details could be required by a condition.

9.9 In order to ensure against disturbance to occupiers of neighbouring residential properties the opening hours of the proposed retail use and the hours during which food is cooked should be restricted. The hours should be restricted to those proposed by the applicant.

9.10 The applicant has confirmed that there are residential occupiers to the rear and above the commercial kitchen. As such the likely impact of kitchen activities through the existing building could be a material issue for consideration. A condition is recommended requiring full details of noise insulation to overcome this issue.

9.11 In order to ensure a sufficient level of amenity for the occupants of the residential accommodation within the application building, the garden space shown on the proposed plans should be provided prior to the first use of the proposed retail unit.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Grant if details of external flue are provided with conditions to include

• Provision of car parking/signage scheme • Provision of shared private amenity space • Refuse stores • Boundary treatment/widening of access • Noise insulation • Installation of flu prior to commencement of A1 Retail use • Hours of opening and use of food areas.

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

Planning Application No: 07/01441/FUL Location 132 Birches Barn Road, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV3 7BG Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390179 297133 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 645m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 06/01300/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 14-Mar-07 TARGET DATE: 13-Jun-07 RECEIVED: 22.09.2006 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Land At Horseley Fields/Union Mill Street, Horseley Fields, Eastfield, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of 57 houses and 44 flats with associated parking and infrastructure.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Cala Homes (Midlands) Ltd Elmdon House 2291 Coventry Road Sheldon Birmingham West Midlands B26 3PD

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Purpose of Report

1.1 To update Committee and make a recommendation.

2 Background

2.1 This application was reported to Planning Committee on 26th June. The Committee report and minutes are appended (Appendix A & B).

2.2 Committee resolved to delegate authority to the Director to grant planning permission subject to the satisfactory resolution of outstanding issues, the imposition of conditions and a Section 106 agreement to secure:

• 20% affordable housing – 50% Housing Association to rent and 50% HA shared ownership. • Contribution (BCIS indexed) towards off site provision and enhancement of POS. • Contribution towards new bridge (BCIS indexed) and its maintenance. • Residential travel plan, to include support for a car club. • Unrestricted public access along the new road through the site, from Horseley Fields to Union Mill Street. • Unrestricted public pedestrian and cycle access along the canalside path and the other designated pedestrian/cycle routes and through the plaza. • Provision and management of canalside path and other public and communal areas. • Future links to adjacent site to the north west to be provided on implementation of the redevelopment of that site. • Public art. • Targeted recruitment and training.

3 Updating

3.1 Since the 26th June, the applicants have made an offer of 10% affordable housing, rather than the 20% required in compliance with the Council’s policy.

3.2 Originally, the affordable housing offer was conditional on them being able to use “normal” tiles on the roofs instead of the natural slate that they had previously specified. They have now agreed to use slate.

3.3 Their affordable housing offer is now conditional on providing a contribution of only £130,000 towards off-site public open space and a footbridge over the canal. The public open space requirement is for £329.536. A 50% contribution towards a footbridge (the Crane Foundry development opposite would contribute the balance) is likely to be in excess of £100,000. Their offer is therefore in the region of £300,000 short in this regard.

3.4 The applicants have submitted a financial viability appraisal in support of their offer. They emphasise costs and constraints involved in developing the site, specifically:

• The loss of the site frontage to facilitate road widening. • Provision of a road linking to Union Mill Street, to enable access to adjacent land (Cheese and Butter Warehouse). • Provision of a signalised junction on Horseley Fields.

3.5 The Council’s financial advisor considers that the submitted financial viability appraisal demonstrates that the development is not sufficiently viable to support the full provision of affordable housing because the land price is too high. The applicants have not yet bought the land.

4. Appraisal

4.1 UDP policy H10 ‘Affordable Housing’ allows that the amount sought may be reduced or waived, where it can be proved that the requirement would genuinely threaten the overall viability of the development.

4.2 The SPD on Affordable Housing states (para 8.11):

“ Wolverhampton City Council expects that any ‘abnormal development costs’ and ‘unforeseen circumstances’ will have been fully taken into account by the developer in the land price they pay for the site, including provision for contingencies. If a developer has unwisely paid a high price for a site, which does not fully reflect any ‘abnormal development costs’ or a price which is above normal market value, this would not be a good reason for the Council to mitigate the provision of affordable housing.”

4.3 It would therefore not be appropriate to allow an inflated land value to be subsidised at the expense of affordable housing.

4.4 UDP policy H8 ‘Open Space, Sport and Rereation Requirements for New Housing Developments’ requires any housing development of 10 dwellings or more to contribute towards the provision and/or enhancement of open space, sport and recreation facilities sufficient to serve new residents. There is no provision for this requirement to be waived or relaxed.

4.5 A canal bridge is required to provide connectivity within the canalside quarter. This requirement is supported by UDP policies D3 ‘Urban Spaces’, AM9 ‘Provision for Pedestrians’ and AM10 ‘Provision for Cyclists’.

5. Recommendation

Refuse:

1. The applicants have declined to make full provision for affordable housing, public open space contribution and a contribution towards the provision of a bridge over the canal, without adequate justification, contrary to policies H8, H10, D3, AM9 and AM10, of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan.

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

48 Appendix A

59 Appendix B

Planning Application No: 06/01300/FUL Location Land At Horseley Fields/Union Mill Street, Horseley Fields,Eastfield,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 392359 298585 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 13605m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01112/OUT WARD: Heath Town DATE: 11-Sep-07 TARGET DATE: 11-Dec-07 RECEIVED: 06.08.2007 APP TYPE: Outline Application

SITE: New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton Road, Heath Town, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: "Hybrid"Full/Outline Application for redevelopment of New Cross Hospital and new residential development on two sites one located to the north-east of the Hospital site and one located on the South of the campus running parallel to the existing Wolverhampton Road.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust Halcrow Group Ltd C/O Agent Lyndon House 62 Hagley Road Edgbaston Birmingham B16 8PE

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The application site is the existing New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton Road, Heath Town. The site lies approximately 1.5 miles to the north east of Wolverhampton City Centre. The site covers an area of approximately 23.6 hectares. The site has been developed over a long period of time, with a medley of buildings of varying size, scale, condition, age and type. The site also includes a number of relatively modern additions including the Cardiac Centre to the north of the site.

1.2 There are four points of vehicular access/egress, two on Wolverhampton Road to the south and two on Prestwood Road to the north. The site is predominantly bounded by terraced and semi-detached houses and their rear gardens. In addition to this, Heath Park High School is situated to the North West and there is a graveyard and nursing home to the East accessed off Memory Lane.

1.3 There are two locally listed buildings on the site, the clock tower and hall known as ‘The Poplars’ located to the north of the existing Women’s Unit, and the ‘Board of Governors’ building located to the south of the site, near to the Wolverhampton Road.

1.4 Within the site there are a number of protected trees, largely massed along the southern boundary and in the south west corner of the site.

2 Planning History

2.1 On 4th February 2003, Wolverhampton City Council’s Planning Committee endorsed the New Cross Hospital masterplan as the basis for the submission and determination of future planning applications. This masterplan proposed a radical improvement in the quality of buildings and services at New Cross Hospital.

63 2.2 There have been numerous planning applications granted for hospital related development on the site.

3 Application Details

3.1 The planning application is a hybrid full/outline application.

Full Proposal

3.2 Full permission is sought for:

• Re-modelling the existing Wrekin House, to form a new out-patient centre with a link to the radiology centre. • An extension to the existing Women and Children’s centre. • A new 5 storey multi-storey car park providing 540 parking spaces, to the east of the site adjacent to the cemetery. • A new catering and pathology building to be located on the existing north car park.

3.3 The development for which full planning permission is sought would form part of the initial works on the site

3.4 Wrekin House - The proposed works to this building are primarily internal with the provision of a new main entrance lobby. The proposed new entrance lobby would have width of 6.5m projecting approximately 3.5m. The existing level access will be maintained and the existing footpath will be widened and repaired to provide a link to the existing footpath layout. The internal works will form a new outpatient centre, to facilitate the demolition of surplus building to provide car parking facilities adjacent to the new outpatient areas.

3.5 Women & Children’s Centre - The proposal involves the extension and remodelling of the existing Women’s Unit to allow the integration of children’s services. The works proposed include the construction of a three storey link between the two wings of the building and a small link at ground floor level to the operating theatres at the adjacent Beynon Centre. Each level of the extension would provide approximately 320sq metres of accommodation.

3.6 It is proposed that this building will be eventually replaced by new accommodation as part of the overall redevelopment of the site.

3.7 Multi Storey Car Park - It is proposed to build a new 5 storey, 540 space multi-storey car park on the site of the existing east car park, adjacent to the cemetery. It is stated that this car park is required to increase car parking provision in line with the projected requirement and to replace existing car parking lost through the development of the catering and pathology building.

3.8 It is proposed to clad the structure in a natural material such as timber. The application states that to detract from the structures height and mass the car park has been designed to express key features of the building (the stair towers and the entrance/exit). The proposed timber cladding of the building would be arranged in a 'hit and miss' arrangement to allow light and views to penetrate the building. It is proposed that the vertical emphasis of the timber cladding would offset the horizontal nature of the building.

3.9 Catering and Pathology Building - The proposed building would combine the catering and pathology services in one new building. This building would be located to the north of the site, bounded to the south by the existing hospital distributor road, the McHale building and it’s service yard and The Cardiac Centre. To the north the

64 building would be bounded by the proposed ‘residential north zone’ and beyond this the existing residential properties along Wickham Gardens.

3.10 It is stated in the design and access statement that the proposed Catering and Pathology building has been designed to minimise its visual impact on the residential area of Wickham Gardens. The building’s south elevation would be three storeys high, with the roof sloping downwards to a single storey north elevation. It is proposed that the building will have a green roof, with an ‘extensive variety of vegetation covering the roofing system’. In the centre of the building would be a ‘landscaped courtyard’.

3.11 It is proposed to clad the building using a metal faced flat panel system comprising a mixture of colour coated flat and micro-rib elements with contrasting areas of brickworks or terracotta tile cladding.

3.12 To the west of the building it is proposed to site a new car park area, serving the building, adjacent to the existing water treatment and stores building.

Outline Proposal

3.13 Outline permission is sought for the rest of the redevelopment of the hospital site and new residential development on two areas of hospital land – The North East Zone, located accessed off Park House Avenue, and The South Zone, occupying the Wolverhampton Road frontage. Although the application is in outline, layout and access are submitted for determination at this stage.

3.14 It is proposed to maintain the access points to the north of the site as existing. The two existing access points to the south of the site, off Wolverhampton Road, would be incorporated in the proposed residential development. It is therefore proposed to create one entrance/exit access point to the hospital site, located opposite the existing T-junction with New Cross Avenue. A road around the perimeter of the site would be maintained.

3.15 The following hospital related development is proposed in outline:

• Emergency Centre - Proposed 3 storeys. Upon completion the proposal would integrate with the existing Cardiac Centre. The Emergency Centre would comprise of an Accident and Emergency Centre; Integrated Emergency assessment unit and Inpatient operating / endoscopy theatre suite incorporating admissions and discharge facilities. • Inpatient Centre - Proposed 3 storeys. The centre would comprise 10 inpatient wards, • Ambulatory Centre - Proposed 4 storeys. This centre would comprise Outpatient services, both general and specialist, day case surgical suite with short stay unit; and an ophthalmology unit. • Women & Children’s Centre - Proposed 4 storeys. This centre would provide maternity services, gynaecology services and children’s services. • Multi-storey car park - Providing 432 space

3.16 Within the North East Residential Zone a layout showing 86 houses is proposed. These would comprise 83 three bedroomed houses and 3 four bedroomed houses, with a mix of detached, semi-detached and terraces. Twenty six of the houses would be 3 storey, the rest 2 storey. The site would be accessed from the existing Parkhouse Avenue and would provide an extension to this cul-de-sac. There is also a proposed provision of 2481 sq/m of public open space within this site.

3.17 The South Residential Zone is divided into two parts by the proposed new access road to the hospital site. Each of the 2 areas would have houses fronting onto a cul-de-sac. The access to the cul-de-sacs would correspond to the existing points of

65 access/egress. Seventy nine dwellings are proposed, comprising 69 three bedroomed houses, 2 four bedroomed houses and the conversion of the locally listed ‘Board of Governors’ building into 4 one bedroomed and 4 two bedroomed flats.

3.19 To facilitate the proposed residential development 38 trees would be removed, including 7 trees protected by Tree Preservation Orders.

Background Information

3.20 In support of the application, the following information is provided in the Planning Statement.

3.21 ‘It is not possible for the Trust to meet their core principles and support the clinical excellence and efficiencies the Trust strives to achieve in the future, without the need to rationalise and modernise the existing New Cross Hospital site’ (page 11, ii.iv).

3.22 ‘The redevelopment of the hospital site has been developed following careful consideration of the key determining factors. These have included….the need for the redevelopment of the hospital to be affordable. It is the latter point that has necessitated the need to include residential development within the redevelopment of the hospital’ (page 20, 1.5.2).

3.23 In the ‘Design and Access Statement – Residential Schemes’ it states: ‘On the 11th July, the Prime Minister announced that the Department of Health is to undertake an urgent review of surplus land in the NHS to explore opportunities for its transfer and development to provide additional homes’ (page 2).

