To:- the Cabinet

TO:- Planning Committee Councillor Terry Mason , Councillor Matt Ewart , Councillor Penny Allen , Councillor Len Bates B.E.M. , Councillor Chris Benton , Councillor Barry Bond , Councillor Mike Boyle , Councillor Jo Chapman , Councillor Bob Cope , Councillor Brian Cox , Councillor Isabel Ford , Councillor Rita Heseltine , Councillor Lin Hingley , Councillor Diane Holmes , Councillor Janet Johnson , Councillor Michael Lawrence , Councillor Roger Lees J.P. , Councillor Dave Lockley , Councillor Robert Reade , Councillor Robert Spencer , Councillor Christopher Steel

Notice is hereby given that a meeting of the Planning Committee will be held as detailed below for the purpose of transacting the business set out below.

Date: Tuesday, 15 October 2019 Time: 18:30 Venue: Council Chamber Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire, WV8 1PX

D. Heywood Chief Executive

A G E N D A

Part I – Public Session

1 Minutes 3 - 6 To confirm the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 17 September 2019

2 Apologies

To receive any apologies for non-attendance.

3 Declarations of Interest

To receive any declarations of interest.

4 Determination of Planning Applications 7 - 122 Report of Development Management Team Manager

Page 1 of 128 5 Land North and West Side, Stafford Road, Penkridge- Amendment -Application 123 - 124 19/00017/OUT Report of the Corporate Director Governance

6 Monthly Update Report 125 - 128 Report of Corporate Director Governance

RECORDING Please note that this meeting will be recorded.

PUBLIC SPEAKING Please note: Any members of the public wishing to speak must confirm their intention to speak in writing or e-mail to Development Management no later than 1 working day before the Committee i.e. before 12.00 p.m. on the preceding Monday.

E-mails to [email protected]

Please see Speaking at Planning Committee leaflet on the website for full details. Failure to notify the Council of your intention to speak may mean you will not be allowed to speak at Committee.

PUBLIC ACCESS TO AGENDA AND REPORTS

Spare paper copies of committee agenda and reports are no longer available. Therefore should any member of the public wish to view the agenda or report(s) for this meeting, please go to www.sstaffs.gov.uk/council-democracy.

A paper copy is available for inspection at the Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire WV8 1PX.

Page 2 of 128 30 September 2019

Minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee South Staffordshire Council held in the Council Chamber Council Offices, Wolverhampton Road, Codsall, South Staffordshire, WV8 1PX on Tuesday, 17 September 2019 at 18:30

Present:- Councillor Penny Allen, Councillor Len Bates, Councillor Chris Benton, Councillor Barry Bond, Councillor Mike Boyle, Councillor Jo Chapman, Councillor Bob Cope, Councillor Matt Ewart, Councillor Rita Heseltine, Councillor Lin Hingley, Councillor Diane Holmes, Councillor Janet Johnson, Councillor Michael Lawrence, Councillor Roger Lees, Councillor Dave Lockley, Councillor Terry Mason, Councillor Robert Reade, Councillor Robert Spencer, Councillor Christopher Steel

OFFICERS IN ATTENDANCE Sue Frith, Matt Hurley, Manjit Dhillon, David Pattison and Simon Hawes (SCC)

20 MINUTES RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting of the Planning Committee held on the 20 August 2019 be approved and signed by the Chairman

21 APOLOGIES Apologies for non-attendance were submitted on behalf of Councillor B Cox,

22 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST There were no declarations of interest

23 DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS The Committee received the report of the Chief Planning Officer, together with information and details received after the agenda was prepared.

18/00991/FUL – LAND AT ENGLETON LANE, BREWOOD, SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE - APPLICANT – LOVELL HOMES – PARISH – BREWOOD AND COVEN

This item had been deferred to allow the applicants to consider construction access arrangements prior to planning committee determination.

Mr Neil Cox (agent) spoke for the application.

The County Senior Highways Engineer explained that the proposed route met the road safety criteria.

RESOLVED: that approval be delegated to the Team Manager to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement. If this has not been achieved by 19 November 2019, this application will be referred

Page 3 of 128 30 September 2019 back to the Planning Committee.

Councillor M Boyle asked that it be recorded that he abstained from voting.

19/00043/FUL – PLOUGH INN, SCHOOL ROAD, TRYSULL, WOLVERHAMPTON, WV5 7HR - APPLICANT – MR RICHARD CARROLL – PARISH -TRYSULL & SEISDON.

Mr Otto de Weijer (agent) spoke for the application.

Mr Andrew Hingley-Smith spoke against the application.

RESOLVED: that approval, subject to conditions as set out in the Planning Officer’s report, be delegated to the Team Manager to issue the decision on completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement. If this has not been achieved by 17 November 2019 this application will be referred back to the Planning Committee.

With an amendment to Condition 2: approved plans - substitute PL07 Rev G for PL07 Rev F

Councillor L Hingley asked it be recorded that she voted against the application

19/00044/FUL - PLOUGH INN, SCHOOL ROAD, TRYSULL, WOLVERHAMPTON, WV5 7HR - APPLICANT – MR RICHARD CARROLL – PARISH -TRYSULL & SEISDON.

RESOLVED: that approval be granted subject to the conditions contained in the Planning Officer’s report with the addition of the following conditions:

9. The cast iron cycle club sign shall remain in situ for the lifetime of the development.

Reason - To safeguard and retain the essential features of this listed building in accordance with Policy EQ3 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Councillor L Hingley asked it be recorded that she voted against the application

19/00355/FUL – KINVASTON HALL FARM, WATER EATON LANE, CONGREVE, PENKRIDGE ST19 5QD – APPLICANT – MR IAN WITHERS – PARISH – PENKRIDGE

RESOLVED: that approval be granted subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Officer’s report to Committee.

19/00466/FUL – THE LEDENE GOLF CENTRE, WOODHALL FARM, WOOD ROAD, CODSALL WOOD, WOLVERHAMPTON WV8 1QR – APPLICANT – MR RICHARD SHROPSHIRE – PARISH – CODSALL

Mr Richard Shropshire (applicant) spoke for the application.

RESOLVED: that approval be granted subject to the conditions listed in

Page 4 of 128 30 September 2019

the Planning Officer’s report.

19/00489/FUL – LAND OFF WERGS HALL ROAD, CODSALL, WV8 2 HH – APPLICANT – MR JOSEPH WARD – PARISH – CODSALL

RESOLVED: that approval be granted subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Officers report.

19/00490/FUL – PONY PADDOCK, THE COMPA, KINVER - APPLICANT – MISS PARR – PARISH – KINVER Ms Patsy Par (applicant) spoke for the application

Ms Emily Stokes spoke against the application.

Councillor Hingley proposed a motion to refuse the application as it was contrary to the Council’s Core Development Strategy and did not meet very special circumstances required for building in the green belt, specifically, GB1, EQ1, EQ3 and EQ4.

Councillor Cope seconded the motion

The motion was defeated.

Councillors L Bates and D Holmes asked it be recorded that they abstained from voting.

RESOLVED: that approval be granted subject to the conditions listed in the Planning Officers report and the following amendments to Conditions 3 and 12 as follows:

3 – Notwithstanding what is shown on the approved plans, the permission does not grant nor imply consent for the area marked as permeable drive surface. Before the development reaches damp proof course a landscape scheme showing any proposed driveway and parking and surface treatment, boundary treatment and soft landscaping shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The proposed driveway shall be soft in appearance and shall utilise grasscrete or suitable alternate. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details throughout the lifetime of the development.

12 – All buildings shown to be demolished shall be removed from the site in accordance with the scheme submitted in conjunction with condition 6 of this permission within 3 months of the development commencing on site.

Councillors L Hingley and C Steele asked it be recorded that they voted against the application.

Councillors L Bates and D Holmes asked it be recorded that they abstained from voting.

24 MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT The Committee received the report of the Monitoring Officer informing the committee on key matters including training; changes that impact on National Policy; any recent appeal decisions; relevant planning

Page 5 of 128 30 September 2019

enforcement cases (quarterly); and latest data produced by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government.

RESOLVED: that the Committee note the update report.

The Meeting ended at: 20:10

CHAIRMAN

Page 6 of 128 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 15 OCTOBER 2019

DETERMINATION OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS

REPORT OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT TEAM MANAGER

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

To determine the planning applications as set out in the attached Appendix.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the planning applications be determined.

3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives? The reasons for the recommendation for each POLICY/COMMUNITY Yes application addresses issued pertaining to the Council’s IMPACT Plan. Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed? Determination of individual planning applications so No not applicable- see below for equalities comment. SCRUTINY POWERS No APPLICABLE KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ N/A DELIVERY DATE Unless otherwise stated in the Appendix, there are no FINANCIAL IMPACT No direct financial implications arising from this report.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 Planning (Consequential Provisions) Act 1990 LEGAL ISSUES Yes Planning (Hazardous Substances) Act 1990 Planning and Compensation Act 1991 Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004

Page 7 of 128 Equality and HRA impacts set out below. OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & Yes OPPORTUNITIES

IMPACT ON SPECIFIC As set out in Appendix Yes WARDS

PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4. INFORMATION

All relevant information is contained within the Appendix.

Advice to Applicants and the Public

The recommendations and reports of the Director of Planning and Strategic Services contained in this schedule may, on occasions, be changed or updated as a result of any additional information received by the Local Planning Authority between the time of its preparation and the appropriate meeting of the Authority.

Where updates have been received before the Planning Committee’s meeting, a written summary of these is published generally by 5pm on the day before the Committee Meeting. Please note that verbal updates may still be made at the meeting itself.

With regard to the individual application reports set out in the Appendix then unless otherwise specifically stated in the individual report the following general statements will apply.

