Agenda Item No: 5
Wolverhampton City Council OPEN DECISION ITEM
Committee / Panel PLANNING COMMITTEE Date
Originating Service Group(s) REGENERATION AND TRANSPORTATION
Contact Officer(s)/ ANDREW JOHNSON (Head of Development Control)
Telephone Number(s) (01902) 555610
Title/Subject Matter PLANNING APPLICATIONS
Recommendation
That Members determine the submitted applications according to the recommendation made in respect of each one.
PLANNING COMMITTEE (27-JUL-2004) INDEX
REFERENCE SITE ADDRESS PAGE NO
Blakenhall 04/0779/FP/R 7 Neville Avenue, 3
Ettingshall 04/0851/FP/R Land at corner of Raby Street, 7
04/0889/FP/C Legg Brothers Industrial Park, Spring 11 Road,
Fallings Park 04/0760/FP/R 28 Blackwood Avenue, 15
Graiseley 04/0814/FP/M Quality Hotel Penn Road, 18
Park 04/0139/FP/C Meadow View Wharf, Tettenhall Road, 28
04/0505/DW/ St Jude's C of E Primary School Paget 32 M Road
04/0557/FP/C Eversleigh Nursing Home, 52-62 Albert 38 Road
04/0678/FP/M Castlecroft Garage Finchfield Hill, 43
04/1004/FP/R 90 Richmond Road, 56
Penn 04/0522/FP/R 44a Wynchcombe Avenue, 61
04/0818/FP/R 57 Brenton Road, 66
St Peters 04/0859/FP/R Hampton Walk 20 - 21 Queen Square, 69 & 04/0862/LB/R
Tettenhall Wightwick 04/0877/FP/R 7 Viewlands Drive, 74
Wednesfield South 04/0778/GM/C Star Chem Ltd. Strawberry Lane 79
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0779/FP/R WARD: Blakenhall; DATE 25-MAY-2004 TARGET DATE: 20-JUL-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 7 Neville Avenue, Goldthorn Park PROPOSAL: Single storey rear extension, single storey front extension and first floor side extension
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr JS & Mrs M Bathal AEC 7 Neville Avenue North Farm Goldthorn Park Prestwood Road Wolverhampton Wednesfield WV4 5DW Wolverhampton WV11 1RB
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The property concerned is a semi-detached property, set within a street scene of similar properties on a predominantly residential estate.
2. Planning History
2.2 No previous planning history.
3. Application Details
3.1 The applicants wish to extend the property at ground floor to the front providing garage and porch, a single storey extension to the rear providing utility and dining area, and a two-storey element to the side providing one further bedroom, bathroom and landing.
3.2 The porch and garage extension protrude forward of the existing property by 1.3m. The porch is 3.4m wide and the garage is 2.65m wide, replacing the existing garage.
3.3 The single storey dining room extension to the rear projects out on the common boundary by 1.9m then splays away from the boundary to a projection of 3.3m. The dining room extension continues along the whole width of the existing property. The single storey extension then reduces in projection to 1.7m, this is the utility area, and continues along the width of the garage to the side.
3.4 The two-storey element is positioned to the side above the utility/garage. This element remains flush with the existing front and rear elevation, the projection to the side is 2.65m.
Page 3 4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV 2 “Design Standards. Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 3 “Residential Development” (SPG3) Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 “ Extensions to Houses” (SPG4)
5. Publicity
5.5 Neighbour letters sent out and expire on 23 June 2004 one letter of objection received, requesting to speak at committee as follows:
Mr A M Briscoe – 9 Neville Avenue – Possible damage to services, which are joint and long term disruption. Requests no disturbance to retaining wall between the two properties. Loss of light to two side windows, landing and bathroom, and to side access. Does not want scaffolding to be positioned his property. Possible overhang of guttering.
6. Appraisal
6.1 The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property and those in the surrounding area. However, due to the layout of the properties, with a natural step in the street scene, the two storey element to the side should be set back from the front elevation by at least 1m to retain this characteristic.
6.2 The property has ample amenity space to the front and rear, and adequate drive length to the front.
6.3 There are two neighbours affected by this proposal as follows:
No. 9 Neville Avenue – this property is positioned approximately 2m away from the proposal at ground floor and 4.4m away at first floor. The neighbours have a garage and access to side, which is located alongside the two-storey proposal. The neighbouring property is set on a higher level, approximately 1/2m difference. This property has two large obscure glazed windows to the side elevation overlooking the application site, landing and bathroom. Along the boundary to the rear are fencing, trees and shrubbery providing sufficient screening. There is no visual impact, no loss of privacy, and no loss of light to habitable rooms.
No. 5 Neville Avenue – This property is the neighbouring semi and will be affected by the single storey element only to the rear. This neighbouring property has also extended a single storey to the rear. The extension is set away from the boundary, approximately 3.5m. The proposal will result in a tunnelling affect to the neighbouring living room window. However, the proposal only protrudes out by 1.9m on the common boundary then splays away, reducing the impact on this window, there is also screening via fencing, therefore, the impact will be minimal and not warrant refusal on this basis.
Page 4 7. Conclusion
7.1 Request amendments to set the two-storey element back from the front elevation by at least 1m, to maintain the setting in the street scene.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Request Delegated authority to the Chief Planning and Highways Officer to grant permission providing that satisfactory amended plans are received. If not forthcoming refuse, adverse effect on street scene contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV2 “Design Standards” and Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 “Extensions to Houses”.
Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 555641 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 5
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0851/FP/R WARD: Ettingshall; DATE 09-JUN-2004 TARGET DATE: 04-AUG-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Land at corner of Raby Street, All Saints PROPOSAL: Erection of 6 No. Flats.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Poplars Medical Practice Ltd MFL Design 148 Rosemary Crescent West 5 Glynn Crescent Goldthorn Park Halesowen Wolverhampton West Midlands WV4 5AN B63 2PZ
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site is a vacant plot of land at the end of a terrace of Victorian houses on Raby Street, at its junction (now closed off) with All Saints Road. It is presently an unkempt area of rough grass used as a pedestrian short-cut from Raby Street to All Saints Road. Its northern boundary is adjoined by the end of terrace house in Raby Street and its rear garden. Opposite in All Saints Road it faces another row of Victorian terraced houses. The site formerly contained four Victorian terraced houses, but has long been vacant.
2. Planning History
2.1 An earlier application (reference 03/1278) for six flats was withdrawn before determination.
3. Constraints
3.1 There are no significant planning constraints on the site.
4. Application Details
4.1 The application seeks full planning consent for a two storey block attached to the end of the terrace on Raby Street, designed as an extension to that terrace and partly returning with an elevation also onto All Saints Road.
4.2 Six one-bed flats are shown. Parking for six cars is shown enclosed by a brick wall and accessed off All Saints Road. A common rear garden area of 186m2 is also shown to the rear.
Page 7 4.3 The design in its original form was not entirely satisfactory but has now been satisfactorily amended to blend well with the Victorian terrace in form and detail.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 The following UDP Policies apply: -
ENV2 – Design H18 – Housing Planning Considerations SPG No 3 ‘ Residential Development’ would also apply.
6. Publicity
6.1 The application has been advertised by means of letters to adjoining neighbours.
6.2 A 120 name petition has been received opposing the application on the grounds that “We do not believe that the site proposed is suitable for a one off development of flats. The need for such housing in the area has not been adequately established and in any case, we believe that the development of flats at that particular location, would have a negative effect”
7. Consultees
7.1 Neighbourhood Renewal “The proposal is within the Neighbourhood Renewal Assessment area, as reported to the Regeneration and Transportation Cabinet Team in March 2004. The best course of action for the area was determined as ‘phased redevelopment’ thus the adjoining houses may have a relatively short life (up to ten years). This will depend on the development of a Master Plan/Action Plan for the All Saints area and identification of resources”.
7.2 Transportation Concerns re: visibility splays and parking arrangment (now being addressed).
8. Appraisal
8.1 The site is an unfortunate gap within the existing built up fabric which is very much an eyesore in the street scene. Its development in an appropriate way would help sew-back a patch in the urban fabric and so improve the street scene.
8.2 The area is predominantly residential and so a residential use would seem appropriate. Various alternative schemes for some form of residential development have been under discussion with the owner on an informal basis now for some considerable time. The planning application scheme submitted and withdrawn earlier this year was considered inappropriate and since then discussions have continued to arrive at this scheme which is now considered acceptable.
Page 8 8.3 It shows a continuation of the Victorian terrace in Raby Street matching it in form and detail and is designed to effectively turn the corner with frontage onto All Saints Road also. An adequate rear garden area and off-street car parking is also now shown.
8.4 The location and design of the bin store and the lack of a disabled parking space and the visibility splays are aspects of the scheme which need final plans and these are awaited at the time of writing. These should be available by the time of Committee.
8.5 The scheme will provide a valuable form of smaller units of accommodation and so meet a particular need in the housing market. Residents’ objections simply on the ground that the scheme is to provide for flats, could not form a valid reason for refusing planning permission. Developing the site would also accord with the Government aim of making more efficient use of land within urban area for housing as expressed in SPG3
9. Recommendation
9.1 That consent be granted subject to standard conditions including:
- landscaping - materials - parking provision - repositioning of bin store - provision of disabled parking space - implementation of boundary treatments.
Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 555623 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 9
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0889/FP/C WARD: Ettingshall; DATE 16-JUN-2004 TARGET DATE: 11-AUG-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Legg Brothers Industrial Park, Spring Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Telecommunication development comprising retention of temporary 15m high mompole mast, with 3 antennas, 1 dish and associated equipment cabin for a 12 month period
APPLICANT: AGENT: Airwave MMO2 Ltd Stappard Howes Wellington Street Unit 4A Soverign Court Two Slough Uni. of Warwick Sciance Park Brekshire Sir William Lyons Road Coventry CV4 9EZ
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The mast is set back 45 metres from Spring Road and is located on a vacant piece of land next to a 3/4 storey industrial building against a backdrop of a further industrial building. The nearest residential property, No. 31 Manor Road, is 120 metres away, separated by a 3 & 4 storey industrial building and the main Wolverhampton-Birmingham railway line and embankment.
1.2 The mast was first erected under the emergency work procedure (as stated in Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984 and PPG8 – Telecommunications). This allows the mast and associated equipment to be in place for a period not exceeding six months. Any longer than 6 months and a planning application is required.
1.3 In this case the operator has yet to complete the permanent solution at Sedgley Beacon and have requested, in the form of this application, a 12 months temporary planning permission for this installation until the Sedgley Beacon site is operational.
2. Planning History
2.1 01/1414/FP – 20 metres high monopole, 6 No. antenna and associated works – Granted 13.9.01.
2.2 The above application is located 70 metres north of the current application site separated by a 3/4 storey industrial building.
Page 11 3. Application Details
3.1 The agents have stated ‘the new national radio communications service for the police, known as the Airwave service, was introduced for West Midlands Police into the Wolverhampton area in 2003.. We are acting as agents for Airwave mmO2 Ltd in your planning area in connection with obtaining planning permission for sites where we can locate the transmitters for the service.
3.2 The Airwave service is a modern, dedicated, fully integrated, state-of- the-art, national, digital, mobile radio communications service designed to serve the needs of the police and other public safety organisations. It has been commissioned by the Home Office for all police forces in England, Wales and Scotland, and will enable police forces to communicate with each other, which is not possible with the current systems in use. It can be used both in-car and on the beat, and offers a large number of significant benefits to its users.
3.3 The temporary installation at Legg Brothers will provide the Airwave radio service to the West Midlands Constabulary, providing coverage to Ettingshall, Parkfield and the surrounding area until WM1 018 (Sedgley Beacon) has been commissioned.
5 Alternative Sites Analysis 3.4 Before selecting the application site, an extensive search for potential sites was conducted and informal discussions were held with planning officers to seek their advice on the various options. The feasibility of each potential sites was then assessed according to the following criteria: -
− operational effectiveness − build feasibility − site provider interest − other planning considerations including community impact and
3.5 It is a result of this assessment that the site being applied for has been selected. Taking all relevant factors into account we believe that the site being applied for is the most favourable option.
3.6 Consent under the Telecommunications Act 1984 as previously submitted in December 2003 is due to expire without a permanent solution being procured and constructed. This we hope to achieve within a six to twelve month period and would therefore seek temporary consent for a further twelve months. After this period the installation will be removed and the land restored to as it was prior to the installation.
3.7 The height of the antennas is required to deliver the force’s necessary minimum coverage requirement. As a result of this the proposed installation is expected to have minimal visual affect on the locality, when seen in conjunction with the existing industrial buildings, railway line and existing foliage along Spring Road and Manor Road.’
Page 12 4. Relevant Policies
4.1 ENV2 – Design Standards Interim Telecommunications Policy.
5. Publicity
5.1 Public consultation time expires 13 July 2004. No objections received at time of writing.
6. Consultees
6.1 No adverse comments received.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The Interim Telecommunications Policy explains that in less sensitive locations such as commercial and industrial areas (excluding locations close to a boundary with a more sensitive location) then subject to satisfactory screening and no adverse effect on the backdrop of other buildings or the skyline, a telecommunications mast may be acceptable. The policy also states that ‘Ground based masts are appropriate only in industrial areas or locations away from dwellings and their gardens, schools and health facilities’.
