Schedule of Applications PDF 14 MB

Transcription

PLANNING COMMITTEE
13th March 2012
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS
REPORT OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (COMMUNITIES, PLANNING &
PARTNERSHIPS)
BOROUGH OF TAMWORTH
PLANNING COMMITTEE
SCHEDULE OF APPLICATIONS
13th March 2012
A
Reports for Consideration
4
B
Appeals Received
0
C
Appeal Decisions
0
D
Consultations
0
BACKGROUND PAPERS
Staffordshire & Stoke on Trent Structure Plan 1996 - 2011
Tamworth Local Plan 2001 - 2011
All other documents referred to in individual reports
SUMMARY OF PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR DETERMINATION
Part A
Reports for consideration
Application Number:
0558/2011 and 0568/2012
Development:
Part change of use, alterations and extensions, reconstruction and
demolition/replacement of identified existing buildings
Location:
7 Lower Gungate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7AE
Recommendations:
0558/2011 – Permit subject to conditions
0568/2011 – Consent subject to conditions
Target Date:
28/02/2012
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Application Number:
0585/2011
Development:
Proposed demolition of vacant retail unit A1 and erection of three adjoining A3
restaurant units
Location:
Allied Carpets, Ventura Park Road, Tamworth, B78 3HB
Recommendation:
Refuse
Target Date:
03/02/2012
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Application Number:
0037/2012
Development:
Alteration to existing access to allow maintenance vehicles to enter Tameside
Nature Reserve
Location:
Tameside Nature Reserve, Peelers Way, Tamworth
Recommendation:
Permit subject to conditions
Target Date:
15/03/2012
Application Number:
0558/2011 and 0568/2012
Development:
Part change of use, alterations and extensions, reconstruction and
demolition/replacement of identified existing buildings
Location:
7 Lower Gungate, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B79 7AE
Target Date:
28/02/2012
1.
Proposal
1.1
The application proposes the re-development of the courtyard to the rear of 3a-7 Lower Gungate.
The proposals are for the part change of use to retail/café/office/residential, including the
reconstruction, demolition, replacement, alteration, and extensions to this set of important but
dilapidated buildings. The applications to be considered relate to an application for planning
permission and its associated listed building consent.
1.2
The existing buildings on site are comprised of the following; A two storey building sited along the
boundary with 3 Lower Gungate (Building A); A former cart shed to the rear of the site adjacent to its
boundary with St Edithas Church (Building B); Part two-storey part single storey buildings to the
northern boundary of the site, adjacent to the Deanery Wall (Buildings C and D); A two storey
building linked to No 5 Lower Gungate (Building E); and A two storey building forming an extension
to No 7 Lower Gungate (Building F).
1.3
The proposals for each building comprise;
Building A;
Renew the existing bowed roof and carry out localised rebuilding. Convert the
building to provide a kiosk within the single storey part of the building adjacent to
the site entrance, a retail unit at ground floor, and a one bedroom unit utilising the
first floor
Building B;
The building would need reconstructing, with the provision of a pitched roof over the
building to create a one and a half storey building to facilitate the provision of a
café/retail facility.
Buildings C/D; These buildings are severely damaged and require almost complete demolition. The
proposal provides for the reconstruction of the building and its conversion/use as an
office/studio/retail unit.
Building E;
Proposed to be retained and converted to provide a one bedroom residential unit.
Building F;
The application proposes its reconstruction of an existing extension to provide an
entrance hall, stairs and a bathroom for the existing two bedroom residential unit
above No 7 Lower Gungate.
1.4
The proposal also includes the removal of the existing canopy within the site, the provision of a
residential amenity area to serve the flat above No 7 Lower Gungate, the resurfacing of the whole
area, and the erection of a single storey extension to No 3a Lower Gungate (Truckles) to provide
toilet facilities for the existing shop.
1.5
The following documents have been submitted in support of the application;
•
•
•
•
•
Design & Access Statement;
Archaeological Desk Based Assessment;
Report on Trial Hole Investigations;
Structural Appraisal of the Buildings;
Protected Species Report;
Following consultation with the agent the following supplemental information has been submitted;

1.6
Photomontages; and
Generic Fenestration Details.
A separate application for Scheduled Monument Consent (SMC) was granted consent by English
Heritage on the 27th February 2012.
2.
Site and Surroundings
2.1
The site is located within the heart of the town centre, accessed from the pedestrianised part of
Lower Gungate opposite the site of the approved Gungate redevelopment. The site is bound to the
east by Lower Gungate, to the west by St Editha’s church yard and to the north and south by
existing boundary walls.
2.2
The site consists of the buildings fronting Lower Gungate comprising No 7 and 5, both of which are
grade II listed buildings dating from around 1840, with a courtyard of outbuildings to the rear which
are considered to be curtilage listed as they were ancillary to Claridge’s the butchers (No 5 now
occupied by Coates the butchers) at the time of listing. No 3a (Truckles) which also fronts Lower
Gungate is locally listed and dates from the late 19th Century. The Deanery Wall also grade II listed,
forms part of the northern boundary of the site, with the grade I listed St Editha’s Church beyond the
site to the west. The site is also part of the Deanery Scheduled Ancient Monument and within the
Town Centre Conservation Area.
3.
Key Issues
3.1
The main issues for consideration are considered to be the principle of development and the impact
of the proposal on the heritage assets of the site and their surroundings. In particular the grade 1
listed St Editha’s Church, the Deanery Scheduled Ancient Monument, the listed buildings
themselves and the character and appearance of the town centre conservation area in general.
4.
Conclusion
4.1
The proposed change of use of the buildings to provide a mix of retail, café and office uses, and
residential accommodation, facilitated though their refurbishment and reconstruction is considered
to enhance this part of the conservation area. The uses are considered to be compatible with the
existing uses within the town centre and will aid in the maintenance of a vital and viable town centre,
through the use of currently redundant and at risk buildings. Subject to conditions requiring the
submission of further details of the proposed material specifications and restrictions on operating
hours, the proposal would not detract from the amenity of town centre conservation area, the listed
buildings to which the alterations are proposed or the setting of any of the nearby listed buildings.
The development is therefore considered to comply with Policies ENV19, TCR1, TCR5, HSG5 and
TCR12 of the Tamworth Local Plan, Policies D2, TC1, NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire and
Stoke on Trent Structure Plan, the provisions of PPS4 and PPS5, and Sections 16 and 66 of the
Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Recommendation
0558/2011;
0568/2011;
Approve subject to conditions
0558/2011 and 0568/2011
ER
LOW
A TE
NG
GU
LANE
OOL
SCH
CHUR
CH
LANE
NING
SPIN
TLE
LIT
U
CH
H
RC
E
LAN
P
The
recin
ct
ST EDITHA'S CLOSE
CHURCH STREET
L
HIL
LE
CO
EL
LEG
COL
IA
OR
CT
VI
MIDDLE ENTRY
ANE
E
LEG
Middle Entry
COL
E
LA N
BO
LE
B
RI
Market Place
DG
E
ST
RE
ET
rge
Geo
et
Stre
Lan
mon
Com
e
©
Crown copyright and database rights 2011.
Ordnance Survey 100018267
AD
RO
5.
Site History
5.1
0543/2004: Demolition of two storey rear range and making good. Consent with Conditions,
03/09/2004.
6.
Consultation Responses
6.1
Tamworth Borough Council – Environmental Health
6.1.1
No specific objections to the proposed development. However, in the interests of the amenities of
new residents conditions are recommended relating to noise and odour.
6.2
Tamworth Borough Council – Waste
6.2.1
No objections to the proposed scheme. It would be preferable if the domestic and commercial bins
were stored separately, with the domestic bins needing to be presented on Lower Gungate. It
should be noted that it is a legal requirement that commercial waste is securely contained is suitable
and sufficient containers.
6.3
Staffordshire County Council – The Highway Authority
6.3.1
No objections
6.4
Staffordshire Police
6.4.1
No objections to the scheme. However, the importance of security being incorporated in to the
proposal is highlighted.
6.5
Staffordshire County Council – Ecology
6.5.1
As the bat survey indicates that there is no evidence of bats within the building, the contents of the
report and its recommendations are considered appropriate.
6.6
Severn Trent Water
6.6.1
No objections subject to the submission and approval of a drainage scheme.
6.7
Staffordshire County Council – Archaeology
6.7.1
As there is considerable archaeology potential in the area, the proposed works have the potential to
impact upon significant and sensitive archaeological deposits. As such a condition requiring the
securing and implementation of a programme of archaeological work including excavation, building
recording, post excavation analysis, publication of a report and preparation of appropriate public
interpretation media in accordance with a written scheme of investigation is recommended.
6.8
English Heritage
6.8.1
Have not commented in detail on the application as an application for Scheduled Ancient Monument
Consent (SMC) had been submitted to them. One condition of the SMC will require the supervision
of groundworks by a suitably qualified person and should be made a condition of the planning
permission.