Unless otherwise stated any dimensions quoted in the reports on applications are scaled from the submitted plans or Ordnance Survey maps.

Equality Act Duty

Unless otherwise stated all matters reported are not considered to have any adverse impact on equalities and the public sector equality duty under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 has been considered. Any impact for an individual application will be addressed as part of the individual officer report on that application.

Human Rights Implications

If an objection has been received to the application then the proposals set out in this report are considered to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation to approve the application aims to secure the proper planning of the area in the public interest. The potential interference with rights under Article 8 and Article 1 of the First Protocol has been considered and the recommendation is considered to strike an appropriate balance between the interests of the applicant and those of the occupants of neighbouring property and is therefore proportionate. The issues arising have been considered in detail

Page 8 of 128 in the report and it is considered that, on balance, the proposals comply with Core Strategy and are appropriate.

If the application is recommended for refusal then the proposals set out in the report are considered to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. The recommendation to refuse accords with the policies of the Core Strategy and the applicant has the right of appeal against this decision.

Consultations Undertaken

The results of consultations with interested parties, organisations, neighbours and Councillors are reported in each report in the Appendix.

CONSULTEES

CH – County Highways CLBO – Conservation Officer CPO – County Planning Officer CPRE – Campaign to Protect Rural England CPSO – County Property Services Officer CA – County Archaeologist CS – Civic Society EA – Environment Agency EHGS – Environmental Health Officer ENGS – Engineer FC – The Forestry Commission HA – Highways Agency LPM – Landscape Planning Manager HENGS – Engineer NE – Natural England PC – Parish Council OSS – Open Space Society STW – Severn Trent Water SWT – Staffordshire Wildlife Trust

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

N/A

6. PREVIOUS MINUTES

Details if issue has been previously considered

7. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Background papers used in compiling the schedule of applications consist of:-

Page 9 of 128 (i) The individual planning application (which may include supplementary information supplied by or on behalf of the applicant) and representations received from persons or bodies consulted upon the application by the Local Planning Authority, and from members of the public and interested bodies, by the time of preparation of the schedule.

(ii) The Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, as amended and related Acts, Orders and Regulations, the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), the Planning Practice Guidance Notes, any Circulars, Ministerial Statements and Policy Guidance published by or on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Department for Communities and Local Government.

(iii) The Core Strategy for South Staffordshire adopted in December 2012 and Supplementary Planning Documents

(iv) Relevant decisions of the Secretary of State in relation to planning appeals and relevant decisions of the courts.

These documents are available for inspection by Members or any member of the public and will remain available for a period of up to 4 years from the date of the meeting, during the normal office hours. Requests to see them should be made to our Customer Services Officers on 01902 696000 and arrangements will be made to comply with the request as soon as practicable. The Core Strategy and the individual planning applications can be viewed on our web site www.sstaffs.gov.uk

Report prepared by: Sue Frith, Development Management Team Manager

Page 10 of 128

App no Applicant/Address Parish and Recommendation Page Ward Councillors Deferred Items 18/00875/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER APPROVE 13 - 34

Land And Stables At Councillor B Wolverhampton Road Edwards Prestwood South Staffordshire Councillor L Hingley

Councillor H Williams

18/00884/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER APPROVE 35 - 56

Land And Stables At Councillor B Wolverhampton Road Edwards Prestwood South Staffordshire Councillor L Hingley

Councillor H Williams

18/00885/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER REFUSE 57 - 78

Land And Stables At Councillor B Wolverhampton Road Edwards Prestwood South Staffordshire Councillor L Hingley

Councillor H Williams

18/00886/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER APPROVE 79 - 100

Land And Stables At Councillor B Wolverhampton Road Edwards Prestwood South Staffordshire Councillor L Hingley

Councillor H Williams

Page 11 of 128 Applications 19/00500/FUL Mr Robert Chapman KINVER APPROVE 101 - 108 Barratts Coppice Farmhouse Councillor B Bridgnorth Road Edwards Stourton STOURBRIDGE Councillor L DY7 6QY Hingley

Councillor H Williams

19/00585/ADV Mr Ryan Taylor SAREDON APPROVE 109 - 113

Hilton Green Councillor Mike Hilton Lane Boyle Hilton WOLVERHAMPTON Councillor Steve WV11 2BD Hollis

19/00614/FUL Mr R Woods PENKRIDGE APPROVE 114 - 122

Pool House Councillor John Watling Street Raven Gailey STAFFORD Councillor ST19 5PR Christine Jane Raven

Page 12 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

18/00875/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER DEFERRED Councillor B Edwards NON MAJOR Councillor L Hingley Councillor H Williams

Land And Stables At, Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood

All-weather trotting track

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 See Appendix A

1.2 See Appendix A

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1. Proposal - See Appendix A

2.2. Supporting documents - See Appendix A

3. POLICY CONTEXT - See Appendix A

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES - See Appendix A

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 19th February 2019, because there were concerns regarding the highways advice. The Council has commissioned an independent highways survey from Hub Transport Planning Ltd, which concludes that the trotting track will not lead to an increase in traffic movements, as it is an improvement to the facilities for the private and already lawful use on site and it is clear from the accident record at the junction that there is no current or historic highway safety problem at the junction. The report considers in detail the objections of a neighbour and concludes that:

An assessment of the site access in respect of design and highway safety demonstrates that there is no current or historic highway safety issue at the junction; the junction is neither unsafe, nor unsuitable for the proposed uses…

Paragraph 109 of the NPPF states that: ‘Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe.’

This technical note demonstrates that the existing site access junction provides safe and suitable access, and will continue to do so with the development proposals in

Page 13 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019 place; the impact in traffic terms will be negligible, if not potentially below that which the lawful use could currently generate.

On this basis, there simply cannot be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor a severe impact on the road network.

The full independents highways survey is attached to the Agenda.

5.2 Full appraisal at Appendix A.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Independent highways report concluded that the proposals will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor a severe impact on the road network. The application can therefore be determined in line with the previous recommendation found at Appendix A .

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE - see appendix A

Page 14 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 15 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 16 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 17 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 18 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 19 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 20 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 21 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 22 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 23 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 24 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 25 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 26 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 27 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

APPENDIX A

18/00875/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER Cllr B Edwards Cllr L Hingley Cllr H Williams

Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road Prestwood South Staffordshire

All-weather trotting track

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1 The site relates to a large site on the east side of the A449. The field slopes gently away to the south with the river Stour bounding the site to the north and west. There is currently a large block of stables and another building at the top of the field at the most southern part and a made up access track leading from the A449 with horses utilising the field. There is currently a mature hedge along the boundary with the road, along with an outer and inner fence.

1.2 Site History

Relevant site history

2009 3 blocks of 4 stables, refused (09/00688) 2017 Change of use from agricultural land to Stables and Equine Use. Including stables, hay barn, exercise walker and exercise running track. Refused on Green Belt grounds (17/00032)

There are four current applications in for the site; a running track (18/00875/FUL) a canopy to the stables (18/00884/FUL,), a hay barn (18/00885/FUL,) and a horse walker (18/00886/FUL).

Various enforcement cases in 2010, 2013 and 2016 all of which are closed.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

The application proposes race track for horses.

The proposed running track, which is oval in shape, will be located towards the centre of the site, where it is more flat. It will measure approximately 32m x 20m and will be surfaced in sand.

Page 28 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

2.2 Agents Submission

Supporting statement submitted.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Within the Green Belt

3.2 Core Strategy GB1 - Development in the Green Belt EQ4 - Protecting the Character and Appearance of the Landscape EQ11 - Wider Design Considerations CP9 - Rural Diversification EV7 - Equine Related Development Core Policy 4 - Promoting High Quality Design

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillors Hingley and Edwards raised some concerns over the proposals and requested that they be heard at Planning Committee (received December 2018 )

Kinver Parish Council (received 06/12/2018) Recommend Refusal on the grounds that this is an inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and is contrary to GB1 regulations.

County Highways (received 07/12/2018) There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal. Note to Planning Officer. This Form X is issued on the assumption that the proposed development is for private use only.

Environment Agency (received 23/11/2018) The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals as submitted, however recommends that the following advice is taken into account.

The site lies partly within high risk Flood Zone 3 and partly within low risk Flood Zone 1. The proposed building works are to be undertaken on the area of land in Flood Zone 1, which we support as it complies with the Sequential approach to managing flood risk. The sand-surfaced equestrian exercise track does however lie within the floodplain, on the banks of the River Stour, which is deemed acceptable.

Paragraph 163, and 164 footnote 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires applicants for planning permission to submit an FRA when development is proposed in such locations. No FRA has been submitted in support of this proposal, however we note the submission of a brief FRA as part of previous

Page 29 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019 application 17/00032/FUL, which we recommend is resubmitted in support of this application for completeness.

Concerns from neighbours (Received December 2018) including danger to highways, nuisance and disturbance and questions the need for the proposals and the officers 2017 report

Site Notice (expired 12/12/2018)

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is referred to committee at the request of Councillor Edwards.

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of Development/Green Belt - Design/landscape - Impact on neighbouring properties - Highways/access

5.3 Principle of Development

5.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), establishes that certain forms of development are not inappropriate in the Green Belt provided they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it and include engineering operations. I would consider the laying of sand as an engineering operation, and, as it does not involve any development that is above the ground, preserves the openness of the Green Belt. I do not consider that there is any conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt which seeks, predominately, to prevent urban sprawl. The Green Belt is an area in which one would typically find equestrian facilities such as this.