7.2 The proposed mast is already in place, has a total height of 17.6 metres (including antennas), is located in a predominantly industrial area and the mast is set back 45 metres from Spring Road. The mast is monopole in design and when viewed from Spring Road is sited in between and against a backdrop of 3-4 storey high industrial and storage units. It is considered that due to the industrial backdrop the setting of telecommunications equipment in this particular location does not look out of place and there are no adverse affects on visual amenity, neighbours amenity or the street scene.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Grant temporary planning permission until 31 July 2005.
Case Officer : Nicholas Howell Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 13
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0760/FP/R WARD: Fallings Park; DATE 21-MAY-2004 TARGET DATE: 16-JUL-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 28 Blackwood Avenue, Wednesfield PROPOSAL: Ground floor rear extension
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mrs P Fullwood Thorne Architecture Ltd 28 Blackwood Avenue The Creative Industries Centre Wednesfield Wolverhampton Science Park Wolverhampton Glaisher Drive Wolverhampton WV10 9TG
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The property is a semi-detached house with a 17m long x 7.5m wide rear garden.
1.2 The proposal is for a single storey rear extension 5.9m long close to the boundary with No 30 Blackwood Avenue, 4.3m long close to the boundary with No 26 Blackwood Avenue and 7.35m wide. The extension comprises a rear lounge, bathroom and utility area.
2. Relevant Planning Policies, SPG's (& PPG's)
2.1 ENV2 – Design Standards SPG4 – Extensions to Houses.
3. Publicity
3.1 Public consultation time expired 23.6.04. no objections received.
4. Consultations
4.1 No adverse comments received.
5. Appraisal
5.1 Although the ground floor extension is 4.3m long close to the boundary with No 26 (other half of the semi) and 5.9m long close to the boundary with No 30, the proposed extension is set in 0.15m from either boundary enabling the 1.8m high boundary fencing to remain and reducing the impact on neighbouring properties.
Page 15 5.2 The application is contrary to Unitary Development Plan Policy ENV2 – Design Standards and the guidelines set out in SPG4 – Extensions to Houses. However the extension is to be occupied by the applicant who is a person with disabilities and has a degenerating spinal condition. In time the existing lounge will be converted to a bedroom and the extension used as the living area. The applicant has lived in the property for 31 years and does not wish to move out of the local community where friends and relatives live.
5.3 It is considered that the proposed rear extension, in this case, will not prejudice the amenities the occupiers of neighbouring properties can reasonably expect to continue to enjoy. Therefore in these special circumstances an exception to normal policy is recommended.
6. Recommendation
6.1 Grant permission – matching materials.
Case Officer : Nicholas Howell Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 16
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27 JULY-2004
APP NO: 04/0814/FP/M WARD: Graiseley; DATE 03-JUN-2004 TARGET DATE: 02-SEP-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Quality Hotel, Penn Road, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Erection of a three storey building containing 39 additional hotel bedrooms, extension to existing car parking area with associated landscaping and amendments to existing hotels internal layout
APPLICANT: AGENT: Choice Hotels Europe Plc William Leaver Architects Premier House Copperas Cottages 112 - 114 Station Road Copperas Lane Edgeware Haigh Middlesex Wigan HA8 7BJ WN2 1PA
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of the former Goldthorn Hotel. The site contains a substantial three storey block consisting of the original hotel plus extensions which include mansard roofs. To the south is an open area of hard standing used as the main car park for the development. To the south west of the main block and fronting onto Lonsdale Road is the two storey building known as the Business Centre. A further building identified as 42 Oaklands Road (known as the Lodge) is also part of the hotel complex.
1.2 The area to the south of the main hotel block and the central area of the site is predominantly hard surfaced and used as car parking. The site currently provides 125 car parking spaces to cater for a hotel of 92 bedrooms. An area of soft landscaping, including trees and hedges, which was formerly the end portion of the rear gardens of Nos. 40 and 40a Oaklands Road, is included in the hotel complex.
1.3 The site has an existing access onto Penn Road with further accesses onto Lonsdale Road and Oaklands Road. The access to Lonsdale Road is gated and is used by the refuse collection vehicle.
1.4 Surrounding development in both Lonsdale Road and Oaklands Road consists of predominantly two storey houses. Development on the opposite side of Penn Road consists predominantly of two storey buildings in various uses including residential.
Page 18 1.5 The application site contains some substantial trees particularly on the borders of the residential properties fronting Lonsdale Road and Oaklands Road. Further trees are located within the site on the Lonsdale Road frontage, one of which (Copper Beech) is protected by a Preservation Order. A street tree (Lime) is located close to the existing access into Oaklands Road.
2. Planning History
2.1 Outline planning permission was granted in 1987 for the demolition of numbers 128-134 Penn Road and erection of an extension of the existing hotel (C/1811/87). The houses were demolished but the extension was not started.
2.2 A further application (reference C/3172/88) was granted permission for an extension to the hotel. The site comprises the same site as that suggested for the current application. The extension provided for 44 additional bedrooms along with a basement car park. The new building was three storeys. This planning permission was not implemented.
2.3 Planning permission was granted for a function room extension and extension of car park into the area of garden land formerly associated with numbers 40 and 40a Oaklands Road in 1998 (98/0320/FP). The car park layout involved 5 metres of land being given back to the occupiers of numbers 40 and 40a Oaklands Road to be used as an extension to their gardens.
2.4 A planning application to develop the site with a 3 storey building consisting of 42 additional hotel bedrooms was submitted in March 2004 (ref 04/0358/FP/M). This application was withdrawn prior to determination.
3. Constraints
3.1 An authorised process is within 250 metres and a confirmed Tree Preservation Order is on the site which protects a Copper Beech tree on the Lonsdale Road frontage.
4. Application Details
4.1 This application represents a resubmission of the proposal identified at 2.4 above. The application still proposes a three storey building on the Penn Road frontage, on the site of part of the existing hotel car park, but the number of bedrooms has been reduced to 39. The new building would consist of a Choice Hotels “Sleep Inn”. The building would provide bedrooms and en-suite bathrooms plus a separate reception area. However all other facilities such as restaurant, lounge and bar will be provided in the existing hotel. Similarly functions such as laundry collection, waste collection and general management would also be provided in association with the existing hotel.
Page 19 4.2 Parking on the site would be re-organised with 103 spaces being provided in total (a reduction from the existing 125 spaces). Areas are identified for parking for disabled people, deliveries and taxi drop off. An additional area of landscaping is now proposed between the new building and Lonsdale Road. The proposal continues to involve the extension of the car park into the area of former garden land which at one time was associated with 40 and 40a Oaklands Road. The parking layout of this area is the same as that granted planning permission under reference 98/320/FP. The proposal includes returning an area of garden to the adjoining houses. Consequently as with the earlier permission, numbers 40 and 40a Oaklands Road would gain a further 5 metres of garden as a result of the proposal.
4.3 The proposal also involves the reduction in number of bedrooms in the main hotel from 66 to 58. Similarly two bedrooms would be lost from the Lodge. The reduction in bedrooms would be achieved by converting individual bedrooms into larger family rooms. As a result whilst the new extension would provide 39 bedrooms, the actual number of additional bedrooms on the site over the existing situation would be 29 bedrooms.
4.4 The proposed new building shows a higher pitched roof feature on the Penn Road/Lonsdale Road junction to provide emphasis on the corner. The corner element projects slightly forward of the main façade and would be rendered in contrast to the main block. The majority of the block would be three storey with pitched roof. Two projecting full height features are proposed on the Penn Road and Lonsdale Road frontages to break up the mass of the building. These features would be predominantly rendered. The predominant materials on the majority of the building would be red/brown brick with contrast bands.
4.5 The proposal does involve the removal of a street tree (Lime) which is located in close proximity to the existing entrance off Oaklands Road.
5. Relevant Policies and Guidance
5.1 The site is not specifically identified for development in the adopted UDP.
5.2 Policy E13 – Tourism states the Council will encourage the development of the tourist potential of the Borough. In considering specific proposals the level of benefit to the local economy and the provision of employment opportunities would be taken into account. In addition the impact of the proposal on the existing built and natural environment and on the amenity of local residents would be considered.
5.3 Other policies of relevance include:
• ENV1 – Development Principles. • E14 – Planning Benefits. • E15 – Planning Standards. • ENV2 – Design Standards. • ENV13 – The Urban Forest and the Protection of Trees. • TP5 – Access and New Development. • TP13 – Measures for Pedestrians and Cyclists. • TP14 – Planning Standards – Car Parking.
Page 20
5.4 The Revised Deposit UDP includes a policy relating to proposals for hotel and conference facilities. Such facilities are stated as being supported within or adjacent to identified centres. In other locations proposals for hotel development will only be permitted where the form, scale and design of the development is appropriate to the site and location and satisfies the requirements of Policy SH2.
5.5 Policy SH2 of the emerging UDP identifies hotels as being centre uses for the purpose of applying the sequential approach.
5.6 The policies contained in the Design Chapter of the emerging UDP are also of relevance. Policy D9 states buildings should make a positive contribution to the locality through the use of appropriate form and good quality detailing. The way in which details of the building are designed and articulated will affect the visual interest of the proposal.
5.7 Other policies of relevance include SPG2 - Access for People with Disabilities and SPG16 - Public Art.
5.8 Government guidance in PPG6 and subsequent ministerial clarifications has shown that hotels are uses which ought to be located in existing centres. As a result the proposal ought to be able to demonstrate a need for the proposal, that a sequential approach to site selection has been followed and that the proposal will not have any adverse impact on existing centres.
5.9 Also relevant is Government Guidance in PPG1 and “By Design” (DETR/CABE 2000).
6. Publicity
6.1 Site and press notice. Neighbours surrounding the site consulted directly by letter. Period for response expired 6 July 2004. Four responses have been received from local residents objecting to the proposal on the following grounds:
• Problems with additional traffic. • Noise disturbance. • This development is wrong for this site and ought to be located at a Motorway Service Area. • Impact on outlook. • Increased overlooking resulting in loss of privacy. • Height should be limited to that of a normal house. • Need for adequate boundary treatment to neighbouring housing. • Conditions should be imposed relating to a specific date to handover new garden land and erection of boundary treatment. • Controls should be introduced with regard to lighting and CCTV. • Problems have occurred due to overhanging trees. • Concerns with regard to over development.
Page 21 7. Consultations
7.1 Environmental Services – A substantial wall or fence should reduce any risk of complaints from adjoining neighbours to the new area of car parking.
7.2 Transportation – Previously parking occupancy levels were assessed based on observations of officers and survey work. Based on the maximum recorded occupancy of the car park from the Hotel’s own survey, the maximum number of cars recorded on site was 59. This relates to an existing car generation of 64% (59 cars against the existing 92 bedrooms). A 64% occupancy of the bedrooms remaining on site would require 52 spaces. Adding one space per additional bedroom (39) gives a total demand for 91 spaces. The application drawings indicate 97 spaces (103 including disabled spaces) of which 4 are considered non useable. This gives a total of 93 spaces.
• Concerns are raised over the dimensions shown for the existing car park layout, especially 2 existing disabled spaces adjacent to the building, spaces in a row adjacent to the Business Centre, spaces adjacent to the bin store and aisle widths in the site. Whilst the car park may currently operate successfully with substandard dimensions due to low occupancy, it is critical that all parts of the car park can function with the proposed increase in utilisation.
• The layout does not allow for staff or coach parking. However should the proposal provide a minimum of 91 spaces it is considered to fulfil the requirements based on the survey information provided and outlined above. Whilst additional provision of parking would be welcomed, it is not considered that a refusal on highway grounds would be justified in light of the evidence provided. Should the number of operational parking spaces fall below 91 concerns would be raised about the adequacy of the layout to accommodate parking demand.
• Cycle parking, disabled parking and delivery areas are shown. The street tree on Oaklands Road would still require removal and a one way system for vehicles should be created and signed.
7.3 Lifelong Learning (Leisure) – the Lime tree adjacent to the Oaklands Road access has been inspected and is in a good condition with no sign of structural weakness or decay.
7.4 Access Officer – one disabled person’s parking bay should be provided as close to reception as possible. The entrance off the car park should also be accessible.
7.5 Severn Trent – No objection subject to a condition to control drainage.
8. Need for Environmental Impact Assessment
8.1 The Screening Opinion given by Officers under delegated authority is that the environmental consequences will not be so significant to require Environmental Assessment.
Page 22
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key considerations in this case are:
• PPG6 and the sequential test. • Design and appearance of the building. • Impact on protected tree. • Adequacy of car parking and servicing. • Impact on nearby residential properties.
PPG6 and the Sequential Test 9.2 Guidance in PPG6 and subsequent Ministerial clarifications has confirmed that hotels should be ‘centre’ uses. As a result proposals should be subject to the requirements to demonstrate a need for the proposal, follow the sequential approach to site selection and consider impact on investment in existing centres.
9.3 However, in this case it is considered that there are strong links with the existing hotel which weigh in favour of a further extension at the site. Also there is a substantial gap in the street scene at present which is only likely to be filled (without the wholesale redevelopment of the site for some other purpose) by an extension to the existing hotel. The proposed addition would be run in conjunction with the existing hotel. Many amenities such as meals would be provided by the existing development. Services such as laundry collection, refuse collection and general management would be wholly in conjunction with the existing hotel. There would appear to be substantial physical and functional links between the proposed and existing hotel.
9.4 In view of the close relationship with the existing hotel operation and the benefit that could result with the existing gap in the street scene being filled by an appropriate high quality building, it is considered that the proposed extension can be justified as an exception to national policy and the emerging strategy in the revised UDP.