4 Constraints

4.1 Authorised Processes Current Open Space - St Thomas Churchyard, Graiseley Lane Locally Listed Buildings Midlands Metro 5w’s Route Mining Area Sites and Monuments Tree Preservation Orders

5 Relevant Policies of the applicants statement

5.1 The following UDP Policies are relevant:

AM1 Access, Mobility and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision 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

66 D11 Access for People with Disabilities part C1 Health, Education and Other Community Services C2 Location of new community services development C5 Health Service Improvements C6 New Cross Hospital R7 Open Space Requirements for New Development H1 Housing H3 Housing Site Assessment Criteria H6 Design of Housing Development H7 Conversion of Buildings from Non-Residential Use to Residential Use H8 Open Space, Sport and Recreation Requirements for new housing developments. H10 Affordable Housing EP1 Pollution Control EP3 Air Pollution EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Development EP16 Energy Conservation HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Distinctiveness HE18 Preservation and Enhancement of Local List Buildings & Sites HE19 Development Affecting a Local List Building or Site HE20 Demolition of a Local List Building or Site WVC3 Midland Metro

5.2 The following Supplementary Planning Guidance/Documents are relevant:-

SPG3 - Residential Development SPD – Affordable Housing

5.3 The following Regional Policies are relevant:-

Regional Spatial Strategy for the West Midlands (RSS 11) Draft Regional Spatial Strategy 11

5.4 The following National Policies are relevant;

PPS 1 – Delivering Sustainable Communities PPS 3 – Housing PPG 13 – Transport PPG 15 – Planning and the Historic Environment PPG 17 – Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

6 Publicity

6.1 The application was advertised by press notice, site notice and 358 neighbour letters.

6.2 Two letters of representation were received, these objected to the proposal on the following grounds:

• Increase traffic levels resulting from the proposed residential development on the north east site, resulting in increased noise pollution and may result in more road traffic accidents. This problem may be made worse by the existing on-street parking that occurs along Victoria Road. • How can it be assumed that the land deemed surplus to requirements will not be needed in the future? • Re: the proposed residential development to the north of the site:–

67 o All access/egress is through one exit. Existing on street parking limits accessibility to and from the site. o There is no pedestrian access onto Prestwood Road or the Hospital site o There is a lack of support for Public Transport with the provisions of two parking spaces per dwelling.

7 Internal Consultees

7.1 Environmental Services - The conclusions of the submitted air quality report are accepted. There are still outstanding issues regarding the conclusions of the noise and vibration assessment. This relates to the provision of ventilation to the proposed residential development adjacent to Wolverhampton Road and the conclusions with regard to the helicopter landing pad.

7.2 Conditions relating to the demolition and construction phase, the operational noise during construction, a land contamination assessment (and remedial measures) and noise insulation measures for the residential development are recommended.

7.3 Tree Officers - The proposed housing to the south would require the removal of 7 trees covered by tree preservation order and some 31 trees (mostly maples) described as good to fair in the tree report.

7.4 Trees retained on the frontage are between 10-20m in height and would lead to future conflict from residents (e.g. blocking light, overhanging branches etc.) leading to applications to reduce or remove these TPO'd trees.

7.5 Housing to North - Tree survey is required

7.6 Transportation - Comments awaited.

7.7 Leisure Services The proposed site provides for 0.285 ha of public open space all located on the northern housing development site. The main area would have been more strategically located on the corner of the branching Parkhouse Avenue of the new estate where it would be clearly visible and used by both 'prongs' of the estate.

7.8 Two areas of public open space are not considered suitable for open space and would not be adopted;

1) The small 126 sq m area of public open space measures just 7m deep x 18m (average) wide and is really too small to be anything but aesthetic. The site is not overlooked and further compounded by being situated at the end of two house gardens - which will make these houses very vulnerable from attack given the size and function of the open space. 2) The sliver of land situated off the main open space linking through to the side of plot mark 1 is really dead land and should not be considered public open space.

7.9 Access Officer -No observations.

7.10 Conservation – Comments awaited.

7.11 Urban Design - Comments awaited.

7.12 Planning Policy - Policy C6 of the Wolverhampton UDP has the specific purpose of ensuring that any future development proposals for the hospital address specified criteria in order to properly plan for the expansion of the site into the future. Due to the frontage being seen as a key gateway site, the entrance to this essential community

68 service should remain open. The erection of dwellings to the south main entrance of the site does not provide a key gateway.

7.13 The construction of new hospital buildings complies with Policy C2 and is the most desirable location for such facilities.

7.14 Although the areas to be developed for residential development are car parks, these areas represent possible areas for expansion of (Use Class) D1 facilities that may be part of the hospital, or possibly health or community facilities that could be ancillary to the Hospital. Policy C1 of the Wolverhampton UDP aims to protect land and buildings that are in community service use, and also to support the expansion, improvement and new provision of community facilities in accessible locations. The redevelopment of these sites for residential purposes would result in the car parks being lost from further development and could be seen to jeopardise the ability for further expansion of the hospital or new ancillary facilities in the future.

7.15 The two residential developments each have a density of between 30-50 dwellings per hectare and consist of houses. On-site open space provision and an off-site open space contribution is required.

7.16 As it is proposed to develop 25+ dwellings, 25% of the development is required to be social or affordable housing, which would be subject to a section 106 Agreement. For this particular site, 41 of the dwellings would be affordable housing. The components would consist of 70% (28) of the dwellings to be rent assisted dwellings, and the remaining 30% (13) of the dwellings to be shared ownership. Affordable housing units should be evenly distributed across the site, in groups of no more than 10, with no visible design differences between the private market and affordable units. The Council will undertake to nominate a preferred partner Housing Association for delivery on this site.

8 External Consultees

8.1 Environment Agency - The site has been identified as being located within Flood Risk Zone 1 and therefore considered as an appropriate use for such an area. However this does not discount the probabilities of flooding from other sources to the development or as a result of the redevelopment as set out in Annex C of PPS25.

8.2 A minimum 20% reduction in the current surface water discharges from this site should be achieved through the use of Sustainable Drainage Systems. An outline drainage strategy for the site should have been included within the current report identifying locations as to where such features would be located and techniques used on new buildings. Therefore an objection to the current development proposals is based on the principle that the issue of the method of drainage from the new development has not been addressed in a sustainable matter following both national and local government guidelines.

8.3 Recommend a land contamination condition.

8.4 Severn Trent Water Ltd - No objection subject to the inclusion of a sustainable drainage condition.

8.5 Centro - Centro-WMPTA is generally supportive of the principal of the redevelopment of New Cross Hospital, however there are certain issues that need to be addressed before Centro-WMPTA can support this application overall.

8.6 The proposal adversely affects the agreed alignment of the 5Ws Metro Route. This metro route runs from Wolverhampton to Wednesbury via Wednesfield, Willenhall and

69 Walsall. New Cross Hospital is a key destination on this route as both a major trip generator and health facility. It is intended that the route should operate along Wolverhampton Road and into part of the hospital site (South side where the planning application now submitted shows proposals for residential development) and it is planned that there would be a Metro stop at the hospital to provide a dedicated interchange point between Metro and the hospital. Centro is currently preparing an Outline Business Case Submission on the basis of the agreed alignment, with a view to seeking authorising powers via a Transport & Works Act Order thereafter.

8.7 Centro-WMPTA’s response to the previous application of the redevelopment of New Cross Hospital requested that sufficient land is safeguarded at the hospital site for the alignment and stop and it is extremely disappointing that this planning application does not protect the agreed alignment. The proposed alignment through the hospital grounds will enable the Metro to run segregated from other traffic and the location of the proposed stop is intended to give convenient and high quality public transport access to the hospital campus. This application for the redevelopment of New Cross Hospital shows the applicants revised proposed Metro alignment that has not been shared with or agreed by Centro and does not represent the agreed Centro WMPTA and Wolverhampton City Council alignment.

8.8 Centro-WMPTA cannot support this application.

8.9 MADE (Midlands Architecture and the Designed Environment) – The panel considered access, movement and the siting of new buildings proposed within the Masterplan as outline proposals.

8.10 Change of Use – The panel did not raise any design issues in relation to proposed changes of use within this proposal. Concern was raised that the Trust are ‘selling off the family silver’ as this land does offer the opportunity for green space around the hospital for use as amenity and exercise space.

8.11 Siting and access – The panel felt that the rationalisation of operational movement between services has been well considered, and there was a strong logic to consolidation and freeing up excess land. The Panel also felt that congestion would be relieved by further separating the emergency access and visitor / outpatient circulation, and welcomed the move away from narrow hospital corridors.

8.12 It was felt that providing an inner core for in-patients was also a considered response. The Poplars is a locally listed building that may provide little high –specification use but provides enormous identity of place within the centre of the site. There is great potential for incorporating part of this building as a characteristic gateway into the central courtyard, assisting in providing a frontage entrance. This should be given further consideration.

8.13 The panel also acknowledge the fact that patients need to be encouraged to walk and take exercise and the environmental response should support and stimulate that activity. As such, the development of ‘pocket gardens’ is simply not enough as part of a holistic healing experience.

8.14 It is fundamental to consider external spaces as an integral part of the overarching design principals for the site. Notwithstanding landscaping as a reserved matter, and a landscaping strategy outlining key principles, the panel were concerned that there did not appear to be a robust landscaping framework driving the direction of the proposals alongside operational requirements. The panel found it difficult to consider the effective zoning, character and setting for the build components without a strong framework in place. A robust landscaping framework ought to inform and provide a rationale as to how the movement and spaces work between the buildings. This is not sufficiently clear.

8.15 Another key issue the Panel raised is the lack of a clear sense of arrival at the new linear route, between intended housing development sites, into the hospital from Wolverhampton Road. The feeling and experience and what the hospital offers as a top modern hospital could be strengthened here by the inclusion of a landmark feature.

8.16 There may be an opportunity to add some height to the buildings allowing views across adjacent blocks which would also free up parts of the site for landscaping. Expressive architecture may need to be played down to land a more comfortable response to visitors making the place appear less alien and stressful. The perception of a top modern hospital will also be strengthened by the careful selection of construction materials.

8.17 The panel felt the construction of the multi storey car park to the east was not convincing. Here the car park acts as a barrier on the boundary rather than taking the opportunity to work with the adjacent open space of the cemetery which could provide views from building on this site. Alternatively, should the space be better maintained in future, scope could allow access for patients to use this as a relaxing, tranquil space.

8.18 The proposed siting of the west multi-storey car park will significantly overshadow the adjacent smaller-scale residential 2 storey properties to the western boundary. The panel suggested reconsidering the siting and massing for a more suitable solution.

8.19 The MADE panel reconvened to review the initial works, the LPA are still awaiting these comments.

9 Appraisal

9.1 Key Issues are:-

• The need for the proposed hospital • The principle and detail of the proposed residential development. • Layout and access for the hospital. • The detailed design of the buildings for which full permission is sought. • The locally listed buildings

Hospital Redevelopment

9.2 Following the publication of the Government’s NHS Plan in July 2000, the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust has developed a number of core principles and objectives designed to improve the level of healthcare it provides to its patients. It is therefore recognised that there is an important need to not only improve health and social care services for the local population but also for the continuing regeneration of Wolverhampton as a vibrant, cultural community.

9.3 The Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Trust’s aspirations for the future are to continue to deliver and develop services as both a secondary and tertiary provider for the Black Country and environs, and beyond, becoming a major centre for a full range of services and a hospital of choice.

9.4 The proposals for this development and the future provision of clinical services have been based on the need to maximise the use of existing buildings on the site. The proposals have sought to design and co-locate departments and buildings to allow the separation of emergency and elective care pathways. This aims to avoid the demands on emergency services affecting the delivery of elective care.

71 9.5 The present New Cross Hospital is not ideal for patients and is inefficient and costly to run. The NHS estate categorisation and performance indicators show that around 60% of the estate falls below the acceptable standards for Hospital estates. Several buildings are not fit for purpose and do not lend themselves to providing 21st Century Services in a modern health care environment. Therefore, it is clear that there is a need to rationalise and modernise the site to meet the Trust’s and Government’s targets.

Residential Zone South

9.6 This area currently includes a landscaped area with extensive tree cover, older hospital buildings, including the locally listed Board of Governor’s building, roads and areas of car parking. Its loss to residential development would deny the hospital a possible area for future expansion. UDP policy C1 aims to protect land and buildings that are in community service use, and also to support the expansion, improvement and new provision of community facilities in accessible locations.

9.7 UDP policy C6 sets out matters which need to be addressed by major development proposals at New Cross Hospital. One of the specified matters relates to key gateway sites and entrance points. The hospital is currently visible from Wolverhampton Road across the landscaped frontage and that landscaped area forms the gateway into the site. The proposed residential development of this area would put the hospital in a backland position, hidden from Wolverhampton Road, its attractive landscaped gateway would be lost and the hospital would lose its visual status in the street scene.

9.8 The landscaped frontage to the south of the site also currently provides an attractive area that has the potential to be used for patients, as well as friends and family, as an area for amenity and exercise space. The loss of this open space to a private residential use would be contrary to Policy C1 that aims to protect land that is in community service use.

9.9 The landscaped area and associated trees are attractive features in the townscape. Their loss would be detrimental to the Wolverhampton Road street scene and the character and appearance of the area. Even those trees that would remain would be less prominently visible as they would be located in back gardens, and obscured by houses and garden boundaries. Furthermore, because of their proximity to new houses, there would be pressure on the Council to allow their removal or reduction.