6.9
Conservation Officer
6.9.1
Has some concerns that the proposed increase in height of Building B (to the boundary with St
Editha’s church) would make this building more dominant in views in and out of the churchyard.
However, in the context of the other buildings surrounding the churchyard it is considered on
balance the impact of the proposal would be difficult to uphold on appeal. The proposals are
considered to create a harmonious group but much will be down to the detail and materials used. In
principle the refurbishment and rebuilding of the group of 19th Century outbuildings is to be
supported.
6.10
Conservation Area Advisory Committee
6.10.1 General support for the reuse of the buildings. Concerns were raised in respect of the servicing,
archaeology, and fenestration detail. Would prefer the views to be opened up and the introduction of
a physical link
7.
Additional Representations
7.1
One letter of representation has been received in respect of the application. The concerns raised
relate to the impact of the proposed development on the residential properties at 1-3 Lower Gungate
to the south of the site. Opening times of the proposed uses was requested to normal opening hours
of 08:30 – 17:30.
8.
Planning Considerations
8.1
The main issues for consideration in the determination of this application are considered to be;
•
•
•
•
•
Principle of Development;
Impact on Heritage Assets / Siting and Design Considerations
Amenity Considerations;
Protected Species; and
Section 106 Contributions.
8.2
Principle of Development
8.2.1
The application site is located both within the town centre conservation area, and the primary
shopping area. The application proposes the provision of café/retail/office facilities along with
residential accommodation. An assessment of the proposed uses needs to be considered in context
of the health, vitality, and viability of the Town Centre. Therefore it is considered that the starting
point for assessing the acceptability of the current proposals is the contents of Local Plan Policies
TCR1, TCR5 and HSG5. In addition, the national policy guidance which relates to town centre uses
is contained within Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4).
8.2.2
Policy TCR1 of the Local Plan seeks to reinforce the retail and commercial role of the town centre,
through supporting the refurbishment of existing buildings providing they are designed to enhance
the character and appearance of the area. As the site is located to the rear of Lower Gungate which
is identified as a secondary shopping frontage there are no restrictions on uses which are
considered to be appropriate to the shopping area. In principle therefore there are no objections to
the provision of café/retail/office facilities, which will aid in maintaining the health, vitality, and
viability of the town centre. Support for the location of these uses within the town centre is echoed in
PPS4 and the draft National Planning Policy Framework.
8.2.3
As the application site is located within the town centre and proposes the conversion of part of the
buildings in to residential accommodation, Policy TCR5 of the Local Plan is also of relevance in
considering the principle of the proposed development. This policy states that planning permission
will be granted for residential development consisting of the conversion of outbuildings, and as part
of mixed use development schemes. The scheme is consistent with the policy.
8.2.4
In addition, Policy HSG5 of the local plan requires that new residential development does not harm
an area or building of architectural or historic interest (amongst other things). The application
proposes the conversion of existing curtilage listed buildings, which will secure the retention of
important buildings within the town centre, ensuring the reuse of the buildings. Similarly HSG5 also
seeks to protect the character and amenity of the locality. As the proposal provides for the
refurbishment and reconstruction of currently dilapidated buildings, the principle of converting parts
of the buildings in to residential units raises no adverse issues and would improve the character and
amenity of the locality through an increase in night time activity and surveillance within the town
centre thus improving the vitality of the town centre.
8.2.5
Overall the proposed uses are considered to acceptable within this town centre location, the uses
are considered to be compatible with the existing uses within the Town Centre and will aid in the
maintenance of a vital and viable Town Centre.
8.3
Impact on Heritage Assets / General Design Considerations
8.3.1
The proposed scheme lies within the historic core of Tamworth, within an area of considerable
archaeological significance. The site has been identified by researchers as the ecclesiastical core of
Tamworth with the Grade I Listed Church of St. Editha immediately to the west. The proposals are
located within the site of the medieval Deanery, the northern stone boundary wall to No.7 Lower
Gungate dates to the fourteenth century and belonged to the Deanery. The site is considered to be
nationally important and has been designated as a Scheduled Ancient Monument (SAM). No 3a
(Truckles), 5 (Coates) and 7 (vacant) Lower Gungate form an attractive row of three mid 19th
Century shops, which contribute significantly to the character and appearance of this part of the
town centre particularly with their late 19th Century shop fronts. These shop fronts have recently
undergone refurbishment, helped in part by the Councils Conservation Grant scheme.
8.3.2
The Tamworth Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal 2007 (CAA) acknowledges the
importance of the existing outbuildings across the site, and the views through the site to the church
and its tower.
‘The yard contains late 19th Century outbuildings and workshops which, although in poor condition,
are characterful and a rare survival. The yard backs onto the churchyard and fine, picturesque views
of the church and its tower with the roofs of the workshops in the foreground, are available through
the gap in the street frontage. The yard and its outbuildings should be protected, although
substantial maintenance is clearly needed.’
‘The outbuildings behind No 3a Lower Gungate are rare survivors, and an attractive part of the view
to the church from the street, forming a strong visual link to the past use of the rear plots along
Lower Gungate. However, the buildings appear unused and in poor condition. Their restoration and
sensitive reuse may be beneficial to the character of this part of the conservation area.’
8.3.3
The application as submitted was supported by a Desk-Based Archaeological Assessment, which
acknowledges the sensitivity of the site. As a requirement of the site being located on a SAM,
consent has recently been granted for Scheduled Ancient Monument Consent from English Heritage
for the works comprised in these current applications. Following consultation with Staffordshire
County Council Archaeology, and English Heritage the need to ensure that the development has
minimal impact upon the nationally important archaeological deposits is highlighted. A condition is
therefore recommended requiring the implementation of a programme of archaeological work,
including excavation, building recording, post-excavation analysis, publication of a report and
preparation of appropriate public interpretation media. It is worthwhile noting that the Scheduled
Ancient Monument Consent take precedence over any permissions or consents granted.
8.3.5
The Church of St. Editha is located directly to the west of the application site, with the churchyard
wall forming the sites western boundary. The Conservation Area Appraisal describes the churchyard
as
‘... a green, enclosed oasis which evokes the feeling of a churchyard in a Victorian suburb or
village…. Views east and northeast across it look out towards a jumble of red brick and tiled roofs
and take in the attractive properties on Church Lane and Little Church Lane, which cut through to
Lower Gungate.’
The proposed development is visible from the churchyard, particularly with the addition of a pitched
roof over building B which forms the boundary of the site. Photomontages of the site when viewed
from the churchyard have been requested and received from the applicant’s agent to aid in
assessing the impact of the proposals on the setting of St. Editha’s. The part of the building visible
from the churchyard would be two courses of bricks and a plain clay roof. The building originally
included roof lights in this elevation but these have been removed in order to keep the simplicity of
the roofscape akin to other buildings visible from the churchyard. Overall, whilst the provision of a
pitched roof of the building would make the site more visible in views in and out of the churchyard
the jumble of red brick and tiled roofs would help integrate this building within the setting of the
church and is not considered to significantly harm its setting.
8.3.6
The application proposes the refurbishment, and where necessary, rebuilding of the existing
buildings within the site. As detailed within the proposals section above the main areas that require
rebuilding relate to buildings C, D and F which are currently in a significantly poor state of repair,
with buildings A, B and E requiring some rebuilding, re-roofing and stability work. In accordance with
the submitted structural survey the works are considered necessary if the existing building form is to
be retained, which is considered the most appropriate approach in this sensitive historic setting.
8.3.7
An important element of the scheme and the town centre conservation area are the views of the
Church from Lower Gungate, which are currently framed by No3 and 3a Lower Gungate. Whilst the
addition of a pitched roof to building B would screen views of the churchyard from within the site
itself, the important vista from Lower Gungate would not be affected. In fact, the refurbishment of
the buildings visible from Lower Gungate would improve this vista and overall the setting of the
Church and the Town Centre Conservation Area.
8.3.8
The proposed works are considered to substantially improve this part of the conservation area and
secure the retention of the curtilage listed buildings, which allows a glimpse of what existed within
the rear yards of properties on Lower Gungate. In addition, the setting of the grade II listed buildings
fronting Lower Gungate would be substantially improved and the proposals would secure the long
term retention of these buildings which are currently substantially at risk.
8.3.9
Whilst the overall principles of converting and rebuilding the existing buildings within the site are
considered acceptable, the details contained within the conversion are of paramount importance.
During the life of the application typical fenestration details have been submitted, which are
generally acceptable. It is considered necessary to condition precise details of the proposed works
such as materials, bonding, precise details of the rebuilding and reconstruction, repair and
refurbishment works, surfacing of the courtyard area, and a scheme for the protection of the
Deanery wall. Subject to these conditions (as detailed below) the development will ensure a high
quality of architectural expression for the buildings which will enhance the appearance and
character of the conservation area, and the setting of these listed buildings. The proposals are
therefore considered to comply with policies NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire and Stoke on
Trent Structure Plan, the provisions PPS5, and Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
8.4
Amenity Considerations
8.4.1
In assessing the impact of the proposed development and in particular the proposed commercial
uses regard need to be had to the impact of the proposals on existing residents in the area and the
new residents proposed within the residential element of the scheme. The site is located within the
town centre, with the directly adjacent uses being ground floor retail units with offices, and
residential uses above. An existing residential dwelling (No3 Lower Gungate) is located directly to
the south of the site.