Siting, Height and Appearance 9.5 The height of the building would slightly exceed that of the existing hotel and be higher than the nearest residential property located on the opposite side of Lonsdale Road. However, in view of the location of the proposed extension on the Penn Road frontage (which is a dual carriageway at this point) the general siting and height of the development is considered acceptable in principle.
Page 23 9.6 The visual appearance of the proposed building has been enhanced since the previous submission. Full height projecting bays are proposed on the Penn Road and Lonsdale Road elevations to break up the mass of the building. The corner of the building on Lonsdale Road and Penn Road has been emphasised through use of a high roof feature. Cast stone surrounds are proposed around feature windows. The projecting corner and gable features would be picked out in a different materials (render). Overall the visual appearance of the building has been improved. However the proposal still appears to be rather bland and uninteresting so negotiations are continuing to seek further improvements to the visual appearance of the proposed new building.
Impact on Protected Tree and Other Trees 9.7 A Copper Beech tree protected by a Tree Preservation Order is located between the proposed new building and Lonsdale Road. The tree has been reduced in size in accordance with a consent given by the Council. The position of the proposed building has been revised so that it is well beyond the spread of the Copper Beech. An area of hardstanding adjacent to the tree would be removed and soft landscaping introduced. This is likely to be beneficial for the tree compared with the existing situation. The car parking layout has also been revised to retain a group of Ash trees in the centre of the site. Whilst not suitable for a TPO the trees do have amenity value and they should be preserved. The revised layout will allow for the retention of the trees.
9.8 An existing tree within the existing access way from Oaklands Road is proposed to be removed to allow improved visibility. The tree has been pruned heavily in the past. However the applicants have indicated that they are willing to provide a replacement street tree and there appears to be a site on the opposite side of Oaklands Road which could be used. On this basis it is considered that the improvements to visibility for vehicles leaving the site, in combination with a replacement tree being provided, comprise sufficient justification to remove the street tree.
Alterations to Car Park 9.9 A further additional parking area is proposed in an existing area of soft landscaping, the majority of which was formerly garden land associated with 40 and 40a Oaklands Road. This area of land was also identified for use as an area of parking in a planning permission granted in 1998. The parking layout suggested in the current proposal is the same as that approved under reference 98/0320/FP. The proposed arrangement gifts 5 metres of garden back to Nos. 40 and 40a Oaklands Road allowing for substantially larger gardens for these existing dwellings. This is considered to be of benefit for occupiers of the two adjacent houses.
Adequacy of Car Parking and Servicing 9.10. There is potentially a relationship between the operation of the existing and proposed hotel elements which has benefits in terms of parking. The peak demand for parking for the existing hotel is likely to be at weekends when functions are held. The peak demand for the proposed extension, which is focused towards business occupiers, is potentially weekdays.
Page 24 9.11 The applicant has been asked to provide further information relating to the parking layout to ensure all spaces are functional and an appropriate level of parking for the site and extension is provided. An oral update will be given at Committee.
9.12 Servicing for refuse vehicles and deliveries have now been identified in the revised proposal. Similarly cycle parking for guests and staff has been identified. It is now considered that, subject to some minor alterations, the proposal servicing arrangements are acceptable.
Impact on Nearby Residential Properties 9.12 The proposed development has two potential impacts on surrounding residential properties. Firstly the size and position of the proposed building can potentially have an impact on light and outlook from nearby residential properties and potentially cause overlooking. The properties most directly affected by the proposed extension are numbers 1c and 1d Lonsdale Road. These properties, which are two storey and front onto Lonsdale Road, are 29 metres away from the side wall of the proposed extension. Two other properties are located on the opposite side of the Penn Road to the application site. These are over 40 metres away from the front face of the proposed extension. In view of the distances involved it is not considered that light or outlook will be adversely affected as a result of the construction of the proposed extension. Similarly with a distance of 29 metres between the side wall of the proposed extension and front windows of properties in Lonsdale Road, it is not considered that privacy would be materially reduced.
9.13 The second potential impact relates to the increased intensity of development on the site resulting in additional noise and disturbance. The properties most affected by the potential increase in noise are 40 and 40a Oaklands Road which back or side on to the application site, 2 Lonsdale Road which sides onto the site and 38 Oaklands Road. As a result of the proposed extension to the car park numbers 40 and 40a Oaklands Road are being gifted an additional area of garden land, which is currently part of the hotel complex. Consequently both 40 and 40a will gain an extra 5 metres of garden as a result of the proposal. The nearest parking space would be a further 3 metres from the new boundary, and would be screened by additional planting. In view of the fact that the new area of car parking would be approximately 8 metres away from the existing garden boundary with 40 and 40a and additional screen planting will be introduced, it is considered that residential amenity will not be significantly adversely affected.
9.14 The gardens of 38 Oaklands Road and 2 Lonsdale Road are substantially larger than those that currently exist on 40 and 40a Oaklands Road. With a suitable new boundary treatment, retention of existing trees between the proposed car park and the gardens and with additional planting, it is considered that residential amenity would not be adversely affected.
9.15 The general increase in the intensity of development resulting from the proposed extension is not considered, in this context, to result in a significant change in the level of amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents. The additional area of car parking proposed at the eastern edge of the site is consistent with a previous planning permission.
Page 25
Conclusion 9.16 The introduction of an appropriate sized building within this ‘gap’ site is considered acceptable. The provision of additional hotel accommodation is consistent with Policy E13 of the adopted UDP which encourages tourism. The revised scheme is not considered to have any material impact on the residential amenity enjoyed by surrounding residents.
10. Recommendation
10.1 That delegated authority be given to the Chief Planning & Highways Officer to grant planning permission following the receipt of satisfactory amended plans and subject to the following conditions or to refuse planning permission if satisfactory drawings are not received by 2 September 2004.
1. Large scale external architectural details (1:20 or larger as necessary) to demonstrate the quality of detailing and materials including walling, fenestration, roofing and other architectural features. 2. Public art. 3. Materials. 4. Car parking to be provided in advance of occupations of new building. 5. Landscaping. 6. Tree protection measures. 7. Prior to the occupation of any of the new bedrooms the land adjacent to the car park extension to rear of Nos. 40 and 40a Oaklands Road should be returned to garden use in association with nos. 40 and 40a Oakland Road. 8. The amendments to the existing hotel consisting of the reduction in bedrooms in the main building by 8 bedrooms and the lodge by 2 bedrooms shall be completed prior to the occupation of any of the new bedrooms hereby approved. 9. Boundary treatments. 10. Details of lighting of the car park. 11. Scheme to provide a replacement street tree to be submitted, approved and implemented. 12. Implementation of cycle parking areas.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 26
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0139/FP/C WARD: Park; DATE 28-JAN-2004 TARGET DATE: 24-MAR-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Meadow View Wharf, Tettenhall Road, Wolverhampton. PROPOSAL: Single storey side extension and new car park.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Wolverhampton M.S. Therapy Seven Design Build Centre 20 Bridgnorth Road Meadow View Wharf Wombourne Tettenhall Road Staffs Wolverhampton WV5 0AA
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of the MS Treatment Centre building, adjoining the Staffs & Worcester Canal, the access drive (Meadow View) and an area of Council owned open space which fronts Meadow View and Tettenhall Road. This open space is fenced and gated, there is no public access. Public access was discontinued by the Council due to misuse of the open space in recent years. It is maintained, a large Ash and Copper Beech and several smaller trees and bushes stand within its area.
2. Planning History
2.1 Planning permission was refused in 1995 for a proposed car park on this landscaped area and for extensions to the MS Centre on environmental amenity grounds
2.2 Negotiations took place over the past year with the MS Centre (a Registered Charity), Planning Officers and the Head of Parks and Recreation who is responsible for the upkeep of the open space, in order to agree an acceptable solution.
3. Constraints
3.1 The open space is within the Staffs & Worcester Canal Conservation Area. The MS Building is outside but adjoins the Conservation Area boundary. The Valley Park Green Belt includes the canal and adjoins the application site. Meadow View provides the approach and contributes to the setting of the listed Tettenhall Canal Bridge.
Page 28 4. Application Details
4.1 A single storey conservatory or sun-lounge extension is proposed on the canal frontage of the MS Buildings. Six parking spaces to be accessed from Meadow View are proposed on part of the open space. A metal fence and part retaining wall would surround the parking spaces. Proposed surface treatment is resin bonded gravel edged with stone setts.
5. Relevant Policies
5.1 UDP Policies ENV1 – Development Principles with respect to loss of trees and vegetation, ENV18 – Preserving and Enhancing Conservation Areas, and Policy C4 – Planning Standards (Community Services) with respect to the building extension.
6. Publicity
6.1 The application has been advertised by neighbour letter, press and site notice. Eleven letters of objection have been received. Views are summarised as: • Loss of green space, trees and wildlife habitat. This area is home to a colony of bats, the Council has refused to light this area in recognition of this. It is a quiet haven from the busy Tettenhall Road. A wildlife survey of the area should be undertaken. • This park was used by the public until the Council locked it up. • Access to the canal and Valley Park passes this site. It will result in increased traffic in this road. • The parking spaces will provide a venue for car thieves and delinquent activity. They will be used for general public parking. How will the MS Centre control their use? • There is adequate parking for people with mobility problems within the grounds of the MS Centre. • There is no environmental or safety reason for a car park to be constructed. There is a large public car park nearby at the Tettenhall Station/Valley Park site. • The area is the site of the original toll house for the Holyhead Road and the original Newbridge Inn.
7. Consultees
7.1 Parks and Contracts (Lifelong Learning) have verbally agreed to the principle of releasing some land for parking spaces here. Their comments on the details of the scheme will be reported to the Committee.
8. Appraisal
8.1 Since the previous refusal a change of circumstances has occurred in that the open space is no longer open to the public. Furthermore Equalities is now a key consideration in the Council’s policies and strategies and the Unitary Development Plan Review.
Page 29 8.2 No objection is raised to the building extension. The existing building is of no great merit, the extension has a neutral impact on the building with respect to the Canal Conservation Area.
8.3 The insertion of a small number of parking spaces within the relatively large open space would not have an undue detrimental impact, particularly as this would relieve congestion by parked vehicles along this rather narrow access road. Some of the detail of the parking area is not properly thought out. Two spaces at the southern end and drainage details and levels for the parking area would need to be looked at so as not to put at risk the fine Copper Beech tree. Three Cherry trees, a Hawthorn in poor condition, a Holly and some wild rose bushes would require removal. These can be replaced by new planting.
8.4 Further negotiations would need to take place to resolve a number of details.
9. Recommendation
9.1 Delegated authority to grant, subject to satisfactory amendments to the application. Conditions with respect to railing detail to match the existing; retaining walls and site levels; re-painting of the older railings on the Tettenhall Road frontage, lockable bollard security to each of the parking spaces, replacement planting in the area between Meadow View and the canal.
Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 555649 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 30
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0505/DW/M WARD: Park; DATE 30-MAR-2004 TARGET DATE: 29-JUN-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Deemed Planning Permission (WCC development)
SITE: St Jude's C of E Primary School, Paget Road PROPOSAL: Demolition of Existing Junior School, Construction of New Primary School.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Life Long Learning Cabinet Baart Harries Newall, Team Architects Civic Centre 1 Wilderhope House St Peter's Square Pountney Gardens Wolverhampton Belle Vue, Shrewsbury. SY3 7LU
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site plan illustrates the existing school on this site, which is a single storey building. Vehicle access is from Hatton Road off Paget Road and pedestrian access is from Paget Road.
1.2 The northern half of the site, occupied by the existing school and playground is approximately level. The site falls away towards Clark Road and the school playing field. There are several mature trees on the site, and areas of recent woodland planting on the Clark Road and Paget Road frontages.
1.3 St Judes School is presently split into two sites, the Junior School at Paget Road and the Infants in an older school dating from 1872 in Riches Street. In 2002 the two schools were merged to form a new Primary School. The 1960s school in Paget Road was considered to be in poor condition and the Victorian School difficult to adapt to modern requirements. The Council as Local Education Authority has made a commitment to construct a new school on the Paget Road site to accommodate all the schools children. The cost of the school is included in the Education Services Capital Programme 2003/2005.
1.4 A fundamental requirement of St Judes School is that it is able to continue in operation until the new school building is complete. The position of the present school could not therefore be used, and the new school is proposed to the south of the existing, with a frontage onto Clark Road.
Page 32 2. Constraints
2.1 The school site is included within the Smestow Valley part of the Green Belt in the 1993 UDP. The site is excluded from the Green Belt in the 2004 second deposit UDP.
3. Application Details
3.1 The design is modern in concept and appearance. The building is approximately 20 metres extended to 30 metres back from Clark Road. The accommodation is on 2 levels to take advantage of the existing slope and the building descends the site from north to south. The base and walls of the building are in red facing brick, there are large areas of windows and roofs are a series of mono-pitches, designed for metal construction.
3.2 Vehicle access remains from Hatton Road. Pedestrian accesses are shown from Paget Road and Clark Road. Parking for staff is arranged along the school service road. It is not intended that parents in cars will enter the site to drop off children.
3.3 The established school field on the east side of the site remains. Playgrounds are shown on the level areas to the north of the proposed building.
3.4 Teaching activity is arranged in 4 ‘units’ (groups of classes with shared activity space, toilets, store and quiet room). Three of the 4 units are positioned on the north elevation, the fourth is positioned on the south side of the building.