9.10 The proposed residential development would be in 2 parts, one on either side of a new access to the hospital from Wolverhampton Road, which would be opposite the New Cross Avenue junction. Each part would be based on a new cul-de-sac, which would form a central spine road. The entrance to the 2 cul-de-sacs would correspond to the existing points of access/egress. On each side of the new roads there would be space for a single row of houses. The houses are shown facing onto the new roads and therefore turning their backs onto the Wolverhampton Road to the south, the internal hospital road to the north and the new main access to the hospital from Wolverhampton Road. This would result in lifeless road frontages with no surveillance and the creation of vulnerable back garden boundaries, contrary to UDP policy D5 (which promotes active street frontages) and D10. The proposed layout would also fail to adequately address the street corners, in particular the corner of the proposed main access to the hospital.

9.11 The proposed retention of many of the protected trees would result in the overshadowing of a number of southern elevations, resulting in a reliance on artificial light, contrary to UDP policies D13, EP16 and SPG 3 which require developments to maximise the use of natural heat and light through good development siting and orientation.

72 9.12 It has been recommended to the agent that this residential element of the application is withdrawn from the application.

Residential Zone North

9.13 This area is currently occupied by hospital buildings and areas of car parking. Its loss to residential development would deny the hospital of a possible area for future expansion, contrary to UDP policy C1.

9.14 The car parking lost would be replaced by the proposed multi-storey car parks. The proposed development would create an extension to the existing cul-de-sac Parkhouse Avenue.

9.15 The proposed layout would result in a number of new houses having exposed and insecure back garden boundaries, which would be detrimental to security and visual amenity and would militate against the creation of an active, lively street scene. In the layout building lines do not always run parallel to the road and do not adequately address corner locations. As a result the relationship between the buildings and the street is poor. Policy D1: Design Quality encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to ‘creating a strong sense of place’ ‘poor and mediocre design will be unacceptable’. It is considered that this proposal does not meet the standard set in Policy D1 of the adopted UDP.

9.16 The proposed layout would result in the extension of the existing Parkhouse Avenue creating an extremely long cul-de-sac, which would not encourage journeys on foot. The proposed layout would also be extremely unsustainable as the closest access point to the hospital site would be from the Prestwood Road or those to the south. Policy D3 encourages new development to provide new ‘vehicular and pedestrian routes making movement easier, safer, more attractive and visually varied through and within built up areas’. It is considered that this proposal has not taken into account the opportunity to introduce new vehicular and pedestrian routes into the proposal and therefore does not meet the standards of Policy D3 of the adopted UDP.

9.17 It is considered that there is potential for improving the residential layout in this area, by creating pedestrian and cycle links between it and the internal hospital road.

9.18 It is considered that the case has not been made that there is no cause to safeguard this area for future hospital or community use. However, it is possible that the loss of the north eastern site could be justified if further information is submitted regarding the space available for possible future long term expansion, satisfactory pedestrian and cyclist links to the hospital are provided and a high quality residential layout is submitted.

Layout and Access for the Hospital.

9.19 The existing hospital site has developed over many years and comprises buildings of varied age, scale, condition and type. A large scale redevelopment of the site is proposed which would retain a number of modern buildings and integrate them with a number of new buildings. The layout of and access to the proposed hospital is submitted for determination at this stage.

9.20 The principle of the proposed hospital re-development is welcomed and the provision of a health facility with improved standards and facilities fit for the 21st Century would be great acquisition for Wolverhampton. The existing hospital is not ideal for patients and is inefficient and costly to run, and as such many of the services are delivered from buildings either linked by long ramped corridors or housed in standalone facilities. Therefore the proposal to redevelop the hospital site does provide the opportunity to

73 create a first class hospital able to meet the demands of modern medicine whilst resolving the existing problems with access, less optimal clinical adjacencies and in many cases an unsatisfactory environment.

9.21 The submitted hospital masterplan shows a layout which is intended to provide a functional modern hospital with a greater level of integration between each of the buildings to improve movement for staff and patients around the site. The reduction in the site area has been predominantly achieved by replacing the existing surface level car parks with two multi-storey car parks.

9.22 The layout is considered to be broadly acceptable. However, there is concern regarding the proposed siting of the western multi-storey car park relative to houses in Coronation Road (which back onto the hospital site). Houses would be as close as 44m (no. 33) to the car park and it has not been demonstrated that it would not overshadow and have an overbearing impact on houses and their gardens, to an extent that would be detrimental to the amenity of residents. The agents have been invited to consider re-siting the car park and/or provide illustrative material which explains the relationship between car park and houses more fully.

9.23 The siting of the eastern car park relative to flats in New Heath Close to the south, at a distance of 30m, also gives cause for concern. Again, the agents have been asked to consider re-siting the car park and/or more clearly demonstrate the relationship between the multi-storey car park and the flats. Houses to the east in Victoria Road would be approximately 100m away, on the other side of the graveyard, and so it is not considered that the car park would have a significantly detrimental impact on residents of those houses.

The Detailed Design of the Buildings for which Full Permission is Sought.

9.24 The Eastern Multi-storey Car Park would be clad with vertical timber cladding with a pattern of ‘slash lines’ across the west elevation. The stairwells at each end of the proposal have been designed with coloured curtain walling/glazing. It is not considered that the proposed treatment of the exterior of the building would represent high quality design and the building would appear as a large, monolithic wooden box.

9.25 The Catering and Pathology Building - has been designed with a ‘green’ roof, sloping down from a three storey south elevation to a single storey north elevation, in an attempt to minimise its overbearing impact on the proposed houses to the north. The two closest houses would be side on to the Catering/Pathology building at a distance of approximately 10m. It would be possible to design these houses so that there would be no windows to principal habitable rooms in their south elevations. The main potential impact of the building is therefore on their gardens. However, because the building would not be directly adjacent to their rear gardens, and because of the diminishing height of the building to the north, it is considered that the impact would not be unacceptable.

9.26 The proposed green roof would reduce surface water runoff and would provide a softer visual appearance to the northern elevation of the building.

9.27 Women’s Maternity Unit - In terms of design it is considered that the principle of the proposed extension to this building is acceptable. The extension would maintain the existing building lines and would not appear obtrusive in relationship to the buildings existing form. Materials are proposed to match the existing building.

9.28 The proposal to provide a linking corridor to the adjacent Beynon Centre would not significantly impact on the existing appearance of the building and providing materials are used to match the existing this aspect of the proposal is considered acceptable.

74 9.29 Wrekin House - The proposal alterations to this building are predominantly internal, therefore not altering the external appearance of the building. It is proposed to introduce a new entrance lobby to the building. The principle of this extension is considered acceptable. However, a detailed elevation plan of the entrance lobby is required.

The Locally Listed Buildings

9.30 While the Board of Governors’ Building is proposed to be retained as part of the southern residential development, it is proposed to demolish the clock tower and associated hall.

9.31 The clock tower is a striking Victorian Gothic building and has a fairly small footprint. While the proposed hospital layout would need significant amendment to accommodate the retention of the hall, it would appear that a relatively small amendment could accommodate the retention of the clock tower, which would then be reinstated as a prominent feature at the front of the hospital. It has not been demonstrated that this could not be done.

10 Conclusion

10.1 The principle of the proposed hospital development is accepted. The site layout has been designed to co-locate departments and buildings to allow the separation of emergency and elective care pathways. The proposed hospital redevelopment would create a first class hospital able to meet the demands of modern medicine whilst resolving the existing problems with access, less optimal clinical adjacencies and in many cases an unsatisfactory environment.

10.2 The proposed residential development on the north eastern and southern part of the hospital site is unacceptable in principle (because of the loss of land for future hospital expansion or other community facilities) and because of the detail of the proposed layout. However, it is possible that the loss of the north eastern site could be justified if further information is submitted regarding the space available for possible future long term expansion, satisfactory pedestrian and cyclist links to the hospital are provided and a high quality residential layout is submitted.

10.3 The development of the southern area would result in the loss of a landscaped area and trees which currently provide an attractive area that may be used for amenity and exercise space for patients, friends and family and may contribute towards patient rehabilitation. This area makes an important contribution to the character and appearance of the area and forms a key gateway to the hospital.

10.4 Those trees identified to be retained in the southern site would overshadow houses and gardens creating an unsatisfactory environment with an over reliance on artificial light and requests from occupiers for the pruning or removal of protected trees.

10.5 With reference to the proposed north eastern residential area, detail of the proposed layout would extend the existing Parkhouse Avenue creating a long cul-de-sac. This would create an unsustainable highway that would not allow the movement of vehicles or pedestrians through the site and would not establish a relationship with the adjacent hospital site. As a result the closest access point to the hospital site would be from the Prestwood or Wolverhampton Road, thus potentially deterring people from walking to the hospital. However, there is the potential for creating an acceptable layout if pedestrian and cycle links were made with the hospital site.

75 10.6 The proposed hospital redevelopment of is broadly acceptable but there are concerns and objections relating to:

• The relationship between the multi-storey car parks and nearby dwellings. • The appearance of the eastern multi-storey car park. • The loss of the locally listed clock tower.

11 Recommendation

11.1 Delegated Authority to grant providing that :

• the south residential element of the application is omitted; • in relation to the north eastern residential element, further information is submitted regarding the space available for possible future long term expansion, satisfactory pedestrian and cyclist links to the hospital are provided and a high quality residential layout is submitted • it is demonstrated that there would be a satisfactory relationship between the multi- storey car parks and neighbouring dwellings; • the design of the eastern multi-storey car park is reserved for subsequent approval or satisfactorily amended; • it is confirmed that the clock tower will be retained • The objections raised by the Environment Agency and Centro are addressed satisfactorily.

11.2 Subject to the negotiation and signing of a Section 106 Agreement and any necessary conditions.

11.3 Section 106 Agreement to include: the negotiation of any necessary clauses including Affordable Housing; provision and maintenance (including commuted sum) of on-site Public Open Space; contribution to off site Public Open Space and Play/Recreation (and commuted sum for maintenance provision); Travel Plan and Car Park Management; provision for the 5Ws Metro route; Targeted Recruitment and Training; Retention of Clock Tower and Public Art. All sums to be BCIS indexed.

11.4 Conditions to include:-

• Reserved Matters • Submission of floor plans (RM) • Submission of materials (full) • Large scale architectural details • Implementation of Landscaping • Construction method statement • Sound attenuation • Site investigation for physical and chemical contamination and landfill gas • Drainage details • Scheme to deal with groundwater contamination. • Buildings not to be occupied until exterior completed • Parking (car, cycle, motorcycle) – details and implementation • A detailed elevation of the proposed entrance lobby to Wrekin House

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

Planning Application No: 07/01112/OUT Location New Cross Hospital, Wolverhampton Road,Heath Town,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 393526 300185 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 236368m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01437/FUL & WARD: Heath Town 07/01436/LBC DATE: 18-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 13-Dec-07 RECEIVED: 12.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application and Listed Building Consent

SITE: Building F, Former Springfield Brewery, Cambridge Street, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing building and construction of replacement 11 no. residential units

APPLICANT: AGENT: Simon Developments Ltd Mr James Mumby C/O AGENT 5 The Priory Old London Road Canwell Sutton Coldfield West Midlands B75 5SH

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The Springfield Brewery site, is within close proximity of the City Centre, and easy walking distance of the railway station and bus routes on Cannock Road and Wednesfield Road. The site falls within the Canalside Quarter and Springfield Brewery Conservation Area and is highlighted as an Opportunity Development Site within the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan (CC12i). A development brief for the site was prepared by the City Council and was published in March 2004. The site has architectural interest with a number of the existing buildings on site being Grade listed, and other pre 1948 buildings being ‘curtilage listed’. The building to be demolished, the ‘boiler house’ is Listed.

1.2 The Springfield Brewery site is currently undergoing major demolition, and redevelopment as part of previously granted outline and reserved matters approvals, for a mixed use development, the majority of which will be residential.

1.3 The boiler house is a “ferro-concrete” structure, believed to have been built in the 1920’s. The building has been derelict for a number of years, leading to looting, vandalism and lack of maintenance. The building is currently dangerous to enter due to the presence of asbestos containing materials. The building has an approximately square plan form, has three storeys with a mezzanine between ground and first floor and a further mezzanine between second floor and roof levels.

2 Application details

2.1 There are 2 applications for consideration:-

07/01436/LBC – application for listed building consent for demolition of the building. 07/01437/FUL – application for a replacement building comprising 11 apartments 5 No. 1bedroomed units, and 5No. 2bedroomed units and a 2bedroomed Penthouse. Materials include rendered walls, and a powder coated aluminium roof. 78

3 Planning History

3.1 The site once housed Springfield Brewery. Since the cessation of brewing this site has been the subject of a number of uses, most of which did not involve the listed buildings on site, however, none of these uses offered a long term or viable re-use of the building. Over the years the Brewery has been subject to vandalism, which included two substantial fires in 2004 and 2006.

3.2 In order to encourage appropriate redevelopment, the site was included in the Wolverhampton Canalside Quarter Implementation Plan (December 2004), which identified it as a predominantly residential led redevelopment area. A development brief was prepared for the site providing a masterplan for the development of this site.

3.3 An outline planning application 04/2018/OP for mixed use including residential, office, retail uses, restaurant and parking was submitted in January 2005, along with a Listed Building application 04/2019/LB/R which was subject to a 2 year negotiation with Wolverhampton City Council and English Heritage. The applications were considered at three separate Committee’s on 1 March 2005, 3 October 2006 and 30 January 2007 and it was resolved by Planning Committee to delegate authority to grant permission to the Director subject to the signing of a S106 Agreement. The Section 106 was signed, and permission granted on 4 April 2007.

3.4 The outline planning permission fixed siting of buildings and access.

3.5 The S106 included public art, public open space, play equipment contribution and play equipment commuted sums, affordable housing clawback, management company strategy, off site open space contribution, travel plan, car park management strategy, highway contribution, nature conservation, phasing of works to historic buildings, employment and training initiatives, and pedestrian access.