8.4.2
In accordance with the consultation response from Environmental Health and as the proposal
includes the provision of residential accommodation above commercial units conditions are
considered necessary that require the noise environment of the residential units to meet a certain
standard, and that precise details of any extraction systems are submitted for approval in order to
ensure the amenities of new residents is protected. In addition, due to the close proximity of the
existing adjacent residential property it is considered necessary to restrict the operating hours of the
commercial elements of the premises to between 07:00 – 21:00 hours.
8.5
Protected Species
8.5.1
A Protected Species Report has been undertaken at the site to assess the existence of any
protected species, particularly bats. The survey results indicate that the proposed development is
not likely to adversely affect any legally protected species, with no evidence of the existing buildings
being use by bats or nesting birds.
8.5.2
In accordance with the consultation response from Staffordshire County Council Ecology there is no
objection to proposed development subject to the securing of suitable compensation for roosting
and nesting.
8.6
Section 106 Contributions
8.6.1
As the application proposes the conversion and alteration of the buildings into retail/café/office units
and the provision of two new residential units the requirements of Policy TCR12 of the LP is
relevant. Policy TCR12 seeks to ensure that the necessary infrastructure, parking facilities and
access is in place and maintained within the town centre. Contributions are based upon the
differences in parking requirements between buildings to which changes of use are proposed. The
requirements of this policy are expanded upon by the ‘Planning Obligations’ SPD. In accordance
with the Planning Obligations SPD consideration has been given to the benefits that will accrue from
the development. It is considered that as the proposals would secure the safeguarding and reuse of
important curtilage listed buildings, improve the character and appearance of the conservation area,
and enhance the setting of listed buildings, these improvements would benefit the town centre to
such an extent that these befits outweigh the benefits that would accrue form the benefits to
transport and the environment and as such a contribution is not considered appropriate.
9.
Conclusion
9.1
The proposed change of use of the buildings to provide a mix of retail, café and office uses, and
residential accommodation, facilitated though their refurbishment and reconstruction is considered
to enhance this part of the conservation area. The uses are considered to be compatible with the
existing uses within the town centre and will aid in the maintenance of a vital and viable town centre,
through the use of currently redundant and at risk buildings. Subject to conditions requiring the
submission of further details of the proposed material specifications and restrictions on operating
hours, the proposal would not detract from the amenity of town centre conservation area, the listed
buildings to which the alterations are proposed or the setting of any of the nearby listed buildings.
The development is therefore considered to comply with Policies ENV19, TCR1, TCR5, HSG5 and
TCR12 of the Tamworth Local Plan, Policies D2, TC1, NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire and
Stoke on Trent Structure Plan, the provisions of PPS4 and PPS5, and Sections 16 and 66 of the
Conditions / Reasons
0558/2012;
Planning Permission
1.
The development shall be started within three years of the date of this permission. Reason: To
comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by Section 51 of
the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2.
The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the application form,
Protected Species Report, Structural Appraisal and drawing numbers 712-01 Revision A, 712-05
Revision A, 712-06 Revision A, and 712-07 Revision B unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the approval
3.
No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme
of archaeological work, including excavation, building recording, post-excavation analysis,
publication of a report and preparation of appropriate public interpretation media, in accordance with
a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The programme of archaeological work shall be fully implemented in accordance
with the approved written scheme of investigation. Reason: The site is of archaeological and
historical interest and it is important that archaeological remains are appropriately understood to
inform the scale and impact and need for further archaeological recording prior to their damage or
destruction by the development in accordance with PPS5.
4.
No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the rebuilding and reconstruction of the
buildings has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
scheme shall detail in plan and written form the precise areas of the buildings requiring rebuilding
and shall include precise details of how they will be reconstructed. The development shall only be
carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local
Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of these curtilage listed
buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of
the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
5.
No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the repair and refurbishment of the
scheme shall detail in plan and written form the precise areas of the buildings requiring repair and
shall include precise details of how the buildings will be repaired including internal finishes of these
listed buildings. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the
character and appearance of these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation
Area in accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and
the provisions of PPS5.
No development shall take place until an assessment of the structural stability of all of the boundary
walls surrounding the site and a scheme for their protection and retention including where necessary
details of any necessary works to secure their protection and retention have been submitted to and
approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in
accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of these curtilage listed buildings
and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of the
Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
6.
7.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of all materials to be used
in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of
these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies
NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
8.
Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the disposal surface waters shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The scheme shall be
implemented in accordance with the approved details. Reason: To ensure that the development is
provided with a satisfactory means of drainage in accordance with Tamworth Local Plan Policy
HSG5.
9.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed bonding, pointing and mortar
mix shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of these
curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies NC18
and NC19 of the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
10.
Prior to the commencement of development details of all new external joinery including materials
and finish, and sections to a minimum scale of 1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved details, and windows and doors shall not be replaced with any alternative type without the
prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and
appearance of these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in
accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the
provisions of PPS5.
11.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed eaves and verge details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be
Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of thses curtilage listed
buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of
the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
12.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the rainwater goods shall be submitted to and
and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of the
Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
13.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the type, number, position and finish of all
plumbing and service pipework, soil and vent pipes, electricity and gas meter cupboards, and
heating and ventilation flues shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character
and appearance of these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in
provisions of PPS5.
14.
Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the commercial waste storage area
and precise details of the waste collection contract shall be submitted to an approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
ensure that suitable waste storage facilities are provided for the development in accordance with
Policy ENV19 of the Tamworth Local Plan 1996-2011.
15.
Prior to the commencement of development precise details of any proposed gates to Lower
Gungate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and
provisions of PPS5.
16.
Prior to the commencement of development a full hard landscaping scheme (incorporating the
surfacing of the courtyard area) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of these curtilage listed buildings and the
Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire
Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
17.
Prior to the commencement of development details of bird and bat boxes to be incorporated in to the
building shall be submitted to an approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved
boxes shall subsequently be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the
development is completed and thereafter retained for the life of the development. Reason: In the
interests of biodiversity interests to accord with Policies ENV7 and ENV8 of the Tamworth Local
Plan and the provisions of PPS9.
18.
Prior to the commencement of development a scheme of sound insulation to residences shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The scheme shall be designed
following the completion of a noise survey undertaken by a competent person. The scheme shall
take account of the need to provide adequate ventilation, which may be by mechanical or passive
means and shall be designed to achieve the following criteria with the ventilation operating:
Bedrooms
Living rooms
Bedrooms
30 dB LAeq (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs)
35 dB LAeq (0700 hrs – 2300 hrs)
45 dB LAmax (2300 hrs – 0700 hrs)
Before the development is occupied the completed scheme shall be validated by a competent
person and a validation report submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority.
Reason: As recommended by the Environmental Protection Manager in the interest of the amenities
of occupiers of the development and nearby land uses in accordance with PPG24.
19.
Prior to the commencement of development a scheme for the extraction, dispersal and where
necessary abatement and control of cooking odour, along with details of all elements of the inlet and
extract systems shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The
approved scheme shall be implemented in full prior to the first use of the development hereby
approved and shall be retained as such thereafter. No modifications to the scheme shall be
undertaken without the prior written approval of the local planning authority. The scheme shall have
regard to the requirements of the following guidance document – “Guidance on the control of odour
and noise from commercial kitchen exhaust systems (DEFRA; Jan 2005)” Reason: As
recommended by the Environmental Protection Manager In the interest of the amenities of
occupiers of the development and nearby land uses in accordance with PPG23.
20.
The hereby approved commercial uses shall not be open to customers or members of the public
outside the following times;
Monday - Sunday 07:00-21:00hrs
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: In the interests of the
amenities of adjoining land uses in accordance with Policy D2 of the Staffordshire and Stoke on
Trent Structure Plan 1996-2011.
21.
No floodlights shall be installed on the building and any external lighting shall be downward facing.
Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with Policies NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire
Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of PPS5.
22.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Classes A, B, C, D, E, G and H of Schedule 2 Part 1 of the Town
and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (or any order revoking or reenacting that Order), there shall be no external alterations to the dwelling or its roof, and no
buildings or structures shall be erected within the curtilage of the dwelling unless permission has
first been granted by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and
provisions of PPS5.
0568/2012;
Listed Building Consent
1.
The development shall be started within three years of the date of this consent. Reason: To comply
with Section 18 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas Act) 1990 (as amended by
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004.
2.
The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the application form,
Protected Species Report, Structural Appraisal and drawing numbers 712-01 Revision A, 712-05
Revision A, 712-06 Revision A, and 712-07 Revision B unless otherwise agreed in writing by the
Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the approval
3.
