WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE 13 TH FEBRUARY 2007
PART A
Application Reference: 07/3001/TE Date Received: 11/01/2007 Ord Sheet: 379777.520616375 Expiry Date: 08/03/2007 270032.712471425 Case Officer: Julia Mellor Ward: Areley Kings
Proposal: Installation of 15m monopole and associated equipment cabinets
Site Address: GRASS VERGE, PEARL LANE, ARELEY KINGS, STOURPORT ON SEVERN,
Applicant: 02 UK Ltd
Summary of Policy LA.1, LA.2, LA.6, TR.20 (AWFDLP) CTC.1, CTC.2, D.44 (WCSP) PPG8 Reason for Referral Third party has registered to speak at Committee to Committee Recommendation REFUSAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The current notification seeks consent for the prior approval of telecommunications equipment to the west of Pearl Lane, to the south west of Areley Kings.
1.2 Telecommunications Code System Operators enjoy a general planning permission under Part 24 of Schedule 2 to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted) Order 1995 as amended. This allows telecommunication operators to carry out certain types of development without making a full planning application to the Local Planning Authority, however the development as permitted under Part 24 is conditional upon the operator making a prior approval application. Such an application will allow the Local Planning Authority to consider, within 56 days, the siting and appearance of the proposed development.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 1 of 77
2 07/3001/TE
1.3 The proposed equipment comprises a flexicell monopole column with shrouded antennas reaching an overall height of 15 metres together with an equipment cabinet with a width of approximately 1900 mm reaching an overall height of 1650 mm. The proposed siting is on a grass verge west of Pearl Lane approximately 100 metres south of junction of Pearl Lane with Cotswold Avenue. The equipment would lie opposite the rear gardens of properties fronting Abberley Avenue.
1.4 The supporting statement advises that the siting is designed to give an improved level of 2G service to O2 customers so that they can make and retain calls whether at home, at work or whilst on the move in the general area of Areley Kings, the Walshes, Astley Cross including along the A451 and surrounding B roads.
1.5 The site lies within the Landscape Protection Area, and at its closest point would be positioned approximately 18 metres west of the boundary to the rear garden of No. 75 Abberley Avenue or approximately 34 metres from the footprint of the residential property. Furthermore, the site lies approximately 420 metres to the south west of Areley Common First school and approximately 590 metres west of Windmill First and Middle school.
1.6 In accordance with the licence obligations and advice in PPG8 and the Code of Best Practice, the Agent has advised of the alternative sites which were considered and the reason why they were rejected.
Site Type Site Name and Address Reason for Rejection
Streetworks Dunley Road, Areley It is considered that an installation in this Kings location would be more visually prominent in relation to surrounding land uses than that of the site and proposals selected
Streetworks Corner of Hermitage The trees immediate to the site would prevent Way and Areley the effective propagation of radio signals Common towards the target area. Given the height and maturity of the trees it is of note that an installation in excess of 15 metres would be required resulting in a visually prominent proposal within the street scene. Therefore, this site has to be discounted as an appropriate height cannot be secured which would meet O2*s technical requirements
Greenfield Tudor Rose Cottage, The site is found on the edge of the search Dunley area and given its geographical position would not provide meaningful 2G coverage to the target area. Therefore, this site has to be discounted as it does not meet O2*s technical requirements Continued/…
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 2 of 77
3
07/3001/TE
Rooftop/Private The Kings Arms Public The site provider was unwilling to Streetworks House, Redhouse Road accommodate a telecommunications installation. Therefore, this site has to be discounted as O2 does not have the owner’s permission to use their land or building
Greenfield New Barns Farm, Pearl The site provider was unwilling to Lane accommodate a telecommunications installation. Therefore, this site has to be discounted as O2 does not have the owner’s permission to use their land
Rooftop St. Bartholomew of O2 deemed the building unsuitable for Areley Kings Church, accommodating telecommunications Redstone Lane equipment. Therefore, this site has to be discounted as a feasible solution could not be identified
Rooftop/private Thomas’ Garage, The site provider was unwilling to Streetworks Redhouse Road accommodate a telecommunications installation. Therefore, this site has to be discounted as O2 does not have the owner’s permission to use their land or building
2.0 Planning History
2.1 None
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Stourport-on-Severn Town Council – Awaiting comments
3.2 Highway Authority – No objections
3.3 Environmental Health – No adverse comments
3.4 Neighbour/Site Notice – At the time of report preparation a total of 50 letters of objection had been received (10 and 12 of these are copies of two standard letters). A letter has also been received on behalf of the Abberley Avenue Residents Protest Group. The concerns can be summarised into topics as follows:
SITING OF PROPOSAL - At 15m it will be taller than our house - Surely it can be located in an area where there are no domestic dwellings and it can be disguised by trees - It would spoil the views from our house
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 3 of 77
4 07/3001/TE
- This is a Landscape Protection Area and I cannot see how it would fir into the category of meeting local community needs when we can get 02 coverage in this area already - Please seriously consider the stunning views we enjoy - The monopole and cabinet are sited so close to the road and will be dangerous to traffic - It does not fit into the scenery of the area - Its obvious impact upon on the environment and surrounding properties is unacceptable - It fronts an area zoned I believe as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty - Will be completely out of character – there are no lighting columns, telegraph poles, amenities for gas, electric or BT communications - The mature foliage as described in the application is a mere 2 to 3m in height and this would scarcely mask or obscure a 15m pole! - The mast will tower above the countryside and surrounding properties and will also be visible from the other side of Areley Kings - The location would be on a bend and would be a distraction to drivers - Pearl Lane would be unsafe for any high platform maintenance vehicles - The mast will be sited 30m from a child’s bedroom, which is ludicrous when masts are not sited near schools, the majority of properties house families with children and there is also sheltered accommodation nearby - It will be an unsightly modern edifice of the modern age spoiling an outstanding view of natural beauty - With open fields in the vicinity this could easily be placed far enough away to cause problems to no-one or even be located further over by the Wobbly Wheel site away from houses - We bought this house because of its unspoilt green belt views and have recently bought land to extend our garden to stop the land being developed and becoming an eyesore - The monopole would be very noisy because of the open countryside, the wind would just howl around it causing noise pollution - The farmer would not be able to get his tractor in to cut and maintain the hedge and the tractor would not be able to cut the grass verge which would become untidy and scruffy - What an insult and blot on the landscape - We do not want further encroachment into our countryside - Surely a residential location is more desirable e.g. Sandy Lane Industrial estate, Ribbesford Woods?
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 4 of 77
5 07/3001/TE
- The grass verge is used daily for walking dogs and as a pathway. - It will be a great distraction to drivers due to the curvature and incline of the road and will mean that walkers will have to cross this dangerous road as there will be a phone mast in the way - This mast will change the outlook and ambience of this lovely land and will deter locals and visitors from using this valuable source of recreation - Would cause a ruination of this fine residential area
HEALTH CONCERNS - I am extremely worried that there will be an ill effect on my health apart from the environmental and psychological issues of looking out onto a huge mast instead of green field - Health concerns cannot be ignored as a material consideration - The psychological effect and lack of conclusive evidence of long term exposure to this technology which lets face it is still in its infancy for families living so close in terms of added stress and fear of the unknown - Several case studies exist when married to the environmental impact with such incongruous positional proposal cannot be ignored - There have been no proven case studies yet to show how long term effects of mobile phone mast emissions could affect their health in future years - Monopoles have been strongly linked to a big increase in cancer and leukaemia – this is a major heath risk as it is proposed to be situated 15m from our back garden where our children play - How can you possibly site this within feet of rear gardens and give a guarantee that the residents will have nothing to be apprehensive or concerned about - We still do not know what dangers this phone mast holds and I refuse to let my children be put in danger to their health. - The mast will also give children somewhere to investigate and I foresee quite a few accidents occurring with children playing by and around the mast/ - It could prove difficult to attract young families to this area in the future if the accommodation we offer is blighted by an unsightly mast with a real or perceived hazard as a health risk to children
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 5 of 77
6 07/3001/TE
- Are you aware of the BMA report “Mobile phones and health” published in May 2001. This concluded that RF exposures even at levels under the national guidelines do have biological effects and children absorb more than adults. The government guideline recommended that the beam of greatest intensity (50 – 200m from the mast) should not be permitted to fall on school grounds or buildings without permission from the school. Our children spend considerably more time at home than at school which is within 100m of the monopole. We do not give permission to erect this pole which would be in direct breach of recommendations by (1) The Independent Expert Group of Mobile Phones, (2) The British Government (3) The BKMA (4) The Radiocommunications Agency - The USA and other European countries have an exclusion zone of 500m from a phone mast to the vulnerable - The higher outputs in the these localities points to the potential that local residents could be slow cooked as they sleep in their beds which as you will be aware is the purpose of microwaves. - Recent research commissioned by the Dutch Government indicates a potential biological effect not only on the human population but on the Nemenode Worm which is a parasite in sheep and cattle thereby affecting the food chain. - The ICNIRP certificate is invalid (a revised form completed correctly has been requested - The ombudsman in relation to an objection over the failure of Swindon Borough Council to follow the correct procedures recommended that to correct the maladministration that the LPA pay the deference in loss of value of the property resulting in a total compensation payment of £119 500
NEED FOR MAST AND ALTERNATIVE LOCATIONS - Not satisfied that all alternatives to siting the proposal have been explored - Not all options for mast sharing or areas with less environmental impact have been fully explored as suggested in PPG8 - Is there a need for this development? - Where the mast is to be sited the O2 reception is perfectly acceptable - The site would not give the required coverage to the area, which may result in a second mast needing to be installed - All avenues for siting this mast have not been explored and there are plenty of other locations or businesses where the mast could be sited giving greater coverage to the whole area. Why not use the mast on Birchen Coppice to give coverage to the whole of the Wyre Forest!
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 6 of 77
7 07/3001/TE
- I am appalled by the inaccuracies in the proposal which states my area cannot receive O2 coverage. This is incorrect and mis leading, at best the author is mistaken, at worst is making false statements in order to add credence to the application. This is bourn out by neighbours one and four doors away that use that network - veterinary surgeons operate from this within a 20 mile radius. We register all our phones with O2 as the coverage is the best available through this are. The siting of an additional mast would not appear to be necessary - Some of the alternative sites are in a dip which makes them unsuitable to be even mentioned as an alterative site and therefore present a breach in he sequential rules of finding an appropriate location. It gives the impression of a lazy application - The operator has given little or no consideration (more importantly evidence) to mast sharing or sharing an existing site - Whilst I make no comment on whether the LPA should or should not approve another site for the proposed installation or as to the suitability of any such site. There are potentially sites that might be considered more remote in terms of their locality to existing sensitive developments such as residential premises, schools and medical facilities. I therefore urge the LPA to make inquiries to determine whether such a site does exist and whether the operator has done all they should in taking that or any other sit into account. - There appears to have been little or no pre-application consultation with the local community, contrary to the Operators Code of Best Practice - The operator is not required to have full coverage or even near coverage any coverage above 80% is effectively only being sought for commercial reasons and not from any obligation. It is clear that your authority is entitled to discount the need for coverage in the locality by 20%
OTHERS - Devaluation of property - The Council could lose thousands in revenue if any council tax re- banding take place - There are several test cases which would confirm the effect on property values immediately surrounding such an installation as well as insurance companies willing to insure against such an occurrence (prior to an application being received) which speaks volumes! - This application runs roughshod over the thoughts, feelings and concerns of the local community - We are annoyed that very few homes were given notice regarding the mast, if we did not walk our dog on a regular basis we would not have known about it
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 7 of 77
8 07/3001/TE
- Having had dealings with the planning department over erecting a fence I am now shocked to receive this application - Devaluation of property – the estate agent we contacted suggested a figure of 15%, another suggests up to 25% - The mast could also effect electrical equipment including pacemakers, - If O2 get the go ahead could this leave us open to further network providers installing monopole masts in this area? - Why were we not consulted by the company prior to this letter? - We are aware that when masts are erected the landowner received payment; will you tell us who would be the beneficiary? - We feel the imposition of this is a breach of our human rights (Article 8) and as such if the installation takes place we may be forced to take our case to a higher authority in order to preserve our standards and quality of life - We are appalled by the lack of information given to the community. Only households with 100m of the proposed site were written to by the Council. The only sign was located at the planning site. Should anybody wish to read this they would have to cross a very busy road with no safe crossing, kneel down (sign height 50cm) and get a torch out (no street lights). This is unacceptable and does not confirm with guidelines for public notification. - According to code 16 and 17 of the Electronic Operators Code of Practice we a re entitled to reimbursement on health grounds and on property losses, you can be assured we would have no hesitation to bring into action should a planning permission force us to do so - Due to the closeness of the site to the following Abberley Avenue, Cotswold Avenue, Severn Hills Drive, Callow Close and Areley Kings First School which are consider to be sensitive area, the LPA should give consideration as to whether they should make a Direction under Article 4 of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted development) Order 1995 in order to ensure that any application for telecoms installations no this site are processed under the full planning regime, as opposed to less stringent prior approval process. - I have requested that the organisation “Campaign for Planning Sanity” write to the landowner who I understand is WCC highlighting the future liabilities that may have from residents if they allow the erection of a mast on their land with claims for damages relating to health concerns and property depreciation - The site notice directly discriminates against the mobility or visually impaired members of the local community hence contravening the Disability Discrimination Act
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 8 of 77
9 07/3001/TE
3.5 Finally a lengthy detailed letter from ‘Campaign for Planning Sanity’ has been received from an address in Poole, Dorset. A summary is provided below:
• We have been instructed by local residents to put forward the following representation setting out the question of health and the degree of weight to be attached to the fear or perception of an adverse effect from telecommunication installations • We would particularly like to draw your attention to the fact that the Planning Inspectorate have now conceded that they have got it wrong inn refusing to take health concerns fully into account when an ICNIRP compliant certificate is supplied by the operator • The question of health can be split into 3 – that of the actual adverse health which has been caused or is demonstrated to be a contributing factor affecting health and / or well being of a specific member of the pubic • It should be kept in mind by LPA’s that they have full regard in their determination as to their obligations both under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and the connected obligation under the Human Rights Act1998, as well, as other right and obligations that may apply as an example the obligation by the local authority to protect children enshrined within the Children Act 1989 • . It is note worthy that Sir Williams Stewart alluded to these concerns in his report. • It should be clearly kept in mid that this category of fears by local residents may bit be connected to emission levels that the ICNIRP guidelines refer to. • There is also the specific make-up of the community, the Government advise that there is no risk to the general population, it is widely accepted that those at greatest risk are children, therefore a community with greater numbers pf children night require greater consideration than other areas. • BT (now O2) conceded that there was a risk, potentially equal to that of accidents within the home, and on the roads, as evidence by figures produced by ROSPA. • The final area of fear is that of the fear or perception of an adverse health effect caused by emissions from telecommunication installations, it is this category where most objections including the present objection falls. • It must be clearly kept in mind that Planning Policy Guidance Notes are just that, guidance; they are not so rigid that they must be followed to the letter; equally it must not be followed blindly • Mr Justice Sullivan stated that “ It would clearly be unreasonable to proceed upon the basis of a blanket restriction on TETRA proposals. Just as it is erroneous to proceed on the basis that perceived health risks cannot justify a refusal of planning permission unless they are objectively justified”. • It follows that any stated procedure / policy of following Government guidance without taking into account the individual circumstances of each case would be contrary to the law. Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 9 of 77
10 07/3001/TE
• Lord Justice Aldous (Newport CBC v. SoS for Wales & Browning Ferris Environmental Services Ltd, 1997) when looking at the public’s concerns on health in a case relating to a chemical waste plant stated, “It follows that the Circular contemplates that planning reasons such as public perception can (again, perhaps) rarely warrant refusal, even though the factual basis for that fear has no scientific or logical reason” • If it is accepted (as it must) that health concerns are a material planning consideration, then it comes down purely to an issue of consideration on an case by case basis, what degree of consideration should the decision maker give to the concerns of the public, any supporting references and reports they provide, matched against the references and reports supplied by the applicant. However, even the Harrogate decision makes the point that it must be a significant case that would override the ICNIRP certificate, a case that has a clear and distinct evidence of a risk that is not measured by the criteria applied to determining whether to issue and ICNIRP certificate. We argue this such a case, attached are a list of academic reports some of which have been commissioned by and form part of official government policy, that demonstrate without any doubt that there are effects that are not measured by ICNIRP that are likely, or could potentially lead to an adverse health effect on the special category of people that are either children, the elderly and those that are hyper sensitive to electro magnetic emissions • The Bardsley case (Nunn R v First S of S & Ors) appears to fly fully in the face of the Harrogate judgement in that it states clearly that if an LPA fails to take account health concerns of disaffected residents then either a claim under Section 8 of the HRA and / or a complaint to the Ombudsman would be the effective remedies open to the disaffected residents. • Contrary to all past court finding in regards to the devaluation of property they state that if an LPA fail to consider property devaluation then they will have violated the rights of residents to have devaluation and health concerns into account. • In respect of this application there are many dwelling and places (including schools / nurseries) where children are likely to be for considerable periods within the beam of greatest intensity, therefore we argue that the weight to be placed against this proposal is considerably greater than it would be in a case that might come within this special category, but we argue that in this specific case there is a clear case where special consideration should be applied. • We are sure you will agree that the previous practice of the Planning Inspectorate not to take health concerns fully into account is now being reversed. It also follows that where health concerns are not fully taken into account by decision makers that those communities most affected should seek the intervention of the courts.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 10 of 77
11 07/3001/TE
• Human rights overrides such doctrine as that established in Ryland and Fletcher , and brings homes the clear prospect of public authorities becoming liable for their decisions if they fail to fully take human right issues such as Article 6.1, the right to a fair hearing (failure to fully consider perception of an adverse health effect could be argued here). • In appropriate cases, of which we suggest this is one, weight can be given to the issue that will override the fact that an ICNIRP certificate has been submitted by the Applicant with their application and indeed must if the LPA is to avoid the consequences of the failure to do as a consequence of the Bardsley case • There can be little justification today for an LPA taking the view that they shod not refuse an application merely where there is the prospect of an operator appealing a refusal, and the potential cost of such an appeal to the LPA. • On the question of how much weight to attach then I would refer you to the attached list of documents which sets out the findings of many academic reports, all of which indicate a potential adverse health effect, or indicate a potential risk that has not as yet been quantified. • For all these reasons we respectfully request that you refuse the application before you, we do stress that in such refusals you should set out in clear and precise terms why you have concluded that this case is a special case that should be refused on health.