3.5 The school hall is positioned at the west side of the proposed building. It is the tallest proposed structure on the site. It has been positioned on the west side to offer a physical presence to Paget Road and to address the scale of the education buildings on the opposite side of the road.
3.6 The well established hedge around the site together with the majority of the mature trees on site will be retained. On the west side of the site the building layout requires a group of approximately 10 small – medium sized trees for removal. Part of the area of woodland planting in the south part of the site would be removed.
4. Relevant Policies & Guidance
4.1 • ENV1 – Development Principles; retention and management of trees and vegetation on the site. • Policies ENV2 – Design Standards and C4 – Planning Standards; all design aspects, access, street scene, impact on surrounding locality. • Policies ENV3, 4 & 5-UDP Green Belt Policies; appropriateness and reasons for this development in the Green Belt. • Government Planning Policy Guidance No. 2 – Green Belts.
Page 33 5. Publicity
5.1 The application has been advertised by press and site notice and neighbour letter to over 200 houses in surrounding roads. Only 5 responses have been received. This may reflect the consultation exercise that the school has undertaken for this project. Issues raised are summarised as: - • Scheme is unnecessary, not in pupils, teachers or residents best interest. It would be better to adapt the existing school and make extensions. It will result in construction on a much appreciated green space. The proposed site is close to Clark Road, the building will ‘cascade’ down the bank, and will harm the appearance of the area. • The existing level of Hatton Road causes problems of damp and localised flooding to numbers 1 and 2 Hatton Road. Clarification of road/footpath detail in Hatton Road needed. Hatton Road residents (nos. 1 and 2) suffer considerable aggravation from the existing school traffic. • The new entrance to the school will be on a blind bend, the danger to children will be increased. This stretch of Paget Road has 6 entrances to 3 schools within a short distance. • School traffic will come into the relative calm of Clark Road. The development will ruin the environment at the end of Clark Road. • Traffic calming measures approved for Clark Road will be urgently needed due to increased traffic • Has an alternative solution been considered to continuing education at the school during the construction period to enable a new school to be built on the site of the existing school?
6. Consultees
6.1 Severn Trent Water has no objection subject to conditions.
6.2 West Midlands Fire Service strongly recommend that a sprinkler system, conforming to modern British Standards, be incorporated into this scheme.
7. Appraisal
7.1 Key issues for this development are: - (a) Green Belt (b) Principle of Development (c) Building Design (d) Highway Safety (e) Percent for Art.
Page 34 Green Belt 7.2 The site is within the Green Belt. The nature of the scheme is such that under Government Planning Policy Guidance No. 2: Green Belt, it is subject to Green Belt policy and is considered to be a departure from the UDP. The factors (taken from PPG2) which lead to this conclusion are: (a) The site is not identified in the current UDP for re-development for a new school. (b) The proposed school is larger than the existing school - proposal is 2300 sq. metres, the existing is 1550 sq. metres. (c) It occupies a different part of the site and has an impact on the openness of the southern part of the site adjacent to Clark Road. (d) Parts of the building are taller than the existing school.
Principle of Development 7.3 Notwithstanding paragraph 7.2 above, it is considered that this is a suitable site for the redevelopment of this school. No other site has been identified as suitable from a Lifelong Learning point of view. (a) In planning terms it is logical to combine the 2 existing schools onto this site. The site is large enough for the development and retains the existing playing field for continued use. (b) The existing school is almost hidden in urban design terms. The proposed school is designed to be a public building that is integrated into the surrounding street scene. (c) It is not considered that the proposal overall has an negative impact on the Green Belt characteristics of the site. The majority of the site will remain open and ‘green’. The majority of existing trees will remain and the project presents an opportunity for new planting. The site of the existing school will be partly grassed and planted, and part occupied by a playground and access road. It is not considered that the wider Green Belt in Wolverhampton is prejudiced in planning terms by this development.
Building Design 7.4 The plans on display illustrate the proposal and it is described in Section 3 of this report. In general the design and position of the new school is considered satisfactory in planning terms. Further details will be required (and may be conditioned) concerning architectural detail of windows, roof and roof eaves (which are a dominant feature of this building) and hard and soft landscaping.
Highway Safety 7.5 There is no Highway objection in principle to the proposal, subject to detailed matters that should be covered by the travel plan. The additional pedestrian entrance in Clark Road would alleviate existing traffic congestion in Paget Road and mitigate any increases in traffic caused by the amalgamation of schools on the site. It would, inevitably, lead to parents parking on Clark Road to collect children, but it would also put the school in closer walking distance of more homes. The amalgamation of the schools will alter travel patterns in the area and has the potential to increase car trips at peak hours. However an increase in traffic, if it can be accommodated by the highway network, is not in itself sufficient reason to refuse the proposal. The school travel plan should also address safe routes to schools.
Page 35 7.6 The school has submitted a draft travel plan and is working this up in detail in consultation with staff in Transportation. A travel plan for the school, if implemented can make a significant difference to the number of car journeys to the new school. A finalised travel plan will be required by condition. The amalgamation of the schools will alter travel patterns in the area and has potential to increase peak school hour traffic in the Clark Road/Pager Road area.
Percent for Art 7.7 The size of this development is such that 1% of development costs should be used to fund art features on the site. A possible location is the relatively prominent corner formed by the school hall which fronts onto Paget Road and Clark Road.
8. Recommendation
8.1 If the Committee is minded to support the application, it will then have to be notified to the Government Office for the West Midlands because of the site’s Green Belt status. The Secretary of State has the power to call in the application.
8.2 The Secretary of State be informed that the Council is minded to grant planning permission for this development, subject to conditions which will include: (a) Large scale external architectural details including, walling, fenestration, roofing and other architectural details. (b) Full hard and soft landscaping and external works details at 1:200 scale including protection of existing trees and new tree planting. (c) Submission of external materials (d) Submission of travel plan including safe routes to school (e) Details of work(s) of public art or craft. (f) Details of type and method of construction of proposed access road in proximity to existing trees (g) Details and provision of parking layout (h) External lighting (i) Details in relation to Access for Disabled.
Case Officer : Ken Harrop Telephone No : 555649 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 36
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0557/FP/C WARD: Park; DATE 15-APR-2004 TARGET DATE: 10-JUN-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Eversleigh Nursing Home, 52-62 Albert Road Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Single storey extensions to the rear comprising 17 no. bedrooms, bathroom, library, dining/lounge area and a kitchen/laundry extension.
APPLICANT: AGENT: Wellcare (Eversleigh) Ltd Mr F Humphreys 52 - 62 Albert Road Cavalier House Wolverhampton 22 Woodcote Road WV6 0AF Tettenhall Wolverhampton WV6 8LP
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site is an established nursing home catering for the elderly, comprising a number of dwellings fronting onto Albert Road, which have been knocked through and extended to the rear.
1.2 This application is a resubmission of an earlier withdrawn application (03/1488/FP) that comprised single storey rear extension comprising 12 bedroom en-suite facilities and library, car park to the rear and a day care rear extension comprising ‘dining space’, ‘day space’ and connecting corridors to the proposed bedrooms extension and to the existing building’.
1.3 To the east of the site is the Council’s educational day training centre. To the south is a private access road for use by residential properties in Parkdale, and to the north and west are predominately residential properties.
2. Planning History
2.1 97/1034/FP New entrance hall (front and single storey Granted front and rear extensions. 18/2/98
99/0898/FP Single storey rear extension to 60/62 Refused (alternative to single storey rear extension 22/11/99 permitted under reference C/1034/97).
00/0064/FP Single storey rear extension to 60/62 Granted (resubmission of C/0898/99). 22/2/00
Page 38 03/1488/FP single storey rear extension comprising 12 Withdrawn bedroom en-suite facilities and library, car 2/2/04 park to the rear and a day care rear extension comprising ‘dining space’, ‘day space’ and connecting corridors to the proposed bedrooms extension and to the existing building’.
3. Constraints
3.1 The application site is located within the Park Conservation Area.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 ENV2 Design Standards ENV18 Preserving and Enhancing Conservation Areas C4 Planning Standards.
5. Publicity
5.1 Public consultation time expired 10 January 2004. Thirteen letters of objection have been received. Objections include the proposed use of the access to the rear of the development as the drive is for the exclusive use of Parkdale West owners, the intensification of the rear access and existing rear amenity area, impact on the conservation area, the new day care facility and additional traffic, upkeep of rear service road, noise of service vehicles using rear service road. Also rear drive of Parkdale West is not a public right of way, and only if there is agreement by Parkdale owners would the Association of Parkdale residents allow the rear access drive to be used, and then an annual wayleave fee would be paid to the Association. At present no wayleaves are received by the Association for use of the rear drive by owners of property in Albert Road.
6. Consultations
Tree Officer • Object strongly to the proposal as it requires the felling of several mature trees at the rear of the property which are within a Conservation Area.
Transportation • At present cannot support application on basis of information supplied.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The nursing home already has extensive ground floor rear extensions built onto the rear of the property. The proposed ground floor development is located in the rear garden/amenity area for residents and includes 17 new bedrooms (the previous withdrawal was for 12 new bedrooms), bathrooms, library, kitchens & dining/lounge extension for a day care centre. The new car park to the rear that involves access from the Parkdale West rear service road has been removed from this application.
Page 39 7.2 The proposed extensions to the rear form a courtyard style development. The extension is sited partly adjoining the boundary (for 8.4m) with the neighbouring day training centre, then is set in 1m for the remaining 20.5m of this elevation, a total elevation length of 28.9m. It is considered the siting, height, length and mass of this proposed 28.9m long extension would create an overbearing and detrimental impact upon the day training centre and its rear amenity space. This would result in a significant adverse effect the users and employees at the day training centre can reasonably expect to continue to enjoy.
7.3 The dimensions of the rear extension is 28.9m deep x 48.650m wide. It is considered the siting of the extension in the rear amenity area would impact on the established pattern of development and lose valuable amenity space for the residents of this nursing home. Taking existing extensions into account the cumulative impact of the proposed extension and the intensification of this rear amenity area the proposed scheme would be an over-development of the site and significantly alter the character of the part of this Park Conservation Area in a negative way.
7.4 When viewed from residents properties in Parkdale the proposed south elevation is bland and monotonous and is considered to be of a poor design not enhancing the character or appearance of the Park Conservation Area.
7.5 Insufficient information has been received in respect of the number of day care visitors, staff and residents and likely visitors. This information is required to assess off street parking requirements and any possible highway implications.
7.6 No details have been provided in respect of supplying building materials to the rear of the site. There appear to be no access possible from the Albert Road frontage and residents of Parkdale have stated. ‘Access to the rear of the proposed development is along a private access drive, which belongs to and is in Parkdale West or Trustees. The drive is for the exclusive use of Parkdale West owners. Unauthorised use by other people is trespass’.
7.7 The additional vehicular parking spaces to the front are unacceptable as they encroach into the rooting area of a Chestnut tree that is subject to a Tree Preservation Order. Also, inadequate information has been submitted with regard to the loss of a number of trees in the existing amenity area (including several mature trees) that are all sited within the Park Conservation Area.
Page 40
8. Recommendation
Refuse - overbearing and detrimental visual impact - over-development of the site - intensification of use and negative impact on the character and appearance of the Park Conservation Area - inadequate information regarding loss of trees and potential impact on a Tree Preservation Order tree. - contrary to UDP Policies ENV2, ENV18 and C4.
Case Officer : Nicholas Howell Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 41
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0678/FP/M WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick DATE 07-MAY-2004 TARGET DATE: 06-AUG-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Castlecroft Garage Finchfield Hill, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: New Neighbourhood Foodstore with Residential Development over, conversion to retail use and extension of St. Thomas' Church and demolition of 30 Oak Hill
APPLICANT: AGENT: Olympian Homes Ltd TTG Architects 1 Hay Hill 28 - 30 Kirby Street Berkeley Square London London EC1N 8TE W1J 6DH
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of a former car showroom and servicing centre, along with part of the residential property known as 30 Oak Hill. The metal and glass showroom at the front of the site is a single commercial storey that is the equivalent to one and a half domestic storeys in height. The workshop and storage areas at the rear of the showroom are two storeys in height. The garage complex is predominantly surrounded by residential properties. The remainder of the site is covered in extensive areas of hardstanding. To the back of the site is a large tarmac area fenced off by unattractive gates. No 30 Oak Hill is a dormer bungalow accessed via an overgrown private drive to Oak Hill. The bungalow is currently vacant. The site also involves St Thomas’ Church which is to the south of the garage.
1.2 The site is in a prominent position at the junction of Finchfield Hill, Oak Hill and Finchfield Road West. Opposite the front of the site are parades of shops with flats above. The shops are set at a higher level than the site. The properties to the rear on White Oak Drive are two storey post war houses. The Terrace is a cul-de-sac of semi-detached houses. No 9 has principal windows and a conservatory on its southern side. No 42 Finchfield Hill is an attractively detailed Victorian house, two and a half storeys high.
2. Planning History
2.1 Planning application for retail development (reference No 01/1621/FP) was withdrawn 15 May 2002.
Page 43 2.2 Planning permission was granted for redevelopment of the Castlecroft garage site with 18 two bedroom apartments and five houses in April 2004. The application proposal is part 3 storey and part 2 ½ storey block on the front of the site. Houses were proposed in 2 and 2 ½ storey buildings towards the back of the site. A single access served the developed located adjacent to St Thomas’ Church. Neither the Church nor 30 Oak Hill formed part of the application site.