No development shall take place until the applicant has secured the implementation of a programme
of archaeological work, including excavation, building recording, post-excavation analysis,
publication of a report and preparation of appropriate public interpretation media, in accordance with
a written scheme of investigation, which has been submitted to and approved in writing by the local
planning authority. The programme of archaeological work shall be fully implemented in accordance
with the approved written scheme of investigation. Reason: The site is of archaeological and
historical interest and it is important that archaeological remains are appropriately understood to
inform the scale and impact and need for further archaeological recording prior to their damage or
destruction by the development in accordance with PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning
(Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
4.
No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the rebuilding and reconstruction of the
scheme shall detail in plan and written form the precise areas of the buildings requiring rebuilding
and shall include precise details of how they will be reconstructed. The development shall only be
buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and
Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
5.
No development shall take place until a detailed scheme for the repair and refurbishment of the
scheme shall detail in plan and written form the precise areas of the buildings requiring repair and
shall include precise details of how the buildings will be repaired including internal finishes of these
listed buildings. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details
unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the
character and appearance of these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation
Area in accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
6.
No development shall take place until an assessment of the structural stability of all of the boundary
walls surrounding the site and a scheme for their protection and retention including where necessary
details of any necessary works to secure their protection and retention have been submitted to and
and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16
and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
7.
Prior to the commencement of the development hereby approved details of all materials to be used
in the construction of the external surfaces of the development shall be submitted to and approved
by the Local Planning Authority in writing. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of
these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the
provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation
Areas) Act 1990.
8.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed bonding, pointing and mortar
mix shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development
shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing
by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and appearance of these
curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the provisions
of PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act
1990.
9.
Prior to the commencement of development details of all new external joinery including materials
and finish, and sections to a minimum scale of 1:5 shall be submitted to and approved in writing by
the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved details, and windows and doors shall not be replaced with any alternative type without the
prior written consent of the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and
appearance of this curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance
with Policies NC18 and NC19 of the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011 and the provisions of
PPS5.
10.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the proposed eaves and verge details shall be
submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be
buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and
Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
11.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the rainwater goods shall be submitted to and
and the Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16
and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
12.
Prior to the commencement of development details of the type, number, position and finish of all
plumbing and service pipework, soil and vent pipes, electricity and gas meter cupboards, and
heating and ventilation flues shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless
otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character
and appearance of these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre Conservation Area in
accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
13.
Prior to the commencement of development precise details of the commercial waste storage area
and precise details of the waste collection contract shall be submitted to an approved in writing by
the local planning authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the
approved details unless otherwise agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To
safeguard the character and appearance of these curtilage listed buildings and the Town Centre
Conservation Area in accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66 of the
14.
Prior to the commencement of development precise details of any proposed gates to Lower
Gungate shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The
development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To safeguard the character and
accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings
15.
Prior to the commencement of development a full hard landscaping scheme (incorporating the
surfacing of the courtyard area) shall be submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning
Authority. The development shall only be carried out in accordance with the approved details.
Town Centre Conservation Area in accordance with the provisions of PPS5 and Sections 16 and 66
of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990.
Application Number:
0585/2011
Development:
Proposed demolition of vacant retail unit A1 and erection of three
adjoining A3 restaurant units
Location:
Allied Carpets, Ventura Park Road, Tamworth, B78 3HB
Target Date:
03/02/2012
1.
Proposal
1.1.
The current application seeks the demolition of the existing A1 retail unit on the site and its
replacement through the erection of a single building comprising three separate A3 (restaurant)
units, with an overall gross floor area of 854 sq.m, one unit of 350 sq.m and two of 250 sq.m
(approximately) including proposed mezzanine floors. Vehicular access to the site is to remain as
from Ventura Park Road, with an increase in the parking provision at the site from 32 to 44.
1.2.
The siting of the proposed building sits in a similar position as the existing building at the site
although more elongated. The proposed building takes the form of a contemporary building,
constructed with large glazed areas to the main visible facades of the building and dark grey
modular cladding to the remainder. The building has an overall appearance similar to the recently
constructed John Lewis store to the south.
1.3.
The following documentation has been submitted in support of the application;
•
•
•
Planning, Design & Access Statement (including Sequential Test);
Transportation Statement; and
Flood Risk and Run-off Assessment.
In addition, following consultation with the agent the following supplemental information has been
submitted;

2.
Arboricultural Report;
Supplemental Transport Statement; and
Supplemental Sequential Test.
2.1.
The application site is located on the Borough’s out of town retail park known as Ventura Park
located to the north of the A5 trunk road and to the south west of the town centre. The site is bound
to the east by Bitterscote Drive, to the south by Ventura Park Road with the recently constructed
John Lewis store beyond, and to the north and east by the existing Sainsbury’s store and the Jolly
Sailor retail park. Ventura Park is an out of centre retail park.
2.2.
The site occupies a prominent location when entering the retail park from the A5 trunk road, with an
existing single storey retail building located on the site historically occupied by Allied Carpets which
represents the existing building form on the site, which is of little merit.
3.
Key Issues
3.1.
The key issues, which underpin the assessment of the acceptability of the proposed restaurant
units are considered to be the principle of development and the impact of the proposal on highway
safety. The principle of development in this case warrants an assessment of the suitability of the
site for the proposed use in terms of its location relative to the town centre and the likely impact that
out of town restaurants would have on the town centre. This involves an assessment of whether
there are alternative available, suitable and appropriately sized units within the town centre.
3.2.
In addition, the siting and design of the proposed building, flood risk and the impact of the proposed
building on the protected trees within the site are also important considerations.
4.
Conclusion
4.1
The council considers that the application fails to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of
the sequential approach. The application fails to demonstrate that a flexible approach to the
assessment of alternative sites has been adopted, with little assessment for the scope of
disaggregating the three operators. The council considers that there are sequentially preferable
town centre and edge of centre sites, which are available, suitable and viable, and as a result the
proposal would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre. The
development is therefore considered to be contrary to policy EC17.1a of PPS4. In addition, as the
site is inadequately served by public transport the resultant reliance on car borne customers would
not accord with policy EC10.2a of PPS4 which seeks to limit carbon emissions.
Recommendation
Refuse
Reason for Refusal
1
The council considers that the application fails to demonstrate compliance with the
requirements of the sequential approach. The application fails to demonstrate that a flexible
approach to the assessment of alternative sites has been adopted, with little assessment for the
scope of disaggregating the three operators. The council considers that there are sequentially
preferable town centre and edge of centre sites, which are available, suitable and viable, and as a
result the proposal would have an adverse impact on the vitality and viability of the town centre.
The development is therefore considered to be contrary to policy EC17.1a of PPS4.
2.
Insufficient information has been submitted in support of the application to allow a full
assessment of the impacts of the proposed development on Tamworth town centre. The council
consider that the proposed development would be likely to have a significant impact on the town
centre and as such the proposed development is contrary to Policy EC17 of PPS4.
3.
The site is not adequately served by public transport and as a result would rely on a
significant proportion of customers making dedicated car borne trips, thereby being contrary to the
provisions of planning policy which seeks to direct new development to locations which are
accessible by a choice of means of transport, reduce reliance on the private car, and limit carbon
emissions. The proposed development is therefore considered to be contrary to the provisions of
PPS1, PPS4 and policy T1A of the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2001.
0585/2011
Drain
Drain
DUNS
TALL
ON
ST
AR
M
PA
HILL
BONE
LANE
BONEHILL ROAD
ROAD
RK
in
Dra
RO
HILL
BONE
AD
A 453
BON
EHIL
L
RIV
ER
RO
AD
BO
NE
HIL
L
RO
A
D
Drain
Dra
in
ETC
LL
HE
A
RO
D
NTU
VE
RA
RK
PA
AD
RO
A PARK
VENTUR
ROAD
A5
A5
Drain
Drain
©
DR
IV
E
trips, thereby being contrary to the provisions of planning policy which seeks to direct new
development to locations which are accessible by a choice of means of transport, reduce reliance
on the private car, and limit carbon emissions. As the site is not considered to be such a location the
proposal is considered to be contrary to the provisions of PPS1, PPS4 and policy T1A of the
Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2001.
9.5
Trees / Landscape
9.5.1
The application site is previously developed and has been previously operated as an A1 retail unit,
which as laid out provided a grass/shrub verge to the highway and provided for the retention of two
oak trees within the site. An Arboricultural Report has been submitted in support of the application at
the request of the Council’s Tree Officer.
9.5.2
The report considers the impact of the proposed development on the health of the trees, which will
mainly be affected by the proposed alterations to the car park. In the interests of the health and long
term retention of the trees the report recommends the hand digging of trenches along the line of the
new car park edge to assess the spread of the root systems. As recommended by the Council’s
Tree Officer providing the recommendations contained within the report are strictly adhered to the
proposals will ensure the retention of these valuable trees without detrimentally impacting upon their
retention or their contribution to the visual amenity of the area.