5.3.2 Policy EV7 provides further guidance on equine related development in the Green Belt. It indicates that they will be supported providing that any of associated developments such as manèges are sympathetic to the rural character of the area; they have no adverse impact on the natural environment, and provided that they are located close to the bridleway network and located so as to reduce conflict between road users due to the transportation of horses, deliveries and horses using narrow lanes. In considering these elements of this policy, I consider that the track to be sympathetic with the rural character of the area and would have no adverse impact on the natural environment. I note the concerns submitted from the neighbour in that the site is not located within close proximity to a bridleway. However, the applicant is already keeping horses on the site with a large stable block. The matter of whether the development is near a bridleway is therefore a matter to which I attach only limited weight and see no reason to refuse the application on this matter alone.

Page 30 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

5.4 Design/landscape

5.5.1 Core Policy 2 and Development policies EQ4 and EQ12 of the Core Strategy all seek to protect, conserve and enhance the District's natural assets. Throughout the District, the design and location of new development should take account of the characteristics and sensitivity of the landscape and its surroundings and should not have a detrimental effect on the immediate environment and on any medium and long distance views. This is echoed in part 15 of the NPPF. Equine facilities are a characteristic of the countryside. There would be no conflict with the design objectives of Policies EQ4 and EQ12 of the Core Strategy.

5.5 Impact on neighbouring properties

5.5.1 The proposed track is located a suitable distance to ensure that no adverse harm is caused on the neighbouring amenity. Whilst I have every sympathy for the neighbours that had to witness the unfortunate death of the horses that had escaped the site, however this is not a valid planning reason to refuse the application before me. I also consider that moving the horses to and from different fields at rush hour traffic is far from ideal, but again I do not consider this is a valid reason to refuse the proposal that is before me now. I can only be guided by the comments from our County Highways officer who has deemed the proposal acceptable subject to the scheme being for private use only that can be secured by condition. I note there are concerns about a generator being run from the site and I have referred the matter to my colleagues within the Environmental Health team who have their own legislation for such matters. I therefore consider the proposal in compliance with Policy EQ9.

5.6 Highways/access

5.6.1 As mentioned in paragraph 5.5.1, whilst I sympathise with the neighbours I can only go on the advice given by our highways officer. In that light are no highways or access issues in respect of this application subject to no commercial use, which can be secured by condition.

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 I consider that the proposed running track to be an acceptable form of development within the Green Belt, it will preserve openness and have no conflict with the purposes of including land within it. It is concluded that the proposed development would be acceptable in landscape and visual terms and would not conflict with the design and landscaping criteria set out in policy EQ4 and EQ12. The track will not cause any harm to the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with EQ9. Whilst there is a minor technical impingement with EV7, I only afford this limited weight and do not consider it a relevant reason for refusal; as such I am recommending the application for approval.

Page 31 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 1187-Sk 3b, received 26/10/2018

3. The running track hereby approved shall not be used for commercial purposes or for events without the prior written consent of the LPA.

4. This permission does not grant or imply consent for the horse exercise, stables canopy or hay barn as noted on the approved plan.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

4. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

Proactive Statement - In dealing with the application, the Local Planning Authority has approached decision making in a positive and creative way, seeking to approve sustainable development where possible, in accordance with paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework, 2018.

Page 32 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

18/00875/FUL - Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood, South Staffordshire

Page 33 of 128

Page 34 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

18/00884/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER DEFERRED Councillor B Edwards NON MAJOR Councillor L Hingley Councillor H Williams

Land And Stables At, Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood

Canopy to the stables

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 See Appendix B

1.2 See Appendix B

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1. Proposal - See Appendix B

2.2. Supporting documents - See Appendix B

3. POLICY CONTEXT - See Appendix B

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES - See Appendix B

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 19th February 2019, because there were concerns regarding the highways advice. The Council has commissioned an independent highways survey from Hub Transport Planning Ltd, which concludes that the canopy to the stables would not directly impact on traffic movements, on the basis that it simply provides a cover for horses to remain dry during inclement weather; and it is clear from the accident record at the junction that there is no current or historic highway safety problem at the junction. The report considers in detail the objections of a neighbour and concludes that:

This technical note demonstrates that the existing site access junction provides safe and suitable access, and will continue to do so with the development proposals in

Page 35 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019 place; the impact in traffic terms will be negligible, if not potentially below that which the lawful use could currently generate.

On this basis, there simply cannot be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor a severe impact on the road network.

The full independents highways survey is attached to the Agenda.

5.2 Full appraisal at Appendix B.

6. CONCLUSION

5.2 Full appraisal at Appendix B.

6. CONCLUSION

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE - see appendix B

Page 36 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 37 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 38 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 39 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 40 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 41 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 42 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 43 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 44 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 45 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 46 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 47 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 48 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 49 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 50 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

APPENDIX B

18/00884/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER Cllr B Edwards Cllr L Hingley Cllr H Williams

Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road Prestwood South Staffordshire

Canopy to the stables

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.2 Site History

Relevant site history

There are four current applications in for the site, a canopy to the stables (18/00884/FUL,) a running track (18/00875/FUL), a hay barn (18/00885/FUL,) and a horse walker (18/00886/FUL).

Various enforcement cases in 2010, 2013 and 2016 all of which are closed.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

The site has a large C shaped stable block already in situ, erected without planning consent but time immune from enforcement action. The application proposes a concrete base in the space between the two wings and a flat roofed canopy over. The canopy would measure 6.8m x 14m and would be 3m high.

2.2 Agents Submission

Page 51 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

Supporting statement submitted.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Within the Green Belt

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillors Edwards and Hingley both have concerns regarding the site (received December 2018)

Kinver Parish Council (received 02/03/2017) Recommend Refusal on the grounds that this is an inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and is contrary to GB1 regulations. The access is in adequate and any further traffic accessing the site would be very dangerous, no unlicensed events should be allowed on this site.

County Highways (received 07/12/2018) There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal.

Environment Agency (received 28/11/2018) The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals as submitted, however recommends that the following advice is taken into account.

Page 52 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

Concerns from neighbours (Received December 2018) including danger to highways, nuisance and disturbance and questions the need for the proposals and the officers 2017 report

Site Notice (expired 12/12/2018)

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Edwards.

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of Development/Green Belt - Design/landscape - Impact on neighbouring properties - Highways/access

5.3 Principle of Development

5.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), establishes that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions. It considers that the extension or alteration of a building is not inappropriate development provided that it does not result in disproportionate additions over and above the size of the original building which is echoed in GB1 of the Core Strategy.

5.3.2 The Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD offers further guidance related to development in the Green Belt. lt states that extensions to buildings in the Green Belt in the range of 20-40% of the original floor area will generally be permissible. The existing stable block could be extended by a maximum of 40% which equates to around 63 sq m footprint. Whilst the canopy would be considered an extension and is beyond 63 sq m, as all the resultant footprint is already in existence; the proposed canopy would not be higher than the existing roof and would only require three supporting columns to the front elevation, I do not consider this would have any material impact on openness and do not consider the extension to be disproportionate.

5.3.3 Policy EV7 provides further guidance on equine related development in the Green Belt. It indicates that it will be supported providing that any of associated developments such as manèges are sympathetic to the rural character of the area; they have no adverse impact on the natural environment, and provided that they are located close to the bridleway network and located so as to reduce conflict between road users due to the transportation of horses, deliveries and horses using narrow lanes. In considering these elements of this policy, I consider that the building to be sympathetic with the rural character of the area and would have no adverse impact on the natural environment. I note the concerns submitted from the neighbour in that the site is not located within close proximity to a bridleway. However, the applicant is already keeping horses on the site and has a large stable block. The

Page 53 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019 matter of whether the development is near a bridleway is therefore a matter to which I attach only limited weight and see no reason to refuse the application on this matter alone.

5.4 Design/landscape

5.4.1 The existing stables are sited at a higher level than the Wolverhampton Road and are visible from the highway and the pavement. However the proposed canopy would be read in conjunction with the existing stables and with woodland as a backdrop would not result in them being overly prominent in the street scene or harmful to the character or appearance of the area. Equine facilities are a characteristic of the countryside. There would be no conflict with the design objectives of Policies EQ11 and EV7 of the Core Strategy.

5.5 Impact on neighbouring properties

5.5.1 The proposed building is located a suitable distance to ensure that no adverse harm is caused on the neighbouring amenity. Whilst I have every sympathy for the neighbours that had to witness the unfortunate death of the horses that had escaped the site, this is not a valid planning reason to refuse the application before me. I also consider that moving the horses to and from different fields at rush hour traffic is far from ideal, but again I do not consider this is a valid reason to refuse the proposal that is before me now. I can only be guided by the comments from our County Highways Officer who has deemed the proposal acceptable, subject to a number of conditions. I note there are concerns about a generator being run from the site and I have referred the matter to my colleagues within the Environmental Health team who have their own legislation for such matters. I therefore consider the proposal in compliance with Policy EQ9.

5.6 Highways/access

5.6.1 As mentioned in paragraph 5.5.1, whilst I sympathise with the neighbours I can only go on the advice given by our highways officer. As such there are no highways or access issues in respect of this application subject to a condition restricting the commercial use of the site.

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 I do not consider that the canopy would be considered as a disproportionate extension and as such there is no potential harm to the Green Belt from the development. It is concluded that the proposed development would be acceptable in landscape and visual terms and would not conflict with the design and landscaping criteria set out in policy EQ4 and EQ12. The canopy will not cause any harm to the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with EQ9. Whilst there is a minor technical impingement with EV7, I only afford this limited weight and do not consider it a relevant reason for refusal; as such I am recommending the application for approval.