2.3 St Thomas’ Church has planning permission for a conversion to a single dwelling which includes an extension (ref 00/1023/FP).
3. Constraints
3.1 Possible ground contamination on site.
4. Application Details
4.1 The application consists of the development of a food store of 929 sq metres (net sales area). In terms of gross retail floor area this amounts to 1,284 sq metres at ground floor level. At first floor towards the rear of the building are proposed staff facilities and offices. The proposed food store would be serviced via the proposed car park into a rear service area. Access would be onto Oak Hill to the north of St Thomas’ church. In total 67 parking spaces would be provided including four wider spaces for people with a disability.
4.2 Above the proposed food store are proposed 9 flats, set around a communal roof terrace. Twelve parking spaces are identified for the occupiers of the flats, accessed off Finchfield Hill to the north of the building. The proposed flats would occupy the first and second floors above the food store, with staff offices occupying the rear part of the first floor.
4.3 The food store has been identified as being occupied by a Marks and Spencer Food Store. The proposed store would carry in the region of 2,500-3,000 products. These would include ready meals, fresh produce, sandwiches, groceries, wine, bread and frozen foods. A small non-food range comprising cards, hosiery and home products would also be provided. The store would open 8.00am to 9.00pm every day apart from Sundays when reduced hours will apply. The project would provide 70 new jobs in a mix of full and part time positions. It is estimated that the store would have one primary delivery (16.5 metre articulated lorry) each day in the morning followed by a second on certain afternoons of the week. Supplementary deliveries from smaller vehicles (eg bread vans) would take place throughout the day.
4.4 The proposed development also involves the demolition of 30 Oak Hill to allow for an expansion of the site onto part of the plot containing the bungalow. This part of the site would be used for car parking and landscaping. No proposals have been submitted for the remainder of the 30 Oak Hill site.
Page 44
4.5 The planning application also involves the conversion of St Thomas’ Church to retail use and its extension. The proposed extension would provide an extra 50 sq metres of floor space including a new entrance. Servicing would be provided by a lay-by adjacent to the main access. Proposals have been submitted for the rear of 30 Oak Hill site.
4.6 Two new possible pedestrian crossings are shown on Finchfield Hill and Oak Hill. The existing junction that provides access to the Castlecroft Garage site would be redesigned as a result of this proposal.
4.7 The design of the food store shows a predominantly three storey building with dormers at second floor level. Materials shown are brick with stained timber boarding and a slate roof. Balconies would be provided to the residential units above the store. Access to the store by shoppers would be via two entrances on the south elevation of the building facing the access road. The position of the building is shown stepping in front of St Thomas’ Church and No 42 Finchfield Hill. The existing garage building, which is at a different angle to the road, in part projects in front of a line joining No 42 Finchfield Hill and St Thomas’ Church.
5. Relevant Policies and Guidance
5.1 The adopted UDP does not identify the application site for any purpose. Also Finchfield is not identified as a local centre under Policy S4.
5.2 Policies of relevance in the adopted UDP include:-
S1 - Shopping Strategy S4 - Local Centres S6 - Local Shops S8 - Large Out of Centre Retail Stores S13 - Planning Standards H17 - Protection of Residential Amenities H18 - Planning Considerations ENV1 - Development Principles ENV2 - Design Standards ENV13 - The Urban Forest and Protection of Trees ENV22 - Provision of Public Art TP5 - Access and New Development TP13 - Measures to Provide for Cyclists and Pedestrians TP14 - Car parking.
5.3 The Revised Deposit UDP also includes policies, albeit not formally adopted, of relevance to the proposal. Policy SH1 sets out the Centres Strategy for the City. Policy SH8 identifies Finchfield as a Local Centre in the Centres Strategy. The former Castlecroft Garage is included within the identified Finchfield Local Centre but the site of 30 Oak Hill is not.
5.4 Other policies of relevance are:-
SH1 - Centres Strategy SH3 - Need and the Sequential Approach
Page 45 SH4 - Integration of Development into Centres SH8 - Local Centres SH13 - New Retail Development – Food Stores D1 - Design Quality D4 - Urban Grain D6 - Townscape and Landscape D7 - Scale – Height D8 - Scale – Massing D9 - Appearance. D10 - Community Safety H1 - Housing H6 - Design of Housing AM1 - Access – Mobility and New Development AM12 - Parking and Servicing Provision AM15 - Road Safety and Personal Security.
Supplementary Planning Guidance 5.5 The Council’s SPG’s of relevance include:
SPG2 - Access for People with Disabilities SPG3 - Residential Development SPG16 - Public Art.
Government Guidance 5.6 Government Guidance of particular relevance includes:
PPG1 - General Policy and Principles PPG3 - Housing PPG6 - Town Centres and Retail Development PPG13 - Transport.
5.7 Other related publications include:
Draft PPS1 Draft PPS6 CABE – By Design CABE – Better Places to Live
6. Publicity
6.1 Site and press notice. Residential properties in the vicinity of the site consulted directly by letter. Fifty seven individual letters have been received objecting to the proposal. A petition of 66 names objecting to the proposal has also been received. Grounds for objection include the following:
• Inadequate road access particularly for HGV’s. • Increased noise from HGV’s, cars and general activity. • Increased air, light and noise pollution. • Detrimental impact on existing local retailers resulting in increased vacancy and harm to the local centre. • Conversion of St Thomas’ Church is out of character and contrary to existing covenant. • Potential increased crime and antisocial activity.
Page 46 • Inadequate car parking resulting in additional on-street parking causing harm to road safety. • Harm to safety of school children. • Proposal contrary to Policy EP1 and S4 of the Revised UDP and the Council’s objective to improve the quality of life in the City. • Uncertainty over the future of Marks and Spencer. • May not be developed by Marks and Spencer and could be run by other less sensitive food store operators. • Three storey development is out of character and would dominate surroundings. • Loss of light, loss of privacy and loss of security for adjoining properties. • Contrary to policy to support retailing in the City Centre. • Loss of security to adjoining properties including during construction. • Food store too large an addition to the centre damaging suburban character. • Loss of trees. • Inadequate drainage. • Catchment of store will increase traffic into the area. • Chain stores have competitive advantage over local shops impacting on area. • Already sufficient sites for shopping identified in the City Centre. • Need to deal with asbestos in existing building and petrol tanks. • Housing should be built as it is a residential area. • Inadequate amenity would be provided to new residents whilst loss of amenity would occur to surrounding residents. • Materials proposed are out of character. • Suburbs should be preserved as well as older areas of the City. • Small local shops help foster the community which larger national stores do not. • Uncertainty over remainder of site at 30 Oak Hill.
6.3 Rob Marris MP has written objecting to the proposal. Grounds for objection include the following:
• Over development causing additional traffic. • Loss of amenity. • Off site parking would increase danger to road users and pedestrians. • Disturbance caused by HGV’s. • Discrepancies in the application undermine confidence in the proposal. • Represents an out of centre development contrary to PPG’s 6 and 13. • Parking inadequate and contrary to standards in PPG13. • Town Centre sites are available for the development. • Overshadowing of adjacent properties.
Page 47 6.4 Two letters have been received in support of the proposal citing that the proposal is better than more houses and would provide extra parking. In addition a petition in favour of the development has now been received and contains 168 signatures. The reasons given in the petition of support are: - • It would encourage more local people to use the Finchfield shopping centre that at present, reducing the need to travel to other centres; • It would stem the tendency to decline in the Finchfield centre; • It would capitalise on the road improvements recently made to the highway layout in the centre of Finchfield, improving the ability of all pedestrians, including those with mobility problems, to move around the centre.
7. Consultations
7.1 Transportation – an analysis of the applicants’ Transportation Assessment (TA) has been undertaken. The TA has not been revised following earlier comments which is disappointing. The TA is not considered to provide an accurate and thorough investigation of the likely transportation impacts of a neighbourhood food store at the site. At this stage the application cannot be supported. Areas of weaknesses include the following:
• The assumption that the proposal will not effect the existing accident problem at the junction of Oak Hill and Castlecroft Road is not accepted given that a 10% increase in traffic is forecast. • The design of the likely zebra crossing needs further development. • The geometric design of the segregated right turn on Oak Hill into the site is below standard. This would adversely affect road safety. • Service vehicles and articulated HGV’s will adversely affect internal manoeuvring in the car park. • Given the accessibility of the site by public transport concerns are raised that the development does not comply with Government guidance in PPG6 and PPG13. A public transport audit should be undertaken. • The potential retail use of St Thomas’ Church should be included in the TA. • The estimated trip generation is not considered to be representative of a Marks and Spencer store. • Car parking provision could be inadequate as the TA may underestimate the likely level of trip generation and no assessment has been made of non-food store related parking.
7.2 The Council has appointed consultants (CB Richard Ellis) to evaluate the applicants’ Retail Statement. In summary the conclusions of C B Richard Ellis is as follows:
• National Planning Guidance makes it clear that development such as that currently proposed must be supported by evidence on need, the sequential approach and impact on nearby centres. A need for the proposal has not been demonstrated, and further analysis is required in this regard. Retail capacity work conducted previously for the Council indicates limited capacity for further convenience retail
Page 48 development, and the applicants’ agent has not provided convincing evidence that this is not the case. • Equally, in qualitative terms, it is not considered that there is any particular need for the application proposal, with an adequate provision of day to day convenience retailing in this part of Wolverhampton, and higher order provision set to be improved considerably with the development of Sainsbury’s on Raglan Street. If the council accept this conclusion, this would represent grounds for refusal of the planning application. • Turning to the sequential test, the application site occupies an out of centre location. Given the scale and function of the proposal, which will serve a comparatively wide area on the western side of Wolverhampton, it is considered that the sequential test should cover both existing local centres (ie proposed district centres) and the city centre. A proper application of the sequential test identifies a number of locations preferable to the application site. If the council accept this conclusion, this would represent grounds for refusal of the planning application. • Whilst the proposal would be unlikely to have an unacceptable impact on existing centres the applicants’ agent has not submitted any detailed analysis in this regard that considers either the effects of the proposal or the cumulative impact taking account of schemes in the pipeline, and further analysis is required in this regard. In the absence of further material submitted to address this point, as part of the further analysis discussed above, this would represent grounds for refusal of planning permission. • The question of appropriateness of scale is a consistent theme through the planning policy documents relevant to the proposal. It is considered that the store would be inappropriate to the proposed status of Finchfield as a “local centre”. By virtue of its scale, function, and likely catchment, it would be more appropriately located in a higher order centre, and opportunities exist for it to be accommodated within the city centre.
7.3 Building Consultancy: appears acceptable.
7.4 Public Protection: further discussions are required with regard to the likely position of the ventilation system, to minimise any impact on residential units. Conditions should control ventilation issues. The site appraisal investigating ground conditions is not detailed enough. Potential noise nuisance could occur to adjacent residents arising from delivery/refuse collection and possibly traffic noise. Hours of opening should be restricted.
7.5 Access Officer: Disabled parking bays should have 1.2 metre strips at the end of each bay. Appropriate tactile paving should be provided.
7.6 Severn Trent Water – no objection subject to conditions to control drainage.
Page 49 7.7 Wolverhampton History and Heritage Society – the site includes a locally listed church which is to be re-used for retailing and extended. In this case a residential use may well be preferable to retailing. The Council may wish to consider its position relative to extensions to locally listed buildings. It does not seem that the proposed extensions are out of scale or of inappropriate materials.
7.8 Wildlife Trust – Pipestrelle bats have been recorded within 200 metres of the application site. The property has the potential to contain bat roosting habitat. It would be prudent to undertake a full bat survey by an appropriate person. A holding objection is therefore raised to this application until bat issues have been resolved.
7.9 West Midlands Police – major concern relates to the likely increase in volume of traffic. Trees ought not to be planted as they inhibit surveillance, lighting and can assist in climbing boundaries. Concern is raised that the car park would be an ‘out of hours’ gathering place and suggest traffic calming measures are introduced to deter such use. It may be beneficial to restrict access to the car park. The residential element should be to ‘Secured by Design’ standards. Suggest that only one entrance is provided to the store. Cycle parking ought to be provided.
8. Environmental Impact Assessment
8.1 A Screening Opinion has been given that the environmental consequences of this development will not be so significant to require formal Environmental Assessment.
9. Appraisal
9.1 The key considerations in this case are:
• Compliance with national and local retail planning policy • Transportation implications • Impact on the street scene and neighbouring properties including impact on the amenity of the area.
9.2 The Development Plan (the adopted UDP) does not identify Finchfield as a local centre. Whilst the Revised Deposit UDP proposes to identify Finchfield as a local centre, this proposal has been subject to objection and therefore has little weight. Consequently it is appropriate to treat the site as being in an out of centre location when assessing many elements of retail policy.
Retail Policy Issues 9.3 Government Guidance contained in PPG6 and subsequently clarified in the Ministerial Statement of 10 April 2003, requires that retail proposals in locations outside of defined centres ought to be able to demonstrate a need for the development. This approach is reflected in Policy SH3 of the Revised Deposit UDP. In the absence of clear evidence that the proposed development will be meeting a known qualitative and quantitative need, the proposal would fail a key policy test.