9.6
Flood Risk
9.6.1
The application site is located within Flood Zone 3, which represents an area with a greater than 1%
chance of annually flooding. However, the site does benefit from existing flood defences. A Flood
Risk and Run-off Assessment (FRA) has been submitted in support of the application. The report
concludes that the works would provide a reduction in local surface water runoff and flood risk
through the use of permeable paving and rainwater harvesting, in addition to flood resilient
measures within the units. The Environment Agency have no objections to the proposed
development providing the recommendations contained within the FRA are secured by planning
conditions.
10
Conclusion
10.1
Whilst the proposed development would improve the appearance of the site and provide
employment opportunities, these factors are not considered to outweigh the fact that the proposal
would clearly take investment out of the town centre, with a commensurate impact on its vitality and
viability. The proposed development would facilitate the provision of a leisure use appropriate for the
town centre in an out of centre location, contrary to the thrust of current and emerging planning
policy and the primary objectives of PPS4, expanded upon in the practice guidance. In addition, the
sites unsustainable nature and likely customers reliance on car borne customers would not accord
with the provisions of PPS1, PPS4 and policy T1A of the Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2001.
5.
Relevant Site History
5.1.
None relevant to the current application
6.
Consultation Responses
6.1.
Tamworth Borough Council – Development Plans
6.1.1
The general principles of the development plan, the emerging core strategy/local plan, draft national
planning policy framework and Planning Policy Statement 4 are commented upon with the
overarching aim of all being to focus investment within the town centre. It is considered that the
sequential assessment should assess alternative sites based on the individual operators. On the
basis of the information submitted the applicant has failed to demonstrate flexibility and the potential
for disaggregating the proposal in to three independent operators. It is clear from the sequential
assessment that if this were to be undertaken, there are sequentially preferable town centre and
edge of centre locations which are available, suitable and viable. Refusal of the application is
therefore requested.
6.2.
Tamworth Borough Council – Economic Development
6.2.1
The Economic Development team recognise that this application will bring some Economic Impact
to Tamworth and the surrounding area, through the creation of employment opportunities and
potential spin off benefits from the brands that will choose to locate to the units. We also welcome
new investment and enhancement of the current offer to further strengthen Tamworth’s position a
significant regional visitor location.
6.2.2
However, it is felt that were this application to be approved, the creation of employment
opportunities would be significantly outweighed by the medium and long term negative impact on
Tamworth Town Centre, an important focal point for residents and traders alike.
6.2.3
A3 consent of 3 new build units on the former Allied carpets site, would contribute to the following.
-
-
6.2.4
Keeping visitors and shoppers purely on the Ventura shopping retail area, not creating
sustainable links with the Town Centre.
Increase potential for congestion and traffic around the site, creating a negative image and
reputation for Tamworth as a place to visit and shop. There is already significant evidence of the
issues this causes for local residents with numerous articles in the local press and letters.
Anecdotally many businesses ask what is going to be done about the congestion situation.
Exhibit a lack of market confidence for further much needed investment in the Town Centre.
Lack of sustainable transport links for employees who are residents of Tamworth to access
Ventura retail area.
With regards this application we feel that this would be better suited to the direct environs of the
Town Centre, as one new build on the former Gungate shopping centre or as individual units located
within currently vacant retail outlets. The benefits of would see a long term economic impact on the
Town. Benefits are as follows.
-
Already sustainable transport links to the Town to encourage local employment.
Strengthening of image, offer and reputation and Town Centre.
Already vacant units including McDonalds that would be suitable for use.
Exhibiting market confidence in Tamworth town centre, providing a strong catalyst for further
Town Centre investment, particularly around Gungate.
Encourage links between the Ventura shopping area and the Town Centre
Improve amenities for local residents in the Town Centre and contribute towards the
strengthening of the local night time economy.
6.3.
Tamworth Borough Council – Environmental Health
6.3.1
No comments received at the time of writing this report
6.4
Tamworth Borough Council – Tree Officer
6.4.1
Due to the presence of two protected Oak trees within the site, and one directly adjacent to the site
an Arboricultural Report was requested and submitted during the application. The report details the
limited impact that the proposed development would have on the trees and makes
recommendations for suitable protection of the trees during the development. In addition,
methodologies for works such as hand digging the realigned car parking area in the vicinity of the
protected trees are recommended. Subject to the recommendations contained within the report
being secured by condition the Council’s Tree Officer has no objection to the proposed
development.
6.5
Tamworth Borough Council – Waste
6.5.1
No objections
6.6
Staffordshire County Council – The Highway Authority
6.6.1
No objections to the proposed scheme subject to conditions relating to the submission of a delivery
vehicle management plan, surface water drainage, and provision of the parking/manoeuvring areas.
Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The recommendation of no objection is following the submission of
a Supplemental Transport Statement.
6.7
Highways Agency (responsible for the A5 – Thomas Guy Way)
6.7.1
No objections.
6.8
Staffordshire Police
6.8.1
No objections to the proposed scheme. However, the importance of security being incorporated in to
the proposal is highlighted. These details include recommendations for fencing to secure the rear
service yard, lighting, landscaping and patio furniture. Any such details would be secured by
condition.
6.9
Environment Agency
6.9.1
No objections to the proposed scheme following a review of the submitted Flood Risk and Run-off
Assessment (FRA). The recommendation of no objection is subject to the imposition of conditions
securing the recommended measures detailed in the FRA relating to surface water drainage and
attenuation, registration with the flood warning service, and the inclusion of flood proofing measures.
6.10
Severn Trent Water
6.10 1 No objection to the scheme subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the submission and
approval of surface and foul water drainage.
6.11
British Pipelines
6.11.1 No objections.
7
Additional Representations
7.1
Two letters of representation have been received objecting to the application, the salient points
raised in the objections are summarised below. Copies of these objections are attached to this
report;
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The units would be better suited nearer or in the town centre to assist in revitalising town
centre viability;
The units would attract users from other retail units in Ventura Park thus generating
additional traffic movements;
The proposals would exacerbate existing traffic congestion;
The proposal discourages the use of sustainable modes of transport;
Insufficient car parking in the area;
Insufficient car parking for the proposal;
The T.R.I.C.S data should be based on local traffic characteristics.
8
8.1
The main issues for consideration in the determination of this application are considered to be;
•
•
•
•
Principle of Development;
Siting and Design Considerations;
Highway Safety / Accessibility;
Trees / Landscape; and
•
Flood Risk.
8.2
Principle of development
8.2.1
In assessing the principle of development regard needs to be had to the current Tamworth Local
Plan 2001-2011, The Staffordshire Structure Plan 1996-2011, The Regional Spatial Strategy,
National Planning Guidance in the form of PPS1 and PPS4. In addition, the emerging Tamworth
Core Strategy/Local Plan and Draft National Planning Policy Framework (dNPPF) whilst not formally
adopted or enacted need to be considered in terms of assessing both the local and national
direction of travel with regard to the currently evolving planning policy framework.
8.2.2
As members will be aware the current Tamworth Local Plan (LP) should be that starting point in
assessing the acceptability of planning applications in accordance with Section 38 (6) of the Act,
closely followed by the Staffordshire Structure Plan (SP). However, in the case of both plans those
policies which referred to new town centre uses have not been saved. The requests to save LP
Policy TCR3 and SP Policies TC3A and TC3B was not accepted as more up to date national
policies had replaced them.
8.2.3
In their current guise planning policies which relate specifically to town centre uses are contained
within Planning Policy Statement 4: Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (PPS4). Therefore it
is considered that the starting point for assessing the acceptability of the current proposals for these
town centre uses not located within the town centre is PPS4, particularly Policies EC10, EC14,
EC15, EC16 and EC17.
8.2.4
There is a generic requirement for local planning authorities to adopt a positive approach to
economic development, which secures sustainable economic growth. PPS4 requires planning
applications such as the current application to be supported by a sequential assessment, where the
proposal is not in an existing centre. Ventura Park is in an out of centre location as defined in PPS4.
In addition, where development plans have not been updated to accord with PPS4 (as in the case of
Tamworth) and the proposal would be likely to have significant impacts on an existing town centre
an assessment of impacts is also necessary. A sequential assessment has been submitted in
support of the application, and an Impact Assessment currently being prepared.
8.2.5
Whilst in draft form and subject to change, the contents of the draft NPPF echo the requirements of
the current PPS4, in terms of its general support for new economic development. It also reaffirms
the need to promote the vitality and viability of town centres by carrying through the application of
the sequential approach to new town centre uses and the need for an assessment of impacts.
8.2.6
The fundamental spatial objective underpinning the emerging Core Strategy/Local Plan is to focus
investment in the town centre. It seeks to direct new retail and leisure development, including A3
uses, as proposed, to the town centre whilst restricting further growth at the out of centre retail
parks. The strategy seeks to deliver a town centre offer which complements the out of town retail
offer; capitalising on the independent retail offer and leisure facilities; with particular emphasis on
creating a vibrant night time economy. The Tamworth Town Centre & Retail Study (2011) identified
a significant opportunity for the restaurant market in the town centre to exploit and widen the town
centre’s attractiveness and vitality. A3 uses such as proposed by this application are fundamental to
delivering this objective as they assist in diversifying the town centre offer.