Page 54 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 1187-Sk-5b, received 29/10/2018

3. This permission does not grant or imply consent for the horse exercise, running track or hay barn as noted on the approved plan.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

Page 55 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

18/00884/FUL - Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood, South Staffordshire

Page 56 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

18/00885/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER DEFERRED Councillor B Edwards NON MAJOR Councillor L Hingley Councillor H Williams

Land And Stables At, Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood

Hay barn

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 See Appendix C

1.2 See Appendix C

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1. Proposal - See Appendix C

2.2. Supporting documents - See Appendix C

3. POLICY CONTEXT - See Appendix C

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES - See Appendix C

5. APPRAISAL 5.1 The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 19th February 2019, because there were concerns regarding the highways advice. The Council has commissioned an independent highways survey from Hub Transport Planning Ltd, which concludes: that in respect of the Hay Barn, which provides bigger, improved storage facilities for the stabled horses on site; if anything, is likely to allow larger deliveries to the site simply because it can then safely store more “food, kit, bedding, pharmaceuticals and other items”. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that the proposal is likely to lead to a reduction in overall delivery movements to/from the site.

5.2 The report considers in detail the objections of a neighbour and concludes that:

Page 57 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

This technical note demonstrates that the existing site access junction provides safe and suitable access, and will continue to do so with the development proposals in place; the impact in traffic terms will be negligible, if not potentially below that which the lawful use could currently generate.

On this basis, there simply cannot be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor a severe impact on the road network.

5.3 The independent consultant has confirmed that the refusal of the hay barn would make no difference to the overall conclusion of his report. He further comments: The proposal for the hay barn, which would allow the owner to store more feed and other items on site, could potentially bring an indirect future benefit in terms of the same private use then requiring fewer deliveries as each delivery could (in theory) be larger.

However, if it isn’t approved, that potential benefit isn’t realised; but importantly, this does not mean there is then a material harm in highway terms, but rather that the status quo is simply maintained for this element of the operation of the site.

The full independent highways survey is attached to the Agenda.

5.2 Full appraisal at Appendix C.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Independent highways report concluded that the proposals will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor a severe impact on the road network. However, it is still considered that the application should be determined in line with the previous recommendation for refusal found at Appendix C.

7. RECOMMENDATION – REFUSE – see appendix C

Page 58 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 59 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 60 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 61 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 62 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 63 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 64 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 65 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 66 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 67 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 68 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 69 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 70 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 71 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

APPENDIX C

18/00885/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER Cllr B Edwards Cllr L Hingley Cllr H Williams

Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road Prestwood South Staffordshire

Hay barn

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.2 Site History

Relevant site history

There are four current applications in for the site, a hay barn (18/00885/FUL), a horse walker (18/00886/FUL), a running track (18/00875/FUL), and a canopy to the stables (18/00884/FUL,)

Various enforcement cases in 2010, 2013 and 2016 all of which are closed.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

2.2.1 The application proposes a large building that is labelled as a 'hay barn' on the proposed plans. It measures 6m by 13m with a ridge height of 3.5m and would be clad in timber weatherboarding.

The building will be sited adjacent the existing stables on the southern boundary of the site.

Page 72 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

2.2 Agents Submission

Supporting statement submitted.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Within the Green Belt

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillors Edwards and Hingley both have concerns regarding the site (received December 2018)

County Highways (received 07/12/2018) There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal.

Environment Agency (received 28/11/2018) The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals as submitted, however recommends that the following advice is taken into account.

Page 73 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

Concerns from neighbours (Received December 2018) including danger to highways, nuisance and disturbance and questions the need for the proposals and the officers 2017 report

Site Notice (expired 12/12/2018)

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Edwards.

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of Development/Green Belt - Design/landscape - Impact on neighbouring properties - Highways/access

5.3 Principle of Development

5.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), establishes that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions. The provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation is listed as an exception, providing the openness of the Green Belt is preserved and the development does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

5.3.2 There is no definition of what constitutes 'appropriate facilities' within the NPPF. However the keeping of horses and associated equestrian facilities are typically found in rural locations such as this, and more often than not, within the Green Belt. The hay barn is to be used for the storage of food and other equipment used in association with the equestrian use of the site. Whilst I have given due consideration to the case submitted by the agent, I disagree with it and do not consider that the storage of equipment would satisfy this definition. In addition to this, the building is large, providing some 78 sq m of floor area which would not preserve the openness of the Green Belt; although I do not consider there is any conflict with the purposes of including land within it. I therefore consider the building to be inappropriate development. Inappropriate development is harmful to openness by definition and cannot be approved unless in very special circumstances.

5.3.3 Policy EV7 provides further guidance on equine related development in the Green Belt. It indicates that they will be supported providing that any of associated developments such as manèges are sympathetic to the rural character of the area; they have no adverse impact on the natural environment, and provided that they are located close to the bridleway network and located so as to reduce conflict between road users due to the transportation of horses, deliveries and horses using narrow lanes. In considering these elements of this policy, I consider that the building to be sympathetic with the rural character of the area and would have no adverse impact on the natural environment. I note the concerns submitted from the neighbour in

Page 74 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019 that the site is not located within close proximity to a bridleway. However, the applicant is already keeping horses on the site and has a large stable block. The matter of whether the development is near a bridleway is therefore a matter to which I attach only limited weight and see no reason to refuse the application on this matter alone.

5.4 Case for very special circumstances

5.4.1 Paragraph 144 of the Framework states that local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

5.4.3 The agent contends that the applicant’s horses kept on the site are not fed from grazing the land and are stabled. The applicants therefore need somewhere to store the feed, bedding as well the traps used for racing.

5.4.4 There is currently a fairly large building on site, located close to the south western boundary and I do not consider that sufficient evidence has been presented that shows there is a need for two fairly large storage buildings on site. In conclusion, I do not consider that sufficient evidence has been put forward to demonstrate a need for such a large amount of storage and it certainly does not clearly outweigh the harm to openness in this instance.

5.5 Design/landscape

5.5.1 The new storage building would be sited at a higher level than the Wolverhampton Road. It would be visible from the highway and the pavement. However, it would be read in conjunction with the existing stables and with woodland as a backdrop, which would result in them not being overly prominent in the street scene or harmful to the character or appearance of the area. Equine facilities are a characteristic of the countryside. There would be no conflict with the design objectives of Policies EQ11 and EV7 of the Core Strategy. Whilst I have given due consideration to the case put forward in the applicants statement with regard to openness and whether the development can be seen or not, in this instance, I only afford this limited weight and it does not clearly overcome the Green Belt objection by reason of inappropriateness.

5.6 Impact on neighbouring properties

5.6.1 The proposed building is located a suitable distance to ensure that no adverse harm is caused on the neighbouring amenity. Whilst I have every sympathy for the neighbours that had to witness the unfortunate death of the horses that had escaped the site, this is not a valid planning reason to refuse the application before me. I also consider that moving the horses to and from different fields at rush hour traffic is far from ideal, but again I do not consider this is a valid reason to refuse the proposal that is before me now. I can only be guided by the comments from our

Page 75 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

County Highways officer who has deemed the proposal acceptable subject to a number of conditions. I note there are concerns about a generator being run from the site and I have referred the matter to my colleagues within the Environmental Health team, who have their own legislation for such matters. I therefore consider the proposal in compliance with Policy EQ9.

5.7 Highways/access

5.7.1 As mentioned in paragraph 5.6.1, whilst I sympathise with the neighbours I can only go on the advice given by our highways officer. As such there are no highways or access issues in respect of this application subject to a condition restricting the commercial use of the site.

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposal is inappropriate development, harmful to the openness of the Green Belt by definition. Whilst I have taken the applicants supporting statement into consideration, I do not consider the matters raised amount to the very special circumstances needed to clearly outweigh the potential harm to the Green Belt. In light of this I am recommending the application be refused.

7. RECOMMENDATION - REFUSE

Reasons

1. The site is within the Green Belt and the proposed development is considered to be inappropriate development as set out in policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy. The development is therefore harmful to the Green Belt, contrary to policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

2. The Local Planning Authority has considered the reasons advanced, but does not consider that these reasons constitute the very special circumstances required to clearly outweigh the harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness.

Page 76 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

18/00885/FUL Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood, South Staffordshire

Page 77 of 128

Page 78 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

18/00886/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER DEFERRED Councillor B Edwards NON MAJOR Councillor L Hingley Councillor H Williams

Land And Stables At, Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood

Horse exerciser

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 See Appendix D

1.2 See Appendix D

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1. Proposal - See Appendix D

2.2. Supporting documents - See Appendix D

3. POLICY CONTEXT - See Appendix D

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES - See Appendix D

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application was deferred at the Planning Committee on 19th February 2019, because there were concerns regarding the highways advice. The Council has commissioned an independent highways survey from Hub Transport Planning Ltd, which concludes that the horse exerciser will not lead to an increase in traffic movements, as it is an improvement to the facilities for the private and already lawful use on site and it is clear from the accident record at the junction that there is no current or historic highway safety problem at the junction. The report considers in detail the objections of a neighbour and concludes that:

This technical note demonstrates that the existing site access junction provides safe and suitable access, and will continue to do so with the development proposals in

Page 79 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019 place; the impact in traffic terms will be negligible, if not potentially below that which the lawful use could currently generate.

On this basis, there simply cannot be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, nor a severe impact on the road network.

The full independents highways survey is attached to the Agenda.

5.2 Full appraisal at Appendix D.

6. CONCLUSION

6.1 The Independent highways report concluded that the proposals will not have an unacceptable impact on highway safety. The application can therefore be determined in line with the previous recommendation found at Appendix D.

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE - see appendix D.