3.6 Reserved matters approval (pursuant to outline planning permission 04/2018/OP) 07/00543/REM “Design and External appearance for phase 1, residential and offices, and landscaping for the whole site”, was granted by Planning Committee on 26 June 2007, subject to a number of conditions.

4 Constraints

Authorised Process Conservation Area Canal Side Quarter Hazardous Premises LB Grade:11 Sites and Monuments

5 Relevant policies

5.1 The following UDP Policies are relevant:

AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security AM1 Access, Motabaility and New Development AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security

79 B6 Offices CC12 Canalside Quarter CC3 City Centre Housing CC4 City Centre Environment D1 Design Quality D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy 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 EP1 Pollution Control EP11 Devel. on Contaminated Unstable Land EP5 Noise Pollution EP9 Sustainable Drainage Arrangements for Dev EP13 Waste and Development EP15 Landfill Activities EP16 Energy Conservation HE1 Preservation of Local Character and Dist HE3 Preservation and Enhance. of Con. Areas HE4 Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 Control of Development in a Con. Area HE6 Demolition of Buildings Structures inCA HE8 Encouragement of Appropriate ReDev in CA H10 Affordable Housing HE12 Preservation and Active Use of LBs HE14 Alterations and Extns to a Listed Bldg HE16 Demolition of a Listed Building HE17 - Develop. Affecting the setting of a LB HE18 Preservation & Enhancement of Local Bldg HE19 Development Affecting a Local List Bldg HE22 Protection and Enhancement of Canal Net. HE24 Management and Protection of Arch. Sites R7 Open Space Requirements for New Develop. H6 Design of Housing Development H1 Housing H8 Open Space, Sport and Rec. Req. new Dev. H9 Housing Density and mix AM1 Access, Motabaility and New Development AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision

5.2 The following PPG’s/PPS’S are relevant:

PPG3 Housing PPG13 Transport PPG15 Planning and the historic environment PPG16 Archaeology and planning PPG17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recre PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development

80 5.3 The following SPG’s/SPD are relevant:

SPG16 Provision of Public Art SPG2 Access & Facil. People with Disabilities SPG3 Residential Development SPD Affordable housing

6 Publicity

6.1 The application was publicised by site and press notices. No objections were received.

7. Internal Consultations

7.1 Transport Development – Comments are awaited.

7.2 Conservation – It is considered that the boiler house is of limited historic value and of little architectural interest, although it is important both as a local landmark and in defining and creating space, given its position in relation to the Victorian brewery buildings and the proposed adjacent buildings. It is therefore the contribution it makes to the wider townscape as a landmark structure and the spatial enclosure created by its relationship with the adjacent buildings both existing and proposed that makes it of value in urban design terms.

7.3 The proposal to demolish the building and provide a suitable replacement has been discussed at length with the developer and the proposed scheme has evolved from those discussions. The replacement building has been designed to perform the same urban design function as the existing building of similar scale and in a similar position.

7.4 The applicant has proposed the demolition of the boiler house on the following grounds:

• It was designed to be purely functional and is of little architectural merit. The only attempt to improve its appearance was the addition of the Dutch gable and clock. • The construction method is not of any significant importance; the use of concrete being well established by the 1920’s. • The structural engineer’s report highlights the extensive corrosion of the reinforcing and suggests that the structure would need to be substantially rebuilt.

7.5 Given the limited architectural and historic interest of the existing building and the poor condition of the structure, I consider the case for demolition to be justified.

7.6 The following should be required by condition:-

• Demolition shall not take place until planning permission for the replacement building has been granted and a contract for the carrying out of the redevelopment has been made.

• A method statement detailing the proposed demolition works. The building is attached to a building which is to be retained and demolition must be carried out in a sensitive and appropriate manner.

81 • Details of the proposed treatment of the exposed elevations of the attached buildings. Details of the connections between the proposed building and the existing.

• Samples of all materials.

• Detail drawings at an appropriate scale of typical details.

7.7 Planning Policy – The application will be subject to a planning contribution for open space and play. The calculations are based upon the number of bed spaces, as indicated in Appendix 2 of the Wolverhampton UDP. The amount payable is £23,697 which is subject to a Section 106 Agreement and also subject to annual BCIS increases from March 2008. The contribution is required before commencement of the development.

7.8 Environmental Health – Comments awaited.

7.9 Access Officer – No comments, other that Part M of the building Regulations must be complied with regarding the approach, accessible entrances, door widths, accessible sockets and switches, lift and staircase.

8. External Consultations

8.1 English Heritage – Initial objection to the demolition as the structure is an early example of an industrial building constructed in concrete. Therefore, there are serious concerns over its proposed demolition. However, supporting information submitted by the applicants is being assessed and a full response will be provided in the near future. 8.2 West Midlands Fire – Unsatisfactory due to an insufficient site plan. Plan required showing access to the site. Minimum height clearance must be 4.0m (approved document B2006 Edition, Volumes 1 and 2).

9 Appraisal

9.1 Key Issues:

• Demolition of listed building • Urban and architectural design and layout • Orientation • Shared amenity space • Public open space • Affordable Housing • Access and vehicle and pedestrian circulation • Parking • Disturbance to future residents. • Disabled access • Security

Demolition

9.2 Notwithstanding the initial objection from English Heritage, It is considered that the demolition of the boiler house is acceptable, as it has limited historic value and little architectural interest. The proposed demolition and proposed replacement has been discussed at length with the developer and the proposed scheme has evolved from those discussions. The proposed building has been designed to perform the same urban design function as the existing being of similar scale and similar position.

82 Therefore, given the limited architectural and historic interest of the existing building and the poor condition of the structure, it is considered that the case for demolition is justified.

Design

9.3 The replacement building has been designed to perform the same urban design function as the existing being of similar scale and position and to compliment the retained buildings and the new development that has been permitted on the site. Therefore, the design is considered to be acceptable.

Orientation

9.4 The penthouse apartment has a dual aspect and has windows facing east and south. The other 10 flats would be single aspect, with 5 facing south west and 5 facing north east. It appears that it may be possible to include living room windows in the south east elevation and this is being explored with the agents.

Shared Amenity Space

9.5 The amenity space for this part of the development at Springfield Brewery has already been agreed as part of the outline planning 04/2018/OP and reserved matters approval 07/00543/REM, with pockets of shared amenity space located at various points around the site.

Public Open Space

9.6 The proposed application is for the construction of a further 11 No. units on the site of the existing boiler house. Therefore, a contribution for open space and play of £23,697 (subject to annual BCIS increased from March 2008 and required before commencement of the development) will need to be secured through a S106 agreement.

Affordable Housing

9.7 The outline permission was subject to a S106 agreement with a clawback provision to require a financial contribution towards affordable housing if values above a set threshold are achieved. This provision relates only to new build and so did not apply to the conversion of the Boiler House, as was proposed in the outline permission.

9.8 Now that it is proposed to demolish the Boiler House and replace it with a new building comprising 11 flats, there will be a requirement for this to be included within the clawback provision.

Access and vehicle and pedestrian circulation

9.9 The outline planning permission included siting and access, and as a result these two parameters are now fixed. Access is afforded from two locations the recently formed entrance towards the northern end of Cambridge Street and a new road from Grimstone Street. This part of the site, will be accessed from Cambridge Street

9.10 The West Midlands Fire Service has objected to the application due to insufficient information. However, siting and access, was agreed under the previous outline and reserved matters approvals.

83 Parking

9.11 The site is close to bus routes and is within reasonable walking distance of Wolverhampton City Centre and its public transport facilities.

9.12 The parking provision for this part of the development was considered under the reserved matters application which was granted, with one space allocated to each apartment, located directly to the front of the new apartment block six.

Disturbance to future residents

9.13 It is anticipated that Environmental Services will recommend conditions to protect residents from disturbance

Security

9.14 A number of issues raised by the Police on security were assessed within the Outline Planning Application and an appropriate clause was provided in the S106, whereby the owner will as soon as reasonably practicable provide the City Council with, for approval, such documentary evidence as it shall reasonably require in respect of the arrangement for maintenance and managements of the Communal Areas etc.

10 Conclusion

10.1 Notwithstanding the holding objections from English Heritage, it is considered on the basis of the comments received from Conservation, that the demolition is acceptable, subject to the replacement development being acceptable.

10.2 The design of the replacement building has been the subject of extensive discussions with the applicant’s agents. It is considered that it would perform the same urban design function as the existing building and so is acceptable.

11 Recommendation

11.1 0707/01437/FUL:

Grant subject to:

Conditions to cover the following:

• S106 for affordable housing clawback • Exterior of building to be completed in accordance with approved details prior to occupation. • Full architectural details of all new buildings including large scale detailed drawings of all architectural elements and their details. • Details and samples, and sample panels for materials to be submitted for approval. • Access for the Councils Archaeologist to be provided during ground works. • Condition S106 for Public Open Space and Play. • No external vents, flues, meter boxes, aerials, antennas, satellite dishes, air conditioning units or other fixtures or fittings, without prior approval.

11.2 07/01426/LBC

Grant subject to conditions to cover the following:

84 • Demolition shall not take place until planning permission for the replacement building has been granted and a contract for the carrying out of the redevelopment has been made should be attached to the Listed Building Consent. • The building is attached to a building which is to be retained. A method statement detailing the proposed demolition works. • Details of the proposed treatment of the exposed elevations of the attached buildings. Details of the connections between the proposed building and the existing.

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

Planning Application No: 07/01437/FUL Location Building F, Former Springfield Brewery,Cambridge Street,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391924 299318 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 127m2

Planning Application No: 07/01436/LBC Location Building F, Former Springfield Brewery,Cambridge Street,Wolverhampton Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391924 299318 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 125m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01640/FUL WARD: Heath Town DATE: 19-Nov-07 TARGET DATE: 18-Feb-08 RECEIVED: 19.11.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: New Crown, Nordley Road, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Demolition and removal of New Crown PH and associated bowling green. Construction of nursing home and associated landscaping/parking

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr D Wormald Mr P Burton 31 Davenport Road E-Innovation Centre, Suite 219 Yarm University Of Wolverhampton. Telford Stockton On Tees Campus TS15 9TN Priorslee Telford Shropshire TF2 9FT

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The site consists of the existing New Crown Public House, which dates from 1927, and the adjacent private bowling green and associated pavilion building. Access to the bowling green is via the public house.

1.2 The immediate surroundings are predominantly residential in nature, although there a couple of commercial units situated at the crossroads of Nordley Road and Woden Avenue. The residential properties are mostly modest semi-detached houses, which date from the 1930s.

1.3 The public house is mostly two storey, with a single storey element and a ridged roof. The building has a high level of architectural detailing. The public house has ceased trading.

2 Planning History

2.1 Earlier this year permission was refused for the demolition of the public house and the erection of a residential scheme (07/00074). This was refused for several reasons including;

• the applicant failing to provide sufficient information to justify the loss of the public house • the applicant failing to incorporate the New Crown building which has a high level or architectural detailing and is of distinction • the proposed development would not provide a satisfactory level of residential amenity to potential occupiers due to poor orientation of habitable rooms

88 2.2 An application was also received earlier this year for the use of the site as a care home (07/01138).This application was withdrawn on the 29th of October 2007.

3 Application details

3.1 The applicant seeks permission for a new nursing/residential home (Use Class C2) and associated parking and landscaping.

3.2 The building is roughly L-shaped, with frontages onto Woden Avenue and Nordley Road but also has a central projecting wing to the rear. The care home would provide accommodation for 77 residents as well as other ancillary facilities such as hairdressing and chiropody. Residents’ bedrooms would be single aspect of approximately 14 metres square, which includes an en-suite bathroom.

3.3 The building would be predominantly two storeys (10-12m) high but with some staff rooms in the roofspace. The building would be slightly taller at the junction of Nordley Road & Woden Road where a round tower with ‘conical’ roof is shown. The existing vehicular access from Nordley Road would be retained as part of the new development. A direct pedestrian access into the building from Woden Road is proposed as is another entrance to the property from the rear car park.

3.4 The scheme would provide 26 vehicular parking spaces including 3 disabled spaces. A maximum of 8 cycle racks would also be provided. A level of private amenity space would also be provided. This would equate to an area of approximately 700 metres square.

3.5 The application has been submitted along with a ‘Design & Access Statement’ and also a ‘Policy Statement’ which seeks to justify the loss of the Community Meeting Place (public house) and the Private Sports Ground (Bowling Green).

4 Constraints

Current Open Space Private Sports Ground

5 Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPG3 - Housing PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation

5.2 UDP Policies

89 D11 - Access for People with Disabilities part D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy D14 - The Provision of Public Art EP16 - Energy Conservation HE1 - Preservation of Local Character and Dist C1 - Health, Education and Other Community Services C3 - Community Meeting Places R3 - Protection of Open Space, Sport and Rec. R5 - Sports Grounds R7 - Open Space Requirements for New Develop. H3 - Housing Site Assessment Criteria H6 - Design of Housing Development H9 - Housing Density and mix H12 - Residential Care Homes AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 - Residential Development

6 Publicity and Neighbour notification

6.1 The application was advertised via Site and Press Notices and direct notification was also sent to neighbouring occupiers. No letters of objection have been received.