8.2.7
The Sequential Assessment
8.2.8
The application of the sequential site assessment needs to be attached significant weight in
assessing the acceptability of the proposal. This approach to site selection seeks to focus new
development within existing town centres, where only if sites within or on the edge of the centre are
not available will an out of centre site be appropriate. The application site, located at Ventura Park is
an out of centre site, which is why the sequential assessment to site selection is necessary.
8.2.9
In assessing alternative options, the discounting of more central sites need to be rejected for sound
reasons, which are clearly explained and justified with the onus on the applicant to demonstrate
compliance with the sequential approach. There is a requirement for proposed operators to
demonstrate flexibility in their business model when considering sites, in respect of scale, format,
car parking provision, and the scope for disaggregation. In assessing each site regard needs to be
had to the availability, suitability and viability of each assessed site. These assessment tools are
defined in PPS4 as;
•
Availability; whether the site is available now or likely to become available for development
within a reasonable period of time.
•
Suitability; with due regard to the operator demonstrating flexibility, whether the sites are
suitable to accommodate the need or demand which the proposal is intended to meet.
•
Viability; whether there is reasonable prospect that development will occur on the site.
8.2.10 The current application proposes the erection of a single building containing three separate
operators within three separate units, two of 250 sq.m and one of 350 sq.m. So in applying the
sequential approach to site selection it is entirely reasonable and in accordance with PPS4 to apply
the test as individual retailers and as three separate units.
8.2.11 During the application three letters have been received from the three proposed operators; Nando’s;
Pizza Express; and Starbucks. These letters detail that the operators would not be willing to locate
within the town centre, as the sites suggested do not meet their specification for a combined
operation in a bespoke modern structure. Confirming that they would not be looking to operate
individually or in the combined format from the town centre. From these letters it is quite clear that
the operators themselves are not willing to be flexible in their approach to site selection, not
considering separate sites or any sites within the town centre as being acceptable for commercial
reasons.
8.2.12 The commercial objectives of a particular operator should not be a determining factor in the
acceptability of a particular site. Operators that claim to be unable to be flexible about their chosen
‘business model’ need to demonstrate why smaller stores would not meet a similar need. The
requirement to incorporate a number of uses/operators to achieve a viable development is not
sufficient reason for promoting development in out of centre locations where more central sites
exist. It is quite clear that the operators have not demonstrated flexibility in their approach and thus
have not complied with the requirements of PPS4.
8.2.13 Irrespective of the clear indication of the operators not to locate within the town centre the
applicant’s agent have provided a sequential test, which was submitted in support of the application
assessing 22 sites within the town centre. Following discussions with the agent (prior to the receipt
of the above described letters) an additional 19 sites were identified by the Council, in order to help
the agents to find a suitable site for the operations within the town centre. All of these sites have
been assessed in terms of their size, availability and suitability with brief comments on the viability
of the sites. No details have been provided as to how the sequential assessment has been
approached in terms of whether each site was considered for each operator individually or just as a
three operator site. As detailed above each site needs to be considered for each operator and not
exclusively for the three combined units.
8.2.14 According to the submitted assessment none of the 41 sites meet the three assessment criteria.
This is not judged by officers to be the case, whilst it is not considered appropriate to detail each of
the sites it is worthwhile mentioning a number which are considered to meet the requirements of any
of the three operators.
8.2.15 The former Coventry Building Society (Common Lane); Planning permission has been granted
(0368/2010) for the A3/A4/A5 use of the building which is 407 sq.m. The building has a street
frontage to Common Lane and approved ‘shop’ windows to the first and second floors above Shoe
Zone. This site has been discounted due to the high Section 106 costs, which would impact upon
the viability of the conversion. The required contributions amount to £15,260 and relate to the
parking requirements for the use and accord with the Council’s adopted Planning Obligations
Supplementary Planning Document. However, the Council would be willing to negotiate this figure
with any prospective occupier in order to ensure that no contributions affected the viability of a
scheme. This site is therefore considered to be available, suitable, and subject to an agreement
viable.
8.2.16 The former Tourist Information Centre (Market Street); the building is comprised of three floors of
accommodation, with a total of 263 sq.m floorspace. This building has been discounted as being too
small and being grade II listed. These reasons are not considered appropriate as two of the units
are proposed under the available floor space, and the fact that the building is listed should not mean
that the building is not suitable or viable. This site is considered to be available, suitable and viable.
8.2.17 The White House (Church Street); The available floor space is over the ground, first and second
floors and comprises a total of 538 sq.m. This site has been discounted by the agents as only
having the first and second floors available, being grade II listed, too big for one unit and not being
big enough for three users, that it lacks ground floor presence, and not is within the primary
shopping area. Again these reasons for discounting the site are not considered to be reasonable,
with all floors available (as detailed on showcase a property website). This assessment
demonstrates how inflexible the agents have been in assessing sites, which is considered to
represent a good quality opportunity for a new restaurant to locate within the town centre.
8.2.18 There are a number of sites within and adjacent to Middle Entry, which are considered to be
available, suitable and viable for an individual unit. Namely No’s 1 and 17 Middle Entry and No 19
George Street. These sites have been discounted primarily due to the building not meeting the
applicants’ aspirations in respect to the appearance and the type and quality of neighbouring
retailers, which are considered incompatible with the proposed users. This kind of reason for
discounting a site within the central area of the town centre is not considered appropriate and would
not accord with the approach required by PPS4.
8.2.19 A number of sites were assessed by the applicant’s agent as not being located within a primary
shopping location, these sites assessed are located within the town centre boundary as defined in
the local plan. The sites include the Tweedale Arms (Albert Road), and the Former Jailhouse Rock
Pub (Lichfield Street). Whilst the location of these sites is not within the primary retail area they are
located within the town centre boundary as defined in the current local plan and represent
sequentially preferable more central sites than the application site, and would aid in the
maintenance an vital and viable town centre.
8.2.20 In addition, the Council have recently learned that the McDonalds in George Street is due to be
vacated on the 20th March. Situations such as this are mentioned in the practice guidance to PPS4,
which allows sites that become available unexpectedly after the receipt of an application to be taken
in to account in the assessment of the application. Quite clearly, the McDonalds site has become
available, is perfectly suitable and more than viable for any of the three operators in Nando’s, Pizza
Express or Starbucks. This style of building would be similar to existing facilities occupied by all
three operators in a considerable number of towns and cities across the UK.
8.2.21 PPS4 states that if it is proposed to refuse an application based on the sequential approach, it
needs to be on the basis that there are, or maybe, a reasonable prospect of a sequentially
preferable opportunity coming forward which are capable of meeting the same requirements as the
application is intended to meet. It is quite clear that there are sequentially preferable sites and that
the applicant has not demonstrated compliance with the requirements of the sequential approach in
terms of being flexible and the application should be refused for this reason in accordance with
Policy EC17 of PPS4.
8.2.22 A full copy of the submitted (as amended) sequential assessment is attached for members’
information (Appendix A).
8.2.23 The Impact Assessment
8.2.24 The application of the impact assessment in relation to the provision of commercial leisure
proposals for restaurants needs to be assessed against the impacts outlined in policy EC16 PPS4.
An impact assessment has been requested from the applicant’s agent, which has not been received
in support of this application. An impact assessment is considered necessary in this circumstance
as the proposed development is not in an existing centre and is not in accordance with an up to
date development plan, and the proposed development would be likely to have a significant impact
on Tamworth town centre. Without such an assessment Officers consider that insufficient
information has been submitted to demonstrate that the proposed development would not lead to a
significant adverse impact upon the town centre with regard to the impact tests detailed within Policy
EC16 of PPS4..
8.2.25 Local Employment
8.2.26 The impact of the proposal on local employment is one of the criteria for determining the
acceptability of new proposals for economic development. The letters received from the operators
have detailed that approximately 70 new jobs (with no details supplied as to whether these are full
time equivalent jobs or part time) would be created as a result of the new facilities. Clearly the
proposals would result in the creation of new jobs, which would be of benefit to the local community.
Officers would welcome the opportunity for the creation of new jobs within the Borough. However, in
accordance with the above assessment on sequentially preferable sites these jobs should and
would be best placed to be located within the town centre as the Boroughs most accessible and
sustainable location
8.2.27 The governments’ current agenda particularly with regard to ‘Planning for Growth’ is underpinned by
the aim of achieving sustainable growth and promoting prosperity and the creation of jobs. However,
it is not considered that this should be a cue for abandoning existing policies and objectives. Whilst
every endeavour should be taken to promote growth this should not be at the expense of the
overarching principles of national and local policy, which aim to promote and help maintain vital and
viable town centres. Therefore the creation of jobs in this out of centre location should not take
precedence over the overarching principles of planning policy.
8.3
Siting and Design Considerations
8.3.1
An important consideration in determining the acceptability of this proposal is the impact of the
proposed development on the character and appearance of its immediate environs. The site is
located within the confines of Ventura Park, an out of town retail park that has development over the
last 15 years with building styles and designs which reflect changes in retail design over this period.