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of this application for Prior Approval are as follows:
i) impact on visual amenity ii) health concerns iii) other issues
IMPACT ON VISUAL AMENITY 4.2 The Government’s policy is to facilitate the growth of new and existing telecommunication systems whilst keeping the environmental impact to a minimum. There is a requirement to develop the network to provide coverage to 80% of the population by 2007. PPG8 advises the use of sympathetic design and the siting of masts on existing buildings, masts or other structures rather than isolated stand alone masts.
4.3 As stated previously, the radio base station would consist of a 15 metre high flexicell monopole with shrouded antennas and a ground based equipment cabinet on the west side of Pearl Lane on a grassed verge between the edge of the highway and a boundary hedge line.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 11 of 77
12 07/3001/TE
4.4 The land to the west of Pearl Lane is located within a Landscape Protection Area where the area is characterised by highway verge adjacent to a grassed embankment which slopes up and away from the highway. The site is neither within the Green Belt or an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. The boundary to the adjacent field is defined by a hedge with trees to the rear. When approaching the proposed siting of the base station, both from the south and to the north, the character of the landscape is very open and natural as there are no existing lighting columns or street furniture either side of the road.
4.5 The Agent on behalf of the Applicant, has stated that:
“Conscious of a proposals proximity to residential properties opposite, every attempt has been made to minimise the visual impact of the scheme towards nearby residential properties by careful siting and design. It is acknowledged that residential properties can be found on the opposite side of the road, however given their orientation within the street scene, the position of apertures and the extent of boundary screening, it is considered that the proposal would not significantly affect the outlook from these properties. Directly opposite the site there is mature foliage which largely screen the nearest residential properties from view, hence it is considered that the proposals would have a minimum impact on residential amenity”.
4.6 The Agent goes on to state that the proposed monopole and equipment cabinet would soon be seen as a utilitarian feature not uncommon in such a street scene and it is not considered that the appearance of a monopole would seriously impact upon the visual amenity of the area or form an obtrusive feature in the street scene. The Agent adds that the operator has opted to connect the site into the national network via an underground transmission link rather than relying on a transmission dish which might affect the linear nature of the scheme.
4.7 Whilst the above comments have been taken into account, and it is appreciated that the proposed monopole is of a slim-line design, it is considered that the appearance of the 15 metre high structure together with the equipment cabinet would significantly contrast with the open and rural character of this side of Pearl Lane, and for this reason the proposal cannot be supported.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 12 of 77
13 07/3001/TE
HEALTH CONCERNS 4.8 In the light of growing concern about possible health effects of exposure to signals transmitted and received by telecommunication masts, the Government in 1999 asked the National Radiological Protection Boards (NRPB) to set up an independent expert group on mobile phones. This group, under the chairmanship of Sir William Stewart, considered concerns about health effects from the use of mobile phones and published a report now commonly known as ‘The Stewart Report’ (2000). The report concluded that the balance of evidence indicated that there is no general risk to the health of people living near to base stations on the basis that exposures are expected to be small fractions of the guidelines. However, the report acknowledges that there can be indirect adverse effects on people’s wellbeing in some cases, for example, the anxiety that some people may feel due to the perceived loss of amenity, reduction in property values and feelings of exclusion and disempowerment by the Planning System.
4.9 The independent expert group recommended a precautionary approach, comprising a series of specific measures, to the use of mobile phone technologies until there is more detailed and scientifically robust information on any health effects. The Government accepted this precautionary approach and a number of specific recommendations relating to the group report. In accordance with this precautionary approach, the Agent, on behalf of the Applicant, has submitted a statement of declaration of conformity with the International Commission on Non-ionising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP).
4.10 In addition, radio frequency estimations have been submitted predicting a measurement of 0.0036% of the safe ICNIRP guideline at Areley Common First school with 0.0048% of the ICNIRP guideline predicted at Windmill First and Middle school. Furthermore, within 150 metres of the site a maximum level of 0.025% of the ICNIRP guideline is predicted. The Agent also advises that the actual levels will be less than predicted due to environmental attenuation from buildings and trees and other objects.
4.11 Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (2001) states that:
“Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case, this is ultimately a matter for the Courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the Local Planning Authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 13 of 77
14 07/3001/TE
However, it is the Government’s firm view of the Planning System that it is not a place for determining health safeguards. It remains Central Government’s responsibility to decide what measures are necessary to protect public health. In the Government's view if a proposed mobile phone base station meets the ICNIRP guidelines for public exposure, it should not be necessary for a Local Planning Authority, in processing an application for planning permission or a Prior Approval, to consider further the health aspects and concerns about them.” ( Paragraphs 29 and 30 of PPG8)
4.12 Members attention is also drawn to two previous notification appeal decisions relating to applications refused on health grounds within the District. Firstly, with respect to a 6 metre flag pole at Stourport Workmen’s Club was refused due to the perceived health concerns of the public and the psychological harm that may be caused to residents in close proximity to the mast and also due to the proximity of the site to schools (Reference WF(T)101). The Inspector remarked in allowing the appeal that:
“The Council feels that the perceived health risks are due to the gaps in knowledge regarding the potential effects on health due to the relatively short period that mobile phones have been in general use. …On balance, however, and bearing in mind that there is little objective evidence to support local fears, and that the omissions from the mast would be well within the ICNIRP guidelines, I do not consider that health concerns of the Council and the residents are sufficient to justify refusing planning permission.” (22 nd July 2005)
4.13 Secondly, a 8.15m high wooden telegraph pole style monopole at the Scout Camp, Kidderminster Road, Bewdley (WF(T)92) was refused due to the perceived health concerns arising from the proximity of the equipment to the Scout Camp, a facility used by young people, especially children. In the Inspector’s decision which was allowed he stated:
“The evidence in this case is that the proposed installation has been designed to fully comply with the ICNIRP guidelines. In view of this, and the rural location of the site, I find no justification to refuse prior approval for the siting and appearance of the installation, on grounds of adverse health effects or concerns about them”. (February 2006).
4.14 In the light of Government Guidance of PPG8, evidence from independent reports, a declaration of conformity with the ICNIRP public exposure guidelines and a radio frequency assessment, it is considered that whilst health concerns raised are material to the consideration of the current proposal, they should not be given sufficient weight to form a reason for refusal.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 14 of 77
15 07/3001/TE
OTHER ISSUES 4.15 In support of the application a series for coloured maps have been submitted indicating the existing and proposed coverage levels to demonstrate that there is a need for the proposed installation. Neighbours have queried the need for the additional mast as an O2 signal can already be achieved at present. The Agent, on behalf of the Applicant, has advised that:
“However, I would like to point out that obtaining a good signal does not necessarily mean that capacity levels can ensure the effective connection or completion of a call. Indeed, the main reasons for this site is to increase capacity and coverage levels across the local area, particularly along Dunley Road as it descends towards the River Severn where the possibility of dropped calls is a problem.”
4.16 In addition, the Agent has advised that seven other sites were considered but rejected for technical or other reasons. Again, neighbours have queried as to why Tudor Rose Cottage, Dunley Road, could not be used as a site share by two operators. The Agent has responded as follows:
There is an existing 15 metre Orange mast located within the boundary of this site and indeed the landowner was keen to host another such development, however this was not possible for the following reasons:
The mast itself is a street works monopole which is a non-sharable structure in its present form. To utilise this structure total redevelopment would have to occur which would increase the height of the column to 20 metres or more.
Furthermore, the column would have to be more substantial to support the additional weight of two head frames, and these in turn would be significantly wider than the existing Orange one or the proposed development. As a result it is felt that the sharing of this structure was inappropriate within the context of the area.
My client also explored the possibility of a separate O2 structure within the site provider’s land but once again this was not achievable for technical reasons. Tudor Rose Cottage is located approximately 500-550 metres from the Pearl Lane site which is already situated on the extremes of the search area. The target area is the residential and commercial properties of Areley Kings and the Walshes, and the A451 leading to Stourport on Severn. Ideally, my client would like it to be positioned somewhere between Areley Common Road and Hermitage Lane in the centre of the village. Due to the undulating topography, trees and urban density, the Pearl Lane site covers approximately 70-80% of this target area and to move to Tudor Rose Cottage would lead to a 50% loss of this coverage capability. As a result this second solution had to be discounted because effective coverage of the target area could not be achieved.”
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 15 of 77
16 07/3001/TE
4.17 It is therefore considered that the operators have demonstrated that there is a need for a new installation and that other sites are not feasible.
4.18 The devaluation of property is not considered to be a material planning consideration. Furthermore, whilst concerns regarding the health effects of such fears are material to the consideration, they should not be given sufficient weight to form a reason for refusal.
4.19 The Highway Authority raises no objections.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 On balance, taking all matters into consideration including issues of human rights, Government advice and emerging Case Law, particularly relating to the materiality of perceived health risks as a reason for Local Planning Authorities refusing such applications, it is considered that a reason for refusal on the basis of perceived health concerns could not be substantiated at Appeal. It is however considered that the conflict with landscape policies cannot be resolved and therefore it is recommended that REFUSAL be given to the siting and external appearance of the proposal for the following reason:
1. The application site lies within an area designated as Landscape Protection Area. The development is considered inappropriate at this location as, by virtue of its height and prominent position, it would harm the open character of the area and would fail to harmonise or integrate with the appearance of the landscape. As such, it is considered contrary to Policies LA.1, LA.6, TR.20 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan, Policies CTC.1 and CTC.2 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan and Government guidance in PPG8 (2001).
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 16 of 77
Application Reference: 06/1239/FULL Date Received: 13/12/2006 Ord Sheet: 381225.0165947 Expiry Date: 14/03/2007 271492.912369825 Case Officer: Julia Mellor Ward: Mitton
Proposal: 45 Sheltered apartments (31 x 1 bed & 14 x 2 bed) for the elderly with communal facilities; parking & landscaping (Re- submission of 06/0146/Full)
Site Address: FORMER SHELL GARAGE, VALE ROAD, STOURPORT-ON- SEVERN, DY138YJ
Applicant: Churchill Retirement Living Ltd
Summary of Policy H1, H2, H4, H5, H10, D1, D2, D3, D4, D10, D11, D13, NR8, NR9, NR11, TC2, LA6, TR6, TR9, TR17, IMP1, CA1, CA2, CA6, HL1, NC2, NC3, NC6 (AWFDLP) CTC5, CTC20, D6, D9, IMP1, SD3, SD4, SD5, SD6, (WCSP) CF2, CF3, CF4, CR5, QE1, QE3, QE5 (RPG11) BPS1, PPG3, PPS3, PPS6, PPG15 Design Quality SPG (2004) Stourport Public Realm Design Guide Stourport on Severn (2006) Reason for Referral ‘Major’ planning application to Committee Recommendation Delegated APPROVAL subject to Section 106 Agreement
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The application site is of an irregular shape and has an area of 0.228 hectares. It is located between Vale Road which lies to the east, the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal which lies to the west, the Esso petrol filling station which lies to the north and the War Memorial Gardens which lie to the south. The site currently accommodates St. Johns Shell Petrol Filling Station.
1.2 The application site has common boundaries with the Stourport on Severn Conservation Area (No.2) and the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area.
1.3 The application seeks consent for a total of 45 sheltered apartments (31 x 1 bed and 14 x 2 bed). The site would be accessed by a single point of access from Vale Road leading to an internal court yard car park of 14 spaces including 3 disabled spaces and a drop off zone.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 17 of 77
2
06/1239/FULL
1.4 The application has been submitted together with a Design Statement, an Access Statement, an Arboricultural Report, an Affordable Housing Report, a Site Investigation, a Statement of Community Involvement and a Retail Statement.
1.5 The submitted plans indicate the development of a single block in a U-shaped layout with the main frontages to Vale Road, the Canal and the War Memorial Gardens.
1.6 The development would be 3 storey in height reaching approximately 7.5 m to the eaves and 11.6 m to the ridge.
1.7 The layout shows a proposed pergola and sitting out area for residents to the south adjacent the War Memorial Gardens together with open space fronting the canal with a set of footsteps leading down to the canal towpath. A number of the existing canal side trees are proposed to be removed however submitted landscaping plans include the provision of new tree and shrub planting.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF.438/90 – Alterations to workshop and erection of car wash: Approved 17.7.90 WF.785/93 – Garage use, service, repairs and supply and fitting of exhaust and tyres: Approved 14.12.93 WF.48/01 – Display of 1 wall unit: Refused 12.9.01 WF.284/04 – Change of use to car sales area on part of site: Approved 18.6.04 WF.06/0146/FULL – 45 Sheltered apartments for the elderly with communal facilities with access, parking and landscaping: Refused 24.4.06 (Appeal to be determined by Public Inquiry pending).