7 Internal Consultees

7.1 Access Officer – Comments Awaited

7.2 Building Control – (26/11/07) Access for Fire Fighting appears acceptable.

7.3 Environmental Services – Comments Awaited

7.4 Tree Officer - there are tall, mature trees on Woden Avenue to the west of the proposal which will cause shading of rooms on this side. The entrance to the proposed car park shows planted areas which could accommodate two reasonably sized trees. i.e liquid amber, ginkgo, pine, spruce, walnut etc

7.5 Transportation Development – Comments Awaited

7.6 Parks & Contracts – Comments Awaited

8 External Consultees

8.1 Sport England (West Midlands) - are happy that the compensatory provision is transferred to Ashmore Park and consider that a sum of £ 90,000 would represent the sum required to replace the green itself. In addition, compensatory monies are needed to cover the loss of the clubhouse facilities and floodlighting.

8.2 Sport England would need to see an agreed compensatory sum (backed up with relevant costings) and tied up in a S106 agreement for investment at Ashmore Park within 5 years, before they would withdraw their objection to the application.

8.3 Police – Comments awaited.

9 Appraisal

9.1 In determining this application the main issues are:

• The loss of the public house as a community facility • Loss of Private Sports Ground • Use as a Residential Institution • Design & layout • Demolition of the Public House • Residential amenities • Transportation

Loss of Public House as Community Facility

9.2 The proposed application results in the loss of a site that was used as a community meeting place, as defined under Policy C3 of the Wolverhampton UDP. Marketing material has been submitted that indicates that the pub has been for lease and sale over a number of months, with no interest from potential pub owners. As such, it is considered that the applicant has demonstrated that despite reasonable efforts, that the business is no longer economically viable. There are also some Public Houses within walking distance that have taken the displacement of patrons as a result of the Public House ceasing business. As such, it is considered the application complies with Policy C3 – Loss of Community Meeting Places.

Loss of Private Sports Ground

9.3 The site also contains a bowling green that was used up to December 2006, before the team were forced to relocate to Willenhall. The bowling green is identified as a private sports pitch in the inset map of the Wolverhampton UDP, as such is not surplus to requirements. As the application results in the loss of a sports pitch, the replacement value will be required to compensate for the loss of the sports ground. The compensation will be required by a S106 Agreement which is subject to BCIS annual percentage increase from January 2007, and payable before the commencement of any development. Further negotiations will be entered into regarding compensation for the loss of the clubhouse facilities and floodlighting.

Residential Institution Use

9.4 Although it is desirable to keep the private sports ground and community meeting facility, the proposed use of the site as a nursing home is a suitable use for this site, which is situated within a residential environment. The site also has good access within walking distance to Wednesfield Town Centre, and Wednesfield Road which provides public transport links to the City Centre.

Demolition of New Crown Building

9.5 The New Crown, built in 1927 for William Butler to the designs of W A Hutchings, is considered a building of architectural merit, which makes a positive contribution to the character of the local streetscene. Its demolition would therefore be regrettable.

9.6 However, should the demolition of the existing building be considered appropriate, the replacement building should be one of architectural merit, particularly given the prominence of the site.

Design and Layout

9.7 Policy D1: Design Quality of the adopted UDP encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place” “poor and mediocre design will be unacceptable”.

9.8 In a number of ways the proposed scheme is an improvement on that which was withdrawn earlier this year.

9.9 Firstly, the applicants have reduced the main ridge height of the proposed roof which so that it is more in-keeping with the scale of the neighbouring residential properties. A main entrance into the building, has also been introduced from Woden Avenue. This helps breaks up what would otherwise be an unbroken, continuous, frontage and should also aid vitality and animate the street whilst this would also be more convenient for those arriving and leaving the premises on foot.

9.10 The existing residential properties also create a strong building line along Woden Avenue which helps to define the street. The previously withdrawn scheme presented a building which sat ‘in front’ of the established building line. The resubmitted scheme has now altered this so that it is in-keeping with the adjacent houses.

9.11 The proposed scheme also reduces the otherwise large ‘gap’ in the streetscene, adjacent to 27 Nordley Road by providing a 2 metre high brick wall and remote controlled gates to the car park. Both the wall and the gates help provide some definition and enclosure to the street, as well as improve the security of the scheme.

Residential amenities

9.12 The application proposes a number (10) of single-aspect rooms which would have a northerly orientation. However, as residents would also have access to a number of communal areas where orientation is southerly, this is considered acceptable in this case, given the constraints of the site.

9.13 With regard to mature, street trees on Woden Ave, to the West of the proposal. It is considered that the alteration of the building line of the development, so that it is level with the existing residential properties, will mean that the shading which those trees give to the building will not be to the detriment of the future occupants.

10 Conclusion

10.1 In summary, although the loss of the community meeting place, bowling green and demolition of the existing building are not desirable, the proposed use is one which is considered acceptable for this site and the scheme is one which will provide approximately 60 jobs and an investment of circa £5 million in the area. The design is an improvement on that which was previously submitted, but will require high quality architectural detailing and materials. Subejct to these matters being controlled by condition, it is considered that the loss of the existing building is acceptable.

10.2 Payment should also be made for the loss of this sports pitch via a S106 Agreement.

11 Recommendation

Delegated authority to grant permission, subject to:

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees

92 2. A negotiation of a S106 agreement to compensate for the loss of bowling green (BCIS indexed) and to restrict the occupancy of the scheme to the elderly.

2. Conditions are recommended to cover:

o Public Art o Targeted Recruitment & Training o Submission of Materials o Architectural Details o Landscaping Scheme o Details of Boundary Treatment o Drainage o Car Parking o External lighting o Details of cycle/motorcycle stores o Bin stores o Remote control gates to communal parking o Construction management plan o Parking Provision as shown o Car Park Management Plan o Amenity space provided as shown o No external meter boxes, vents, flues, aerials, satellite dishes etc without written approval. o Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved plans and details prior to occupation o Building to be used for purpose applied for only

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

Planning Application No: 07/01640/FUL Location New Crown, Nordley Road,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 394136 300476 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 4050m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01442/FUL WARD: Oxley DATE: 17-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 12-Dec-07 RECEIVED: 11.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 5 Clewley Drive, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV9 5LB PROPOSAL: Two storey side extension.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Mark Karakas Mike Coleman And Associates 5 Clewley Drive 317A Dudley Road Wolverhampton Wolverhampton West Midlands West Midlands WV9 5LB WV2 3JY

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description and Background

1.1 This application was reported to the Planning Committee on 4 December 2007. At that time, members resolved to defer a decision on this application to allow them to visit the site.

1.2 The application site includes a detached three bedroom residential dwelling house, including front gable and rear single storey conservatory and detached summer house in rear garden. The dwelling is located within Pendeford and the surrounding use and pattern of built development is almost exclusively residential, including detached and semi-detached properties.

1.3 The dwelling is positioned on a very prominent corner plot at the junction between The Droveway and Clewley Drive. Although the dwelling faces onto The Droveway it takes Clewley Drive as its address. The existing dwelling stands forward of the building line of Clewley Drive. The eastern side boundary of the site, along Clewley Drive is enclosed by an existing close board fence (approximately 2 metres high).

2. Application Details

2.1 The proposed two storey side extension would provide a garage and kitchen at ground floor and a stairway leading up to a lounge and en-suite bedroom at first floor level. The applicant advises that the proposed extension would provide accommodation for his ill father.

2.2 The proposed two storey side extension would be 4.2 metres wide, 9.4 metres long and 6.9 metres high. The front of the proposed extension would project 1 metre forward of the front elevation of the existing house at ground floor level, with a sloping pitched roof leading up to first floor level. The sloping pitched roof would connect to a new canopy that would run along the entire front face of the existing house. The canopy would project 1.2 metres from the front face of the house. At first floor level the front face of the proposed extension would not be set back from the front face of the front gable of the existing house. The extension would not project past the rear face of

95 the existing house. The ridge line of the roof of the proposed extension would be 0.3 metres taller than the ridge line of the main roof of the existing house.

2.3 The application also includes proposals to convert the existing garage into living/dining room. The garage door would be removed and in its place a window would be installed. A new 2m high boundary wall would be erected along the eastern side boundary of the house.

3. Relevant policies

Central Government Planning Policy

PPS 1 - Delivering Sustainable Development

Unitary Development Plan Policies

Supplementary Planning Guidance

Supplementary Planning Guidance No.3 – Residential Development Supplementary Planning Guidance No.4 – Extension to Houses

4. Publicity and neighbour notifications

4.1 The neighbouring residents of 7 Clewley Drive advise that, they do not object to the proposals but point out that, details of the type of roof tiles and brickwork to be used to construct the extension are not included within the application. These materials should match the design of the existing property.

4.2 Councillor Christine Irvine supports the application for the following reasons:

• The proposed extension is to enable the applicant’s father to live in what would be a self contained flat. The applicant’s father is a widower who currently lives alone and has poor health and the proposed extension would provide an ideal solution for the family.

• The application dwelling has lots of space around it, in which to build the proposed extension and it would not overlook any neighbours or be close to any nearby properties. The other properties in the area are large dwellings and it is not considered that an extension would therefore appear out of keeping with other properties in the area.

96 • The proposals have been reduced in scale, following pre-application discussions with Planning Officers. The internal layout of the proposed extension now consists of a kitchenette, lounge and bedroom with en-suite – the minimum to create a serviceable self-contained flat.

5. Internal consultees

5.1 None

6. External consultees

6.1 None

7. Appraisal

7.1 Wolverhampton UDP Policy D4 ‘Urban Grain’ says that proposals should respond positively to the established pattern of streets and buildings, including plot sizes, spatial character and building lines, of which they form a part, and development should not be obstructive in relation to their surroundings.

7.2 When looking from The Droveway towards its junction with Clewley Drive the street scene has an open and spacious character. The side gardens of houses 5 and 8 Clewley Drive, either side of this junction add to this feeling of spaciousness.

7.3 The two storey side extension would project nearer to the pavement than is otherwise found along Clewley Drive and would be significantly forward of the building line of that street. It is considered that by virtue of the scale and bulk the extension it would significantly diminish the current open character of the street scene. The proposed extension would therefore appear unduly prominent at this corner location when seen from a number of directions and unduly harm the current sense of spaciousness.

7.4 UDP Policy D9 ‘Appearance’ says that development proposals should make a positive contribution to a locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality materials and detailing. The architectural appearance of the proposed development is considered to be inappropriate and the proposals would fail to provide defined structure, order and coherence to the existing dwelling.

7.5 Supplementary Planning Guidance No.4 advises that in the interests of good design and in order to preserve and protect residential amenities such as outlook and light, canopy’s to dwelling houses should not normally project forward of the front elevation of a house more than 0.75 metres. The proposed canopy would project 1.2 metres from the front face of the existing house. It would be and unacceptably dominating and detract from the visual appearance of the house.

7.6 SPG No.4 also says that two storey side extensions whether in line or in corner locations, should normally be set back at least 0.75 metres from the front face of the existing dwelling. This design will look better in the street scene and makes it less likely that the extension will be unduly obtrusive. The proposed extension is overly prominent and too large in relation to the existing dwelling, both in its height and width, to the detriment of the character and appearance of the street scene/locality, contrary to the design guidance of SPG No.4.

7.7 The proposal is clearly a poor design in several respects. It is considered that a reduced scheme could be satisfactorily designed. Officers would be happy to discuss alternatives with the applicant.

8. Recommendation:

Refuse –

1. The visual appearance and architectural design of the proposed building at this prominent corner location would not demonstrate a high standard of architectural design and fail to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of the area. The proposal is therefore contrary to UDP Policies D1 “Design Quality”, D6 “Townscape and Landscape” D9 “Appearance”, and government guidance in PPS1. 2. The proposed two storey side extension would project beyond the established building line of Clewley Drive, and by way of its scale, bulk and position at this corner location, would appear unduly prominent and obtrusive, detracting from the existing character and visual appearance of the main house and street scene. The proposal is therefore contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policies D1, D4. D6, D&, D8, D9 and SPG No.4. 3. The proposed extension, which would be flush with the front of the property, and would be too high and wide in relation to the existing house to the detriment of the character and appearance of the street scene/locality. The proposals would therefore be contrary to Unitary Development Policies D1, D4, D9 and SPG 'Extension to Houses' 4. The proposed canopy would appear unacceptably dominant and obtrusive and detract from the visual appearance and character of the main house and the surrounding street scene. The proposed canopy would therefore be contrary to Unitary Development Policies D1, D9 and SPG No.4.

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

Planning Application No: 07/01442/FUL Location 5 Clewley Drive, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV9 5LB Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390317 303138 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 503m2

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01451/FUL WARD: Penn DATE: 15-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 10-Dec-07 RECEIVED: 15.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 23 Wells Road, Penn, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Conservatory to rear

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr S Poulton 23 Wells Road Penn Wolverhampton West Midlands WV4 4BQ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The property concerned is a traditional semi detached property, located within a street scene of varying properties, of both traditional and modern appearance, being detached or semi detached. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

1.2 The property itself has an enclosed frontage, with a gravel drive leading to a garage, and an enclosed private rear garden, set on different levels, with a paved patio area directly to the rear of the property, and steps down to a garden area. The property has a hipped roof design and has been previously extended with a flat roof construction to the rear of the existing garage, being a utility and toilet area, and a loft conversion with a large dormer window to the rear elevation, and velux roof lights to front and side.

2 Application details

2.1 The application is for a conservatory to the rear of the property, having a total length of 4m, and a width of 4.5m. The height displayed on the plans is 3.6m to the top of the ridge. The design incorporates a dwarf brick wall surround with glazed windows and glazed hipped roof above. A slight splay has been provided at 3m, indicating a 45 degree line from the neighbouring window.

3 Planning History

3.1 This amended scheme was submitted after a previous refused application No. 07/00237 due to the conservatory having a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property at No. 25 Wells Road with an unacceptable loss of sunlight and overbearing effect on the outlook presently enjoyed by the neighbours from the garden and house.