Page 80 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 81 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 82 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 83 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 84 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 85 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 86 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 87 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 88 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 89 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 90 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 91 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 92 of 128 Lucy Duffy: Assistant Team Manager - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Page 93 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

APPENDIX D

18/00886/FUL Mr Billy-Joe Timmins KINVER Cllr B Edwards Cllr L Hingley Cllr H Williams

Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road Prestwood South Staffordshire

Horse exerciser

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1 The site relates to a large site on the east side of the A449. The field slopes gently away to the south with the river Stour bounding the site to the north and west. There is currently a large block of stables and another building at the top of the field at the most southern part and a made up access track leading from the A449, with horses utilising the field. There is currently a mature hedge along the boundary with the road, along with an outer and inner fence.

1.2 Site History

Relevant site history

2009 3 blocks of 4 stables, refused (09/00688) 2017 Change of use from agricultural land to Stables and Equine Use. Including Stables, Hay Barn, Exercise walker and exercise running track, refused on Green Belt grounds (17/00032)

There are four current applications in for the site, a horse walker (18/00886/FUL), a running track (18/00875/FUL), a canopy to the stables (18/00884/FUL,) and a hay barn (18/00885/FUL,)

Various enforcement cases in 2010, 2013 and 2016 all of which are closed.

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

2.2.1. The application proposes a circular horse walker, which has a diameter of around 11.5m and a height of 3m.

2.2.2 The site has a large C shaped stable block already in situ, which was erected without planning consent but is now time immune from enforcement action. The walker would be sited alongside the stable block at the southern boundary of the site, on the top of a slight hill.

Page 94 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

2.2 Agents Submission

Supporting statement submitted.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Within the Green Belt

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillors Hingley and Edwards raised some concerns over the proposals and requested that they be heard at Planning Committee (received December 2018)

Kinver Parish Council (received 14/12/2018) Recommend Refusal on the grounds that this is an inappropriate development in the Greenbelt and is contrary to GB1 regulations. The access is in adequate and any further traffic accessing the site would be very dangerous, no unlicensed events should be allowed on this site.

County Highways (received 07/12/2018) There are no objections on Highway grounds to this proposal.

Environment Agency (received 08/02/2017) The Environment Agency has no objection to the proposals as submitted, however recommends that the following advice is taken into account.

Page 95 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

Concerns from neighbours (Received December 2018) including danger to highways, nuisance and disturbance and questions the need for the proposals and the officers 2017 report

Site Notice (expired 12/12/2018)

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 The application is referred to Committee at the request of Councillor Edwards.

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of Development/Green Belt - Design/landscape - Impact on neighbouring properties - Highways/access

5.3 Principle of Development

5.3.1 The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), establishes that the construction of new buildings within the Green Belt is inappropriate, subject to a number of exceptions. The provision of appropriate facilities for outdoor sport and outdoor recreation is listed as an exception, providing the openness of the Green Belt is preserved and the development does not conflict with the purposes of including land within it.

5.3.2 There is no definition of what constitutes 'appropriate facilities' within the NPPF. However, the keeping of horses and associated equestrian facilities are typically found in rural locations such as this, and more often than not, within the Green Belt. The walker is used to warm up and cool down the horses and is used to prevent injury from strenuous exercise. I would therefore consider that a horse walker would constitute an 'appropriate facility'. The walker is a relatively low structure at 3m and would be located adjacent to the existing stable block; as such I consider the structure would preserve the openness of the Green. I do not consider that there is any conflict with the purposes of including land within the Green Belt, which seek predominately to prevent urban sprawl and encroachment.

5.3.3 Policy EV7 provides further guidance on equine related development in the Green Belt. It indicates that they will be supported, providing any associated developments, such as manèges, are sympathetic to the rural character of the area; they have no adverse impact on the natural environment, and provided that they are located close to the bridleway network and located so as to reduce conflict between road users due to the transportation of horses, deliveries and horses using narrow lanes.

5.3.4 In considering these elements of this policy, I consider the horse walker to be sympathetic with the rural character of the area, which would have no adverse impact on the natural environment. I note the concerns submitted from the

Page 96 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019 neighbour that the site is not located within close proximity to a bridleway. However, the applicant is already keeping horses on the site and has a large stable block. The matter of whether the development is near a bridleway is therefore a matter to which I attach only limited weight and see no reason to refuse the application on this matter alone.

5.4 Design/landscape

5.4.1 The horse walker would be sited at a higher level than the Wolverhampton Road. It would be visible from the highway and the pavement. However, it would be read in conjunction with the existing stables and with woodland as a backdrop would result in it not being overly prominent in the street scene or harmful to the character or appearance of the area. Equine facilities are a characteristic of the countryside. There would be no conflict with the design objectives of Policies EQ11 and EV7 of the Core Strategy.

5.5 Impact on neighbouring properties

5.5.1 The proposed horse walker is located a suitable distance to ensure that no adverse harm is caused on the neighbouring amenity. Whilst I have every sympathy for the neighbours that had to witness the unfortunate death of the horses that had escaped the site, this is not a valid planning reason to refuse the application before me. I also consider that moving the horses to and from different fields at rush hour traffic is far from ideal, but again I do not consider this is a valid reason to refuse the proposal that is before me now. I can only be guided by the comments from our County Highways Officer who has deemed the proposal acceptable. I note there are concerns about a generator being run from the site and I have referred the matter to my colleagues within the Environmental Health team, who have their own legislation for such matters. I therefore consider the proposal is in compliance with Policy EQ9.

5.6 Highways/access

5.6.1 As mentioned in paragraph 5.5.1, whilst I sympathise with the neighbours, I can only go on the advice given by our highways officer. There are no highways or access issues in respect of this application subject to conditions.

6 CONCLUSIONS

6.1 I consider that the proposed horse walker to be an acceptable form of development within the Green Belt; it will preserve openness and have no conflict with the purposes of including land within it. It is concluded that the proposed development would be acceptable in landscape and visual terms and would not conflict with the design and landscaping criteria set out in policy EQ4 and EQ12. The track will not cause any harm to the amenity of nearby residents in accordance with EQ9. Whilst there is a minor technical impingement with EV7, I only afford this limited weight and do not consider it a relevant reason for refusal; as such I am recommending the application for approval.

Page 97 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: 1187-Sk-5b, received 29/10/2018

3. The horse exerciser hereby approved shall not be used for commercial purposes or for events without the prior written consent of the LPA.

4. This permission does not grant or imply consent for the running track, stables canopy or hay barn as noted on the approved plan.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. In the interests of public and highway safety and convenience and to conform to the requirements of policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

4. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

Page 98 of 128 Lucy Duffy –Assistant Team Manager: Planning Committee 18/06/2019

18/00886/FUL Land And Stables At Wolverhampton Road, Prestwood, South Staffordshire

Page 99 of 128

Page 100 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

19/00500/FUL Mr Robert Chapman Kinver NON-MAJOR Councillor B Edwards Councillor L Hingley Councillor H Williams

Barratts Coppice Farmhouse, Bridgnorth Road, Stourton, DY7 6QY,

Retention of portacabin

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site description

1.1.1 The proposal relates to Living Springs, a centre for children and young people located at Barratts Coppice Farm. The centre has a residential element and is formed of the main house, which has been extended previously, and the adjacent converted barns.

1.1.2 The portacabin which is the subject of this application is sited to the front of the main building within a large front garden. It is surrounded on all sides by a substantial and well maintained beech hedge and various trees and is not readily visible.

1.1.3 The portacabin was first sited in its current position under the temporary permission granted in 2009, and subsequently renewed in 2014. That permission expired on 21/08/19.

1.2 Planning History

1.2.1 There is a lengthy planning history in respect of the Barratts Coppice Farmhouse, starting from 1986. The planning history of specific relevance to this application is restricted to the following:

2004 – Temporary portacabin (06/00435/TEM) – Approved. 2008 – Renewal of temporary permission for portacabin (08/00820/TEM) – Approved. 2009 – Relocation of portacabin from rear of house to the front (temporary permission for 5 years) (09/00526/TEM) – Approved. 2014 – Extend the temporary permission under 09/00526/TEM (14/00441/TEM) – Approved.

1.3 Pre-application Advice

1.3.1 Pre-application advice has not been sought.

Page 101 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

2.1.1 The application seeks full and permanent consent for the retention of the existing portcabin in its current position rather than a temporary renewal as has occurred previously.

2.1.2 As stated above, the portacabin is surrounded by existing hedge and tree cover and is not readily visible on approach to or within the wider grounds of the site. It is not immediately recognisable as a portacabin being, as it is, clad in timber which appears to have occurred sometime between 2009 and 2014 based upon previous application Case Officer’s observations.

2.1.3 The applicant has submitted a short supporting statement which is reproduced, verbatim, as follows:

“The planning permission request is for retention of an existing structure of a portacabin and has been in situ for over 10 years with planning consent. There have been no changes that have taken place under this application. The structure is well screened by hedges, trees and shrubs so has no visual impact on the environment. The outside was originally clad in wavy oak boards to add to its environmental qualities. We see no impact on surrounding properties.

Living Springs use the cabin as part of its ongoing programme with families in residence for extra training room and is attached to the mini allotment positioned next to it. It is also used on other occasions which provides a positive impact on the residents in their parenting, socialising and learning. The portacabin is not used for any accommodation or overnight activities. It will be needed at times for short storage for donated items which cannot be moved straight into the main centre or donated to leaving families in need. It does not add to traffic, waste and has no environment impact.”

2.1.4 From my visit, it appears that the portacabin is used for some form of quasi storage/mini-allotment related use, which would appear to support the applicants stated use above. There is some evidence of growing and tending of vegetables, but given the time of year when I visited such evidence was admittedly limited. The existing screening of the portacabin is proposed to be retained

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Located within the Green Belt

3.2 National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) as whole, in particular Sections 12 and 13.

3.3. Adopted Core Strategy

Page 102 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy for South Staffordshire GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ9 Protecting Residential Amenity Policy EQ11 Wider Design Considerations Core Policy 9: Rural Diversification

3.4 Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD 2014

3.5 Design Guide SPD 2018

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

No Councillor Comments.