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.2 Stourport-on-Severn Town Council – Recommend refusal on the ground that the development provides inadequate car parking spaces for residents and their visitors
3.2 Highway Authority – Awaiting comments.
3.3 Environmental Health – Awaiting comments.
3.4 Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 18 of 77
3
06/1239/FULL
3.5 Disability Action Wyre Forest –
• Single toilet located off ground floor corridor should be unisex wheelchair accessible 2.2m x 1.5m in accordance with Part M rather than 1.8m x 1.7m room as shown.
• A larger lift with a minimum internal car size of 1.4m x 1.1m should be provided to permit use by a wheelchair passenger and their attendant.
• 3 disabled car spaces should be set out strictly in accordance with clause 1.18 and Diagram 2 of Part M of the Building Regulations.
• Details of refuse arrangements including location of bin areas and access points if chute system is to be incorporated.
3.6 British Waterways – After due consideration of the application British Waterways has no objections to the proposed development in principle subject to the imposition of suitably worded conditions and the applicant first entering into a legal agreement covering the points below. British Waterways welcomes the design, detailing and materials of new buildings which reflect and compliment the local historic vernacular and elements within the landscape, using simple and robust designs consistent with the character, function and scale of the waterway corridor. British Waterways welcomes the use of the towpath as an integral part of the residential scheme. We wish to enter a Section 106 Agreement to:
- upgrade and widen the towpath to be DDA compliant;
- provide public access points which should be created between the towpath/waterside and the development to increase interest, vitality and security along the waterfront;
- introduce seating which may be very desirable in many waterside locations with appropriate design which is sensitive to the location; and
- to maintain the hedging and vegetation on the towpath side.
In addition we would seek to have conditions that reflect the following:
- Barriers along the waters edge like walls and railings should in general not be used on the towpath. In the case of an elderly scheme waterside barriers like railings should only be used where there is a high perceived risk of falling into the water or where there is restricted space along the waterside.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 19 of 77
4
06/1239/FULL
- There should be a cohesive approach to the boundary treatment which reflects and augments the character of this particular stretch of waterway. British Waterways would like to approve the final details of materials used.
- Any vegetation removals should be kept to a minimum to retain both the existing character of the area and its habitat value. However, we welcome the removal of large trees within 4 metres of the canal side to protect the integrity of the bank.
- All new planting should seek to use locally appropriate, native species that will create viable areas for habitat development such as insects and bats along the canal corridor.
3.7 Forward Planning -
• The site is not allocated in the Adopted Local Plan. However, it forms part of the Stourport on Severn inset and therefore regard should be had to Policy TC.2 and specifically clause (i) (as clauses (ii) and (iii) do not apply to this location). Policy TC.2 (i) relates to only those floors above the ground floor and makes no provision for residential development at the ground floor, which is effectively safeguarded for retail and business use. The site, therefore, falls outside Policy H.2.
• While the applicant has demonstrated in their supporting retail statement the reasons why they consider that ground floor retail is not viable in this location, the applicant has failed to consider any other possible ground floor uses covered under Policy TC.2 which refers to ‘business and retail’ as suitable uses and offers a range of solutions.
• However, it is suggested by the applicant that the proposal does provide housing to meet a specific need. It is acknowledged that the proposal will also remove a building which is defined as poor quality in the Design Quality SPG and enhance the street scene, and provide towpath improvements. Other issues to consider from the Design SPG and its companion guide for Stourport: Public Realm Design Guide for Stourport- on-Severn (Nov 2006) include recognition of the importance of the War Memorial as a gateway. Page 40 of the Companion Guide highlights a series of possible improvements to the area. Given the proximity of this application site to the War Memorial Garden perhaps a Section 106 contribution to improve connections with the Town Centre shops and the setting of the development could reasonably be sought.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 20 of 77
5
06/1239/FULL
• The proposal is for residential development and should therefore have regard to policy H.10 which sets out the District Council’s requirements for affordable housing.
• The proposal should have regard to policy TR.17 which sets out the car- parking standards and provisions required. This policy suggests that lower levels of car-parking should be provided in town centres in order to encourage sustainable transport.
3.8 Conservation Officer –
• The resubmitted plans appear to have largely taken account of my previous comments, and addressed many of the concerns I had originally voiced on the design of the buildings. However, there are still several elements that I have concern over.
• Firstly, there does not appear to be any elevation of the right hand block (facing) of the north elevation. This needs to be submitted as part of any application (revised plans including these elevations received).
• In terms of materials, many of the primary materials have been altered, including replacing buff brick with blue brick, etc. However, the drawings still indicate the use of forticrete concrete tiles. Considering the large scale of this development, my comments still hold on this element, in that I am of the strong opinion that concrete tiles would not be appropriate in this location. If this application is approved, then I would like to make all facing materials conditional of any approval.
• The only other concern I have is over the boundary treatment to the canal. I note that the landscape drawing states that a mix of hedera (ivy) is to be used. However, I would also like to suggest that different levels in height could be achieved, retaining in part the “green corridor” referred to in the Conservation Area Appraisal for SoS #2 CA. Perhaps a mix of other plants, as well as Hedera, could be used, including berberis, willow, hawthorn, hazel (all of which should conform with British Waterways concern over large trees in proximity to the canal), ibex aquifolium, pyrocantha, and mahonia. All of these would assist in giving some natural protection to the site, in terms of access, would retain in some form the natural green corridor, and would add colour and variation throughout the seasons, to this element of the site, and to the canal. (Revised landscaping plans increasing the tree cover to the canal frontage have been received).
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 21 of 77
6
06/1239/FULL
Recommendations:
• I feel that many of my initial concerns over this application have been addressed, but there are still some details that I would ask to be addressed. In this present form, if the application were to be approved, then I would ask that the permission is made conditional on the following:
- Approval prior to the commencement of works on site, of all facing materials, including brickwork, mortar, rainwater goods, roofing materials
- Approval of 1:20 sections of all windows and external doors, and balconies
- Position, colour and finish of all flues and extracts
- Approval of a final scheme for landscaping, considering the impact that this will have on both the site, the views out of the Conservation Area No.2, and the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area.
3.9 Arboricultural Officer –
• Trees on site are not afforded statutory protection, as a Tree Preservation Orders does not affect trees on site.
• The arboricultural assessment report by Roy Finch dated January 2006 accurately describes the trees on site. I consider that there are no trees on site worthy of protection despite some being retained on the plan. A high quality landscape design should be implemented on this site which will be viewed from many sides by the town’s large tourist population.
• The landscaping scheme: There are no proposed trees along the canal side: Small trees need to be planted in this area such as Sorbus aucuparia var., Amelanchier spp. or such other species of tree suitable for the space. The remaining planting scheme is acceptable and appropriate for the site and usage.
Recommendations: • Approve landscaping scheme subject to the above amendments (Officer comments - a revised planting scheme has been submitted)
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 22 of 77
7
06/1239/FULL
3.10 Housing Services Manager –
• I agree with the comment that the question of compatibility relies heavily on the production of evidence that there is an acceptable design solution to achieving a mixed tenure development. This has not been possible to achieve at this time with little evidence widely available to point to successful delivery. This has been constrained also by the size of the site.
• I am comfortable with the evidence to demonstrate a need for affordable housing in relation to any age group. This would be further evidenced following the sub-regional South Housing Market Area Housing Market Assessment. I also agree that it is important to demonstrate that the problems of differential management and service charges can be overcome. This has not been possible to achieve to my satisfaction without the ability to design out communal and shared services.
• I agree that the central issue is the compatibility of the different tenures and that in the absence of evidence to demonstrate that the specific site can accommodate two separate and self-contained schemes the position is weakened greatly. The Council's consultant's final comment on this point is that he is of the opinion that there is a real risk that an appeal would be lost here.
• On this basis I agree with the conclusion that measured against the risk of an appeal against refusal being upheld due to the level of evidence necessary to ensure good prospects for an appeal being dismissed, on balance there is adequate justification for accepting the without prejudice offer of a financial contribution of £224,000 towards off-site affordable provision.
• It is important to note the point made concerning the acceptance of this offer in relation to sites of this type in the future and that it does not set a precedent for a reduced contribution as each site will of course have different financial parameters requiring case by case considerations.
• Further the suggestion that the methodology used by the applicants to reach the figure of £224,000 should be pointed out as one of several that could be presented to achieve a figure is very useful in qualification of our position.
• I would therefore on the basis of this assessment recommend that the without prejudice offer of a financial contribution of £224,000 towards off- site affordable provision should be accepted. It is a substantial sum which has a significant risk of being lost to affordable housing provision.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 23 of 77
8
06/1239/FULL
3.11 Ramblers Association – Whilst footpath 584 passes to the west of the property the development would appear to have no impact upon the same: however I would ask you to remind the applicant/developer that no development should be allowed to obstruct public rights of way – either during or after development.
3.12 Inland Waterways Association - As with the previous proposal IWA not only welcome the development of the site but also congratulates the applicant on their research and the resultant sympathetic designs that have been further refined as part of the current application. IWA therefore has no objection to the proposals and, other than drawing the Council’s attention to the risks associated with the work being carried out immediately adjacent to the high canal side retaining wall located adjacent to the heavily used visitor moorings, therefore supports the application. Under the circumstances we would ask that arrangements be put in place to ensure that the towpath is fully open throughout the duration of the works and the appropriate protection is put in place to protect its users and the visiting boaters who may moor overnight below the site.
3.13 Severn Trent Water - No objection subject to condition requiring details of drainage.
3.14 Crime Risk Officer - I recommend that the principles and guidance of the secured by design award be enforced to ensure that the recognised minimum standards of physical security and design are achieved. The award will further assist in reducing the opportunity for crime and the fear of crime, creating a safer and more secure environment. Door and window standards should comply with British Standards Specification for enhanced security performance. A lighting scheme controlled by dusk to dawn sensors should be designed to cover the high risk areas including all communal areas, footpaths and car parking ensuring that there is illumination throughout the area. Planting should be designed to not impede natural surveillance or create potential hiding places. As a general recommendation shrubs should be selected which have a mature growth height of no higher than 1 m, and trees should have no foliage below 2 m. This affords a 1 m clear field of vision.
3.15 Worcestershire Wildlife Trust - We would not wish to make any further comments on this site.
3.16 Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Society - Awaiting comments.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 24 of 77
9
06/1239/FULL
3.17 Access Officer - The applicant has addressed all the previously raised issues, albeit that the organisation has a limit in the level of accessibility beyond which it will not go, i.e. Category 2
1. End zones, 1200mm wide, to each of the disabled user car park spaces are now shown on the site plan, as specified in the access statement. Acceptable.
2. The landscaping drawing, 1195/1D, conflicts with the site plan, P005B, in respect of the patio areas outside units 1,5,6,7,8,9,10 and the footpath outside units 11,12,13. The site plan is my preferred option. Drawing 1195/1E still does not correspond with details on site layout plan, (Revised plans to be submitted prior to Committee)
3. Also on the landscape plan trees are shown in the footpath around the courtyard. There must be a clear 1m space on the footpath for pedestrians and wheelchair users to pass the trees. Obstructing trees removed on revised plans
4. The access to the canal towpath, requested by British Waterways, should be level and not stepped. There should be space within the site to accommodate the necessary ramp. Steps to canal towpath:- 2 steps appear to be out side the site boundary, who is to provide them and the extension to the handrail? Design detail should be to BS 8300/2001, i.e. steps without projecting nosing, handrail projection of 300mm at top and bottom of flight. Gate at top of steps needs an 800mm long landing before the top step. Lighting scheme required.
(Revised plans showing the canal steps detail to accord with the above are anticipated prior to Committee)
Recommendations: Resolve details 1-4 above prior to determination. Approve and condition details
3.18 Stourport on Severn Civic Society – In spite of the alterations made to this planning application we remain opposed to it for a number of reasons:
1. Although there is clearly a need for this type of development in Stourport, this site is totally inappropriate being on the busiest, noisiest, most dangerous road in the town. The windows of the apartments at the front of the building will be very close to the main road.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 25 of 77
10
06/1239/FULL
2. The proposed number of apartments is an over-development of the site. In order to fit in the maximum number the building will be three storeys in height, looming over both Vale Road at the front and, more significantly, the canal corridor at the rear. The latter will be detrimental to the canal conservation area.
3. We see no reason for dummy/blind windows which are singularly unattractive.
4. The number of parking spaces is unrealistic. Even if few of the residents have cars there will need to be adequate parking for visitors, both health professionals and family, and deliveries. The limited on-site parking will put pressure on the already much-used Vale Road public car park and increase the number of pedestrians having to cross the very dangerous Vale Road.
5. We are concerned about vehicular access being via an enclosed archway which will reduce visibility creating a risk of collisions between incoming and outgoing vehicles.
3.19 Neighbour/Site Notice/Press Notice – No representations received.
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The agent on behalf of the applicants has advised that the provision of 45 Category 2 sheltered apartments for the elderly are designed to meet the needs of independent retired people and would provide self contained apartments for sale. Features of the scheme include:
• a visiting lodge manager who would live in close proximity to the site;
• a Communal owners lounge (for coffee mornings/bridge; evenings/residents meetings)
• a guest suite;
• a communal laundry facility;
• emergency alarms fitted in each apartment and in communal areas;
• 1 communal lift wide enough to accommodate a wheel chair; and
• communal landscaped garden areas
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 26 of 77
11
06/1239/FULL
4.2 As stated previously this form of accommodation is described as sheltered housing or Category 2 accommodation and it is designed for independent living rather than extra care housing for older people with a high level of dependency or very sheltered/ assisted living housing often described as 2+ sheltered housing.
4.3 The agent has advised that the apartments are sold with a lease containing an age restriction which ensures that only people of 60 years or over, or those or over with a partner of at least 55 can live in a development. The accommodation would be managed by the Peverel Group, a Company which specialises in the management of retirement developments, with approximately 1500 retirement developments throughout the United Kingdom.
4.4 Members may recall a previous application for 45 sheltered apartments which was reported to the Planning (Development Control) Committee Meeting of 11 th April 2006 (06/0146/FULL). That application was refused for a total of 4 reasons relating to the following:
i) use of the ground floor;
ii) lack of affordable housing;
iii) proposed design; and the
iv) failure of the proposed layout to adequately meet the needs of disabled people.
The current application seeks to overcome these previous reasons for refusal.
USE OF THE GROUND FLOOR 4.5 The starting point is the land use designation within the Adopted Local Plan (2004). In this case the application site is not allocated for any particular use. The site is however located within the inset area for Stourport on Severn and therefore is subject to Policy TC2.
4.6 Policy TC.2 states that within the Town Centre inset areas residential development will be allowed only above retail and business premises. Therefore the current scheme which proposes residential uses at ground floor is contrary to this Policy. This conflict with the Adopted Local Plan formed the first reason for refusal of the previous application.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 27 of 77
12
06/1239/FULL
4.7 In response to this reason for refusal the applicants have submitted a supporting Retail Statement by MWA Planning and Development Consultancy. The report sets out the following conclusions:
i) The site is not allocated for retail, commercial or mixed use development in the Adopted Local Plan.
ii) Land to the north of the site (Esso Petrol Filling Station) is specifically identified for retail development under Policy STC.6. However the Council did not see fit to include the application site within this identified area.
iii) This is an edge of centre site where a quantitative need for retail floor space on the application site does not, on the basis of the consultants assessment, exist. Without proving a quantitative need a retail scheme would be contrary to Local Plan Policy RT4 as well as Government advice in PPS6.
iv) Sequentially preferable sites (premises) exist to meet the very limited quantitative need which exist, e.g. Bridge Street. These sites appear to be suitable and available for retail development.
v) There appears to be limited retailer need for additional retail floorspace based on the known demand from retailers seeking space in the town.
vi) The viability of any development is highly questionable given its remoteness from both the primary and secondary shopping areas, the low pedestrian flow along the frontage, the lack of any potential for linked trips and the low rateable values along Vale Road.
vii) The scheme would not sustain and enhance the Town Centre. It would therefore not contribute to its economic and social role in the community.