100 3.2 Planning History List

• 07/00237/FUL for Conservatory to rear, Refused, dated 03.04.2007.

• 97/0588/FP for Loft conversion and dormer window, Granted, dated 13.08.1997.

• C/2131/91 for Kitchen/utility/garage extension Granted, dated 31.10.1991.

4. Constraints

4.1 Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Penn & Goldthorn Park Neighbourhood Area - Name: North Penn Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00241/TPO

5. Relevant policies

• D1 - Design Quality • D7 - Scale - Height • D8 - Scale - Massing • D9 - Appearance • SPG4 - Extension to Houses

6. Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 The neighbour at 25 Wells Road has the following concerns: Stability of the patio, difference in levels, and associated water drainage problems, which would increase due to the development. Area between the conservatory and the boundary could result in debris collecting between the properties. Loss of sunlight, due to the size and height of the structure, no light on the rear patio area. Sitting room will become very dark, therefore the need for increased lighting. Loss of character to the property with the loss of the rear patio window. Existing elements omitted from plans, resulting in an incorrect perspective of the effect the conservatory will have on the back of the property, especially No. 25. Loss of outlook. Disturbance from noise and light, when the conservatory is used late at night.

7. Appraisal

7.1 The key issues for assessment are:

• Design • Private Amenity (Garden Area) • Neighbouring Amenity (Outlook, Loss of Light/Sunlight/Privacy),

7.2 Design: The design of the structure is in keeping with the existing property and those surrounding.

7.3 Private Amenity: The property has ample amenity space to support the scale and location of the extension and its usage as a conservatory.

101 7.4 Neighbour Amenity: The application has been slightly amended to the previous scheme. The application now provides a small splay at 3m along the north/west (side) boundary with No. 25 Wells Road, replacing a high brick wall with a dwarf wall and obscure glazing. The total projection of the structure is 4m, which is still within close proximity to this neighbouring property and its rear garden area. The alteration does little to remove the detriment to the outlook from both the property and its rear garden area, and the loss of sunlight.

9. Conclusion

9.1 It is considered that the conservatory would have a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property at No. 25 Wells Road, and its outlook from both the rear facing bay window and the rear patio area, also resulting in a loss of sunlight.

10. Recommendation

10.1 Refuse, For the following reason:

1. The proposed extension would, by reason of its height, rearward projection and position relative to the house/garden on the adjoining property at 25 Wells Road have an unacceptable overbearing impact, reduce the amount of light/sunlight, and on the outlook presently enjoyed by that garden/house.

Relevant UDP Policies: D1, D7 & D8

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

102

Planning Application No: 07/01451/FUL Location 23 Wells Road, Penn,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 389618 296170 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 462m2

103

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01654/FUL WARD: Penn DATE: 23-Nov-07 TARGET DATE: 18-Jan-08 RECEIVED: 23.11.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 11 Dewsbury Drive, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV4 5RH PROPOSAL: Single storey front side and rear extension

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Kulvinder S Athwal Mr. J. K Kalsi 11 Dewsbury Drive 2 Coalway Road Wolverhampton Penn WV4 56RH Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 7LR

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The property concerned is a modern detached bungalow, set on an elevated position, with a large open plan landscaped frontage, with drive, set well back from the public highway, by approximately 22m. There is a mature tree to the frontage covered by a Tree Preservation Order.

1.2 The street scene consists of detached properties, houses and bungalows, of a modern appearance, all with open plan frontages. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

2. Application details

2.1 The proposal is a resubmission following a similar proposal which was withdrawn. The site has already been visited by Planning Committee.

2.2 The proposal is for an extension to both the front and side (northern aspect) of the application site, providing a lounge, entrance hall, kitchen, garage and bedroom extension, small prayer room, additional sitting room and bedroom (providing four bedrooms in all).

2.3 The extension to the front is set in stages. The lounge extension would project forward of the existing property by 5.275 m, with a width of 5.613. The extension would then step back by 3m, continuing along the frontage with a width of 8.825m, connecting with the rear boundary to No. 2 Chanterelle Gardens. The length of the extension along this boundary is 11.123m.

2.4 The design incorporates a pitched roof, connecting to the existing pitched roof, with a valley gutter, and a hipped element towards the rear along the northern boundary.

104 3. Constraints

• Landfill Gas Zones - Name: 250m buffer around: Landfill Gas Site No.37 - Chanterelle Gardens. • Notes:Mining Areas (Building Consultancy) - Name: Penn & Goldthorn Park • Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00025/TPO

4. Relevant policies

• AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision • D1 - Design Quality • D4 - Urban Grain • D7 - Scale - Height • D8 - Scale - Massing • D9 - Appearance • N7 - The Urban Forest • EP15 - Landfill Activities • EP18 - Mineral Extraction • SPG4 - Extension to Houses

5. Neighbour notification and representations

5.1 On the current application there have been two letters, and one email of objection as follows:

2 Dewsbury Drive, Penn – No specific detail regarding objection, other than to allow this extension will lead to other development on the site. 6 Chanterelle Gardens – Impact on the ambience of the street scene, possible projection past the front building line, loss of trees and shrubbery to increase the parking, visually intrusive, and cluttered development, impact to the highway, possible business use, materials should match, overdevelopment, impinge on future alterations to surrounding properties. 4 Chanterelle Gardens – Loss of foliage and trees.

6. Internal consultees

6.1 Environmental Services: Landfill Gas Note No.2 required.

6.2 Trees: No objections.

7. Appraisal

7.1 The key issues are:

• Design • Street Scene • Usage Prayer Room • Neighbouring Amenities (Outlook, Light/Sunlight, Privacy) • Private Amenities ( Parking and Garden Area) • Trees

7.2 Design/Street Scene: The majority of the extension, will be located along the frontage to the existing property, and continue along the side elevation, along the

105 northern boundary of the property. The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property and those surrounding in the street scene. The extension will not project forward of the existing building line, with those properties south of the site at No. 15 Dewsbury Drive, but will remain level, as indicated on the proposed floor plan (sheet 2). Therefore, there will be no detrimental impact to the character and appearance of the existing property or the street scene.

7.3 Prayer Room: This is a small room of 1.8m x 2.5m. The Agent has confirmed that the prayer room is for personal use only, and it is not proposed to be used for a meeting room.

7.4 Neighbouring Amenities: The extension will have no direct impact on the neighbouring properties at No. 15 Dewsbury Drive, or No. 4 and No.6 Chanterelle Gardens, or those properties directly opposite in Dewsbury Drive, due to the location of the extension, which does not impede their outlook, light or privacy.

7.4.1 The extension along the northern boundary (side), will be within close proximity to the neighbouring property at No. 2 Chanterelle Gardens, and will be clearly visible from both the rear facing windows of this neighbouring bungalow and its private rear garden. The height of the structure along the boundary with the neighbouring garden area has been amended from the previous proposal to incorporate a hipped roof design, to reduce the mass of the structure. No. 2 Chanterelle Gardens has two rear facing windows, a master bedroom and lounge, which look directly out onto the proposed structure, however due to the amended design, and a distance of approximately 11.5m, it is considered that the impact to the outlook from these windows would not be significant enough to warrant refusal of the application. The majority of the new structure will be screened by an existing garage in the rear garden area to this neighbouring property, and again, although visible, it is considered that the structure would not appear overbearing, from the rear garden area to this neighbouring property. There will be no windows in this elevation, so there will be no detriment to privacy.

7.5 Private Amenities: The property has a private rear garden displaying a length of approximately 12.5m in depth and 13m in width providing an area of garden of 162.5sqm, which is sufficient enough to support a property of the size and useage. The proposal incorporates a garage and a driveway displaying a length of 18m, from the public highway, which would be sufficient for the parking of vehicles associated with the property.

7.6 There is a large mature tree (Silver Birch) located in the front garden of the application site, which is covered by a Tree Preservation Order (06/00025/TPO). Tree officers have confirmed that they have no objection to the proposed development.

7.7 Since the previous application two trees have been removed to the frontage, including the Silver Birch covered with by a Tree Preservation Order, which has been agreed by the Tree Officers, due to the standard of the tree, which was of a poor quality. The applicants have agreed to plant another tree.

8. Conclusion

8.1 It is concluded that the amended proposed development is now acceptable in terms of design and street scene, having no significant detriment to any of the neighbouring amenities, displaying sufficient external private amenity area and parking to support the proposed use and size of the extension, and having no detriment to surrounding trees.

106

9. Recommendation

9.1 Subject to satisfactory clarification from the Agent, concerning the validation of the application, Grant, Subject to the following Conditions:

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

Reason: - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. Relevant UDP Policies D1 and D9

Note For Information – Landfill Gas Note No. 2.

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

107

Planning Application No: 07/01654/FUL Location 11 Dewsbury Drive, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV4 5RH Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 390425 295750 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 644m2

108

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01507/REM WARD: St Peter's VALID DATE: 06-Nov-07 TARGET DATE: 05-Feb-08 DATE REC’D: 29.10.2007 APP TYPE: Reserved Matters

SITE: Retail Core Expansion Development Site, Worcester Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Approval of reserved matter (2) – outline application 05/0578/OP/M – incorporating anchor department store, retail units, underground car park and public realm works.

AND

APP NO: 07/01508/FUL WARD: St Peter's VALID DATE: 06-Nov-07 TARGET DATE: 05-Feb-08 DATE REC’D: 29.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Retail Core Expansion Development Site, Worcester Street, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Full planning application for alterations to approved outline application 05/0578/OP/M - which comprised: Demolition and redevelopment of buildings to provide a mix of uses comprising shops, financial services, restaurants, drinking establishments, takeaways, leisure, residential, car parking, public open spaces and ancillary uses (Use Classes A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, D2 and C3)

APPLICANT: AGENT: Multi Developments UK Limited DTZ C/o DTZ 48 Warwick Street London W1B 5NL

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1 Site Description

1.1 The application site covers an area of approximately 3 hectares, is ‘L-shaped’ and encompasses the majority of the overall Retail Core scheme including properties along Bell St, Cleveland St, Temple St and Summer Row.

1.2 The site is a mixture of mostly 1950s/60s buildings, with little uniformity of building height or architectural style. There is also a substantial amount of surface level car parking across the site. Many of the buildings are vacant, whilst others appear underused or in a poor state of repair.

1.3 There are no listed buildings on the site. However, to the south of the site is the St Johns Square conservation area. Whilst along the western boundary is the Worcester

109 St conservation area and the north-west of the application site touches the boundary of the City Centre conservation area.

1.4 There is a relatively significant, and constant, change in levels across the site, increasing in height from west to east.

2 Planning History

2.1 There have been a large number of planning applications for relatively minor works and changes of use to those properties within the site.

2.2 05/0578/OP/M – Wolverhampton Retail Core Expansion, land from Cleveland Street to Temple Street and Snow Hill to Victoria Street/Worcester St. Granted 24th of July 2006.

2.3 05/0589/CA/C – Land bounded by Bell Street, Victoria Street, Worcester St, Temple St and Cleveland Passage, Wolverhampton. Granted 24th of July 2006.

2.4 07/00416/REM – Retail Core Expansion Development Site, Worcester Street, City Centre. Granted, 9th of July 2007.

2.5 07/00687/CON – Land bounded by Bell St, Victoria Street, Worcester St, Temple Street and Cleveland Passage. Granted 5th of July 2007.

3 Application Details

Reserved Matters Application (07/01507/REM)

3.1 Two applications are considered in this report, one is a reserved matters application and one is an application for full planning permission.

3.2 It is anticipated that there will be a total of four reserved matters applications, which follow the grant of outline permission (05/0578/OP/M) for the redevelopment of the Summer Row area of central Wolverhampton. The reserved matters application currently under consideration is the second of these.

3.3 A ‘full’ application has also been made which incorporates design alterations which have arisen through the detailed design and compulsory purchase processes and which slightly fall outside the ‘parameters’ of the outline permission.

3.4 The main focus of the “Summer Row” scheme will be a curved two-level street, which runs through the centre of the scheme connecting two new public spaces, ‘Cleveland Square’ and ‘Victoria Square’. Due to the variations in topography across the site, the upper and lower levels of the street, will comprise the ground floor at either end of the scheme. The main anchor store, Debenhams, will be located at approximately the mid- point between these two new public spaces, close to the junction of Temple St and Worcester St.

3.5 The scheme also includes a car park with approximately 800 spaces, 38 of which will be for disabled visitors and 23 Shopmobility spaces). The Car Park would be primarily located beneath the new Cleveland Square and split over intermediate and lower ground floor levels. The vehicular access and egress would be located on Temple St. Both shopmobility and disabled parking is to be located at the intermediate level with direct access to the shopmobility centre and adjacent public cores containing lifts, stairs and escalators.

110 3.6 The northern and southern frontages to Cleveland Square, compromise restaurant, leisure and retail at ground floor with residential accommodation within the upper floors.

3.7 The scheme also proposes the inclusion of two ATM machines on the southern elevation of the Cleveland Street ‘link’.

3.8 124 of residential accommodation will be situated within the upper levels of three of the new build blocks either side of the new main retail street.

Full Application (07/01508/FUL)

3.9 There are five principal areas of change between the full application and reserved matters, namely:

Land around the Mander Centre Link and Kiosk

3.10 The Mander Centre link has been realigned and a retail kiosk has been introduced to ‘Victoria Square’.

Alterations to Anchor Store

3.11 There are relatively minor alterations to the siting and building line of the anchor store which consequently results in a minor increase in the retail floorspace of the unit.