Kinver Parish Council (received 05.09.2019) – Recommend Approval.

No neighbour comments. Site notice expired 10.10.2019

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 This application is being referred to the Planning Committee as the proposal is contrary to Paragraphs 143, 144 and 145 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of development - Very Special Circumstances - Impact upon neighbouring properties - Highways/Access

5.3 Principle of development

5.3.1 As described above, the application site is located within the Green Belt. Paragraph 143 of the NPPF states that inappropriate development is, by definition harmful to the Green Belt, and should not be approved except in very special circumstances. Paragraph 145 (NPPF) goes on to list exceptions to this rule. The proposal does not meet or satisfy any of the exceptions listed and as such must be viewed as amounting to inappropriate development in the Green Belt.

5.3.2 It is therefore necessary to consider whether, in accordance with Paragraph 144 of the NPPF, “Very Special Circumstances” exist which clearly outweigh (my emphasis) the harm to the Green Belt.

5.4 Very Special Circumstances

Page 103 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

5.4.1 There is no definition within the NPPF or any other national planning guidance or legislation as to what might constitute Very Special Circumstances, and none have been specifically highlighted or presented to me by the Applicant. I must therefore rely upon the supporting statement as previously reproduced within this report and the relevant planning history.

5.4.2 It is the case that the same portacabin building has been the subject of a number of temporary permissions since 2004 and has been in its current location since 2009, with a subsequent further renewal in 2014, all with the benefit of the requisite planning permission(s).

5.4.3 The current location, as previously described is well screened from any public vantage point and the cladding of the portacabin at some point in the past gives the building a semi-rural, if somewhat contrived, appearance.

5.4.4 With external dimensions of 9.75m x 3m and a height of 2.65m, the actual footprint and volume of this temporary structure is calculated as being 29.25sq.m/77.51cu.m respectively. In any location this would be a relatively modest structure, but in the setting of the site within which it sits this is not a very significant building at all. Of course, that alone would not be enough to outweigh the harm, by definition, to the Green Belt.

5.4.5 The purpose of the building, to support the activities of Living Springs, whilst something of a quasi-use does include what amounts to a horticultural use in supporting the mini-allotment, for the benefit of families in residence. Such a use brings substantial benefit to the main business of Living Springs, which is to support and care for children with difficult family backgrounds.

5.4.6 The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) makes it clear (under Reference ID 21b-028-20150901) that:

“Local authorities need to consider whether children’s best interests are relevant to any planning issue under consideration”.

5.4.7 To my mind, the very nature of Living Springs is such that children’s best interests lie at the very heart of what take place on the site. I consider that this could amount to Very Special Circumstances.

5.4.8 All previous applications in respect of the portacabin have been submitted, and considered by the Council, on the basis of a temporary permission. This too has previously been considered as going some way towards amounting to Very Special Circumstances due to the lack or permanence of the building, which could be removed in the future with no permanent harm to the Green Belt.

5.4.9 However, the current application seeks for a permanent permission on this occasion. I’m afraid I cannot support such a proposal, as I view the permanent retention of what is, notwithstanding the thinly veiled disguise provided by the timber cladding, an inappropriate temporary building in this Green Belt location.

Page 104 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

That said, and given what has been accepted by the Council previously I am minded to accept the retention of the portacabin on a further temporary basis only.

5.5 Impact upon neighbouring properties

5.5.1 The application to retain the portacabin will have no adverse impact upon neighbouring or any nearby properties, due to the positioning and screening of the portacabin. As such, I find no conflict with Policy EQ9.

5.6 Highways/Access

5.6.1 There are no highways or other access issues of relevance to this application.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 It is my view that, notwithstanding the laudable nature of the Living Springs facility, on balance the circumstances set out within the Applicant’s supporting statement do not amount to Very Special Circumstances in isolation. The temporary nature of the building and its lack of permanence does assist in this regard, but other considerations must also be considered, these being:

- There would be limited impact on the openness; - There is a similarity in visual impact with a small horticultural building; - The immediately surrounding land is used in a manner akin to a smallholding; - The use of planning conditions may be imposed to preserve and control the external appearance of the building; - Conditions may be imposed to protect the setting and screening of the building; - Conditions may be imposed to require the building’s removal if no longer used in connection with the Living Springs facility.

6.2 The above considerations have previously been accepted by the Council when considering the previous temporary applications for the portacabin. It therefore appears to me that, in the absence of any material changes in circumstances since the most recent temporary permission in 2014, these considerations are equally relevant to the current application.

6.3 For the reasons set out above, and very much on balance, in this instance I consider that Very Special Circumstances do exist which, when combined, would justify the approval of this application.

6.4 However, as previously explained, the permanent permission sought cannot be supported and any permission should, in my opinion, be restricted to a further 5 year temporary consent only.

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The consent hereby granted is for a maximum period of 5 years.

Page 105 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: Site Location Plan; Block Plan – Plan No. TQRQM19092162601528 Temporary Unit Siting Plans – Dwg No. 294/TU/1b dated 20/06/2019

3. The building hereby approved shall be removed and the land restored to its former condition as garden on or before 1st December 2024 in accordance with a scheme of work to be submitted to and agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4. The portacabin shall be used only for horticultural uses and purpose in connection with and incidental to the use of the whole site as a care centre.

5. No existing trees, shrubs or hedges on the site or its boundaries shall be lopped, topped or removed without the prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. If any existing trees, shrubs or hedges become diseased and/or die they shall be replaced with the same species (unless otherwise agreed in writing with the Local Planning Authority) within the first available planting season following their removal and thereafter shall be maintained to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority.

6. The building hereby approved shall be maintained and kept in a good state of repair throughout the life of the development.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. The site is located within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the Policy GB1 of the adopted Core Policy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development.

4. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

5. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

6. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with Policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Page 106 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Positive and Proactive Statement

No problems have arisen in dealing with this application. The application sought an acceptable form of development, subject to the imposition of temporary conditions, which has been found to be consistent with the requirements of relevant planning policies and material considerations. No amendments or alterations were therefore required and no further positive or proactive action was deemed necessary in accordance with Paragraph 38 of the National Planning Policy Framework (February 2019).

Page 107 of 128 John Baggott of Tyler Parkes - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Barratts Coppice Farmhouse, Bridgnorth Road, Stourton, DY7 6QY

Page 108 of 128 Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

19/00585/ADV South Staffordshire Council SAREDON NON-MAJOR Councillor Mike Boyle Councillor Steve Hollis

Hilton Green Hilton Lane Hilton WOLVERHAMPTON WV11 2BD

New signage to advertise Environmental Education Centre

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 The application relates to the two areas of grass verge flanking the entrance to the Hilton Green Environmental Education Centre, which is located off Hilton Lane. The site was previously used as a sewerage treatment works and is now a facility for providing environmental education and craft courses to the local community

1.1.2 With the exception of the Hilton Park Services, which is located approximately 200m to the south of the site, the area immediately surrounding is characterised by open fields.

1.2 Planning History

2003, Control Kiosk (03/01348/COM) 2006, Erection of two kiosks to control the operation of a submersible sewage pumping station (06/0075/COM) 2007, Erection of two kiosks, approved (15/00303/FUL) 2015, Change of use from a decommissioned sewage treatment works to outdoor environmental centre, approved (15/00303/FUL) 2016, Change of use from a decommissioned sewage treatment works to outdoor environmental centre, approved (15/00303/AMEND)

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 The Proposal

2.1.1 It is proposed to replace the existing Hilton Green sign with 2 No. signs to advertise the environmental education centre. Each of the signs would measure 2.4m in width, 1.2m in height and would be positioned on either side of the entrance at a height of 1m.

2.1.2 The signage would be non-illuminated with black lettering on a background of trees, flowers and wildlife.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Within the Green Belt

Page 109 of 128 Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

3.2 Core Strategy GB1: Development in the Green Belt EQ11: Wider Design Considerations EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity

3.3 National Planning Policy Framework Chapter 12: Achieving well designed places

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Councillors [expired 28/08/19] No comments received

Parish Council [comments received 27/08/19] No objections

County Highways [comments received 23/08/19] No objections on highways grounds

Site Notice [expired 25/09/19] No comments received

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 This application is being referred to Planning Committee as the application site is within the ownership of South Staffordshire District Council.

5.2 Key Issues

- Principle of development - Impact on the character of the area - Highway Safety

5.3 Principle of Development

5.3.1 The NPPF states that advertisements should only be subject to control in the interests of amenity and public safety; therefore the principle of development is acceptable subject to further considerations below.

5.3.2 The two signs proposed would replace an existing sign and would provide better legibility for users of the centre. The signs are of a sympathetic design for a rural location and in keeping with the character of the area. The site is within the Green Belt however the signs are not detrimental to the openness of the Green Belt. Therefore I consider the proposal to be in accordance with Local Plan policy GB1 and Policy EQ11

5.4 Impact on the character of the area

5.4.1 Policy EQ11 states that proposals should be sympathetic with the appearance and character of the surrounding area.

Page 110 of 128 Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

5.4.2 The signs would be non-illuminated and would be situated in front of the existing fence/hedge boundary, therefore they would not form an unduly prominent feature. In addition, the design of the signage includes images of wildlife and nature which would blend well with the surrounding area. Whilst it is normally advisable to keep the number of signs to a minimum, the site is located on a 60pmh road therefore the two signs proposed would allow visitors to locate the premises more easily when travelling from either direction.