4.8 The submitted report advises that Policy TC2 states that residential development will be permitted above retail and commercial premises within the Town Centre and in their opinion this does not apply to the site which lies outside the primary and secondary shopping areas.
4.9 Furthermore referring to Local Plan Policy RT4 this Policy states that within 300m of the primary shopping area (as this site is), new retail development should normally be limited to modest expansion of existing premises of 250 sq.m. or visually and functionally enhance existing facilities. First, a development for a mix of uses would involve the introduction of new retail units at ground floor level and, secondly, it is likely that retail development, even of a modest scale, would be in conflict with Policy RT4.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 28 of 77
13
06/1239/FULL
4.10 It is considered that whilst the use of the ground floor for residential accommodation conflicts with Policy TC2 and H2 the applicants have demonstrated why this site is not suitable for commercial uses. In addition it is acknowledged that the development of the site will remove a building which is defined as poor quality in the Design Quality Supplementary Planning Guidance, and that the redevelopment would improve the street scene and the frontage to the canal towpath. It is therefore considered on balance that this reason for refusal could not be sustained at appeal. The provision of affordable housing therefore is a material consideration.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4.11 The scheme proposes a total of 45 units which is above the threshold for affordable housing according to Policy H10 of the Adopted Local Plan.
4.12 Policy H10 indicates that the District Council will seek the provision of up to 30% of dwellings to be affordable taking account of levels of housing need and economic constraints. Furthermore Circular 6/98 provides greater information on factors which should be considered when assessing the level of affordable housing provision. These factors being:
• Site size
• Suitability
• Economics of provision
• The need to achieve a successful housing development
4.13 The second reason for refusal of the previous application related to the applicants failure in adequately demonstrating that a proportion of affordable units, of some form, could not be accommodated physically or financially on the site. To reiterate no affordable housing was offered as part of the previous application.
4.14 In response the agent on behalf of the applicant has submitted a report on the provision of affordable housing, to substantiate why affordable housing units cannot be accommodated on this site.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 29 of 77
14
06/1239/FULL
4.15 In short this relates to the size of the site,
“the very limited size of the site and the applicants desire to develop a sustainable category 2 private sheltered housing scheme for elderly occupiers makes the provision of affordable housing on the site, in the form and type sought by the Council to meet their identified affordable housing need, incompatible with the need to achieve a successful sheltered housing development because, the two different types of housing having separate ownership and management regimes would need to occupy separate parts of the site, each with their own access, parking and grounds.”
4.16 Secondly, from a management perspective it is not practicable to offer a two tier management service to residents of different tenures in the same building which, the Agent advises:
“would inevitably lead to disharmony and potential resentment amongst residents and no doubt cause difficulties for the developments management”
4.17 As stated by the Housing Services Manager, the site is tightly constrained in terms of its size and it is not realistically feasible to accommodate two separate developments of different tenures to resolve management issues including different service charges within this site.
4.18 In contrast to the previous application the applicants have offered £224,000 as a contribution towards off-site affordable housing provision. In light of the evidence submitted by the applicants, together with case law, both of which have been considered by the Housing Services Manager, together with the Council’s Affordable Housing Consultant it is considered that it would be preferable to accept the off-site contribution rather than sustain the previous reason for refusal at appeal.
PROPOSED DESIGN 4.19 The third reason for refusal with respect to the previous application referred to the poor quality design by virtue of several detailed matters of the design, together with the height and massing of the proposed west wing and its proximity to the canal.
4.20 As stated previously the agent has submitted a Design Statement which highlights the existing site constraints and opportunities. The agent considers that:
• the existing buildings have no acknowledged historical or architectural significance
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 30 of 77
15
06/1239/FULL
• further south from Vale Road is Lion Hill where the buildings are in character with the older traditional parts of the Stourport on Severn with buildings (predominantly 3 storey) positioned close to the back of footpath and facing the road where they help to reinforce the line of the road, provide an active frontage and provide a sense of enclosure to the street.
• whilst the site has a 40 m boundary to the canal to the west there are currently no buildings on site which address this potential frontage.
• redevelopment could address the vast expanse of tarmac present on the site.
4.21 In summary the design solutions for the development of this site in context as submitted by the agents are as follows:
i) A three storey building has been designed and positioned close to the back of the footpath facing Vale Road, reinforcing the line of the road, providing an active frontage and helping to provide a sense of enclosure to the street.
ii) An active frontage has also been provided along the boundary with the canal to provide policing to the towpath and an attractive backdrop to the Conservation Area.
iii) Brickwork projections, arched window heads, regular spaced windows and exposed steel work provide the building with an identity which relates to elements of existing buildings in the location such as the Warehouse and Mill on the opposite side of the canal.
(iv) The building has been positioned away from the southern boundary to allow a sitting out area to be provided with a south facing aspect.
(v) A comprehensive landscaping scheme has been prepared.
4.22 In response to the previous reason for refusal Officers have negotiated a revised scheme with changes to be detailed elevations including:
• brickwork gables to replace timber clad gables
• The removal of an inactive frontage to the south elevation facing the War Memorial Gardens
• The replacement of the previous flat roof with a pitched roof facing War Memorial Gardens
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 31 of 77
16
06/1239/FULL
• A reduction in the appearance of the massing and height of the block fronting the canal by the introduction of gables to break up the roofscape.
• The provision of detailed elevations to the south elevation facing the War Memorial Gardens and north elevation facing Esso Petrol Filling Station with the provision of windows and dummy windows to provide attractive frontages;
• The provision of French windows facing the canal
• Dummy windows replaced by real windows facing the War Memorial Gardens.
• A full landscaping scheme to provide trees and shrubs to the canal, identified in the Draft Conservation Area Appraisal for the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal Conservation Area.
• A full boundary treatment plan to ensure a quality finish to the prominent frontages including the retention of the sandstone wall to the canal.
• Details of the steps to the canal towpath.
4.23 It is considered that the provision of these improvements to the detailed design of the proposed development outweighs the previous concerns regarding the impact upon the Conservation Area, and the Conservation Officer is able to support the scheme in its current form. The proposed design of the scheme fits its context and will improve the existing frontages to Vale Road and the canal. Elements of the design can also be seen to have been drawn from existing parts of Stourport on Severn, notably Lion Hill and the existing warehouse on the opposite side of the canal.
DISABLED ACCESS 4.24 The final reason for refusal referred to the proposed layout and the entrances to the building conflicting with guidance regarding access for disabled people.
4.25 In response the current application has been submitted following extensive negotiations with the Council’s Access Officer. The application has been submitted with an Access Statement which sets out how the design has been changed to achieve access by disabled people. It also acknowledges the limitations of the scheme.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 32 of 77
17
06/1239/FULL
4.26 In short the scheme includes:
• The provision of 3 disabled car parking spaces close to the principal entrance complete with cross hatched access zones to one side and the rear;
• a drop off zone within the car park to cater for taxis, minibuses, ambulances and helpers;
• a prominent courtyard entrance with an unobstructed line of site from the entrance to the courtyard;
• a footpath surrounding the car park which is able to accommodate scooters;
• a designated parking area for scooters;
• level approaches to all entrances or ramps if necessary
• where reasonably achievable pathways have been extended on the ground floor to link patio areas for the convenience of those in wheelchairs and with scooters;
• all patios and balcony areas have a level approach;
• the entrance door has automatic opening;
• the internal corridors are wide enough to accept wheelchairs
• the lift will accommodate independent usage by someone in a wheelchair
• ambulant steps have been designed to lead to the canal towpath
4.27 In the light of the amendments to the scheme which has been designed to meet Category 2 sheltered accommodation, rather than extra care 2+ accommodation it is considered that the revised scheme is acceptable in terms of disabled access.
HIGHWAYS AND ACCESS 4.28 The scheme proposes a single point of access of Vale Road with the provision of 14 car parking spaces in a central court yard to serve the proposed 45 flats.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 33 of 77
18
06/1239/FULL
4.29 The proposed parking provision is one space short of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan Parking Standards of one car space per three units. It is however not considered that a reason for refusal on parking grounds could be substantiated in light of the location of the site adjacent to the Town Centre, and its close proximity to the Vale Road car park.
4.30 The agent on behalf of the applicant has also submitted evidence from recent research indicating that the average age of occupancy for similar developments is 76 and that within six months of occupation those people who move into the development with a car have generally sold it due to lack of need and proximity to services.
4.31 Finally an of offer of £10,000 has been made towards sustainable transport measures which may include the provision of a pedestrian crossing at Vale Road.
OFF -SITE CONTRIBUTIONS 4.32 In order to support the current application the applicants have agreed to the following contributions:
• £224,000 towards off site affordable housing • £10,000 towards sustainable transport measures within Stourport • £2,733 towards upgrading the canal towpath (41 m of frontage x £100 per 1.5 m)
These would need to be secured through a Section 106 obligation.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 It is considered that the previous objections to the scheme and refusal reasons relating to use of the ground floor, lack of affordable housing, poor design and disabled access have been resolved with the submission of this revised application.
5.2 At this moment in time there is discrepancy between the applicants and British Waterways regarding the ownership of the boundary with the canal towpath. Therefore an ownership certificate B was served on British Waterways on 1 st February 2007. The 21 day notice period has yet to expire.
5.3 I therefore recommend delegated APPROVAL subject to
a) the expiry of the ownership notification period and b) subject to the signing of a Section 106 Agreement regarding off-site contributions for the following:
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 34 of 77
19
06/1239/FULL
• £224,000 towards affordable housing • £10,000 towards sustainable transport measures • £2,733 towards upgrading the canal towpath; and
c) subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. The development hereby permitted shall only be occupied by persons of 60 years or over or persons of 55 years or over if cohabiting with a partner of 60 years or over. 4. B1a (Samples/Details of Materials) 5. B8 (Mortar Details - to be submitted) 6. B9 (Details of Windows and Doors) 7. Details of the agreed 300mm roof overhang 8. The boundary treatment shall be carried out in accordance with agreed details 9. Details of all foundations 10. B13 (Levels Details) 11. Details including materials and finish of the proposed pergola 12. C8 (Landscape Implementation) 13.-20 Environment Agency 21. H13 (Access, Turning and Parking)
Reason for Approval It is considered that the development of residential accommodation on this unallocated site within the Adopted Local Plan is of an appropriate design which would enhance the frontages to Vale Road and the Canal Conservation Area whilst the offsite contribution towards affordable housing is satisfactory.
5.3 In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not signed by the 7 th March 2007, I recommend delegated authority to REFUSE for the following reason:
1. The applicants have failed to reach agreement to secure contributions for the satisfactory provision of affordable housing as required by Policy H10 of the Adopted Local Plan which should be secured through an obligation entered into pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). In the absence of this agreement the proposal results in an unacceptable provision of affordable housing contrary to Policy H10 of the Adopted Local Plan, Policy D6 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan, Policy CF5 of the RSS (RPG11) and the aims of PPG3 (2000) and PPS3 (Consultation Paper 2005). Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 35 of 77
Application Reference: 06/1242/FULL Date Received: 11/12/2006 Ord Sheet: 383026.4332402 Expiry Date: 12/03/2007 276209.337312675 Case Officer: Paul Round Ward: Greenhill
Proposal: Part demolition of existing building and conversion of buildings frontage and extension to create 46 units, with associated access and parking
Site Address: FORMER ZANZIBAR CLUB SITE, CASTLE ROAD, KIDDERMINSTER, DY116SW
Applicant: Bentley Homes
Summary of Policy H2, H10, D1, D3, D4, D9, D10, D11, D13, D15, D16, NR5, NR6, LB1, CA1, CA2, AR2, TR9, TR17, TR18, LR2, IMP1 (AWFDLP); D3, D6, D7, D9, D11, D43, T1, T4, CTC7, CTC8, CTC9, CTC17, CTC19, CTC20 (WCSP); CF3, CF4, CF5, CF6, QE1, QE2, QE3, T7 (RPG11) PPS/PPG.3 Reason for Referral ‘Major’ planning application to Committee Recommendation Delegated APPROVAL subject to a Section 106 Agreement
1. Site Location and Description
1.1 The site is occupied by the former Zanzibar Nightclub, adjacent to the Staffordshire and Worcestershire Canal on Castle Road, Kidderminster. The existing building was built in 1929 and was previously used as the Corporation swimming baths and dance hall. The building has latterly been and used as a licensed nightclub. The site includes the building and associated car park and wraps around the Age Concern’s Tulip Tree Centre. The Canal Conservation Area runs to the west of the site.
1.2 The site is approximately 0.3 ha. in size. The local plan allocation for the area is for primarily residential use and it is considered that the site forms previously developed land. The building is included within the Local List of buildings of architectural and historic importance.
1.3 The proposal seeks to maintain and restore the buildings Art Deco entrance, with new build to the rear. The scheme would include 46 one and two bedroom apartments, with associated car parking. The existing access and parking facilities for the Tulip Tree Centre will be retained.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 36 of 77
2 06/1242/FULL
1.4 This application forms a re-submission of a previous scheme that was approved last year (06/0300/FULL). The current scheme includes an increased number of units and a change in the overall design of the units.
2. Planning History
2.1 Numerous but of relevance
WF.37/89 – Sheltered Housing (39 Flats) : Refused WF.726/91 – 25 dwellings : Approved WF.623/92 – Residential flat scheme 34 units : Approved WF.48/94 – Warehouse : Refused WF.434/94 – Certificate of Lawful Use (Dancehall) : Approved 05/1208/FULL – Residential development for 38 flats – Withdrawn 06/0300/FULL - Residential development for 38 flats – Approved
3. Consultations and Representations
3.1 Highway Authority – No objection subject to financial contribution towards highway works.
3.2 Environment Agency - No objection
3.3 British Waterways - DESIGN British Waterways welcomes the retention and inclusion of the Art Deco frontage within the development. Consider that as the building is of some heritage value that it should be recorded before the main section is demolished. Consider the chimney to be of historic value and, if possible, be incorporated into the development
BOUNDARY TREATMENT We welcome your action to protect the section of wall to the canal towpath. Details of the wall reconstruction would need to be submitted to British Waterways environment and Heritage team for approval of materials. British Waterways welcomes opening up sections of the wall, to allow more visibility onto the canal but also to maintain a level of privacy for the dwellings. British Waterways Environment and Heritage team would wish to approve the planting scheme to replace trees proposed to be removed along the canal frontage. Trees should be replanted within the site boundary to minimise the Biodiversity Action Plan loss.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 37 of 77
3
06/1242/FULL
ACCESS TO TOWPATH British Waterways welcome the proposal for a publicly accessible access onto the towpath from Castle Road and the development in light of the benefits that this will provide, both for the residents and users of the canal, as a sustainable transport and recreational route and an area of open space. The proposed access will need to be discussed and agreed in further detail with British Waterways at the appropriate stage and the necessary estates agreement will be required for the access onto the towpath as it is not a public right of way
ENHANCEMENTS TO CANAL ENVIRONMENT Consider that new canalside residential developments and landscaping proposals should include the improvements to the towing path for pedestrians and cyclists as an integral part of the scheme. This should be the subject of a Section 106 agreement for upgrading and maintenance with British Waterways. This agreement we would wish to see incorporate provision of a suitable lighting scheme in the vicinity, towpath surface enhancements, given the canal is a conservation area, a pedestrian/cycle route and an area of open space and given the likely increase in footfall in this area as a result of the development.