Changes to units UG37 to UG44 (located on the northern side of Cleveland Square)

3.12 The building line of units UG41 to UG44 has also been amended slightly. This has also had an impact on the section of the development incorporating units UG37 to UG40.

Changes to Use to Office (B1) Use

3.13 Unit LG26 located towards the south-west corner of the site, at the junction of Temple Street and Worcester St, was originally intended to accommodate retail use on the ground, intermediate and first floors. The full application seeks permission for 491sqm of B1 office space, with the majority located at the intermediate and first floors.

Exceeding Height Parameter at Unit UG7

3.14 The proposed development slightly exceeds the height stipulated in the previously submitted outline application in one location. The unit in question is proposed to be sited on the corner of the Cleveland ‘Link’ and the new street.

4 Constraints

4.1 Conservation Areas - : W'ton City Centre, Old Hall Street, Worcester Street, St John's Square Conservation Area.

5 Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 - Delivering Sustainable Development PPS6 - Planning for Town Centres PPS11 - Regional Spatial Strategies PPG13 - Transport

111 PPG15 - Planning and the historic environment PPG17 - Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation PPS23 - Planning and Pollution Control PPG24 - Planning and noise

5.2 UDP Policies

D1 - Design Quality 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 D13 - Sustainable Development Natural Energy HE1 - Preservation of Local Character and Dist HE3 - Preservation and Enhance. of Con. Areas HE4 - Proposals Affecting a Conservation Area HE5 - Control of Development in a Con. Area HE7 - Underused Buildings Structures in CA HE8 - Encouragement of Appropriate ReDev in CA HE11 - Shopfronts and Advertisements in a CA SH1 - Centres Strategy SH5 - Wolverhampton City Centre SH11 - New Retail Development Comp. Goods R7 - Open Space Requirements for New Develop. H6 - Design of Housing Development H9 - Housing Density and mix H11 - Special Needs Accommodation AM1 - Access, Mobility and New Development AM7 - Travel Plans AM8 - Public Transport AM9 - Provision for Pedestrians AM10 - Provision for Cyclists AM11 - Park and Ride AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security CC1 - City Centre Shopping Strategy CC3 - City Centre Housing CC4 - City Centre Environment CC5 - City Centre Access and Mobility CC6 - Shopping Quarter Primary Shopping Area CC9 - St Johns Urban Village

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG3 - Residential Development SPG5 - Shopfront Design SPG7 - Outdoor Advertisement & Signs SPG16 - Provision of Public Art Cleveland Street Development Brief (2003)

112 6 Publicity

6.1 The application was publicised via Press and Site Notices. Direct notification was also sent to neighbouring occupiers. No letters of objection have been received.

7 Internal consultees

7.1 Transportation – Further information is required regarding the servicing arrangements for the kiosk in Victoria Square. The concern is that service vehicles may park within the Victoria Street/Skinner Street traffic light junction or park on the adjacent footway. If it is inevitable that vehicles will cross the footway/paved area then the constructed standard of this space should allow for this use.

7.2 The applicant should also indicate, on plan, the proposed limit of the adopted highway. It is preferable that the cycle stands be within the adopted area, assuming they could be sited without obstructing the passage of pedestrians.

7.3 Conservation - No comments on application.

7.4 Archaeology – No additional comments to those provided on the outline approval.

7.5 Building Control - Do not object to the proposal. However, there is currently insufficient information to determine the schemes compliance with B5 (access for firefighting). Scheme will be assessed more thoroughly with regard to this issue through the Building Regulation process.

7.6 Environmental Services – Do not raise any issues which are not conditioned via the outline scheme.

7.7 Access Officer – Wish to ensure that there should be an accessible toilet facility with adult changing. Lifts should also be larger than the minimum 8 person capacity to enable scooter users to use them.

7.8 St Johns Urban Village - No comments on application.

8 External consultees

8.1 Severn Trent Water Ltd - No objection subject to standard conditions which require the submission of drainage details and also no buildings to be constructed on or within 2.5m of the centre of public sewers.

8.2 National Grid Plc - Based on the information provided and the proximity and sensitivity of networks to the proposals, they consider any risk negligible.

8.3 Transco - No comments on application.

8.4 Centro - No comments on application.

8.5 Police - They are pleased to note that the use of recessed doorways has been avoided. They acknowledge that the development is designed to be permanently accessible but consideration should be given to the level of permeability out of the main shopping hours.

8.7 In addition, although vehicular access to the development is not envisaged, the potential for vehicles to enter at certain points must be negated. The installation of robust rising bollards or similar restriction should be incorporated.

113

8.8 They consider that the inclusion of two ATM machines, located on the southern elevation of the Cleveland Street link which will be relatively quiet out of hours and not be overlooked by residential properties, is unacceptable. ATMs should instead be located at busy, well overlooked, open areas subject to CCTV surveillance.

8.9 They also provide detailed ‘Secured by Design’ specifications for doors/windows and comment on the proposed CCTV scheme which is required by the S106 which was agreed with the outline permission.

8.10 Fire Department - Do not object to the proposed development. However, due to the extensive nature of the building work involved they cannot state at the moment that fire service access is satisfactory to all areas involved. This will be picked up in greater detail through Building Regulations approval.

9 Appraisal

9.1 The key issues in determining this application are:

• the proposed alterations to the outline scheme • architectural appearance of the development • nature of the residential use • public conveniences • accessibility of shopmobility spaces • access arrangements

Proposed alterations to the outline scheme

9.2 As previously stated, paras 3.9-3.14, the key changes from the approved outline applications are:

• Land around the Mander Centre Link and new retail kiosk • Alterations to the Anchor Store • Changes to units UG37 to UG44 (located on the northern side of Cleveland Square) • Change of use to Office (B1) Use • Exceeding Height Parameter at Unit UG7

9.3 These alterations have resulted in a modest increase of 832 sqm gross in retail floorspace. An increase of this scale will not have a significant additional impact on the surrounding City Centre.

9.4 The realigned link into the Mander Centre at both ground floor/intermediate and first floor level is considered to create an improved layout and more attractive setting to the new public square. A continuous built frontage is now provided across the back of the square, along with a larger and more inviting entrance into the Mander Centre at ground floor/intermediate level. The continuous balcony at first floor level overlooking the square provides a more active and interesting aspect. The concept of having cafes/restaurants at the mouth of the link on both the intermediate and first floor levels is also welcomed as it will help to animate this entrance. Overall, the scheme would 114 provide an appropriate mix of unit sizes.

Architectural appearance

9.5 An issue raised at the outline stage of the development was that the new buildings must respond appropriately to the existing environment in terms of scale, materials and character and also reinforce the urban grain, skylines and street patterns within this part of the City Centre.

9.6 The submitted scheme is one with an overall coherence of proposed architectural language, but where variety has been introduced to help create focal points, enclosure and a sense of place. It is considered that the new buildings will give the area a strong identity and a contemporary image which responds well to its context in terms of scale and materials and adopts the typical characteristics of the area.

9.7 There has been a deliberate move to look for more individuality across the site, helping it relate to the grain and character of Wolverhampton. In particular, the use of materials like reconstituted stone, brickwork and coloured renders should help the proposal relate to its context and the use varying roofscapes and architectural features such as balconies, loggias and pilasters should ensure that each block is sufficiently ‘broken down’ in scale and form to appear as genuinely generated forms and as elevations of ‘real buildings’, rather than applied townscape.

The curved main street culminates at each end with new squares. These 9.8 distinctive areas of public realm will be bounded by buildings which are well proportioned to the space they enclose and provide a range of active uses to enhance the vitality of the scheme in these areas. The squares, retail streets and their surrounding have been designed to create a comfortable feeling of enclosure.

Internal courtyard elevations of the residential areas have not been submitted 9.9 and so would need to conditioned.

Residential Use

Residential accommodation would be situated within the upper levels of three 9.10 of the new build blocks either side of the new main retail street. In total 124, one and two bedroom units, would be provided, all of which would be dual aspect with private, communal, landscaped courtyards.

It is considered that the presence of residential accommodation will enhance 9.11 the sense of safety and security within the area by providing natural surveillance of the scheme’s squares and streets throughout the day and evening.

Public Conveniences

The public conveniences are located towards the centre of the scheme and 9.12 include both disabled and parent-child/baby changing facilities. A shower room and attendant office would also be accommodated. The majority of the public conveniences would not be accessible to the public out of the main hours of the scheme but a small uni-sex facility, capable of accommodating a disabled person, would remain available 24 hours a day.

115

Shopmobility

The Shopmobility Centre links directly to Cleveland St, as well as into the 9.13 underground car park, where there will be easy access to 23 dedicated parking bays. An alternative pedestrian access route is available to this area from the main car park. Additionally, a dedicated external vehicular set down area for Shopmobility use is identified within Cleveland St.

Access

The development provides an extensive network of routes and linkages to the existing shopping centres and the wider city. These links are integrated 9.14 with the needs of pedestrians, vehicles, buses, cars, cycles, shop mobility users and service vehicles.

Whilst acknowledging the priority of the pedestrian realm over vehicular movement, the scheme provides good road links around the site, including 9.15 bus stops and new set down/pick up points for shop mobility/taxis on Cleveland Street.

Pedestrian access routes and linkages are not compromised by the scheme and good access will be provided from the heart of the new scheme to the 9.16 existing Mander/Wulfrun Centres, St Johns Square and the Markets. Furthermore, despite the significant level changes across the site inclusive access for the whole community is still provided through the use of a mix, of lifts (which the applicants have confirmed will be able to accommodate Shopmobility scooters) escalators and stair access points.

9.17 The applicants have confirmed that public access will not be restricted outside of main shopping hours.

10 Conclusion

10.1 It is considered that the proposed scheme meets the overall aims and objectives of the Cleveland Street development brief and policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. The new buildings will respond well to their context.

10.2 The proposal would continue the regeneration of the City and provide a high quality development, strengthening Wolverhampton’s attractiveness as a major sub-regional shopping centre and should therefore be supported.

11 Recommendation

11.1 07/01507/REM

Grant reserved matters approval, subject to :-

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees.

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

3. Conditions will include those relevant from the outline approval and also:

o A scheme for the maintenance of the clock feature

116 11.2 07/01508/FUL

Grant full planning permission, subject to:-

1. No major issues being raised from outstanding consultees.

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

3. Conditions are recommended to cover:

o Landscape details o Large scale details of architectural elements o Shop front details to be submitted o Submission of shop front design guide o External Lighting o Clear views into shopfronts to be maintained o No mezzanine floors o Non A1 use should not constitute more than 30% of the number units in each retail frontage o No more than 10% of gross external floor space shall be used for the sale of convenience goods o No take-away uses (A5) without permission o Scheme for taking and despatching of deliverers and arrangements for servicing o Cycle/motorcycle parking. o Scheme for detailing remedial action to deal with any contamination on site o Submission of a Transport and Environmental Management Strategy for demolition and construction o Submission of noise mitigation measures o Scheme to cover extract ventilation for commercial kitchens o Programme of archaeological works o Survey for the presence of bats and other protected species o Drainage details o Prior to demolition scheme for the recording of buildings of conservation interest o Hours of opening o Details of refuse storage o Only to be implemented as part of the wider Summer Row scheme.

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

117

Planning Application No: 07/01507/REM Location Retail Core Expansion Development Site, Worcester Street,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391347 298302 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 60926m2

118

Planning Application No: 07/01508/FUL Location Retail Core Expansion Development Site, Worcester Street,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 391347 298302 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 60926m2

119

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01510/FUL WARD: Tettenhall Regis DATE: 22-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 17-Dec-07 RECEIVED: 22.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: 18 Saxonfields, Wolverhampton, West Midlands, WV6 8SX PROPOSAL: New carport and first floor side dormer extension

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr & Mrs T Way Adam Design 18 Saxonfields The White House Tettenhall 194 Penn Road Wolverhampton Wolverhampton West Midlands WV3 0EQ WV6 8SX

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The property concerned is one of a group of three properties, of a modern design, large ‘A’ shaped dormer houses. The surrounding street scene consists of detached properties of varying designs, the area is predominantly residential.

1.2 The property itself has an attached garage, and conservatory to the rear, a sweeping drive, and a moderate sized rear garden, screened via fencing and conifer trees.

2 Application details

2.1 The proposal consists of a carport to the ground floor, and above, partly covering the existing garage, will be a first floor dormer extension providing a larger bedroom.

2.2 The extension measures: 5.1m long and 4.5m wide, to ground floor and above 9.2m long and 4.5m wide, with two dormer windows located 2.1m back from the existing front elevation, and 1.9m back from the existing rear elevation. The design of the roof is a clipped hip.

3 Planning History

3.1 This application follows a previous refused proposal as follows:

06/01621/FUL – Two Storey Side Extension forming Two bedrooms and a Garage Extension – Refused 17 January 2006. Reasons for Refusal 1. Extension Out of Scale and Character – Policies D1, D4, D8 and D9 2. Loss of spaciousness between properties at first floor, which is a characteristic of this group of properties – policies D1, D4, D7, D8 3. Neighbour impact to No, 20 Saxonfields, and loss of light/sunlight and on the outlook presently enjoyed by the garden.

120 4 Constraints Tree Preservation Order - TPO Ref: 06/00467/TPO

5 Relevant policies AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D7 - Scale - Height D8 - Scale - Massing D9 - Appearance N7 - The Urban Forest SPG4 - Extension to Houses

6 Neighbour notification and representations

6.1 Four letters of objection as follows:

• No. 20 Saxonfileds - Loss of light. • No. 30 Wergs Road - Loss of light/sunlight, and loss of privacy. • No. 32 Wergs Road - Loss of privacy, impact on the character and appearance of the properties, loss of outlook, and non disclosure of information, Neighbour has requested to speak to Planning Committee. • No.34 Wergs Road – Loss of light and privacy to neighbouring properties at No. 32 and 34 Wergs Road.