5.4.3 The size and scale of the signs and the colours used are considered proportionate and would not be overtly striking or create an unacceptable bulky appearance. It is therefore considered the proposed signs would not have a material detrimental impact upon the visual amenity of the area complying with Policy EQ11.

5.5 Highway Safety

5.5.1 The proposed signage will not have any impact on highway safety and no concerns have been raised by the County Highways Officer.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposed signage is of an appropriate scale and design thereby having no adverse impact on the Green Belt or the character of the area. In addition there are no highways safety concerns arising. I therefore recommend the application for approval.

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The consent hereby granted is for a maximum period of 5 years.

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings: Site Location Plan (1:2500) rec'd 30/07/19, Signage Location Plan (1:500) rec'd 30/07/19, Illustrative Plan of Proposed Sign Locations rec'd 30/07/19 Proposed Signage Illustration Detail rec'd 30/07/19.

3. The advertisement consent hereby granted does not grant or imply consent for the installation of any means of lighting for the signs. Any lighting scheme shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority for approval before installation.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

Page 111 of 128 Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

Page 112 of 128 Jennifer Mincher: Senior Planning Officer - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Hilton Green Hilton Lane Hilton WOLVERHAMPTON WV11 2BD

Page 113 of 128

Page 114 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

19/00614/FUL Mr R Woods PENKRIDGE NON MAJOR Councillor John Raven Councillor Christine Jane Raven

Pool House Watling Street Gailey STAFFORD ST19 5PR

Proposed detached double garage

1. SITE DESCRIPTION AND PLANNING HISTORY

1.1 Site Description

1.1.1 This application relates to a large two-storey detached property situated immediately off the A5 in Gailey, approximately 400m east of Junction 12 of the M6 motorway. The property together with its spacious curtilage is located at the southern end (and equidistant) between two large reservoirs (Gailey Upper and Gailey Lower). A dense line of mature trees screen the property from the adjacent highway.

1.1.2 Directly east of the site contains a newly built two-storey fishing lodge bed and breakfast accommodation block (15/00591/FUL). The nearest residential neighbour 'The Old Vicarage' lies some 70m away to the south, on the opposite side of the A5.

1.1.3 Planning permission has recently been granted for a two-storey side extension on the west-facing elevation of the property (19/00242/FUL).

1.2 Planning History

2019: Proposed 2-storey side extension, Approved, 19/00242/FUL 2018: Proposed 2 - storey side extension and 2 car detached garage, Withdrawn, 18/00359/FUL 2015: Demolition of existing outbuildings, garaging, stores & goat pen and erection of new 'fishing lodge' bed and breakfast accommodation, Approved subject to a Section 106 Agreement, 15/00591/FUL 2012: Single-storey side extension and extension of detached garage, Certificate of Lawfulness Approved, 12/00215/LUP 2005: Extend planning permission on 99/00240/FUL - Stable block, Withdrawn, 05/01242/FUL 2002: Change of use of land for 8 touring caravans and camping, Approved, 02/00766/COU 2001: Change of use to camping and caravan accommodation, Refused, 01/01318/COU 2000: Advertisement, Approved, 00/01360/ADV 2000: Use of 4 rooms for bed and breakfast accommodation and sign, Approved, 00/01240/COU 1999: Stable block, Approved, 99/00240/FUL

Page 115 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

2. APPLICATION DETAILS

2.1 Pre-application Advice

2.1.1 Pre-application discussions have taken place.

2.2 The Proposal

2.2.1 This application proposes the erection of a detached double garage sited west of the main house, with maximum dimensions to measure 6.6m wide x 6.5m deep x 4.5m high to a dual-pitched roof.

2.2.2 The proposal would be finished in white rendered walls and a tiled roof to match the existing dwelling.

2.3 Agent's Submission

2.3.1 Not applicable.

3. POLICY CONTEXT

3.1 Within the West Midlands Green Belt.

3.2 Adopted Core Strategy Core Policy 1: The Spatial Strategy Policy GB1: Development in the Green Belt Core Policy 2: Protecting and Enhancing the Natural and Historic Environment Policy EQ1: Protecting, Enhancing and Expanding Natural Assets Policy EQ4: Protecting and Enhancing the Character and Appearance of the Landscape Core Policy 3: Sustainable Development and Climate Change Policy EQ9: Protecting Residential Amenity Core Policy 4: Promoting High Quality Design Policy EQ11: Wider Design Considerations Core Policy 11: Sustainable Transport Policy EV12: Parking Provision Appendix 5: Car parking standards Appendix 6: Space about Dwellings

3.3 Adopted local guidance South Staffordshire Design Guide [2018] Sustainable Development SPD [2018] Green Belt and Open Countryside SPD [2014]

3.4 National Planning Policy Framework [2019] Chapter 12: Achieving well-designed places

Page 116 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Chapter 13: Protecting Green Belt land

4. CONSULTATION RESPONSES

Ward Councillors (expired 20/09/19): No comments received.

Penkridge Parish Council (received 20/09/19): Councillors questioned if the exit of the driveway from the garage onto the main A5 was to be by the Traffic Lights.

Highways England "offer no objection" (received 18/09/19).

Neighbours (expired 20/09/19): No comments received.

Site Notice (expired 03/10/19): No comments received

5. APPRAISAL

5.1 This application is being referred to Planning Committee as the proposal is contrary to Policy GB1 of the adopted Core Strategy.

5.2 The Key Issues are:

- Principle of Development - Very Special Circumstances - Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt - Impact on Neighbouring Properties - Space about Dwellings - Impact on Landscape Character - Highways/Parking - Parish Council Comments

5.3 Principle of Development

5.3.1 The site is located within the Green Belt where inappropriate development is restricted. Policy GB1 of the Core Strategy and Paragraph 145 of the NPPF regards the construction of new buildings as inappropriate development in the Green Belt, unless they fall within a list of exceptions including appropriate facilities for outdoor sport or recreation and purposes directly related to agriculture or forestry.

5.3.2 The proposed double garage does not fall within any of the acceptable criteria for new buildings given in Policy GB1 or Paragraph 145 of the NPPF.

5.3.3 The proposal therefore constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt, and in-line with the NPPF, very special circumstances will need to be demonstrated.

5.4 Very Special Circumstances

Page 117 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

5.4.1 Paragraph 144 of the NPPF states that Local Planning Authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. Very special circumstances will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm resulting from the proposal, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.

5.4.2 The property still holds full Permitted Development (PD) rights, and therefore the applicant could, in theory, erect a very similar detached garage in the same location without the need to gain planning permission from the Local Planning Authority. For example, a building with a similar footprint and dual-pitched roof not exceeding a maximum height of 4m (i.e 0.5m lower than the current proposal), would meet the dimensional requirements of householder PD rights for outbuildings. Furthermore, the proposed use of the building as a double garage would also in my view meet a "test of reasonableness" for an incidental domestic outbuilding. As such, it is considered that the hypothetical fall-back position of erecting a very similar outbuilding under PD rights would carry some weight in justifying the current proposal.

5.4.3 In addition, the application offers the opportunity to remove permitted development rights for further outbuildings within the curtilage, once this application has been implemented. This should carry significant weight in justifying the current proposal.

5.4.4 It is therefore considered that there are very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the potential harm on the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness.

5.5 Impact on the Openness of the Green Belt

5.5.1 The proposed double garage would exceed the height of a hypothetical PD outbuilding by just 0.5m, and the additional bulk and massing (volume) involved would not be considered prejudicial the openness of the Green Belt. Permitted Development rights for outbuilding can be removed by condition, in order to safeguard the future openness of the Green Belt.

5.6 Impact on Neighbouring Properties

5.6.1 Policy EQ9 states that new development "should take into account the amenity of any nearby residents.

5.6.2 The proposal would be separated more than 40m from the boundary of the nearest neighbouring property 'The Old Vicarage' situated on the opposite side of the A5 (to the south). Given the separation distances involved, the proposal raises no residential amenity concerns and is considered acceptable under Policy EQ9.

5.7 Space about Dwellings

5.7.1 The proposal does not infringe the Local Planning Authority's 'Space about Dwellings' standards.

Page 118 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

5.8 Impact on Landscape Character

5.8.1 Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy requires that new development "respect local character and distinctiveness, including that of the surrounding development and landscape […]. The Council's 2018 Design Guide has been adopted and amplifies the principles set out in Policy EQ11 of the Core Strategy.

5.8.2 The proposed garage would appear subservient to the host property and would be sited in close proximity to the dwelling to minimise any visual impact on the surrounding area. In this instance there would be no demonstrable harm on the character of the site or the wider landscape. The proposal is therefore considered acceptable under Local Plan Policy EQ11.

5.9 Highways/Parking

5.9.1 The proposal would provide two covered parking spaces within the site, which, in combination with a spacious driveway, would adequately satisfy Local Plan car parking standards. The proposal raises no highway-related concerns or objections from Highways England.

5.10 Parish Council Comments

5.10.1 The Parish Council's comments are noted, and the exit of the existing driveway onto the A5 highway (which would serve the proposed garage) is indeed located near existing traffic lights. However, to avoid any doubt, this application does not involve any proposed alterations to the existing site access or new site accesses off the A5. The A5 trunk road falls under Highways England’s jurisdiction, and they raise no objection to the proposal.

6. CONCLUSIONS

6.1 The proposal constitutes inappropriate development in the Green Belt however there are very special circumstances to clearly outweigh the potential harm on the Green Belt.

6.2 The proposal would cause no material harm to the amenity of neighbouring residential properties, would be sympathetic to the existing property and the surrounding area, and there are no car parking or highway related concerns. As such, I recommend the approval of this application.