3.4 Arboricultural Officer - No Objections
3.5 Cultural, Leisure and Commercial Services - No objections
3.6 Kidderminster Civic Society - Noting from the drawing that the frontage of the old swimming baths with the town emblem, is to be retained, we consider this to be excellent as this is a fine frontage and its retention would enhance the existing frontage retained by Tesco (the former Brinton’s Quality Building) and the historic listed Caldwell Tower.
3.7 Conservation Officer - I have no objections over these proposals, subject to conditions imposed on the previous scheme.
3.8 Worcestershire County Council (Historic Environment and Archaeology Service) – Views awaited
3.9 Worcestershire County Council (Property Services) – Views Awaited
3.10 Central Networks - No objection. Cables in close proximity, developer to be aware of responsibilities
3.11 Environmental Health – No objections subject to conditions
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 38 of 77
4 06/1242/FULL
3.12 Forward Planning Manager – The site is allocated primarily for residential use in policy H.2(i) of the Adopted Local Plan. The application proposes the construction of 46 dwellings and is therefore in conformity with the plan. Policy H.10 of the Adopted Local Plan sets out a requirement for developers to provide up to 30% affordable housing where the development comprises 15 or more units or involves a site of 0.5 hectares or larger.
The development should have regard to policy TR.17 of the Adopted Local Plan, which sets out the requirements for car-parking standards and provision. The proposal is in a town centre location and should therefore have regard to the second paragraph of this policy which suggests providing less car-parking in order to encourage sustainable transport. The proposal is adjacent to the Cycle Route Network and should therefore, have regard to policy TR.6 of the Adopted Local Plan. The development should provide cycle parking in accordance with Appendix 9 of the Adopted Local Plan.
The Design Quality SPG identifies the existing building on the site as an area of heritage townscape (p.99), the setting of which should be conserved and improved. The site is identified as a development block (p.98), and Castle Road is identified as a ‘Town Centre Street’ (p.98), these are streets which form important approaches for the town centre and set the first impression, and therefore, require significant improvements. The Design Guide also identifies the site as one where it should be ensured that value added from waterside is realised through new development. The proposal appears to satisfy these requirements.
3.13 Inland Waterways Association (IWA) – Considers the Art Deco building to be one of Kidderminster’s finest canalside structures and therefore welcomes the applicant’s proposal to retain the reuse the structure. However IWA does have concerns that the proposed use of its undercroft as a refuse store is a right and proper use of such an important structure. Noting that there are, including the garages, to be seven less parking places than there are apartments, this is of some concern to us. Assuming that the four places opposite the two garages that back onto the rear of 82 are reserved for visitors, the exact purpose being unclear on the plans, IWA feels that shortfall needs to be redressed as these four spare places are likely to be taken over by the occupiers resulting in visitors parking on the street thus possibly affecting the canal ramped access opposite the Castle Street frontage.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 39 of 77
5 06/1242/FULL
IWA notes and is concerned that about the loss of the public access to/form the canal through the site that was part of previous proposals for the site and has disappeared from the present applicant’s proposals. Whilst we had concerns above the then applicant’s proposals to close this facility off at night we did feel that the proposal was a good one and that low level canal side lighting that would have facilitated 24 hour access was the way forward. Loss of this public amenity may well help to provide cover for possible unsociable activities along the canal bank that may well affect the residents of the new development.
IWA considers that the proposals for the new build will compliment that present structure although we would suggest that, because this is unclear on the drawings, the design and materials used should be similar to that used on he retained frontage and thus compliment this building. We therefore feel that the ‘Juliet’ balconies are unsuitable for this purpose.
To sum up IWA supports the planning application in principal but objects to:- 1. The loss of the proposed public access through the site and the associated open space, 2. That the undercroft of the art Deco building being used partly used as a rubbish tip. 3. That there is a shortfall of seven car parking spaces which need to be redressed if there is to be, on a one to one basis, a car parking place per apartment. 4. The ‘Juliet’ balconies
Finally the canal is used as a major tourist route and from time to time the towpath is still used for its primary purpose and therefore IWA points out that the towpath should remain open throughout the construction phase and that any works should be contained totally within the site boundary. Also it is know that, from time to time, construction materials may end up in the canal which could cause damage to passing boat traffic, therefore IWA asks that permission, if granted, includes a liability on the contractor to ensure that the waterway is cleared on a daily basis and that the towpath remains open at all time for boating activities
3.14 Severn Trent Water Ltd. – No objection subject to condition regarding drainage.
3.15 Housing Services Manager - No objection to scheme
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 40 of 77
6 06/1242/FULL
3.16 Disability Action Wyre Forest –
1. We are extremely disappointed that in this resubmitted application for 46 apartments on the former Zanzibar Club site close to Kidderminster town centre, the design appears to have been altered adversely in regard to access. Lifts that had been provided adjacent to each of the staircase towers have been taken out without explanation but presumably for cost reasons. This will mean that only the ground floor units, i.e. approximately a third of the total will be accessible compared to the original application where all units were accessible. We previously upheld the proposed scheme for this site as an example of good practice in the design of accessible living units. 2. We would again emphasis the fact that well designed accessible dwellings benefit not just the residents who may be or become disabled; it also enables them to be visited by friends and relatives who may be disabled and it also provides parents with children in pushchairs etc to have much easy access. 3. We would reiterate our concern generally in regard to the approval of schemes that increase rather than decrease the country’s stock of inaccessible dwellings. We would ask the Planning Committee to be mindful of this issue and if possible to monitor the number of accessible and non-accessible new dwellings that are created through planning applications in Wyre Forest each year. 4. A reasonable number of dedicated car parking spaces should be provided for residents and visitors.
3.17 Neighbour / Site Notice / Press Notice - No representations received
4. Officer Comments
4.1 The main issues to consider in the determination of this application are as follows: ♦ Local Plan allocation and policy context ♦ Housing density ♦ Design and layout ♦ Impact on Locally Listed Building and Conservation Area ♦ Impact on neighbouring properties and buildings ♦ Impact on highway safety ♦ Affordable Housing ♦ Other Issues
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 41 of 77
7 06/1242/FULL
LOCAL PLAN ALLOCATION AND POLICY CONTEXT 4.2 As stated above the sites falls within the Residential allocation within the Local Plan, and as such policy H2 (i) applies. A criteria of H2(i), is that the site should comprise previously developed land. It is quite clear that the site falls within this definition, as buildings and hardsurfacing cover the whole area.
4.3 As the proposal involves the partial demolition of a locally listed building due regard must be had to policy LB1 (iii). This sets out the criteria to be considered for proposals involving demolition of statutorily or non-statutorily listed buildings.
4.4 The main public perception of the building is that of the frontage, the rear part of the building has little external architectural merit. The re-use and redevelopment of the site for residential purposes is considered to be of substantial benefit to the wider community, through the removal of the nightclub use and the environmental enhancements of the scheme.
4.5 As the proposals retain the existing front section of the buildings, the proposal is considered to be acceptable in principle from a policy context and this approach is supported by the Conservation Officer and Civic Society.
HOUSING DENSITY 4.6 Policy H5 of the Local Plan states that within Kidderminster Town Centre Inset residential development will only be approved where a density of at least 70 dwellings per hectare can be achieved.
4.7 The site is 2,892 square metres in area. The proposal for 46 dwellings provides a density of 153 dwellings per hectare. Government guidance on housing seeks for higher densities where proposals do not harm the character of the surrounding area. Although the density has increased over and above the previous approval, I do not consider that the density levels are unacceptable, in particular the design and massing of the scheme is considered appropriate in this location.
DESIGN AND LAYOUT 4.8 The design of the new build element has altered since the previous approval, reducing the height of the building and increasing the focal corner of the building that can be viewed from Roundhill Wharf.
4.9 The front section of the building is to be retained and converted to apartments with the basement level being used for parking and bin/recycling storage. The rest of the site will be occupied by new build, which follows the line of the western boundary and returns partially along the southern boundary. The new build element is of a modern design, which complements the Art Deco style of the frontage and is considered appropriate for canalside development.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 42 of 77
8 06/1242/FULL
4.10 The layout is particularly successful as it effectively utilises the site area without appearing cramped, prejudicing landscaping or impinging on other uses. The car parking areas do not appear intrusive and have been designed around the building, moving away from the sea of tarmac that normally characterises such developments. The western frontage is set away from the boundary to allow amenity space between the canal wall and the boundary.
4.11 The design of the elevations effectively provides frontages to each public aspect. The design of the new build steps up from the existing building to the central part of new build, continuing along the canal side, and turning 90 degrees at four stories. This provides a symmetrical appearance to the canal elevation and reduces the impact of the new build on the existing building. Projecting elements, render, block work and varying ridge lengths are proposed to break up the elevations. The front and canalside elevations are of particular importance due to their prominence in the public realm. These elevations are considered to be particularly high quality in terms of design and indicated materials. From the front the rear block that returns around the back of the site will be partially visible. Due to the distance away from the frontage there will be little visual impact on the building or the streetscene. The eastern elevation although forming the servicing area for the building continues the quality of design and material shown on the other elevations. The elevations on the building work well in providing a quality scheme that compliments the character of the building, the conservation area and the general locality.
4.12 Due to the restrictive nature of the site it is not possible to be able to provide the amount of amenity space that is normally associated with this number of residential units. Although there is ample opportunity to provide a quality landscaping scheme and seating out areas, this is not itself sufficient to outweigh the lack of amenity space on site. The developers appreciate this position and have agreed to pay a financial contribution of £85,000 that will go towards the works to the Park Lane Urban Open Space or other Public Open Space maintained by the Council.
4.13 Although landscaping proposals are not shown at this stage it is felt that within the amenity area shown available a quality landscaping scheme can be achieved. This can be dealt with by condition.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 43 of 77
9 06/1242/FULL
IMPACT ON LOCALLY LISTED BUILDING AND CONSERVATION AREA 4.14 Although this application proposes the demolition of part of a locally listed building as discussed previously, it is considered that the principle of the part to be demolished is acceptable. The design, scaling and massing of the new build have been presented in such a way that the scheme would result in an enhancement of the building and the canal frontage. The provision of dwellings in this location will provide a vibrant appearance of the canal resulting in an overall benefit to the area as a whole.
4.15 The existing wall along the canal towpath will be substantially retained. It is proposed to open up sections of the wall to allow increased visibility in and out of the site from the canal. This will add to the overall quality of the site and the canalside environment.
4.16 Overall I feel that scheme will provide substantial benefits to the area and provide a positive approach to the Locally Listed Building and the Conservation Area.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURING PROPERTIES AND BUILDINGS 4.17 The proposed scheme has been carefully designed to have little impact on residential properties. The closest residential property is located adjacent to the access on Castle Road. The proposed development reduces the impact of the building on this dwelling from the existing situation. Although the residential properties in Park Lane will be overlooked by the development is not considered that this is unsatisfactory in light of the existing views to there properties which can be gained from the public areas in this locality.
4.18 The Age Concern Tulip Tree Centre is the closest building to the site. This centre previously raised concerns over the redevelopment of the site. Their main concern related to highway matters and these are referred to in the next section of this report.
IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY 4.19 The Highway Authority consider that the access and road network is generally acceptable, however they feel that some improvements could be made. In order to balance the access arrangements and the increased pressure on the New Road/Castle Road Junction the Applicants have agreed to pay a contribution of £18,000 for improvements to the traffic light junction and movement of a streetlight column close to the access. In view of these improvements the Highway Authority consider that the scheme will not result in a deterioration highway safety.
4.20 The submitted layout plan shows access to the site via the existing access off Castle Road. The 46 apartments are served by 37 car parking spaces, 14 motor cycle spaces and 15 cycle stands. In view of the sites location within the town centre inset and the objective of providing sustainable development, this level of parking provision is considered acceptable.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 44 of 77
10 06/1242/FULL
4.21 Wyre Forest District Council owns the Tulip Tree Centre which has a lawful access to the site from Castle Road. The proposal maintains the access and parking area for the centre. In addition improved turning space has been provided along with a change in surface treatment from Castle Road to give pedestrian priority along the shared surface. I feel that these measures allow the Tulip Centre and the new development to exist alongside each other without any undue harm being caused.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING 4.22 Policy H10 requires that schemes of over 15 dwellings provide 30% affordable housing. The developer is agreeable to such provision allowing 12 units to be affordable. The Applicant has entered into negotiations with one of the partner registered social landlords (RSL), to provide and manage 12 units on a shared ownership basis.
4.23 The tenure of the units has been accepted by the Council’s Housing Manager. However, due to the nature of the tenure under normal circumstances future occupants have the ability to purchase an increased share in the property, including owning a 100% share. This effectively takes the unit out of the ownership of the housing association and onto the open market. Should this happen the affordable units would be lost from the scheme. The applicants have agreed for a clause to be built into the Section 106 agreement to allow first refusal to the Housing Association should any of the affordable units be sold off by the occupier. This effectively allows the Housing Association to control the re-sale of the units and potentially secure the units on the site for a prolonged period of time.
OTHER ISSUES 4.24 The proposal removes the previous access to the canal along the side of the site. This has been done due to the inability to provide a secure safe access for members of the public during the hours of darkness and additional safety concerns in respect of the occupants of the development. It was further considered that a dog-legged stepped access was not a suitable approach to the canal and only provided access for able bodied pedestrians. Due to the short comings of this access and the potential difficulties in its implementation I have no objection to its removal.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 45 of 77
11 06/1242/FULL
5. Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The site is located within a residential area and constitutes previously developed land. Although the proposal involves partial demolition of a Locally Listed Building it is felt that the part that is to be retained along with the new building is acceptable in terms of the policy context. The development fits neatly on the site and is of a design that positively contributes towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the locality as a whole. The impact on neighbouring properties and buildings has been fully taken into account and it is considered that the proposal will not result in harm being caused. The proposal is also acceptable in terms of highway safety.
5.2 The site accommodates the required affordable housing level, and financial contributions have been agreed in respect of Public Open Space and Highway works.
5.3 In view of the above I recommend delegated authority be given to APPROVE this application subject to :
a) the signing of a Section 106 Agreement to secure:
I. 12 shared ownership units to be transferred to a Partner RSL II. £85,000 contribution towards the Park Lane Urban Park or other open space. III. £18,000 contribution towards traffic light management and street furniture works
and subject to the following conditions
1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters) 2. A11 (Approved plans) 3. B1 (Samples/details of materials) 4. B9 (Details of windows and doors) 5. B11 (Details of enclosure) 6. B13 (Levels details) 7. C6 (Landscaping – small scheme) 8. C8 (Landscape implementation) 9. D1 (Contaminated land) 10. E2 (Foul and surface water) 11. J1 (Removal of permitted development – residential) 12. Noise attenuation measures to units on front elevation. 14. Photographic record of part of building to be demolished
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 46 of 77
12 06/1242/FULL
Notes
A. Contact Aquila B. Contact British Waterways
Other conditions or notes may be required as a result other responses from consultees
Reason for Approval The site is located within a residential area and constitutes previously developed land. Although the proposal involves partial demolition of a Locally Listed Building it is felt that the part that is to be retained along with the new building is acceptable terms of the policy context. The development fits neatly on the site and is of a design that positively contributes towards the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the locality as a whole. The impact on neighbouring properties and buildings has been fully taken into account and it is considered that the proposal will not result in harm being caused.