Page 50 9.4 As stated at paragraph 7.2 above the council’s consultants (C B Richard Ellis) have undertaken a thorough assessment of the applicants’ Retail Assessment. In qualitative terms C B Richard Ellis have stated that the applicants have not provided a robust analysis of spending patterns. They have also excluded a number of centres from their analysis which would have a claim on expected spending. In qualitative terms the Council’s consultants have indicated that Finchfield centre itself provides a convenience offer consistent with that of a local centre. A number of other supermarkets are available in the wider area (Tettenhall Village and Warstones Road). Furthermore the Raglan Street development would remedy any outstanding qualitative deficiency in the western part of the city. In conclusion it is considered by C B Richard Ellis that a demonstrable need for the food store, both in qualitative and quantitative terms, has not been demonstrated.
9.5 A key element of Government Guidance, and reflected in the Revised UDP, is for new retail development to be able demonstrate that, where there is a genuine need for the proposed development, a sequential approach has been followed with regard to site selection. This establishes that the first preference should be town centre sites, followed by edge of centre sites, district and local centres, and then out of town sites that are accessible by a choice of means of transport. In view of the likely catchment of the proposal, the size of the development and potential operator, the Council’s consultants consider sites should be considered in or on the edge of the City Centre. Such sites could include the land bounded by School Street, Darlington Street and Fold Street (as part of a mixed scheme) as part of the Core Expansion Area, the car park site on Pipers Row or potentially the St George’s Parade site should Sainsbury’s relocate to Raglan Street). It is not considered that the applicants have adequately addressed the need to follow the sequential approach. Consequently the proposal is considered to have failed a further test laid out in Government Guidance and the emerging Development Plan.
9.6 A further key policy test is the potential impact of the proposal on other established centres. Whilst C B Richard Ellis consider that the proposal is unlikely to undermine any existing town or district centre, the lack of an adequate quantitative analysis has not allowed such an assertion to be given with great confidence. In this context it is considered that the proposal has failed to demonstrate that any existing centre would not be harmed as a result of the proposal
9.7 As stated at paragraph 9.2 above, Finchfield is not given any status as a centre in the adopted UDP. However, the Revised Deposit Plan has identified Finchfield as one of the local centres in the shopping hierarchy of the City. As this proposal is subject to objection it currently carries little weight. However, as the Revised Deposit UDP represents the current position of the Council, it is necessary to consider the appropriateness of the proposed scale of retail development relative to Finchfield as a local centre. The nature and scale of development being consistent with the relevant centre concerned is a theme which features in the adopted UDP (Policy S1), the Revised Deposit UDP (Policy SH13), PPG6 (paragraphs 3.18, 3.19), the Ministerial Statement of 10 April 2003 and draft PPS6.
Page 51
9.8 Finchfield Centre provides a level of retail provision consistent with its status as a local centre, providing for the day to day convenience needs of the locality. Concern is raised by C B Richard Ellis that the size of store proposed would not be of an appropriate scale for a local centre such as Finchfield, and the development ought to be located in a higher order centre serving a larger catchment area. This view is reinforced in view of the nature of the potential operator, which would draw trade from a wider area than may normally be expected. Consequently, in the absence of any other information provided by the applicants, it is considered that the proposed scale of the store is inappropriate to Finchfield Local Centre.
Transportation Issues 9.9 The Transportation Assessment submitted in support of the proposal has been analysed by your Officers in the Transportation Division. The conclusions of this analysis are set out at paragraph 7.1. It is considered that the submitted TA does not adequately evaluate the transportation implications of the proposed development. Of particular concern is the substandard design of the right turn facility on Oak Hill which could potentially adversely affect road safety. Potentially insufficient parking is provided which could result in uncontrolled on- street parking in the vicinity. Significant conflict between servicing arrangements and general traffic/pedestrian movements within the site area raise further concern along with inadequate provision of non-car modes of transport (ie lack of bus services) to the site. With these significant concerns, in conjunction with matters of technical detail outlined at paragraph 7.1, it is not considered that the proposal has established itself as being acceptable in transportation terms.
Impact on the Street Scene 9.10 The existing garage premises is at an angle to the main street frontage. As a result part of the showroom projects in front of both neighbouring properties (22 Oak Hill and 42 Finchfield Hill). The housing development granted planning permission under reference 03/1068/FP also projects in front of the notional line between the two properties either side of the application site. The application for the food store also proposes a building in front of either of the adjoining properties. However, in view of the food store’s more uniform foot print and massing, the siting of the food store in front of the adjoining properties is considered likely to result in an obtrusive building out of character with its surroundings. It is considered that the built form of the food store would result in a development which would be materially different in terms of its impact on the street scene than the residential scheme previously approved. The siting of the food store is considered to conflict with the street scene of which it forms a part.
Impact on Neighbours 9.11 The proposal involves balconies of flats and a communal corridor, both located above the food store, to be positioned so as to overlook a side facing window in No 42 Finchfield Hill and its garden. This is considered to result in a loss of privacy contrary to Policy H18 of the adopted UDP.
Page 52 9.12 In terms of the physical impact of the proposal on surrounding houses in The Terrace, this has been reduced when amended plans were submitted which deleted two of the residential units and repositioned staff facilities on the first floor of the building. The amended layout now provides a relationship which would be considered to be better, in terms of the physical presence of buildings, than the existing relationship between the houses in the Terrace and garage buildings.
9.13 In terms of the potential impact on amenity, this has to be considered against the lawful use of the premises as a car sales and repair garage, including large areas of surface car parking. Whilst the use of the site as proposed is likely to result in additional activity, it is not considered that the general activity would be so harmful to justify a refusal of planning permission. The proposed layout does provide a landscaped buffer of between 1.6 metres and 10 metres between gardens of dwellings surrounding the site and the car park. Furthermore the application would provide a new brick wall along the boundary with existing residential properties. However concern is still raised about the proximity of the service yard to properties in The Terrace. The proposed layout shows no landscape buffer between the service yard and part of the adjacent garden of No. 9 The Terrace. As such disturbance to the occupiers amenity is likely.
Other Issues 9.14 The Wildlife Trust has raised issues relating to the potential presence of bats on the site. This information has been passed on to the applications but no response has been received.
10. Conclusion
10. In view of the above it is not considered that the application adequately addresses retail policy or transportation issues. The proposal would cause loss of privacy to an adjoining dwelling and provide a new building which would not respect the surrounding street scene.
11. Recommendation
Refusal is recommended as follows: - 11.1 The application has failed to demonstrate that the proposal accords with Government Guidance, Development Plan Policy and the emerging UDP. In particular it is not considered that quantitative and qualitative need has been established, that a sequential approach has been taken to site selection, that no harm would result to existing centres or that the scale of the proposal is consistent with its location given the existing hierarchy of centres in the City.
11.2 Inadequate information has been supplied in the Transportation Assessment to demonstrate that the proposal is acceptable in transportation terms. In particular the proposed right turn slip road is of an inadequate width, conflict would occur in the site between service vehicles and other users, it has not been demonstrated that adequate car parking would be provided or that the site would be adequately served by non car modes.
Page 53 11.3 The siting of the proposed building would not adequately relate to its surroundings and would result in an obtrusive feature in the street scene contrary to Policy ENV2 of the adopted UDP.
11.4 The proposed residential accommodation on the upper floors would result in overlooking and resultant loss of privacy for the dwelling at 142 Finchfield Hill contrary to Policy H18 of the adopted UDP.
11.5 The proximity of the service yard to the rear garden of No. 9 The Terrace would be likely to harm the amenities of the occupiers, contrary to Policies H17 and ENV2.
Case Officer : David Onions Telephone No : 555631 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 54
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/1004/FP/R WARD: Park; DATE 28-JUN-2004 TARGET DATE: 23-AUG-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 90 Richmond Road, Finchfield PROPOSAL: Two storey extension and garage to side elevation
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr B S Shergill J K Kalsi 90 Richmond Road 2 Coalway Road Finchfield Penn Wolverhampton Wolverhampton WV3 9JD WV3 7LR
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application relates to a detached house occupying a corner plot at the junction of Richmond Road and Alder Dale, Compton. This is within a residential suburb to the west of Wolverhampton town centre.
1.2 The dwelling occupies a spacious plot, which is wider at the front than at the rear. The house itself is positioned on the northern half of the plot but there is a flat roof double garage extension on the southern side of the house that abuts the side boundary with Alder Dale. The front garden is screened with vegetation as is the rear garden boundary to 1 Alder Dale. The boundary to Alder Dale comprises a 2m high fence along the back of footway with some screening towards the rear part of the garden.
2. Planning History
2.1 A/C/3663/77 – Double garage – Granted 6th February 1978.
2.2 03/0710/FP – Two-storey side extension – Refused 9th July 2003. This application proposed a 4.5m wide two-storey side extension plus 2.8m wide single-storey garage extension in place of the present double garage on the south side of the house. A loft conversion incorporating a dormer window on the north side of the house was also proposed. The application was refused on the following grounds: -
“The proposed development by virtue of its size, massing and prominent appearance would create an unacceptable dominating impact on the character of the street scene. The development would be clearly seen from Alder Dale creating a detracting two storey structure, which would have an overbearing impact on the character and visual amenity of the street scene. Furthermore, the proposal would create a disproportioned extension which is considered over development of the site and does not take into account the style and position of the existing house, thus would
Page 56 create a detrimental impact on the area. The side dormer window would also appear odd as the neighbouring properties to the north of Richmond Road all have hipped ended roofs. The proposal is therefore contrary to Policy H18 & ENV2 of the Wolverhampton MBC Unitary Development Plan & Supplementary Planning Guidance Note 4 on House Extension Design Guide.”
2.3 An Appeal was lodged against the Council’s decision to refuse this application, which was subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspectorate on 31st March 2004. The current application is a resubmission following dismissal of the appeal and proposes a smaller extension.
2.3 There is an existing conservatory extension at the rear of the dwelling although it is unclear when this was constructed.
3. Application Details
3.1 The proposal is for a two-storey extension and garage on the south side of the house replacing the existing double garage. The proposed ground floor element is 3.5m wide and 9.4m long with a bay window to the front elevation and provides a lounge, lobby and shower room. The first floor has been set back 550mm from the front of the original dwelling and is 8.85m long and provides 2 additional bedrooms each with en-suite.
3.2 The proposed new single garage at the side of the two-storey extensions is 2.9m wide and 5.9m long. The overall width of the extensions on this side of the house is 6.4m. All elements of the proposals have hip roofs; the two-storey element is a lower ridge level than the original dwelling.
3.3 The existing integral garage on the north side of the house is also to be converted to a study incorporating provision of a new bay window
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 ENV2 “Design Standards” and SPG4 “Extension to Houses”.
5. Publicity
5.1 Direct neighbour notifications were sent to adjacent properties in Richmond Road, Richmond Drive and Alder Dale. The consultation period expires on 22nd July 2004. No objections had been received at time of writing.
5.2 The agent for the applicant has requested to speak at planning Committee in support of the application.
6. Consultees
6.1 None required.
Page 57 7. Appraisal
7.1 The key issue is whether the proposals overcome the previous grounds for refusal and the dismissed appeal. In particular the size, massing and prominent appearance of the proposed extensions and impact upon the character of the street scene.
7.2 The current application has made the following changes: -
- The two-storey element is 3.5m wide instead of 4.5m wide. - The roof hip above the extensions is lowered instead of extending the existing ridge. - The first floor element has been set back 550mm from the original dwelling. - An extended hip roof canopy is proposed above the new bay window on the south side of the house. - The loft conversion has been omitted hence no dormer window is included.
7.3 The proposed two-storey extensions have been reduced in width and height and the first floor set back, in an attempt to make the extensions subordinate to the original dwelling and reduce the scale and massing. However it is still considered that the size and scale of the resulting dwelling and proximity of the two-storey building to the boundary with Alder Dale would be unduly prominent and overbearing thus having a negative impact upon the view from this side road to the detriment of the visual amenities of the area. It would also result in a loss of spaciousness to the corner plot, which is out of keeping with the character and nature of surrounding corner plots. The minimal reduction in the width of the proposed two-storey extensions is considered not to be sufficient to overcome these concerns.
8. Conclusion
8.1 It is considered that the proposed two-storey extension would still appear as a dominant and overbearing feature within the street scene due to the proximity to the boundary with Alder Dale from where there are exposed views of the proposal. The Inspector noted that the previous proposal would have resulted in a “two-storey development that would be very appreciably closer to the side boundary that is marked by a fence” and commented that “at present, there is a sense of space between the appeal property and Alder Dale that contributes to the pleasant residential character of the area” concluding that “This sense of space would be seriously reduced, if the appeal were allowed”. Given that the current proposal indicates a minimal reduction of 1m in the width of the proposed two-storey extensions it is considered that it would still reduce the sense of spaciousness to the corner plot, which is out of keeping with the character of the surrounding area.
8.2 For these reasons the proposal is considered contrary to Policy ENV2 and SPG4 and does not overcome the previous grounds for dismissal of the appeal.
Page 58 9. Recommendation
9.1 Refusal of permission. - Size, mass and prominent position of the proposed two-storey extensions is dominant within the street scene and detrimental to the spacious character of the area.