7 Internal consultees

7.1 Trees Officer: No comments.

8 Appraisal

8.1 The key issues for this proposal are:

• Design • Street Scene • Impact on Neighbouring Properties • Private Amenities (Such as sufficient car parking and private garden area)

8.2 This proposal is a resubmission following a refused application for a similar extension (06/01621). The Agent has considered the previous refusal, and has attempted to address all the reasons for refusal.

8.3 Design/Street Scene: The design of the extension has been altered, to reduce the overall mass of the structure, by lowering the height of the roof, changing the roof design from a pitched roof to a clipped hip roof. The height of the extension has been reduced from 6.65m or as previously proposed down to 5.95m.

8.4 The structure now appears in scale and character with the existing property, and others within the street scene. The redesign has also reinstated an element of gap at first floor, along the north/western boundary, with the neighbouring property at No. 20 Saxonfields, reducing the loss of spaciousness between the application site and the neighbouring property, to the benefit of the street scene.

121 8.5 It is considered that the amended design has satisfactorily addressed two of the previous three reasons for refusal.

8.6 Neighbouring Amenities: The third reason for refusal on the previous application was due to the impact on the neighbouring property at No. 20 Saxonfields, and the height, bulk and position of the extension relative to the garden on this adjoining property. The redesign has reduced the height, and mass of the structure, along this boundary, reducing the overbearing nature of the structure. The new hip design will allow light to access the garden area to the side/rear of the neighbouring property. Therefore, it is considered that the amended proposal has satisfactorily addressed this previous reason for refusal.

There have been two other neighbour objections from No. 30 and 32 Wergs Road.

It is considered that there is a suitable distance between the rear elevation of the application site and the rear elevation of the neighbouring properties at No.s 30 and 32 Wergs Road (26m), and an acceptable distance between the boundaries (12m). Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 3 “Residential Development” suggests a distance 22m between windows and 12m for a window onto a blank wall. Therefore, it is considered that the structure would not significantly reduce light/sunlight or privacy to these neighbouring properties, which would warrant a refusal of this application.

The structure will be apparent from the neighbouring first floor windows, however, due to the distance it is considered that the structure would not appear overbearing, and the redesign of the roof reducing its height, and introducing an element of spaciousness at first floor, would retain the detached nature of the property, benefiting the character and appearance of the street scene, and this group of properties.

The planning history for the application site, has been checked, and permitted development rights have not been removed from this application site for the insertion or change in design to first floor windows. Therefore, this element of the proposal can be changed without prior consent Planning Authority, under Permitted Development. Therefore, the Agent does not have to divulge information regarding alterations to the existing property, when planning permission is not necessary; it is considered that no false statement has taken place in respect of this element of the application. The restrictions referred to, by the neighbour, may be part of a private covenant/warranty, which are of a personal nature, and ones in which the Planning Authority cannot become involved in, and should be addressed privately between the parties concerned.

8.7 Private Amenities: The application does not propose any additional bedrooms, but seeks to remove the third box room, and the introduction of a larger third bedroom to the side at first floor. The parking and garage space still remains the same, therefore, it is considered that the parking to the property is acceptable. The rear amenity also remains the same with a depth of 12m and a width of 13m providing an approximate garden area of 156sqm, which is ample to support a property of this proposed size.

9. Conclusion It is considered that the Agent/Applicant has satisfactorily addressed the previous reasons for refusal, redesigning the extension and reducing the mass, which has significantly reduced the impact on the neighbouring property at no. 20 Saxonfields, and with no detrimental impact to those neighbouring properties at the rear.

122 10 Recommendation

10.1 Grant, Subject to the following Conditions:

1. The external materials used in the development hereby permitted shall match in size, colour, form and texture to those of the existing building. Reason: - To ensure the satisfactory appearance of the development. Relevant UDP Policies D1 and D9

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

123

Planning Application No: 07/01510/FUL Location 18 Saxonfields, Wolverhampton,West Midlands,WV6 8SX Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 388082 300465 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 409m2

124

PLANNING COMMITTEE - 08-Jan-08 APP NO: 07/01505/FUL WARD: Wednesfield South DATE: 23-Oct-07 TARGET DATE: 22-Jan-08 RECEIVED: 23.10.2007 APP TYPE: Full Application

SITE: Kennicott House, Well Lane, Wolverhampton, West Midlands PROPOSAL: Construction of 2 new 3-storey commercial premises, with associated external works, including demolition of existing single storey commercial premises.

APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Simon Hill I D Architects (Midlands) Ltd. Pelham Works Lychgate House Pelham Street High Street Wolverhampton Pattingham WV3 0BJ Wolverhampton West Midlands WV6 7BQ

COMMITTEE REPORT:

1. Site Description

1.1 The site, which has an area of approximately 0.35ha, is located in a relatively isolated position outside Wednesfield village centre. The area is predominantly industrial. The Sainsbury store is located to the northwest (approximately 100m to the Sainsbury’s car park). Wednesfield Way is to the south (approximately 120m). There are dwellings in Well Lane and Bolton Road to the north (approximately 70m to nearest gardens, approximately 100m to nearest houses) and Neachells Lane (approximately 160m).

1.2 The site currently forms part of the curtilage of Kenicott House, a three storey office building and comprises a single storey ‘utility building’, 51 car parking spaces that serve Kenicott House and the access road to the car park and other employment premises to the east.

2. Application details

2.7 The proposed development is for the construction of two 3 storey office buildings. The proposal includes associated external works, including the demolition of the existing single storey ‘utility building’.

2.8 The two buildings would front onto the north side of the existing access road. Between the road and the buildings are proposed 17 car parking spaces, including 7 spaces for disabled people. A vehicular access between the buildings would lead to another parking area on the north side which would accommodate 35 car parking spaces including 1 disabled space.

2.9 The application also includes the provision of three cycle stores (one at the front and two at the rear) and two bin stores at the rear.

125 2.10 The proposed buildings would have a modern design, with a large main glazed central entrance beneath a curved metal canopy roof. Brise soleil above the windows are also part of the modern features incorporated into the design of the building. External walls would be of red brick.

2.11 Each building would be accessible via linked entrances at front and rear.

2.12 The application includes the following documents: Design & Access Statement. Drainage & Flood Risk Assessment. Ground Contamination/Ground Stability Report. Green Travel Plan Statement.

2.9 This proposal represents an investment of approximately 2.5 million pounds.

3. Planning History

3.1 No relevant planning history.

4. Constraints

4.1 Mining Area.

4.2 Bentley Bridge Business Park

4.3 Business Development Allocation

4.4 Defined Business Area

5. Relevant policies

5.1 National Policies

PPS1 Delivering Sustainable Development PPG13 Transport

5.2 UDP 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 D10 Community Safety D11 Access for People with Disabilities part D12 Nature Conservation and Natural Features D13 Sustainable Development Natural Energy D14 The Provision of Public Art AM9 Provision for Pedestrians AM10 Provision for Cyclists AM12 Parking and Servicing Provision AM14 Minimising the Effect of Traffic on Com.

126 AM15 Road Safety and Personal Security B6 Offices B9 Defined Business Area

5.3 Supplementary Planning Guidance

SPG1 Business, Industrial & Warehousing Development

6. Publicity and Neighbour notification

6.1 Consultation letters were sent to the eight nearest commercial and industrial premises in Wednesfield Way and Well Lane. The application was the subject of press advertisement and site notification. The period of expiration to receive comments was the 12th December 2007. No comments have been received.

7. Consultees

7.1 Planning Policy - The site is within a designated Business Area, as defined in Policy B9 of the Wolverhampton UDP. The proposed offices are an acceptable addition which would comply with Policy B9 Defined Business Areas, subject to meeting the criteria of Policy B6 Offices, and Policy B5 Design of Employment Sites.

7.2 The two buildings would provide additional office accommodation which could serve adjacent properties, and are of a sufficient scale and size for this Designated Business Area. The application would comply with policies B6 and B9 of the Wolverhampton UDP.

7.3 Access Officer - Flush dropped kerbs with buff blister tactile paving at the uncontrolled crossing point. 1.2m at the end and sides of the disable persons parking.

7.4 Building Control - Vehicle access for fire fighting appliances should be provided at least 15% of the perimeter of the building. Turning facilities should be provided.

7.5 Environmental Services - Methodology of Investigation of physical and chemical contamination condition and implementation condition.

7.6 Archaeology Officer - No archaeological implications.

7.7 Transportation Officer – The application is not supported in its current form unless a Travel Plan and transportation issues can be resolved. The following are the key issues:

The site is within walking distance of Wednesfield Centre and is therefore classified as highly accessible. However, only one service runs along Well Lane and this does not appear to run at peak bus hours. Services along Wednesfield Way are also infrequent. Car dependency of the proposed offices will therefore depend mainly upon the geographic spread of the end users staff and the type of business(es) accommodated. It is unclear how many parking spaces would be allocated to the two new office blocks. Following a conversation with ID Architects a new drawing was issued which states allocation as follows: Block 1 13 spaces Block 2 30 spaces Remaining spaces to be used by The Gatehouse and Kennicott House (52 - (13+30)) = 9

127 Trip rates from the TRICS database suggest that parking accumulations could be greater than the allocation. It is therefore essential that the Travel Plan contains targets that would match employee travel modes to the proposed parking provision. No provision for motor cycles. Policy AM12 from the UDP requires at least 2 spaces on car parks up to 200 spaces. The submitted Travel Plan (TP) has been reviewed and is not acceptable for the following: does not promote non-car travel to the site except for the proposed provision of cycle parking/showers, for which no detail is provided. A condition for a TP framework should be agreed before construction begins and a final approved document be in place before occupation. This would allow the TP to be used at recruitment stage. Cycle storage for employees should be covered and secure. I would request that plans of the cycle storage be submitted for approval if permission is granted and this should be conditioned. The kerb radii for the proposed new access be increased from the proposed approx 2.0m to a compound curve that would allow two way movements for typical vehicles at the entrance. A continuous footway would be required if any further development be considered to the east of this proposal. The applicant should ensure that bins can be easily accessed and that a refuse lorry can manoeuvre within the site. An AutoTrack drawing should be submitted to prove this.

8. External Consultees

8.1 Local and Neighbourhood Arrangements (LANA) - Comments awaited.

8.2 West Midlands Police - The proposed cycle store located at the front should be relocated to the rear where any actions by intruders might be challenged.

8.3 Severn Trent Water - No objections subject to a drainage condition.

8.4 British Waterways - The proposal does not lie within the consultation zone. No comment to make.

9. Appraisal

9.1 The following key issues are: The principle of offices use. Design & Layout Access and Parking Public Art

The principle of offices use

9.2 The proposal is considered to be an acceptable use as it is located within a defined business area in accordance with policies B6 and B9 of the Wolverhampton Unitary Development Plan.

128 Design & Layout

9.3 Policy D1: Design Quality of the adopted UDP encourages all new development to be of a high quality which contributes to “creating a strong sense of place” “poor and mediocre design will be unacceptable”.

9.4 The disposition and siting of the proposed development is generally acceptable as it follows existing building lines, it is located facing the existing access road and it is similar in height and massing with the existing office building; Kennicott House. The architectural treatment of the elevations is acceptable, as are the materials, subject to approval of samples.

Access & Parking 9.5 The proposed access road in-between the proposed two blocks would need to be secured.

9.6 The kerb radii is inadequate, bins should be easily accessed and a refuse lorry should be able to manoeuvre within the site. The agents have been asked to show amended radii and provide Auto Track drawing.

9.7 Car parking provision is acceptable providing that there is an effective Travel Plan. Motorcycle parking is required and the agents have been asked to show this.

9.8 With reference to the police comments, it is considered that an open sided cycle shelter in front of the buildings is acceptable to provide short-term visitor cycle parking. However, employee cycle parking should be within enclosed, secured cycle shelters in the gated area to the rear of the buildings. The agents have been asked to show this.

Public Art 9.9 Public art provision is required (minimum of 1% of the construction costs). The agents have been asked to indicate where public art would be located. The detail can be required by condition.

10. Conclusion

10.1 The proposed B1 office use of the building blocks in this area is considered acceptable as is the design of the buildings. However, there are a number of matters of detail which need to be addressed: Improved radii Auto track drawing showing manoeuvring for bin lorries Motorcycle parking shown Details of secure cycle parking Location of public art

11. Recommendation

11.1 Grant, subject to receipt of satisfactory additional/amended plans or refuse if the requested information is not received.

11.2 Planning permission to be subject to conditions to include: 1. Details and provision of cycle and motorcycle parking. 2. Car park provision and management, including security/access control. 3. Submission of Materials. 4. Targeted Recruitment & Training. 5. Large scale architectural details. 6. Details of boundary treatment.

129 7. Drainage. 8. Construction management plan. 9. External Lighting. 10. Exterior of the building to be completed in accordance with approved details prior to occupation. 11. Physical and chemical site investigation and remediation. 12. Public Art. 13. No vents, flues, air conditioning units etc without prior approval.

Case Officer : Marcela Quiñones Telephone No : 555607 Head of Development Control – Stephen Alexander

130

Planning Application No: 07/01505/FUL Location Kennicott House, Well Lane,Wolverhampton,West Midlands Plan Scale 1:1250 National Grid Reference SJ 394483 299867 (approx) Plan Printed 17.12.2007 Application Site Area 3449m2

131

132