5.4 In the event that the Section 106 Agreement is not completed by 5th March 2007 that delegated powers be given to REFUSE the application for the following reason
1. The applicants have failed to reach agreement to secure contributions for highway improvement works, contributions towards the provision of Public Open space and have failed to reach an agreement on the satisfactory provision of Affordable Housing as required by policy H.10 of the Adopted Local Plan all of which should be secured through obligations entered into pursuant to section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended). In the absence of this agreement the proposed scheme fails to provide sufficient amenity space for the number of units proposed, results in an unacceptable provision of affordable housing and will result in additional vehicle movements on a highway network which is unable to accommodate this traffic increase without improvement. The proposal thus fails to comply with policies D13, H10, and TR9 of the Adopted Local Plan, D6, and T1 the Worcestershire County Structure Plan, QE3, QE4, T1 and T9 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and advice given in the Council’s Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance on Design Quality and PPG3.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 47 of 77
Application Reference: 06/1279/FULL Date Received: 21/12/2006 Ord Sheet: 381403 275851 Expiry Date: 15/02/2007 Case Officer: Paul Round Ward: Sutton Park
Proposal: Detached dwelling (with access from Greatfield Road)
Site Address: LAND TO REAR 134 SUTTON PARK ROAD, (FRONTING GREATFIELD ROAD), KIDDERMINSTER, DY116JQ
Applicant: N & A Developments
Summary of Policy H2, D1, D3, D4, D10, D13, TR9, TR17, NR1 (AWFDLP) D3, D11, T1 (WCSP) QE3 (RSS) Design Quality SPG; PPS1; PPG3 Reason for Referral Third party has registered to speak at Committee to Committee Recommendation APPROVAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 134 Sutton Park Road is detached property located close to the junction with Ludgate Avenue, it is currently empty and for sale. The application site forms a 300 sq.m. area of rear garden that backs on to Greatfield Road.
1.2 The proposal is to construct a detached property in the rear garden with parking facilities and access from Greatfield Road.
1.3 A public foul sewer crosses the western boundary and a surface water sewer passes close to the eastern boundary with the neighbouring property.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF/0584/93 – Four dwellings : Refused
2.2 06/0404/FULL – Detached dormer bungalow : Withdrawn
2.3 06/0795/FULL – Detached House : Refused
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Highway Authority – No objections
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 48 of 77
2
06/1279/FULL
3.2 Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to conditions. Proposed sewer diversion is acceptable in principle.
3.3 Neighbours – 6 letters of objection received raising the following concerns:
• Trees will have to be removed as part of the scheme, contrary to application form’s answer of NO. • Highway safety issues of residents utilising driveways close to other residents. • Inevitable congestion adding to the existing on street parking problem • Inadequate parking provision 3/4 bedroom property should provide 3 car parking spaces for additional car / visitors • Loss of privacy and security both to living areas and garden • Disruption and congestion of construction traffic – demonstrated when site was cleared early January. • Inaccurate plans • Overdevelopment of the garden area causing detriment to local residents • Domination of garden areas • Public Sewer crosses site, diversion will cause increased disruption • The site has been cleared already – Builder is certain his application will be passed
3.4 Hillcrest Residents Association – We believe that wherever possible the previous issues have been addressed and resolved in order to lessen the impact that the development have on residents and dwellings bordering the plot of land. Would wish to make the following points
• Consideration should be to construction traffic and disruption to residents. • Pleased to see house is DDA compliant • Trees will need to be felled as part of the proposal. • Traffic congestion in Greatfield Road is a serious problem. All housing should provide garage and driveway space • Footpath to be completed without trip hazards • There are some drafting errors on plans.
In conclusion we can identify no major reason why this particular application should not be approved.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 49 of 77
3
06/1279/FULL
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The previous application (06/0795/FULL)was considered by Committee in September last year. Following consideration of the application it was resolved to REFUSE the application on the following grounds:
1. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its siting, position, scale and massing would have an overbearing and therefore adverse impact on neighbouring amenity and would thus be contrary to Policy D.1 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan.
2. The proposed dwelling by virtue of its design and materials would have an adverse impact on the visual amenity of the streetscene and would represent an incongruous feature in this context. As such the proposal would be contrary to Policies D.1 and D.3 of the Local Plan, D.11 of the Worcestershire County Structure Plan, Policy QE3 of the Regional Spatial Strategy and advice in the Council's Design Quality Supplementary Planning Guidance (2004).
4.2 The refusal reasons relate purely to design matters and the impact of the dwelling on neighbouring amenity. The principle of the residential development and the highway impact were therefore considered acceptable on that occasion.
4.3 This current application is submitted by the new owner of the site, N & A Developments, and seeks to overcome the previous refusal reasons. The proposal submitted seeks permission for a bungalow style property on the site, with accommodation within the roof space. It should be noted at this stage that no dormer windows are proposed in the scheme.
DESIGN AND SITING OF THE DWELLING 4.4 The previous application proposed an ultra modern design in this location and was rejected by the Committee. This current proposal a more traditional style of build, which although not identical to the surrounding properties, will compliment the overall style and character of the area. As stated above, although the property has accommodation on two floors, the lack of dormer windows within the scheme results in an acceptable style of development in this prominent location. I consider the design to appropriate in this location and feel that this scheme overcomes the first refusal reason given for the previous application.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 50 of 77
4
06/1279/FULL
4.5 The dwelling is well positioned on the site and accommodates sufficient amenity space, parking facilities and the new footway without appearing cramped or resulting in an overdevelopment of the site. This current proposal does not occupy the same footprint as the previous application, which was shown to be built close to the boundary. This scheme allows 1m separation between the site and No 135 and 2.6m between the site and No. 133. The siting of the dwelling is therefore considered acceptable.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS 4.6 In this case the consideration of the impact on neighbouring properties falls into two sections: first loss of privacy and security; and secondly domination of rear garden areas,
4.7 Due to the low rise nature of the design, the inclusion of roof lights only at first floor level, the topography of the site and the position of the bungalow, I take the view that no direct overlooking will occur to private amenity spaces or habitable room windows. In addition should an approval be given, I feel that permitted development rights for roof alterations should be removed to control any alterations post completion.
4.8 In respect of domination of the neighbour’s gardens, the Applicant’s Agent states; “the width of the footprint of the building is significantly less and is now set away from the boundary of No 135 where originally it was proposed right on the boundary. Although the very apex of the roof on our design is fractionally higher the bulk of the dwelling at two storey level is significantly reduced.” On this occasion I agree with the Applicant’s agent and feel that the domination of the neighbour’s garden will be minimal. In addition the roof pitch and the essentially single storey nature of the building will not cause a significant loss of light or amenity or harm that could justify a refusal.
HIGHWAY MATTERS 4.9 As the property proposes 3/4 bedrooms, there is a requirement in the Local Plan for the provision of two car parking spaces. The proposal meets this requirement and is acceptable to the Highway Authority. The developers, as part of the scheme, are proposing to transfer land to the Highway Authority for the provision of a 1.8m footway to connect to the existing footway, helping with pedestrian routes at this point in the cul-de-sac.
4.10 In respect of traffic generation and congestion, the Highway Authority are satisfied that due to the small increase in traffic generation and the off street parking facilities proposed, that no harm will be caused to highway safety. They have also considered the access point in respect of its position with other driveways, and feel that on this occasion the scheme is acceptable in this regard. Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 51 of 77
5
06/1279/FULL
PUBLIC SEWER 4.11 Two public sewers are in close proximity to the site, one crosses the site and requires diversion. Severn Trent has considered the proposed diversion and is in principle happy with its route. This is of course subject to a formal diversion application to be considered by Severn Trent. It is clear that the should the diversion not be granted the development will not be implementable.
OTHER MATTERS 4.12 Neighbours and the Residents Association have raised the issue of construction traffic and associated disruption. Although this type of disruption is unfortunate, the Planning system has little control over working practices of developers. However, I feel that conditions could be imposed relating to the hours of working and requiring parking areas for site operatives.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The proposed bungalow is to be sited on previously developed land within a residential area. The design of the property is considered to be acceptable conforming to the overall character of the area. Neighbouring properties will not be adversely affected through loss of amenity and the highway access and parking provision are considered acceptable. For these reasons the proposal conforms to the policies set out above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 52 of 77
6
06/1279/FULL
5.2 I therefore recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials) 4. B10 (Window Details) 5. B11 (Details of Enclosure) 6. B13 (Levels Details) 7. E2 (Foul and Surface Water) 8. E9 (No development within <> Metres of a Public Sewer) 9. F5 (Construction Site Noise/Vibration) 10. J1 (Removal of Permitted Development – Residential) 11. J5 (Obscure Glazing of Side Windows) 12. Highways 13. H27 (Parking for Site Operatives)
Notes A SN1 (Removal of Permitted Development Rights) B Severn Trent C Highways
Reason for Approval The proposed bungalow is to be sited on previously developed land within a residential area. The design of the property is considered to be acceptable conforming to the overall character of the area. Neighbouring properties will not be adversely affected through loss of amenity and the highway access and parking provision are considered acceptable. For these reasons the proposal conforms to the policies set out above
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 53 of 77
Application Reference: 07/0035/FULL Date Received: 11/01/2007 Ord Sheet: 385026.897976463 Expiry Date: 12/04/2007 276730.977055287 Case Officer: Clare Eynon Ward: Offmore and Comberton
Proposal: Demolition of existing retail units and apartments over plus lock up garages and provision of 5 new retail units and 27 new houses and bungalows together with associated parking and landscaping works (resubmission of 06/1008/FULL)
Site Address: LONGFELLOW GREEN, KIDDERMINSTER,
Applicant: Lockett Property Holdings Ltd & WFCH
Summary of Policy H2, H4, H5, H10, D1, D3, D4, D7, D9, D.10, D.11, D13, D15, D16, D19, LR.3. NR8. NR9, NR10, NR11, TR.9, TR17, CY1, CY2. RT6 (AWFDLP) SD2, SD3, SD5, D.3, D6, D9, D10, D34, T1 (WCSP) UR2, CF2, CF3, CF4, CF5, QE1, QE3 (RPG11) Reason for Referral ‘Major’ planning application to Committee Recommendation DELEGATED APPROVAL subject to a Section 106 Agreement
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 This application relates to the existing parade of six shops situated on Tennyson Way together with the associated parking area and hard surfaced open space to the rear which leads towards Eliot Walk. The site also includes the existing flats above the shops and two garage blocks.
1.2 The site is within an area allocated primarily for residential use in the Local Plan. The site is also allocated as ‘other group of shops’ under Policy RT.6 of the Local Plan.
1.3 This is a full application for the demolition of the existing shops and flats above, together with the two garage blocks, and for the erection of a new mixed use development comprising: • 5 x single storey retail units • 27 affordable houses • Associated parking and landscaping works
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 54 of 77
2
07/0035/FULL
1.4 The site owner is The Community Housing Group who has entered into a development partnership with Lockett Property Holdings to develop this mixed scheme. The applicant states that the objective of the application is to re- vitalise the area and regenerate the local retail facility whilst providing 100% affordable housing and creating a sense of place.
1.5 This application is a resubmission following the withdrawal of a previous application for the same development (06/1008/FULL). This application was accompanied by a Design and Access statement, Pre-application Consultation Statement, Flood Risk Assessment, Ground Investigation report and details of the Housing Needs Report for the area.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 06/1008/FULL – Demolition of existing retail units and apartments over plus lock up garages and provision of 5 new retail units and 27 new houses and bungalows together with associated parking and landscaping works: Withdrawn
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.1 Highway Authority – Verbally indicated no objections subject to highway contribution at pre-application stage. Formal comments awaited.
3.2 Severn Trent Water Ltd. – No objection subject to condition about drainage.
3.3 Environmental Health – No adverse comments
3.4 Access Officer – No objection
3.5 Cultural Leisure and Commercial Services – Due to number of new houses, request a sum of money towards strategic play area
3.6 Crime Risk Manager – Made detailed comments about layout and designing out crime on previous application. Further to previous comments is concerned that re-orientation of bungalows at Plots 3-5 will further reduce surveillance and territoriality of their parking spaces. Would still prefer parking spaces for bungalows to be in-curtilage. Also raises concern about roof overhang on the convenience store which may encourage youths to congregate and influence anti-social behaviour incidents.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 55 of 77
3
07/0035/FULL
3.7 Disability Action Wyre Forest –
1. Access statement that level access will be provided to all buildings [retail and residential] welcomed. 2. Single unisex disabled toilet to retail units A-D, increase room length from 2m to 2.2m to comply with Part M 3. Convenience store if possible to have two unisex disabled toilets rather than standard male toilet and shared female/ unisex disabled toilet as shown. 4. Disabled parking spaces to be set out strictly in accordance with Diagram 2 of Part M of the Building Regulations. 5. Generous dimensions provided for ground floor cloakroom/ toilets in all of the house types noted and welcomed.
3.8 Neighbour/Site Notice – Two letters of objection received. The reasons for objection are as follows: • Our property will be overlooked (No. 14 Longfellow Green) • At present it is safe from traffic allowing children to play and ride their bikes out in the square, without worrying about their safety with oncoming cars • It is most unsuitable to make Dunbar Close an access road either to shops or houses. It is a narrow road and cannot be widened. We already have problems when the recycling lorry comes and it results in no one being able to come in or out of the road.
(Officer Comment – No vehicular access is proposed to the site from Dunbar Close)
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 As stated previously the site is within an area allocated primarily for residential use in the Local Plan. The principle of the residential element of the scheme is therefore considered acceptable.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 56 of 77
4
07/0035/FULL
4.2 The application site is also identified on the Proposals Map as an ‘Other group of shops’ and as such Policy RT6 of the Local Plan is considered relevant. Policy RT6 permits the enhancement and modest extension of existing retail premises provided that they do not result in more than 250 square metres of retail floor space. In this case the existing retails units have a total retail floor area of 372.9 sqm and the proposed retail units would have a retail floor area of 521.5 sqm (increase of 148.6 sqm). Although the proposed block of shops is in a different position to the existing parade it is still within the area identified within Policy RT6 and as such the principle of the retail development is also in accordance with policy.
4.3 The main issues to consider are therefore with respect to the proposed layout and detailed design of the various aspects of the proposal.
RETAIL DEVELOPMENT 4.4 The proposed retail units would comprise a new L-shaped single storey block to be located adjacent to the existing public house, The Cavalier. The existing car park which already serves the existing shops would be retained, albeit with a modified layout to provide a designated area for disabled parking directly in front of the retail units. The proposed layout shows a total of 28 car parking spaces for the retail units (including 4 disabled parking spaces).
4.5 The new retail block would include 5 x retail units, the largest one of which is indicated as a convenience store (222.8 m²). Servicing and deliveries in connection with the retail units will take place via the car park at the front, as concern was raised with the previous application where such activities were shown to the rear of the units with vehicular access off Dunbar Close.
4.6 The retail block would be constructed in brick with a pitched roof. The design of the roofline has been amended in the current scheme as concern was raised over the extent of the ridgeline with the previous application. In addition more detail has been added to the facades of the individual retail units.