Case Officer : Alison Deakin Telephone No : 551134 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 59
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0522/FP/R WARD: Penn; DATE 14-APR-2004 TARGET DATE: 09-JUN-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 44a Wynchcombe Avenue, Penn PROPOSAL: Demolition of existing house and erection of 3 No. three bed detached houses
APPLICANT: AGENT: Ravenscroft Developments Ltd Design To Build Hawthorn House 159 Ivyhouse Lane Charlote Street Coseley Dudley Dudley West Midlands WV14 9LA
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The application site consists of a two storey detached dwelling set within its own substantial grounds, the dwelling itself is located towards the rear of the site. The large garden mainly to the front of the property, is overgrown with some trees and shrubs and there is a hedge along the site frontage with vehicular and pedestrian access onto Wynchcombe Avenue.
1.2 The surrounding area is residential, and the application site has residential properties on all three sides and fronts onto Wynchcombe Avenue. The adjacent properties on the Wynchcombe Avenue frontage have been built during different periods, however, the dwelling to the left, No. 44 Wynchcombe Avenue and that to the right, 11a Rutland Avenue, follow the same building line at the front. No. 44a, the existing property is somewhat of an oddity set back from this established pattern of development. In addition, the application site is far larger than the surrounding plot widths and depths and in itself is out of character with the surrounding area.
2. Planning History
2.1 On 14 January 2004, the Council received application 03/1421/OP for the demolition of the existing house and erection of 3 x 3 bedroom detached houses, this was an outline application with all matters reserved which was subsequently granted planning permsision on 17 February 2004. Therefore, the principle of the development of three detached dwellings at the site has been established.
Page 61 3. Relevant Planning Policies SPG’s and PPG’s
3.1 Within the Unitary Development Plan, the site is not allocated for any particular use or purpose.
3.2 The relevant Unitary Development Plan Policies include ENV2 – Design Standards, H4 – Infill Development, H18 – Planning Considerations, TP14 – Planning Standards, Car Parking, Supplementary Planning Guidance Note No. 3 – Residential Development and PPG3 – Housing are also relevant to the proposed development.
4. Publicity
4.1 Neighbouring residents have been informed of the application by letter dated 19 April 2004 with time for comment expiring on 10 May 2004. In response to this publicity, 7 letters of objection to the proposed development have been received from neighbouring residents at 1 Tenbury Gardens, 11a, 11b and 12 Rutland Avenue, 44 and 65 Wynchcombe Avenue and a letter from Councillor P Bradley. The reasons for objection include:
• Possible increase in volume of traffic and traffic safety, • Too many new houses, • Possible overlooking and loss of privacy, • Close proximity of new dwellings to existing dwellings, • Restriction to natural light to existing dwellings, • Possible presence of bats.
5. Consultations
5.1 Severn Trent Water confirm no objection to the proposed development subject to an appropriate condition.
5.2 The Wildlife Trust for Birmingham and the Black Country confirm no objection in principle to the development of the site.
6. Appraisal
6.1 The application site currently accommodates 1 two storey detached dwelling on a site area of approximately 858 sq. metres. The dwelling is somewhat of an oddity in the street scene in that it is set back from the predominant building line and is on a significantly larger plot than the surrounding established character of this residential area. The amenity space to the dwelling is situated in the long front garden which is currently overgrown and has some trees and shrubs. The application site therefore appears as a gap within the street scene.
Page 62 6.2 The recent application for the demolition of this vacant dwelling (03/1421/OP) established the principle that 3 x 3 bed dwellings could be accommodated the site, this was granted approval on 17 February 2004. In respect of character of the area with reference to plot, width and depth, the proposed new dwellings would be a similar proportion and occupy similar plot sizes to those of adjacent properties. The proposed dwellings at first floor level would also be in line with the established building line of adjacent properties. However the proposed integral garages project 3m and 2.6m beyond the building line established by the adjacent houses at 44 Wynchombe Avenue and 11a Rutland Avenue. In this location they would introduce an unduly dominant feature into the streetscene.
6.3 In accordance with Policy Guidance embodied within the Council’s Unitary Development Plan, Supplementary Planning Guidance and PPG’s, the proposed development would conform with these polices, particularly with PPG3 – Housing, where the Government is encouraging appropriate residential development on Brownfield land.
6.4 With regard to neighbour comments and objections, No. 1 Tenbury Gardens, the proposed new dwellings would be set further away from this dwelling than the existing dwelling and therefore the proposal would provide an improvement to the privacy and amenity situation for these residents. In respect of the objection from 11a Rutland Avenue, this property has glazing to the front door, which is side orientated, and side windows to the bedroom at first floor and ground floor lounge, however, these are secondary windows and the main windows to this property are to the front at both ground and first floor level. However, the proposed new dwelling closest to 11a Rutland Avenue only maintains a distance of between 0.2m and 0.7m from the boundary. This is too close. The residents at the other neighbouring dwelling, No. 44 Wynchcombe are concerned more generally in respect of possible traffic generation and development may be too cramped and not in keeping with other properties in the area. These issues have been addressed within the appraisal of the proposed development. Two letters of comment from residents at Nos. 11a and 12 Rutland Avenue are in repsect of the possiblity of bats living in the roof space of the property, this issue has been specifiically investigated by the Council’s ecologist who confirms that there are no gaps in the roof covering or soffit board to provide access for bats or staining on the white render. The only bat record from eco record is approximately 750 metres away and this is an old record for one pipistrelle. The Council’s Ecologist therefore considers that it is unlikely that bats reside in the building but recommend that prior to and during demoltion of the existing house considerable care must be taken that no bats are present. If any signs of bats are detected work would need to stop and licence obtained from English Nature.
6.5 The Highway Engineer raises concern about the proposed access arrangements. He has requested a number of amendments including the provision of one vehicular access point to the site rather than the two proposed, the submission of a drawing detaling the visibility splay, and confirmation of the front boundary treatment. A tree report should also be sumbitted prior to the granting of any consent.
Page 63 6.6 In conclusion, whilst the site is capable of accommodating 3 dwellings, the current proposed houses are too large for the site. The siting of the houses provides a poor relationship particularly in respect of impact on the streetscene and proximity to 11a Rutland Avenue. There are also highway issues that need to be resolved. Subject to consideration of the details, it is recommended that 3 smaller houses or 2 large dwellings would be aceptable on this site.
7. Reccommendation
7.1 Delegated authority to the Chief Planning & Highways Officer to either grant planning permission subject to receipt of satisfactory revised drawings that should provide 3 smaller dwellings on the site, or alternatively 2 large dwellings, and address the highway concerns and tree/boundary treatment matters identified above OR to refuse if satisfactory amended plans are not received.
7.2 If satisfactory amended plans are received then planning permsision will be subject to conditions that shall include samples of materials, boundary treatments, landscaping and a standard condition requested by Severn Trent Water.
Case Officer : Martyn Gregory Telephone No : 551125 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 64
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0818/FP/R WARD: Penn; DATE 03-JUN-2004 TARGET DATE: 29-JUL-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 57 Brenton Road, Penn PROPOSAL: First floor side and two storey rear extension
APPLICANT: AGENT: Ms T Westwood Mr S Prior 57 Brenton Road The Priory Penn Church Lane Wolverhampton Coven WV4 5NS WV9 5DE
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 This site comprises a traditional, red brick, semi-detached property with hipped roof. There is a single storey side garage, projecting slightly forward of the house, in line with the porch and bay window. There is a very defined building line on the front and rear.
1.2 The adjoining house, (59 Brenton Road) has a dining room closest to the application boundary at ground floor and bedroom above. There is a 1.8m high panel fence on the boundary, stepping down in height towards the end of the garden.
1.3 The adjacent house (55 Brenton Road) has a single storey garage adjoining the boundary. A kitchen at ground floor and bedroom above are the closest habitable rooms. A first floor landing and toilet window exists on the side elevation There is a 1.8m high panel fence and hedge on the boundary.
1.4 There is a difference in levels around the site. The houses are at a lower level than the pavement. The application site is approx. 500mm higher than no. 55 Brenton Road and the rear gardens of 55, 57 and 59, slope down in a north east direction.
1.5 The applicant’s rear garden has several freestanding structures to accommodate dogs. However, I do not consider them to cover more than 50% of the rear garden area.
2. Application Details
2.1 The application proposes a two storey side extension, which would be set back at first floor 750mm and would project 2m beyond the rear elevation. The rear projection would be on the boundary with no. 55 and 4.85m wide, 3.4m set in from the side boundary with 59 Brenton Road.
Page 66
3. Relevant Policies
3.1 ENV2 – Design Standards SPG4 – Extensions to Houses
4. Publicity
4.1 Neighbour letters have been sent and expired 29th June 2004. A letter of objection has been received from Mr and Mrs Galbraith of 59 Brenton Road. They are concerned about loss of skyline and light to the west, and loss of outlook due to the proposed solid brick wall projecting 2metres into the garden. The neighbour has requested to speak at Planning Committee
4.2 A letter of objection has been received from Mrs A Paterson, 63 Brenton Road. The main objection is the extension would be too large, as there are several buildings and structures in the garden to house animals.
5. Appraisal
5.1 The proposed design is acceptable and would accord with the policies of ENV2 and SPG 4 – Extensions to Houses. The roof line would be lower than the original and would have an acceptable appearance in the street scene.
5.2 The rear projecting extension, which would be situated approx. 3.4m from the boundary with the neighbouring property, and project 2m, would not have an adverse impact on 59 Brenton Road due to both the distances away from the boundary and the minimal projection. The light and outlook to the dining room and bedroom would not be significantly reduced. The sunlight to the private garden area would be unaffected by the proposal.
5.3 The two storey extension on the boundary with no. 55 would be to the east but would not affect the outlook of rear, north facing rooms. I consider the 2m projection would be unlikely to have an overbearing affect on this neighbour’s amenity.
6. Recommendation
6.1 Grant permission. Condition matching materials.
Case Officer : Jenny Davies Telephone No : 555608 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 67
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0859/FP/R & WARD: St Peters; 04/0862/LB/R DATE 11-JUN-2004 TARGET DATE: 06-AUG-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: Hampton Walk 20 - 21 Queen Square, Wolverhampton PROPOSAL: Change of use of office space to 6 No. apartments (including conversion of loft space) and erection of new apartment at rear of 20 - 21 Queen Square
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Cheema Mr B Faulkner 7 Hampton Walk CAD UK Wolverhampton Orchard Cottage Churns Hill Lane Himley West Midlands
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The site is situated in the City Centre with its main frontage onto Queen Square. It has secondary frontage onto Hampton Walk which is a pedestrian link from Queens Square through to the Mander Street entrance. Its rear faces towards the Mander Tower and is clearly visible from the Mander Centre roof-top car park.
1.2 The premises consists of a three/four storey Georgian building facing onto Queen Square. This has been added to at the rear by three storey additions. Further down Hampton Walk is a purpose built two storey retail building which is also part of the application. This abuts the Mander Centre and has all its access from Hampton Walk.
1.3 At present Hampton Walk is closed off at both the Queen Square and the Mander Centre end, by roller shutters after shopping hours.
1.4 Presently the ground floor of the Queen Square building is used as retail, with the upper floors used, or last used, as offices. The free standing building further down Hampton Walk is in use as a retail shop at ground and first floor.
2. Planning History
2.1 An earlier application this year for an identical scheme, was withdrawn when discrepancies in the survey drawings were pointed out.
2.2 The scheme has been under discussion with various officers of the Council for some considerable time.
Page 69
3. Constraints
3.1 The site is within the Conservation Area, the Culture Quarter and the Shopping Quarter and the main shopping area. The main frontage building is also a statutory listed building.
4. Application Details
4.1 There are two applications. One is for full planning permission. The other is for listed building consent for the same scheme.
4.2 The proposal is to convert the second and third floors of the main Queen Square building from offices to four flats (3, 1-bed and 1, 3-bed). The third bedroom is to be formed within the roofspace. Most of the changes are internal, although several new external windows and small extension at the rear at second and third floor are proposed. A new two-bedroom flat is to be created within this new extension.
4.3. Within the free standing modern shop building at the Mander Centre end of Hampton Walk, it is proposed to convert the first floor and roof from retail space to a 1/2 bed flat with no external changes involved.
4.4 The existing roller shutters at either end of Hampton Walk are to be replaced by more suitable iron gates. The roller shutters on the existing shop will be removed.
4.5 It is also proposed to replace the roof canopy over Hampton Walk as the present canopy is dated and damaged.
5. Relevant Planning Polices
5.1 The following UDP Policies would apply: ENV2 – Design Standards ENV17 & 18 - Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings S12 & TC26 - Use of Upper Floors TC1 – Main Shopping Area E10 – Main Office Location.
6. Publicity
6.1 The applications have been advertised by means of site notices and newspaper advertisements. No response has been received.
7. Consultations
7.1 The following is a list of consultees and responses received: - • Conservation Officer: acceptable in principle subject to approval of details. • Fire Officer: seeking improvements to accessibility and means of escape.
Page 70
8. Appraisal
8.1 The principle of residential uses within the City Centre is to be welcomed. The office space on the second and third floors have been vacant and unsuccessfully marketed for a considerable time and is likely to remain un-let. The remaining office use on the second floors is to be relocated to the first floor. In these circumstances, the loss of office space to residential uses in the form of 1 to 3 bedroom flats is acceptable.
8.2 Pedestrian access to the flats is via Hampton Walk. This walkway is presently closed after shopping hours which is a concern of fire officer as is the distance from the flat entrances to the public highway. The applicant is addressing this issue. Any progress will be reported at Committee. The roller shutters presently at each end of the walkway are to be replaced with more suitable iron gates to which residents of the flats are each to have keys.