7. RECOMMENDATION - APPROVE Subject to Conditions

Subject to the following condition(s):

1. The development to which this permission relates must be begun not later than the expiration of 3 years beginning with the date on which this permission is granted.

Page 119 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

2. The development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved drawings listed below:

1. RW6/0819 Detached Garage (received 16/08/19) 2. RW1/0318 Proposed Detached Double Garage Elevations (received 29/08/19) 3. OS MasterMap at 1:500 (received 29/08/19)

3. The materials to be used on the walls and roof of the garage shall match those of the existing dwelling unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority.

4. This permission does not grant or imply consent for the two-storey house extension indicated in the application plans (and as outlined in RED on the attached plans), which is excluded from this permission.

5. Notwithstanding the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 2015, or any other subsequent equivalent order, no development within Schedule 2, Part 1, Class E - garden buildings, enclosures, pool, oil or gas storage container, shall be erected within the residential curtilage of the dwelling, the subject of this approval, without the prior approval of the Local Planning Authority.

Reasons

1. The reason for the imposition of these time limits is to comply with the requirements of Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. In order to define the permission and to avoid doubt.

3. To safeguard the amenity of the area in accordance with policy EQ11 of the adopted Core Strategy.

4. The two-storey house extension indicated in the application was the subject of approved planning application 19/00242/FUL.

5. The site is within the Green Belt within which, in accordance with the planning policies in the adopted Core Strategy, there is a presumption against inappropriate development.

Development Low Risk Area Standing Advice - The proposed development lies within a coal mining area which may contain unrecorded coal mining

Page 120 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019 related hazards. If any coal mining feature is encountered during development, this should be reported immediately to the Coal Authority on 0345 762 6848.

Further information is also available on the Coal Authority website at: www.gov.uk/government/organisations/the-coal-authority

Page 121 of 128 Gareth Dwight: Planning Assistant - Planning Committee 15th October 2019

Pool House Watling Street Gailey STAFFORD ST19 5PR

Page 122 of 128 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 15 OCTOBER 2019

LAND NORTH AND WEST SIDE, STAFFORD ROAD PENKRIDGE - APPLICATION NO 19/00017/OUT

REPORT OF THE CORPORATE DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT 1.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

1.1 The Planning Committee is asked to approve an extension of time for the completion of a Section 106 Agreement and a Unilateral Undertaking to allow planning application 19/00017/OUT to be approved.

2. RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 That the Resolution of the Planning Committee of 16 July 2019 for application 19/00017/OUT be amended so that the date for completion of the Section Agreement and Unilateral Undertaking is altered to 19 November 2019.

3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives?

No POLICY/COMMUNITY IMPACT Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed?

No Not applicable

SCRUTINY POWERS APPLICABLE Not applicable KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ DELIVERY DATE 19/11/2019

No financial implications on this Council. FINANCIAL IMPACT No

Completion of a section 106 Agreement under Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) and a Unilateral LEGAL ISSUES Yes Undertaking in accordance with the requirements of the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017.

All matters relative to risk have been considered and no risks to the OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & No Council arise from the recommendations in this report. OPPORTUNITIES

IMPACT ON SPECIFIC No WARDS Page 123 of 128

PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4. INFORMATION

4.1 The planning application 19/00017/OUT relates to the development at land north west side of Stafford Road, Penkridge. This was subject of a report brought to the 16 July 2019 meeting of the Planning Committee. The resolution of the Committee was that that the application be approved subject to the completion of a satisfactory Section 106 Agreement and a Unilateral Undertaking by 15 October 2019. If the Agreements are not completed by that date the resolution is for the application to be referred back to the Planning Committee.

4.2 The Unilateral Undertaking has been agreed and finalised with the landowner and ready for completion. The Section 106 Agreement contains obligations relating to the provision of affordable housing and the payment of an education contribution. As such, Staffordshire County Council is a party to the Agreement as the Education Authority and the Agreement will need to be agreed with the County Council before it can be finalised. As both Agreements will need to be completed at the same time the applicant has requested an extension of time to allow the Section 106 to be agreed and finalised.

4.3 It is suggested that we extend the period for completion of the Agreement to the date of the 19 November 2019 to allow the Section 106 Agreement to be agreed, finalised and signed by the parties.

4.4 An email has been received from the applicant agreeing to an extension of time until the 19 November 2019 to allow for the Agreements to be finalised and completed by the Council. Therefore, by granting this request it would not impact upon the Council’s performance.

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

5.1 Not applicable.

6. PREVIOUS MINUTES

6.1 Meeting of 16 July 2019.

7. BACKGROUND PAPERS

7.1 19/00017/OUT– application details, comments received, officer report and recommendation.

Report prepared by: David Pattison, Corporate Director Governance.

Page 124 of 128 SOUTH STAFFORDSHIRE COUNCIL

PLANNING COMMITTEE – 15 OCTOBER 2019

MONTHLY UPDATE REPORT

REPORT OF CORPORATE DIRECTOR GOVERNANCE

PART A – SUMMARY REPORT

1. SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

1.1 Following the recent changes to the Planning Committee, a monthly update report will be brought to Committee to ensure that the Committee is kept informed on key matters including:

 Proposed training  Any changes that impact on National Policy  Any recent Planning Appeal Decisions  Relevant Planning Enforcement cases on a quarterly basis  The latest data produced by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government

2. RECOMMENDATION

2.1 That the Committee note the update report.

3. SUMMARY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Do these proposals contribute to specific Council Plan objectives? Yes POLICY/COMMUNITY IMPACT Has an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) been completed? No SCRUTINY POWERS No – for information report for Planning Committee APPLICABLE KEY DECISION No TARGET COMPLETION/ 15 October 2019 DELIVERY DATE There are no direct financial implications arising this report. FINANCIAL IMPACT No

Any legal issues are covered in the report. LEGAL ISSUES No

OTHER IMPACTS, RISKS & No other significant impacts, risks or opportunities have been No OPPORTUNITIES identified. IMPACT ON SPECIFIC WARDS No District-wide application.

PART B – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

4. INFORMATION

Page 125 of 128 4.1 Update – As members will be aware, changes were approved at the 26 Match 2019 meeting of the Council to reduce the size of the Planning Committee from 49 potential members to 21 members. As part of these changes an update report will now be brought to each meeting of the Committee. The update report will cover:

4.2 Proposed Training – An initial planning training session took place on 28 May 2019, 32 members attended of which 17 were members of the Planning Committee. An additional session will be run in July 2019. This session was intended as an introduction to Planning for Committee members. The intention has been that with a reduced size of Committee additional training will be provided throughout the year, namely before each Planning Committee (starting at 5:30pm). The sessions may well change depending on what issues are on the agenda. The proposed sessions are currently:

 Making Good decisions – June – David Pattison - completed  5 Year Housing Land Supply – July –completed  Outline/reserved matters - August - what is included in each – completed  Listed Buildings – September - completed  Highways – October – on the agenda  November – no training as other meeting already taking place  Viability and Affordable Housing –December  Section 106 Agreements – January  Gypsy and Travellers Policy – February  Tree matters – March  Environmental Health matters (including drainage and air quality) – April  Cannock Chase SAC - May  Design – June

As members will note the sessions have slightly changed as a result of highways moving to October and a pre-existing meeting for a number of members before the November Committee.

Please note that from now on the training will take place in the members’ area in the ceremonial suite and not in the Chamber itself. Following on from feedback from the last session we will be ensuring that microphones are used in the ceremonial suite.

4.3 Changes in National Policy – there are no substantive changes in Government Policy that will impact on any decisions of the Committee.

4.4. Planning Appeal Decisions – every Planning Appeal decision will now be brought to the Committee for the Committee to consider. There have been no appeal decisions since the last Committee.

4.5 The key decision that we are still awaiting is that concerning the 2 Crematoria applied for some time ago, we have chased the Ministry again and the decision is still awaited. It was due by 12 September 2019. We are still awaiting this.

4.6 Relevant Planning Enforcement cases on a quarterly basis – Planning enforcement matters concerning individual cases falls within the remit of the Planning Committee. Now that there is a smaller Committee we will be bringing a quarterly update to the Committee on ongoing enforcement matters. Information on the status against the set enforcement targets is currently not available due to a system issue, which we are working on with our suppliers – the suppliers are coming in to resolve the issue shortly and full figures will then be distributed to members and the update report will come to Committee. The update report will therefore be brought to the November Committee.

Page 126 of 128 4.8 The latest data produced by the Ministry of Housing Communities and Local Government – As members will recall MHCLG sets designation targets that must be met regarding both quality and speed of planning decisions. The targets are broken into Major and Non major development. If the targets are not met then unless exceptional circumstances apply MHCLG will “designate” the relevant authority and developers have the option to avoid applying to the relevant designated Local Planning Authority and apply direct, and pay the fees, to the Planning Inspectorate. Details can be seen at https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/ 760040/Improving_planning_performance.pdf

4.8 We will ensure that the Committee is kept informed of performance against the relevant targets including through the MHCLG’s own data. For Speed – the 2019 target for major developments is that 60% of decisions must be made within the relevant time frame (or with an agreed extension of time) and for non-major it is 70%. For Quality – for 2019 the threshold is 10% for both major and non-major decisions. Current performance is well within these targets and the position as set out on MHCLG’s website will be shown to the Committee at the meeting – the information can be seen on the following link (tables – 151a (speed- major) – 152a (quality major), 153 (speed – non major) and 154 (quality non major). The link is here – https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live- tables-on-planning-application-statistics

5. IMPACT ASSESSMENT – ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

N/A

6. PREVIOUS MINUTES

N/A

7. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Report prepared by: David Pattison, Corporate Director Governance

Page 127 of 128

Page 128 of 128