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 4.7 There are two elements of the proposed residential development: firstly it is proposed to erect 5 bungalows at the front of the site, adjacent to its own area of shared parking (7 spaces); and secondly 22 dwellings are proposed within the remaining part of the site. All of the residential units are to be occupied as affordable housing and each residential unit has its own private garden area. The applicants have confirmed that 100% of the residential units will be shared ownership.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 57 of 77
5
07/0035/FULL
4.8 The range of house sizes is as follows: - 7 x Type A : 2 bed houses - 5 x Type A* : 2 bed houses - 5 x Type B : 2 bed bungalows - 2 x Type C : 3 bed houses - 2 x Type D : 3 bed houses - 2 x Type E : 3 bed houses - 2 x Type F : 4 bed houses - 2 x Type G : 2 bed houses
4.9 The bungalows are of similar design and form two blocks either side of a new pedestrian route through the site which links Tennyson Way (to the north) with Eliot Walk (to the south). The siting and design has been amended since the previous application to address the need for the footpath and to improve the frontage facing Tennyson Way.
4.10 The dwellings are mainly two storey with the exception of Plots 18-19 which are 2.5 storey. The scale and massing of the dwellings relates well to the existing neighbouring properties and will not have an adverse impact on the amenity of neighbours. The design of some of the dwellings has been amended to improve their appearance and also to address public views into the site.
4.11 With the exception of the bungalows, each of the dwellings will have its own parking spaces to the front of the dwellings and some of the units have been designed to provide wider drives to enable disabled parking.
BOUNDARY TREATMENT 4.12 It is proposed that 1.8 metre high close boarded fencing forms the boundary between the rear private gardens of most of the dwellings and bungalows. However where the boundary is situated in a prominent position adjacent to the footway or highway, brick walls are proposed to improve the overall design quality of the scheme. A 2.1m high brick wall is also proposed along the rear boundary of the residential units which back onto the retail block. For some of the garden frontages, low level trip rails are proposed to maintain an open aspect to the street scene.
ROAD LAYOUT AND OTHER PARKING FACILITIES 4.13 The parking provision for the proposed development meets the standards as set out in Appendix 9 of the Adopted Local Plan.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 58 of 77
6
07/0035/FULL
4.14 The internal access road has been redesigned following consultation with the Highways Authority. In particular the following changes have been made since the previous application:
• Pedestrian route moved from adjacent to Cavalier public house and side of retail units to through residential part of site
• Vehicle delivery access to retail block relocated from Dunbar Close to car park, together with provision of on-site turning facilities for delivery vehicles within car park.
• Provision of footway for pedestrians from Eliot Walk, through to car park at Tennyson Way
• Provision of dropped kerbs and tactile finish at pedestrian crossing points
• Removal of bollards at the end of Dunbar Close and Eliot Walk
• Provision of service strips
• Improved visibility at bends in new access road
4.15 The submitted layout plan also shows the creation of dropped kerbs for existing properties on Longfellow Green (No’s 13-23). It should be noted that whilst the plans also indicate parking spaces at the front of these properties, the front gardens do not fall within the application site and as such this application is only for the dropped kerbs. Any hardstanding or driveways would need to be provided by the individual property owners.
4.16 In addition to the parking for the new residential and retail units which form part of this scheme, it is also proposed to create a small area of visitor parking (5 spaces, including one disabled space) next to the existing grassed area in front of No’s 14-18 Longfellow Green.
REFUSE STORAGE 4.17 The submitted plans show bin stores within the private garden areas for each of the 27 residential units. The bin storage area for the retail units will be provided to the rear of the retail block and will be well screened from the public view. In addition it is proposed to create an area for recycling bins in the corner of the car park which serves the retail units. These recycling facilities could be adequately screened with suitable landscaping.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 59 of 77
7
07/0035/FULL
IMPACT ON HIGHWAY SAFETY 4.18 As stated previously the layout of the scheme has been amended as a result of comments made by the Highways Authority on the previous application. Although a formal response from the Highway Authority has not been received on this current application, Officers feel that the proposal is now considered acceptable in terms of its impact on highway safety.
IMPACT ON NEIGHBOURS 4.19 The layout of the development has been carefully designed to minimise any impact on the amenity of the neighbours. Due to the orientation and siting of individual properties it is not considered that the proposal will result in a loss of light or privacy to any existing properties. The delivery area for the retail units is now shown to be at the front of the retail block, again to minimise any disturbance to local residents. Notwithstanding this it is recommended that a condition be attached to prevent any deliveries by heavy goods vehicles before 6.00 a.m.
OTHER ISSUES 4.20 The Access Officer raised a number of issues over the layout of the previous application. It is considered that the Access Statement and submitted plans for this new application satisfactorily respond to those issues raised.
4.21 With regards to the request from Cultural, Leisure and Commercial Services for a contribution towards strategic play facilities, the scheme is for 27 residential units and as such it falls below the thresholds set out in Policy LR3 for children’s play space. In addition, the Community Housing Group has stated that:
“To invest in strategic play areas is a positive one. We have invested over £250,000 recently in the provision of a strategic play facility in the area at Borrington Road at no cost to the local authority and the Company is covering the on going maintenance costs.
The Council will be aware that the Company has a commitment through the transfer, to the provision and upgrade of leisure and play facilities across the District and will continue to invest directly in this programme.
We therefore feel that we are more than adequately contributing to the strategic play facilities both in the area and the district.
We are also concerned that this is an 'affordable housing' scheme and that the requests for additional costs only make the scheme less viable to deliver”.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 60 of 77
8
07/0035/FULL
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The principle of the mixed residential and retail development on this site is considered acceptable. The layout and design of the scheme has been amended since the previous application was withdrawn and is now considered acceptable in terms of highway safety, residential amenity and design quality.
5.2 The Highway Authority has confirmed that the application if approved would need to be subject to a legal agreement to secure a highway contribution towards a traffic calming scheme in the area.
5.3 In view of the above and in consideration of Articles 1 and 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is therefore recommend that delegated authority be given to APPROVE this application subject to a Section 106 Agreement to secure a highway contribution of £5,000 and subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with no reserved matters) 2. A11 (Approved plans) 3. B1 (Materials) 4. Sample panel 5. Boundary treatment to be provided prior to occupation of dwellings 6. Dwellings to be occupied as affordable housing 7. Details of means of enclosure for designated area for recycling bins 8. Hours of deliveries by HGV for retail units 9. Landscaping scheme 10. C3 (Protection of existing trees) 11. Full details of lighting 12. Highway conditions 13. Severn Trent Water Ltd. condition regarding drainage 14. Open plan (permitted development)
Note regarding signage
Reason for Approval The principle of the mixed residential and retail development on this site is considered acceptable. The layout and design of the scheme is considered acceptable in terms of highway safety, residential amenity and design quality.
5.4 In the event that the Section 106 agreement is not completed by 5 th April 2007, it is recommended that delegated authority be given to REFUSE this application on highway grounds for the failure to enter into the agreement to secure the highway contribution.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 61 of 77
Application Reference: 07/0047/OUTL Date Received: 12/01/2007 Ord Sheet: 380111 269694 Expiry Date: 09/03/2007 Case Officer: Julia Mellor Ward: Areley Kings
Proposal: 5no x 3 bedroom dwellings (layout and access to be determined)
Site Address: THOMAS'S GARAGE, REDHOUSE ROAD, STOURPORT-ON- SEVERN, DY130NW
Applicant: Mr N Thomas
Summary of Policy D.1, D.3, D.10. D.11, D.13, CA.6, TR.9, TR.17, NR.2, NR.11, NR.8 (AWFDLP) SD.3, SD.5, SD.6, SD.7, CTC.19, D.4, RST.3(WCSP) QE.3, QE.1, QE.6 (RSS) Reason for Referral The applicant is a Councillor to Committee Recommendation REFUSAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 This application site lies at the junction of Redhouse Road and Areley Common. The site currently accommodates a car sales and repair garage which formerly operated as a petrol filling station. The application seeks consent for a terrace of 5 dwellings. The application is in outline with only the proposed layout and means of access to be determined at this stage.
2.0 Planning History (of relevance)
2.1 WF.05/1220 – Outline – 3 detached dwellings – Withdrawn
2.2 06/0394/OUTL – 7 x 2 bedroom apartments (siting and access to be determined) - Withdrawn
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.3 Stourport-on-Severn Town Council – Awaiting Comments
3.2 Highway Authority – The County Council’s Principal Solicitor has given advice clearly indicating that the status of part of the site is highway which can only be stopped up through a formal legal process. In this particular case Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The land could also be stopped up under Section 116 of the 1980 Highways Act, however this is time consuming and a lengthy process. Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 62 of 77
2
07/0047/OUTL
3.3 Environment Agency – Awaiting comments
3.4 Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to condition
3.5 Environmental Health – No objection subject to condition
3.6 Access Officer – The access statement fails to address disabled access on the site or of the buildings. What are the pedestrian access arrangements for the shared surface driveway? Blister paving should not be installed on dropped kerb highway access where pedestrians have the right of way unless there is a high volume usage. Terraced houses with no separate rear pedestrian access to the gardens must have level access through the building.
3.7 County Council (Education) – If development goes ahead in this area, there may be a need for education provision and we would be seeking a contribution for this in accordance with our policy on Section 106 Planning obligations.
3.8 Worcestershire County Council (Footpaths) – Awaiting comments
3.9 Conservation Officer – Awaiting comments
3.10 Neighbour/Site Notice – Two letters of objection have been received raising the following concerns:
• The high density of development is totally inappropriate for its setting and for the safety and aesthetics of village character. • The development would house only one less than the previous application, such population density would have at ease five vehicles, indeed if only half of these proposed dwellings had two vehicles there would still be 7 or 8 vehicles constantly driving onto and off the site – this poses a number of issues. • There is only just enough off road parking spaces planned for the minimum amount of vehicles. • There will be no room for additional off road parking required inevitably leading to on road parking at this busy cross roads posing a road safety hazard. • The site is not well situated for a constant flow of vehicles onto and off the site at the very least this would cause a noise nuisance and pose a safety hazard. • No.2 Redhouse Road is a 16 th century building and is locally listed. It is of timber and brick construction and such constant traffic movement would cause undue vibration. This would not be good for the building. • The development is out of keeping with the rural village that is Astley Cross.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 63 of 77
3
07/0047/OUTL
• My privacy would surely suffer. • The application is in outline this obviously points to the fact that the developer has not got his plans set in stone and they could change. What is to stop the original planned block of flats being built once such permission is granted? • The plans show 4P/2B this means there is a proposal of 4 persons with only two bedrooms per dwelling – this is not what has been applied for. The written part of the application does not equate to the drawings. • The applicants statement that the owner of No.2 enjoys the benefit of having an agreement in sharing the access is not something that I have been graciously granted. This is a legal right of way that is protected by law, not a favour granted to me. • The application indicates that there may be a need to prune a small number of existing trees if these were the trees that run along the boundary to my property the loss would certainly affect my privacy with both visual and noise nuisance. • I do not believe the Council should accept an outline application, specifically the massing, height, fenestration, roof detailing and fascia treatment will be crucial on such a sensitive location. • As previously, the proposal has a footprint lying well forward of what exists on both frontages. It is spurious in the case of Areley Common road to comment that ‘new mixed hedge to reinforce line of existing hedge’ as if this will overcome the visual problems that would be created. • By planning private gardens to the front the proposal would create a form alien to the surroundings and fencing will be visually intrusive. • The proposed dwelling might overlook the rear garden to No. 78 and prejudice residential amenity. • The proposed parking spaces by being pushed well back into the site will also introduce noise into the proximity of the rear gardens to No. 2 Redhouse Road and 78 Areley Common. • The number of parking spaces is inadequate as a 3 bedroom dwelling requires 2 car parking spaces not 1. • There is no provision for waste bin storage.
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 This application follows previous proposals for 3 detached dwellings and a block of 7 apartments. Both applications were withdrawn prior to being determined.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 64 of 77
4
07/0047/OUTL
4.2 To clarify, the current application seeks consent for a terrace of 5 properties, and the applicant has confirmed that they would be 3 bedroom and not 2 bedroom as indicated on the drawings. Access would be positioned adjacent to the common boundary with No. 2 Redhouse Road which is a locally listed building dating back to the late 16 th /early 17 th Century.
4.3 Whilst the matter of design is reserved for consideration at a later stage the applicant has advised that the dwellings would be two storey in height.
4.4 A total of 5 off road parking spaces are proposed to be sited adjacent to the common boundary with No. 78 Areley Common.
4.5 The application site is encompassed within the residential allocation designated under Policy H.2 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan. Therefore the principle of residential development is acceptable. There remains serious concern however with respect to the proposed layout of the development.
4.6 The application site is prominently located fronting the crossroads with Areley Common and Redhouse Road. Whilst the proposed layout addresses both frontages the dwellings are sited forward of the existing building lines to both road frontages. The plans indicate that the block would be set some 6 metres forward of No. 2 Redhouse Road and approximately 14 metres forward of No. 78 Areley Common. It is therefore considered that the proposed siting of the block would detract from the streetscene and the appearance of the area.
4.7 Many neighbours have raised concerns regarding the amount and position of the proposed 5 off street parking spaces. Whilst the applicant has confirmed that each property would have 3 bedrooms requiring 2 parking spaces each to meet the Adopted Local Plan standards, should the application be approved a condition could be placed on the outline permission restricting each unit to 2 bedrooms only. It is therefore not considered that this could form a reason for refusal. With respect to the siting of the car parking spaces it is considered that in recognition of the existing use of the site with car parking to the rear of the garage building, together with a difference in levels between the application site and 78 Areley Common, an objection regarding noise and nuisance from the parked cars could not be sustained.
4.8 With respect to the impact upon the locally listed building at No. 2 Redhouse Road, comments from the Conservation Officer are anticipated prior to Committee.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 65 of 77
5
07/0047/OUTL
4.9 To respond to neighbours fears regarding the plans changing at a later stage, should planning permission be granted then the position of the residential blocks within the site would be approved as would the access. At a later reserved matters stage details regarding the proposed appearance of the blocks, the scale of blocks and the proposed landscaping would be submitted and considered. Again neighbours would have the chance to comment regarding these reserved matters.
4.10 The Highway Authority have advised that a significant proportion of the site forming the frontage to the crossroad junction is within Highways ownership and to incorporate the land within the gardens to the properties would require a Stopping-up Order through a formal legal process. It is considered that this process would be separate to the determination of the planning application. They do not however raise objection to the position of the access or its impact upon highway safety at the crossroads junction.
4.10 In the Design and Access Statement the applicant has advised that:
“The design concept for this important corner site is to reinstate the line of the old hedge to the eastern and southern boundaries of the site, complimenting and reinforcing the sweep of the existing old hedge of the western side of Areley Common and to build within this landscape a small scale development which completes and enhances the unresolved layouts of the existing developments … The proposed new dwellings to the south of the site line with the more recent developments along Redhouse Road, namely numbers 10, 8, 6 and 4 so giving a visual stop to much older property a No. 2”
The applicant has also suggested a site visit. Whilst the above has been taken into consideration this site is visually separate from the properties mentioned above fronting Redhouse Road. It is not considered that the points put forward overcome the objection to the principle of the siting of the development.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 I therefore recommend REFUSAL for the following reason:
1. The proposed siting of the block of 5 dwellings would create a poor relationship with existing development facing onto Areley Common and Redhouse Road and result in a development which would appear unduly prominent and therefore detract visually from this focal corner site. The siting of the development is therefore considered contrary to policies D.1 and D.3 of the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan and the aims of the Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance, Design Quality. (July 2004).