The most recent of the buildings being the John Lewis store and Cardinal Point Retail Park, which
have been constructed in dark modular cladding, with integrated glazing areas.
9.3.2
The main prominent frontage of the site faces towards the A5 junction and the roundabout. The
current building is visible from this area, however due to the single storey nature of the building its
built form is not obvious. The building is proposed with its frontage facing in a south-easterly
direction, with an outdoor seating/dining area and parking proposed in-between the building and the
highway frontage. The waste storage and servicing areas are contained to the rear of the buildings.
8.3.2
The proposed building has been designed with a modern form and detailing, a common theme of the
more recent development within the retail the park, with large areas of glazing comparable with the
recent John Lewis store. The materials of construction comprise dark grey modular cladding, and
glazed areas which wrap around the building. Overall the design provides a modern building similar
to those in the vicinity, which is considered to be appropriate for this site and will preserve and
enhance the built character of this site.
8.4
Highway Safety / Accessibility
8.4.1
The site benefits from a single vehicular access to Ventura Park Road, approximately 27m to the
west of access on to the Sainsbury roundabout. A Transport Statement (TS) has been submitted in
support of the application. The TS assesses the policy background, sustainable transport, traffic
generated from the proposed development; and traffic impact of the development proposals.
Following receipt of the Transport Statement the Highway Authority raised a number of concerns
with the statement in relation to; the lack of justification for the figures use for the proposed traffic
generation; the failure of the model to consider impact on the surrounding highway network; and the
failure to justify the parking level proposed.
8.4.2
The submitted Supplementary Transport Statement justifies the representative TRICS (Trip Rate
Information Computer System) data used in the assessment, which has satisfied the Highway
Authority. Additional modelling of the impact of the proposal on the Sainsbury roundabout has been
undertaken, which demonstrates that the proposal would result in an increase in traffic of 0.7%
during the week and 0.8% during the Saturday peak. The Highway Authority have confirmed that
due consideration has been given to vehicular movements across Ventura Park, with the impact on
the highway network considered to be acceptable.
8.4.3
The application proposes the provision of 44 parking spaces, which is considered by the TS to be
more than sufficient for the proposed A3 uses. Using the TRICS database, the peak parking
demand for the site on a Saturday would be 28 spaces, which results in the site having a 57%
higher provision of spaces than would be required during the peak Saturday demand for spaces.
Whilst the current issues and concerns with regard to car parking on Ventura Park are
acknowledged The Highway Authority consider that the proposal would not lead to an increase in
highway danger. However, they have recommended the provision of a Traffic Regulation Order
(TRO) along Ventura Park Road to prevent parking along the highway as part of a mitigation
strategy. The applicant’s have indicated that they are willing to enter in to such an agreement. This
is in addition to the requirement to comply with the for submitted delivery vehicle management plan.
8.4.4
Turning to public transport access to the site, the TS details that there are 7 services with three
operators operating in the vicinity of Ventura Park. Of these services detailed three only operate one
service a day, which can be discounted. The three services which serve Ventura Park Road (No 6,
80 and 115) all cease services at approximately 1800hrs and do not operate on Sundays. The one
service which operates in to the evening (ceasing services at 2221hrs) and operates on Sundays is
the 110 service. This Arriva service stops at the Fazeley Road end of Ventura Park, which is located
approximately 522m walking distance from the site. Due to this distance it is unlikely to be attractive
potential to customers of the restaurants. Therefore when considered in the context of the likely
operating hours of the restaurants, the proposal would not be adequately served by public transport,
and would consequently rely on a significant proportion of customers making dedicated car borne
Appendix A
Sequential Test
Gis
Ref
Site name/description
Appro
priate
Size
Available
Suitable
Comments
1
4 Units within the Ankerside some
of which can be combined
Only 3 units available,
none of them suitable as
the shopping centre
shuts at 6pm.
2
Vacant upstairs above (Shipleys
Amusement Centre)
First floor former gym,
not suitable. Too small.
Not within primary area
3
Former Coventry Building Society
4
Vacant George St
Now Subway Too small
Unreasonably high S106
cost in respect to
payment for parking
provision. End users see
this as prohibitive to
development on viability
grounds particularly
given no parking on site
and that customers will
have to pay to park in
any event.
5
Vacant (former Tourist
Information Centre)
Not suitable, too small.
Grade 2 listed.
6
Vacant (Retreat)
Now let. Grade 2 listed.
7
Vacant (Jayman Estate Agents)
Not suitable, currently
under offer.
8
Vacant Colehill
Not suitable for purpose,
first floor.
9
Vacant Victoria Road
10
Tweedale Arms
11
Vacant Albert RD
Not suitable, too small,
bad location.
Not suitable. Peripheral
location. Not within
primary retail area
Too small Peripheral
location. Not within
primary retail area
12
Learn Direct
13
Gungate Development Site
Not suitable. Bad
location. Not primary
shopping location
peripheral
No Reserved Matters
have been submitted to
enable even a start on
the project. The end
users are looking to be
trading within the current
calendar year. Therefore
there is no likelihood of
this being able to occur
given the current
progression of the
scheme
14
Vertigo
Not available.
15
Vacant
First floor. Grade 2 listed.
Too small.
16
Swaggers
Not suitable, too small.
Listed Grade 2.
17
Former Mr Simms sweet shop
19
White House
22
Former Jailhouse Rock pub
Additional sites considered at
the LPA request photos of
these at end of text
A. 47-47 Church Street
Already let.
1st and 2nd floors. Not
suitable. Office building.
Grade 2 listed. Too big
for one unit not big
enough for 3 units lacks
ground floor presence
not within primary
shopping area.
Too big for one unit not
big enough for 3 units,
Not suitable. Bad
location. Not in primary
shopping location
Part of 1960’s precinct
not desirable for use
overall building does not
meet applicants
aspirations in respect to
appearance and the type
and quality of
neighbouring retailers is
incompatible with
proposed end users
image requirements
B. The Moat
House,Lichfield Street
C. 1 Middle Entry
D. 17 Middle Entry
E. Red Rose Garage,
Lichfield Street
F. 17 Lichfield Street
G. 19 Lichfield Street
H. 21 Lichfield Street
I.
Middle Unit and upper
floors, Offa House,
Orchard Street
Too big, not in primary
shopping area does meet
clients criteria no obvious
signs of being available
or on the Market. Grade
Two* Listed Set too far
back from the road to
offer street presence
unsuitable for linked trips
and passing trade due to
peripheral location within
the town
Too small overall building
does not meet applicants
aspirations in respect to
appearance and the type
and quality of
neighbouring retailers is
incompatible with
proposed users
Building does not meet
applicants aspirations in
respect to appearance of
neighbouring retailers
who are not A3 uses
not in primary shopping
area does meet clients
criteria no obvious signs
of being available or on
the Market. Only recently
closed understood to
have alternative user
lined up.
unsuitable not in primary
Two Listed Building
Two Listed Building
Two Listed Building
Access constraints
location unsuitable not in
primary shopping area
does meet clients criteria
no obvious signs of being
available or on the
Market.
J.
Brewery House (Annex
to the Castle Hotel),
Holloway
K. Upper floor of the Coop Building, Church
Street
L. Registry Office (Arts
Centre), Church Street
M. St Edithas Church Hall,
College Lane
N. 10 Colehill
O. 26a – 29 Market Street
P. Former Hortons, West
Street
Access constraints
location unsuitable not in
primary shopping area
does meet clients criteria
Grade Two Listed
Building no obvious signs
the Market.
No obvious signs of
being available or on the
Market. unsuitable for
applicants requirements
area No ground floor
presence
no obvious signs of being
available or on the
Market. unsuitable for
area
Unsuitable location Not
primary shopping area.
Existing building lacks
suitable street frontage
as windows are too high
up surrounding
properties do not create
the image the end users
desire, no obvious signs
the Market. Currently in
use by The Tamworth
Pantomime Company
Youth Academy
Unavailable recently
purchased Not primary
shopping location
understood upper floors
are to be residential with
offices below.
Unavailable, trading. Has
no signs of being
available or on the
Market.
Unsuitable location not
within shopping area
surrounded by residential
dwellings concern in
respect to hours of
operation restrictions
given residential area
site lacks profile. No
street presence
unsuitable for linked trips
and passing trade due to
peripheral location within
the town
Q. Kwik Fit, Upper
Gungate
R. Blockbuster, Mill Lane
S. Phoenix Taverner,
Aldergate
Tamworth Sites:
1.
4 units in Ankerside Shopping Centre
Unavailable trading as
Blockbuster no signs of
Market. Location and
presence unsuitable for
area
Blockbuster no signs of
Market. Not primary
Shopping area so
undesirable
NCC UK Ltd no signs of
Market. Location and
Street presence
unsuitable for applicants
requirements
There are 3 vacant units that are available inside Ankerside Shopping Centre [1 has
been let recently]. The vacant units are not suitable for A3 use as the shopping centre
closes at 6:00pm Monday to Saturday and 4:00pm on Sunday.