8.3 It is important that pedestrian routes such as Hampton Walk, are provided for use by the general public as an means of contributing to the vitality and viability in the shopping core. To this end the applicant has been asked if he would be willing to permit access by the general public for extended hours. Any such planning gain should be secured for the future, by means of a 106 Agreement and this is recommended. The applicant has responded by offering to provide such access between 0800 hours to 1800 hours Monday to Saturdays with extensions to these hours to coincide with late night and seasonal Sunday openings of the Mander Centre.
8.4 The details supplied in respect of the many internal alterations which for the most part consist of removing existing and putting in new partition walls and new staircases, respect the historic and architectural integrity of the listed building. Several aspects however require further detail before they can be shown to be entirely acceptable. Where this is the case, further details have been requested, for which appropriate conditions are recommended on any consent.
8.5 Overall the scheme should secure a viable economic use for this important building, thus ensuring its upkeep. It will also provide much needed new City Centre living accommodation, and result in a mix of retail, offices and living accommodation within the same building complex, which providing the fire access can be satisfactorily dealt with, should be welcomed.
8.6 Providing noise insulation to the flats where they face onto Queen Square is also an important consideration. No details have been supplied with the application and so a suitable condition is recommended requiring a noise report to be commissioned and any recommendation implemented.
Page 71
9. Recommendation
9.1 Delegated authority be given to the Chief Planning & Highways Officer to grant Planning and Listed building consent subject to:
1. Satisfactory plans/drawings on all outbuilding details including satisfactory fire access/escape. 2. Signing of a 106 Agreement to secure public access through Hampton Walk to coincide with the openings hours of the Mander Centre. 3. Noise survey and implementation of any recommendations as to insulation. 4. Prior approval of facing materials for the extension and other external works. 5. Large scale drawings of all new architectural details. 6. Existing roller shutters to shopfronts and passage way to be removed before the uses hereby approved are commenced and details of replacements for gateways to be agreed.
Or to refuse planning permission if items 1 – 6 above are not satisfactorily resolved.
Case Officer : Alan Murphy Telephone No : 555623 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 72
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0877/FP/R WARD: Tettenhall Wightwick; DATE 16-JUN-2004 TARGET DATE: 11-AUG-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: Full Planning Permission
SITE: 7 Viewlands Drive, Wightwick PROPOSAL: Two storey extension to front, side and rear and single storey extension to front and rear
APPLICANT: AGENT: Mr Bhandal S D Design 7 Viewlands Drive 2 Bratch Lane Wightwick Wombourne Wolverhampton South Staffs WV6 8BG WV5 9AD
REPORT:
1. Site Description
1.1 The property concerned is set off a private access drive, leading to the application site and the neighbouring property at No. 6 Viewlands Drive. The property is within a 50m-tolerance zone of Wightwick Bank Conservation Area and is surrounded by the Tettenhal Ridge Ancient Woodland. The property is a large detached house, set in substantial grounds, with outdoor pool. The boundary of the site is completely screened with mature trees and vegetation, which is a defining characteristic of the area.
2. Planning History
2.1 03/0312/FP - Danewood Viewlands Drive, Two storey rear extension. - Granted 7 May 2003. C/2810/89 - Danewood Viewlands Drive, Extensions to property and new pitched roof to garage. - Granted 7 November 1989 STU/0989 - Plot 40, Viewlands Estate, Wightwick Bank The erection of dwelling house and garage. - Granted 18 March 1957.
3. Application Details
3.1 The proposal is for a single storey extension to front and rear, and two- storey extension to side.
3.2 The single storey front extension is 3.9m in length and projects out by 1.25m, linking in with the existing entrance porch, providing a hallway entrance to the proposed sitting room area.
Page 74 3.3 The single storey extension to the rear will follow on from the existing single storey rear element, being 9.3m in length and 3.5m wide. The use will be for a study, and playroom.
3.4 The two-storey element projects forward and rear of the existing property. To the front the extension will project forward by 3.25m and will be 4.8m wide, and to the rear the extension will project out by 3.5m. The total length of the two-storey extension will be 13.3m. The extension will provide a store, playroom and sitting room to ground floor and two further bedrooms with ensuites above.
4. Relevant Policies
4.1 Unitary Development Plan Policy: ENV2 Design Standards. ENV1 Development Principles.
4.2 Supplementary Planning Guidance: Note 4 “Extensions to Houses” (SPG4) Note 3 “Residential Development” (SPG3)
5. Publicity
5.1 Neighbour letters have been sent out and expired on 12 July 2004. Two letters of objection as follows:
Mr Ian Russell of “Ridgewood”, 8 Firsway, Wightwick (Objection sent by E-Mail 28 June 2004) – Property is already significantly elevated above my own residence. Further additions would overlook my property causing serious distress, resulting in implications on resale values and desirability of my residence. Neighbour has also written in on 6 July 2004 requesting to speak at Committee.
Mr and Mrs N Owens of 10 Firsway, Wightwick (Objection received by letter on 5 July 2004) – Eliminate the noise and nuisance of construction traffic. Safeguard the old sandstone wall, which is load bearing and supports the access drive, which has already been damaged due to other building work close by. Protect the exceptional environment from more building and greater occupancy.
6. Consultees
6.1 Conservation – No reply received at time of writing.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The design of the extension is in keeping with the existing property and the surrounding area. There is ample amenity space to the property to support the size and use of the extension.
Page 75 7.2 The property is surrounded by Mature trees, and vegetation, which provides a private enclosure to the application site and surrounding properties. This vegetation is an important defining characteristic of this area, as the property is surrounded by ancient woodland. Therefore, it is felt that if further extensions to the rear of the existing property, would disturb or require the removal of such vegetation, having a detrimental impact on the setting of this property and to the neighbouring amenity at No. 6 Viewlands Drive. A report would be necessary to clarify whether the development would result in the removal of vegetation along the boundary with No. 6 Viewlands Drive, before a decision could be made.
7.3 No. 6 Viewlands Drive, is currently undergoing considerable building work at present, increasing the size and position of the property. Once work is complete the extended property will be positioned approximately 21m away from the proposal. The minimum requirement of distance between habitable room windows is 22m, therefore, the proposal will be just below the recommended distance for new housing estates as stated in SPG3 “Residential Development”. However, due to the vegetation along the boundary, providing adequate screening the impact in this instance would be minimal. Nevertheless, If the vegetation where to be removed or damaged, then the impact would increase, with an open aspect across both properties, and loss of privacy.
7.4 The application also proposes a new landing window to the rear elevation, which could directly overlook the neighbouring property, especially in the winter months. This would result in loss of privacy to the No. 6 especially across its surrounding amenity space. The rear- landing window would need to be reduced in size and fixed with obscure glazing, which will restrict any direct overlooking from this window.
7.5 The two properties situated below the application site are No. 8 and 9 Firsway, Wightwick. These two properties are set on a much lower ground, and at present screened by mature trees along the boundary of the site, although this may deteriorate during the winter months. The proposal is approximately 39.5m away from No. 8 and No. 9, therefore, it is felt that due to the considerable distance between the properties, the impact will be minimal, and would not warrant a refusal on this basis.
8. Conclusion
8.1 Request a full report on the surrounding landscaping, and possible removal or damage to vegetation along the boundary with No. 6 Viewlands Drive, to the rear of the application site. Amended plans required showing reduced size of landing window, being fixed with obscure glazing.
Page 76 9. Recommendation
9.1 Delegated authority to the Chief Planning and Highways Officer to grant permission providing that satisfactory report received confirming that there will be no damage or removal of vegetation along the boundary with No. 6 Viewlands Drive, and satisfactory amended plans. Refuse if amendments are not forthcoming in time before expiry date (11 August 2004) or the report is negative showing substantial damage or removal of vegetation.
Case Officer : Tracey Homfray Telephone No : 555641 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 77
PLANNING COMMITTEE - 27-JUL-2004
APP NO: 04/0778/GM/C WARD: Wednesfield South DATE 25-MAY-2004 TARGET DATE: 20-JUL-2004 RECEIVED: APP TYPE: GDO Determination (Ground Masts)
SITE: Star Chem Ltd. Strawberry Lane Willenhall. PROPOSAL: Retrospective application. Telecommunications development comprising retention of 1 No. 22 metre high lattice tower with 6 No. antennas, 1 No. dish, equipment cabin and ancillary development.
APPLICANT: AGENT: O2 (UK) Ltd Turner & Partners 5 Reynoldstone Close Unit 5 Hockley Court Brackmills Industrial Estate 2401 Stratford Road Northampton Hockley Heath NN4 7BK Birmingham B94 6NW
REPORT:
1. Site Description and Application Details and Relevant Background,
1.2 The current planning permission for this mast (00/1006/FP) is 150 metres to the east of the mast’s present location. This application is to obtain planning permission for the masts present location and rescind the planning permission for application No. 00/1006/FP.
1.3 The application site is located 120 metres to the north of Strawberry Lane in a predominantly industrial area, and set against a backdrop of industrial buildings. The nearest residential properties are to the southwest in Helming Drive 270 metres away from the application site and Denmore Gardens 280 metres away. The residential properties are separated from the application site by two storey industrial buildings and a railway line.
1.3 Deansfield High School is also south of the railway line. There is a distance of 460 metres from the mast to the nearest school buildings and 260 metres to the closest part of the school playing fields.
1.4 There are 3 masts in the locality: -
(i) The 20 metre high lattice tower on the application site. (ii) A temporary 15 metre high mast (airwave) approximately 32 metres to the south of the application site granted permission until 31 March 2005 (04/0170/FP). (iii) A 15 metre high lattice mast (Hutchinson 3G, ref 01/0468/GM) approx. 58 metres to the southwest of the application site.
Page 79 2. Planning History
2.1 The following telecommunications masts have existing permission but have not been erected.
i. 00/1006/FP – 20 metre mast for BT Cellnet (now 02). The mast would be positioned 150 metres to the east of the current siting of the 02 mast. As a part of any approval for the proposed mast this planning permission (00/1006/FP) would be subject to a revocation order, therefore rescinding the 00/1006/FP permission.
ii. 00/1162/FP – 20 metre mast for Orange. (see location on attached map)
2.2 The attached O.S. map shows the position of the 3 existing masts and 2 masts that have been approved but not yet implemented.
3. Application Details
3.1 The agents have stated ‘this retrospective application relates to planning application 00/1006/FP that was granted permission on 28 September 2000. The plans accompanying the application, incorrectly showed the location of the proposed mast as being located on land owned by Perry Willenhall Steel Service Centres Ltd which was approximately 100m east of the intended site location. The installation however was built on the intended site that is owned by Starchem Ltd. Therefore the installation was in fact built on a site that did not have planning approval. This error was not realised until the Local Planning Authority visited the site regarding a different matter and brought the issue to O2‘s attention. This application is therefore being submitted to rectify this situation and allow O2 to continue to provide a satisfactory level of service to its customers in this area.’
3.2 Discussions have taken place between Chris Searle of Turner & Partners and Maz Aqbal, Enforcement Officer with regard to this matter. To remedy the situation it was advised that a retrospective application needs to be submitted to seek permission for the current O2 installation. Additionally written confirmation had to be sought from the landowner where the permission is already granted that this planning permission will not be implemented’.
3.3 The Managing Director of Perry Willenhall Street Service Centres Ltd (the site of the 00/1006/FP planning permission) has also confirmed ‘that there is no proposal to allow O2 (UK)Ltd to take access to any part of Perry Willenhall Steel Service Centres Ltd land at Strawberry Lane, Wolverhampton and can confirm that the drawing sent to you in the original application illustrated our property by mistake’.
4. Relevant Policies & Guidance
4.1 ENV2 – Design Standards Interim Telecommunications Policy
Page 80 5. Publicity
5.1 Public consultation time expired 16 July 2004, no objections received.
6. Consultations
6.1 No adverse comments.
7. Appraisal
7.1 The Interim Telecommunications Policy explains that in less sensitive locations such as commercial and industrial areas (excluding locations close to a boundary with a more sensitive location) then subject to satisfactory screening and no adverse effect on the backdrop of other buildings or the skyline, a telecommunications mast may be acceptable.
7.2 The Policy also states that ‘Ground based masts are appropriate only in industrial areas or locations away from dwellings and their gardens, schools and health facilities’ and ‘Monopole masts are preferred to lattice masts which will normally only be allowed in industrial areas or where they will not be visually prominent’.
7.3 The proposed mast is already in place, is 20 metres in height (plus 2m high antennas) and is located in Strawberry Lane, a predominantly industrial and commercial area. The mast is lattice in design and surrounded by, and set against a backdrop of industrial and commercial units. When viewed from Strawberry Lane, Planetary Road and the pedestrian bridge that crosses the railway line the mast is obscured apart from the antennas and the top part of the mast. Although there are two other masts in the vicinity it is considered that due to the industrial backdrop to the location there are no adverse affects on visual amenity or the street scene.
7.3 It is proposed to grant retrospective consent for this mast only if the applicant is preparde to agree to the formal revocation of the original consent Ref: 00/1006/FP. The applicant has agreed to this and so this is set out in the recommendation.
8. Recommendation
8.1 Delegated authority to The Chief Planning & Highways Officer to grant planning permission, subject to the completion of a revocation order in respect of planning application 00/1006/FP.
Case Officer : Nicholas Howell Telephone No : 555648 Head of Development Control - Andy Johnson Chief Planning & Highways Officer - Costas Georghiou
Page 81