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 66 of 77
WYRE FOREST DISTRICT COUNCIL
PLANNING (DEVELOPMENT CONTROL) COMMITTEE 13 TH FEBRUARY 2007
PART B
Application Reference: 06/1229/LIST Date Received: 06/12/2006 Ord Sheet: 378653 275319 Expiry Date: 31/01/2007 Case Officer: Quita Morgan Ward: Bewdley and Arley
Proposal: Installation of interpretive panels; audio posts; cell doors display
Site Address: BEWDLEY MUSEUM, LOAD STREET, BEWDLEY, DY122AE
Applicant: Wyre Forest District Council
Summary of Policy CA.1, LB.1, LB.3, CY.2, TC.1 (AWFDLP) CTC.19, CTC.20 (WCSP) QE.1, QE.5 (RSS (RPG11) Reason for Referral The applicant is Wyre Forest District Council or is made to Committee on land owned by Wyre Forest District Council Recommendation Delegated APPROVAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 Bewdley Museum is located midway along Load Street and extends to the rear onto Jubilee Gardens. The former prison cells known as A, B and C lie at the back of the museum and all the proposed installations are located in this area.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF.799/05 – Disabled access to Galleries : Withdrawn WF.1051/04 – Alterations to craft shops and installation of water supply : Approved 17 th February 2005 WF.1074/04 – New access and ramp : Approved 9 th March 2005 WF.166/03 – Alterations to craft shop : Approved 15 th April 2003
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.4 Bewdley Town Council – No objection. Recommend approval
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 67 of 77
2
06/1229/LIST
3.2 Conservation Officer - No objections
3.3 Neighbour/Site Notice – No representations received
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 For improved information to the public a total of 8 interpretive panels 600mm x 900mm on marine ply with Perspex covers are proposed to be screwed to the walls inside Cells A and C. There would also be an audio post 300mm x 200mm x 100mm in each of these two cells. Finally a reclaimed cell door within a steel frame support is proposed in the area outside Cell B.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 The Conservation Officer does not object to the proposal which would cause no material harm to the fabric of the Listed Building and would enhance the learning opportunities for members of the visiting public.
5.2 In accordance with Circular 01/2001, if Members are minded to approve this application, it will then be necessary to refer the application to the Secretary of State . I therefore recommend delegated APPROVAL subject to referral to the Secretary of State and subject to the following conditions.
1. A7 (Listed Building time consent)
2. A11 (Approved Plans) – Location plan 1:1250, Block plan at 1:100 both date stamped 9 th November 2006 2 No. Photograph examples of interpretive panel ‘Charcoal Burning’ and ‘The Cells’ 1 No. Photograph example of Audio Post.
3. The materials to be used for the installations hereby approved shall comply with the details shown on the approved plan and photographs.
Reason for Approval The proposed information panels and posts are considered to be acceptable in terms of their impact on the character and appearance of this Grade II Listed Building. For this reason the proposal is considered to be in accordance with the Adopted Wyre Forest District Local Plan policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 68 of 77
Application Reference: 06/1233/FULL Date Received: 08/12/2006 Ord Sheet: 388674.583608501 Expiry Date: 02/02/2007 279691.02514605 Case Officer: Stuart Allum Ward: Blakedown and Chaddesley
Proposal: Erection of 3 stables & change of use of land to the keeping of horses together with car parking area & driveway
Site Address: FIELD OFF STAKENBRIDGE LANE, CHURCHILL
Applicant: Mr C Lea
Summary of Policy GB.1 GB.2 GB.3 GB.6 EQ.2 EQ.3 CA.1 TR.9 (AWFDLP) SD.2 D.38 D.39 CTC.20 (WCSP) QE.1 QE.3 QE.5 (RPG11) PPS7 Reason for Referral Parish Council request to speak on application to Committee Recommendation APPROVAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The land in question, of 10 acres in total, is located to the east of Churchill Village, and lies adjacent to, but not within, the Churchill Conservation Area. The site is within the Green Belt. The existing field rises from its lowest point adjacent to Stakenbridge Lane upwards towards Fir Lodge, a dwelling which is also in the ownership of the applicant.
1.2 The proposal to change the use of the land to the keeping of horses involves the subdivision of the land into three paddocks; one of approximately 5 acres and the other two, closest to the highway, of approximately 6 and 4 acres.
1.3 The site is accessed via an existing field gate, set back 14 metres from the highway boundary. The visibility splay each side of this access has been cleared of vegetation. An area of hardstanding for parking is to be formed adjacent to the access point, of approximately 600 square metres.
1.4 In addition, a timber stable block, of 11 metres long x 3.5 metres deep x 3.5 metres high to the ridge, is shown for each of the 3 paddocks, with a 3 metre wide concrete apron frontage.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF/0670/84 Stables (Fir Lodge) – Approved WF/0728/01 Duck/Fish Pond (Fir Lodge) – Approved Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 69 of 77
2
06/1233/FULL
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.5 Churchill and Blakedown Parish Council – Object to the proposal for the following reasons:
1. The use of the access for the proposed purpose is considered to be dangerous because it is located close to the infamous bends under the railway bridge; it is near the brow of the hill; visibility in both directions is poor; the use would introduce slow moving vehicles (e.g. horse boxes) and horse riders on a narrow, busy road that is used as a rat run, and where the average speed of vehicles exceeds 40 mph in this 30 mph area for all of the day. (This figure is from the County Council survey done during one week in January 2005.) There are frequent accidents along this stretch of Stakenbridge Lane and additional slow moving traffic would be likely to be a cause of further and, possibly, more serious accidents. (It is noted that the applicant lives adjacent to this site, with his access from the north. The Parish Council sees no reason why this site cannot be accessed from the north.)
2. The construction of stables, the formation of a car park with turning facility, laying out of a new road between paddocks 1 and 2 to serve paddock 3, and the inevitable alterations to the verge and boundary along Stakenbridge Lane will alter detrimentally the character and appearance of this presently unspoilt Green Belt location.
3. There are already amenity and highway problems in Churchill caused by the number of horse riders which would be exacerbated if this scheme is allowed.
The Parish Council have also indicated that they wish to speak at the Planning (Development Control) Committee in connection with the application.
3.2 Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions and note.
3.3 Conservation Officer – Views awaited.
3.4 Environmental Health – No adverse comments
3.5 Cultural, Leisure and Commercial Services – No comments received.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 70 of 77
3
06/1233/FULL
3.6 Neighbour/Site Notice – 3 letters of objections received. The issues raised are summarised as follows:
• Development would generate excessive extra traffic on an already busy and fast main road (despite 30 mph limit) • 10 acre site would support at least 10 horses - would attract owners and vehicles at least twice a day • does not include cars with trailers, delivery vehicles or horse boxes • Visibility only 20 feet to the left of access • accident waiting to happen • No objection to horses being kept on the site but feel that the stables should be by the applicant’s house and access should be from Fir Lodge driveway • Country lane is a rat run during rush hour • Access a serious traffic hazard • Development of buildings, a driveway and car park would detract from natural beauty of the countryside • Traffic volumes in Stakenbridge Lane are already far in excess of those which the lane should be carrying • Heavy vehicles, rabbit run at most times of day, high speeds especially motorcycles, number of accidents at the crossroads • £2400 of damage to our frontage fencing and walls due to car skidding accident • Heavy, slow moving vehicle lumbering out from the entrance from proposed development is a significant potential danger • Exit approximately 110 metres from exit point of the Stakenbridge ‘S’ bend – prone to severe flooding • Sight lines from proposed entrance, both ways, very poor • Scale of development excessive with 3 stables, footpaths, very large parking area – will totally alter the current nature of that area, which can only be described as one of outstanding natural beauty
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The use of land in the Green Belt for outdoor recreational purposes can be appropriate development. New buildings, however, must be directly related to the needs of the use of the land and be restricted to the minimum size necessary. Guidance in policy EQ.2 indicates that the maximum size for stables for leisure uses should be 11 metres x 3.5 metres x 3.5 metres.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 71 of 77
4
06/1233/FULL
4.2 The buildings shown in the application conform exactly to this requirement, and those in the two roadside paddocks are shown to be located in the least visually obtrusive positions available. In the case of the larger, more elevated paddock, the stable is shown to be located in a more open position, but the visual impact could be mitigated through additional landscaping. In these circumstances I take the view that this represents appropriate development in the Green Belt and that the proposal does not harm the visual amenity or openness of the Green Belt. The degree of subdivision is reasonable and, as such, each paddock could justify a stable of the maximum permitted dimensions. Any further subdivision however would create an adverse impact visually.
4.3 Although at the time of writing the formal comments of the Conservation Officer were not available, I do not believe that views into or out from the Churchill Conservation Area would be unduly harmed by this development.
4.4 Regarding the access arrangements, the Highways Authority has raised no objections. The comments of the objectors have been carefully considered, but it is felt that the professional advice outweighs these views.
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 In view of the above, and in consideration of Articles 1 & 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998, I recommend the application for APPROVAL subject to conditions:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. B1 (Samples/Details of Materials) 4. Fencing details 5. J11 (Stables – No Commercial Use) 6. C6 (Landscaping – Small Scheme) 7. C7 (Landscaping – Implementation) 8. No further subdivision of paddocks 9. Highway Condition 10. Highway Condition
Notes: Highways
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 72 of 77
5
06/1233/FULL
Reason for Approval The proposal is considered to be appropriate development in the Green Belt and the ancillary stable buildings and hardstanding would not adversely affect the openness or visual amenity of the Green Belt. The character/appearance of the adjacent Conservation Area would be preserved; and no adverse impact would be created in relation to nearby dwellings. Following advice from the Highways Authority, the development is not considered to be detrimental to highway safety.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 73 of 77
Application Reference: 06/1272/FULL Date Received: 20/12/2006 Ord Sheet: 374756.906273813 Expiry Date: 14/02/2007 272539.24163915 Case Officer: Julia Mellor Ward: Rock
Proposal: Erection of two dwellings with modified access and parking (retention of public house)
Site Address: BLISS GATE INN, BLISS GATE, ROCK, KIDDERMINSTER, DY149YE
Applicant: Mr & Mrs R S Munn
Summary of Policy CA.6, RT.13, RT.7, H.2, H.9, CY.2, D.1, D.3, D.10, D.13, TR.9, TR.17, NR.11, LA.1, LA.2 (AWFDLP); SD.5, SD.8, CTC.1, CTC.4 (WCSP); QE.1, QE.2, QE.3, QE.6 (RSS : RPG11) Reason for Referral Statutory or non-statutory Consultee has objected and to Committee the application is recommended for approval.
Recommendation APPROVAL
1.0 Site Location and Description
1.1 The application site is located at the junction of Heightington Road and Boraston Road and encompasses the existing public house, car park and beer garden to the rear. The application seeks consent for a pair of semi- detached 3-bedroom, 2-storey properties on the site of the existing car park, together with an extension to the existing car park to the south west, within the existing beer garden. The existing public house would be retained.
1.2 The proposal would provide a total of 12 parking spaces for the public house, which would be separate from 2 parking spaces for each of the new dwellings.
2.0 Planning History
2.1 WF/0596/93 – Change of Use to sub Post Office – Approved 14/09/93 WF/0597/93 – Temporary mobile home – Approved 14/09/93 WF/1138/03 – Re-development of site for residential after demolition of public house – Withdrawn WF/1189/04 – Outline: Demolition of existing public house and redevelopment of site for residential use – Refused 17/12/04
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 74 of 77
2 06/1272/FULL
3.0 Consultations and Representations
3.6 Rock Parish Council – Resolved to recommend refusal to this application. Members expressed great concerns relating to highway access.
3.2 Highway Authority – No objections subject to conditions.
3.3 Environmental Health Officer – No adverse comments
3.4 Disability Action Wyre Forest – New dwellings to be designed to meet requirements of Part M of the Building Regulations.
3.5 Conservation Officer – Awaiting comments
3.6 Worcestershire County Council Archaeology Service – Awaiting comments
3.7 Forward Planning – Awaiting comments
3.8 Severn Trent Water – Awaiting comments
3.9 Neighbour/Site Notice – One letter of objection has been received, raising the following concerns:
• The proposed entrance/exit will create a serious risk of more accidents at this dangerous crossroads. • Traffic movements to the pub will remain the same and there will be added vehicular movements from the 2 new properties. • The lay-by opposite is used each morning and evening by 3 school coaches. • When children are waiting they congregate on this car park and it is the only safe place to stand as there is no pavement on this side of the lane. (Where will they be expected to safely wait?) • The car park is used by various organisations, many of which use the car park as a pick up point. • Deliveries are made to the pub on this car park. Where will these take place? • My Land Rover was written off when parked in this lay-by. • There is incorrect signage on the road relating to the crossroads. • The existing entrance to the car park is 175 ft from the crossroads junction. • The new entrance will be 105 ft, approximately 70 ft closer, and in my view, making an already dangerous crossroads junction even more dangerous.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 75 of 77
3 06/1272/FULL
4.0 Officer Comments
4.1 The part of the application site accommodating the public house, the existing car park and the proposed 2 new dwellings is located within the settlement boundary to Bliss Gate as identified in the Adopted Local Plan. The remainder of the site, i.e. the beer garden extending in a south westerly direction away from the crossroads, lies outside the settlement boundary, within the Landscape Protection Area and Area of Great Landscape Value.
4.2 The previous application (reference WF/1189/04) was refused in December 2004 for a total of 3 reasons, focussing on the loss of the public house. In contrast, the current scheme retains the public house and would provide two dwellings sited adjacent to Bliss Gate Cottage.
4.3 The site would still be accessed off Heightington Road as at present, leading to a car park extending further to the rear, albeit that the access would be sited closer to the crossroad junction.
4.4 The retention of the public house accords with policies RT.13 and CY.2 of the Local Plan, which seek to retain community facilities such as pubs in rural areas.
4.5 Furthermore policy H.2 permits infill development of 1 or 2 dwellings within the settlement boundary. I consider that the provision of 2 new dwellings, as shown on the submitted plans, accords with policy.
4.6 A neighbour has raised concerns regarding the proposed access and the amount of parking. In response, the Highways Authority do not consider that the additional vehicle movements or the position of the access would cause a danger to highway safety. The plans also show the provision of a footpath forward of the new dwellings opposite the existing lay-by.
4.7 With respect to parking for the public house, the Adopted Local Plan standard requires one space per 10 square metres gross floor area. The gross floor area at ground floor has been calculated to require 21 spaces. However, the existing pub accommodates a significant amount of ancillary space and calculating the public areas, i.e. the public bar areas, snug and WCs, the floor space would only require 10 spaces. The provision of 12 spaces is therefore considered adequate. Notably separate spaces for the two dwellings have been provided.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 76 of 77
4 06/1272/FULL
5.0 Conclusions and Recommendations
5.1 In view of the above I recommend APPROVAL subject to the following conditions:
1. A6 (Full with No Reserved Matters) 2. A11 (Approved Plans) 3. B1a (Samples/Details of Materials) 4. B13 (Levels Details) 5. B11 (Details of Enclosure) 6. C6 (Landscaping – Small Scheme) 7. C8 (Landscape Implementation) 8. E2 (Foul and Surface Water) 9. Highways - vehicular access 10. H13 (Access, Turning and Parking) 11. Highways - provision of footpath 12. H27 (Parking of Site Operatives
Reason for Approval The retention of the public house is in accordance with policy, as is the principle of 2 infill dwellings. The proposed design of the dwellings is also considered to be satisfactory. Whilst the impact upon neighbours and highway safety has been carefully assessed, it is considered that there will be no undue impact. The proposal therefore accords with the policies listed above.
Planning (Development Control) Committee 13/2/07 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 Page 77 of 77