2.
Above Shipley’s Amusement Centre
This unit is not suitable for an A3 use as it is too small and it is on the first floor. As
the vacant unit is on the first floor, it would preclude the development of a café or
restaurant. The building does not lend itself to an A3 use. Previous use was a gym [sui
generis].
3.
Former Coventry Building Society.
This building has been let and is therefore not available. In addition, this unit is too
small for the desired use.
4.
Vacant corner unit, George Street.
Not suitable for the desired A3 use as the unit is too small. Previous use was A1
therefore a change of use would be required.
5.
Former tourist information centre, Market Street.
Not suitable for the desired A3 use as the unit is too small. Previous use was A1
therefore a change of use would be required. Further ongoing expenditure is also
considered to be an issue with the costs and levels of maintenance required to what is a
Grade 2 listed building.
6.
Vacant unit, Market Street
This unit is already let and is currently being refurbished.
7.
Former Jayman Estate Agents, Victoria Road.
Not suitable for the desired A3 use as the unit is too small. This unit is currently under
offer. Previous use was A2 therefore a change of use would be required.
8.
Vacant unit, Colehill
Not suitable for an A3 use as the vacant unit is on the first floor. The previous use was
A2 therefore a change of use would be required.
9.
Vacant unit, Victoria Road
Not suitable for the desired use as the unit is too small. The character and location of
this unit does not lend itself to an A3 use. There was no ‘to let’ sign displayed
implying that the unit has already been let.
10.
Tweedale Arms, Albert Road
Not suitable for the desired use due to location and style of the building. The pub is
currently not vacant. The character of the immediate area is not suited to a Nandos,
Pizza Express & Starbucks as this unit is too small.
12.
Learn direct, Aldergate
Not suitable for desired A3 use as the unit does not lend itself to a restaurant/café. The
surrounding predominant uses are takeaways, e.g. Pizza Hut, Chinese Takeaways. The
character of the immediate area is not suited to a Nandos, Pizza Express or Starbucks as
this unit is out of the town centre.
14.
Vertigo, Colehill
This unit contains a bar/pub is not available to let. The character of the immediate area
is not suited to a Nandos, Pizza Express or Starbucks as this unit is out of the town
centre.
15.
Vacant unit, Colehill.
Not suitable for the desired A3 use as the vacant unit is on the first floor and is too
small. Further ongoing expenditure is also considered to be an issue with the costs and
levels of maintenance required to what is a Grade 2 listed building.
16.
Swaggers, Lichfield Street
Not suitable for the desired A3 use as the unit is too small and further ongoing
expenditure is also considered to be an issue with the costs and levels of maintenance
required to what is a Grade 2 listed building.
17.
Former Mr Simms sweet shop, George Street.
This unit has already been let.
18.
White House, Ground Floor Vacant, Lichfield Street.
Not suitable for the desired A3 use as the unit is in an undesirable location. Further ongoing
expenditure is also considered to be an issue with the costs and levels of maintenance required
to what is a Grade 2 listed building
19.
White House, Corporation Street.
Not suitable for the desired A3 use, too small. Lack of ground floor for all three end
users. Further ongoing expenditure is also considered to be an issue with the costs and
levels of maintenance required to what is a Grade 2 listed building. The previous use
was A2 therefore a change of use would be required.
22.
Former Jailhouse Rock Pub, Lichfield Street.
Not suitable for desired A3 use,
%7KH0RDW+RXVH/LFKILHOG
6WUHHW
'0LGGOH(QWU\
$&KXUFK6WUHHW
&0LGGOH(QWU\
)*+ /LFKILHOG
6WUHHW
-%UHZHU\+RXVH$QQH[WR
WKH&DVWOH+RWHO
(5HG5RVH*DUDJH/LFKILHOG
6WUHHW
,2IID+RXVH2UFKDUG
6WUHHW
06W(GLWKDV &KXUFK+DOO
&ROOHJH/DQH
.8SSHUIORRURIWKH&RRS
%XLOGLQJ&KXUFK6WUHHW
1&ROHKLOO
/5HJLVWU\2IILFH$UWV&HQWUH
&KXUFK6WUHHW
4.ZLN )LW8SSHU
*XQJDWH
2D± 0DUNHW6WUHHW
5%ORFNEXVWHU0LOO/DQH
3)RUPHU+RUWRQV:HVW
6WUHHW
63KRHQL[7DYHUQHU$OGHUJDWH
Application Number:
0037/2012
Development:
Alteration to existing access to allow maintenance vehicles to enter
Tameside Nature Reserve
Location:
Tameside Nature Reserve, Peelers Way, Tamworth
Target Date:
15 March 2012
1.
Proposal
1.1
The application proposes the creation of a new vehicular access to the eastern side of Tameside
Nature Reserve in order to allow periodic maintenance of the area in the form of mowing and hedge
trimming which is not currently possible. The position of the access has been tailored to utilise an
existing dropped curb and the gate will be sited in a slightly setback position from existing
pedestrian access gate that is to be relocated beside the proposed access. The works will require
the removal of vegetation and a small amount of fencing to provide an area with sufficient clearance
for vehicles entering the site to pull clear of the highway.
1.2
The intended boundary treatment will be timber post and rail fencing; the existing pedestrian kissing
gate will be retained and installed alongside the timber 5-bar gate proposed whilst the surface
treatment to the access is intended to be kept as grass given the infrequent use proposed. Planning
permission is required for the proposal as the works comprise the formation of a vehicular access to
a classified road.
2.
2.1
Tameside Nature Reserve is positioned between Peelers Way and Fazeley Road to the south of the
A5 and is bisected by the River Tame. The area to the western side of the river is relatively flat and
displays an open expansive character. The area to the eastern side of the river displays greater
vegetative cover and is understood to be currently inaccessible with a maintenance vehicle.
3.
Key Issues
•
•
The effect of the access on the character and appearance of the area
The effect of the proposed access on highway safety
4.
Conclusion
4.1
The application proposes the creation of a vehicular access to the eastern side of Tameside Nature
Reserve in order to permit periodic maintenance of the area. It is considered the proposal is justified
in terms of the requirement for the access, that the works proposed will conserve the character and
appearance of the area and, given the intensity of use of the access and the measures to be put in
place to discourage public use, the proposal will not present a risk to highway safety. Consequently
the development is considered to comply with Staffordshire and Stoke Structure Plan 1996-2011
Policies D2 & T13 and Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 Policies ENV9 and ENV19.
Recommendation
0037/2012
N
PIO
REEDMACE
INE
CELAND
CAM
NDIN
CELA
E
MACE
REED
M
Drain
REED
ACE
Drain
D
LAN
CE
INE
Overflow
Kettle Brook
me
River Ta
Pond
y
ntr
ve
l
na
Ca
ROAD
Drain
PEELERS WAY
Co
PARK
FARM
BARN
BRID
GE
ALLENSMEAD
BROADSMEATH
BROADSMEATH
GREATMEAD
in
Dra
Coventry Canal
BROADSMEATH
Rive
me
r Ta
LOWERPARK
RK
PA
FA
RM
STONEPIT
©
RO
AD
5.
Relevant Site History
5.1
No relevant site history
6.
Statutory Consultation Responses
6.1
Staffordshire County Council - Highways Authority
6.1.1
Raised initial concerns with regard to the effect of the access on Highway Safety and requested
further information.
6.1.2
The Highways Authority on receiving the requested information now state no objection in principle to
the access subject to the reassurances received on the intensity of use and the area between the
gate and the back of the footway being surfaced in a bound material.
7.
Public Representations Received
7.1
No public representations received
8.
8.1
The key issues in the determination of this application are considered to be:
1) The effect of the access on the character and appearance of the area
2) The effect of the access on highway safety
8.2
Character and Appearance
8.2.1
The formation of the proposed vehicular access will result in the creation of a small area to the front
of the intended 5-bar gate to allow vehicles to pull clear of the highway which will be bordered by t
imber post and rail fencing and some replacement planting. The creation of the area is not
considered to appear inappropriate in the setting and the removal of some vegetation is not judged
to have an adverse long term effect on the area and as such is not in conflict with Local Plan Policy
ENV9 which seeks to discourage tree and hedgerow removal.
8.2.2
One minor concern of note exists with regard to construction waste, refuse or other debris being fly
tipped in the vacant area to the front of the gate. Unfortunately however, the officer cannot envisage
a means of both retaining uninterrupted access straight from the highway for highway safety
reasons whilst also restricting access to fly tipping vehicles. Given the justification for the access in
order to facilitate maintenance of the wider nature reserve, on balance such an issue is not
considered to be sufficient to warrant refusal and is raised as a minor potential negative which may
result from the proposal. It should also be noted that discussions with the applicant were undertaken
relating to potential alternative locations for the access, the main viable position being from an area
where a disused asbestos tip currently exists. The applicant considered that due to contamination
issues this option was not considered suitable.
8.2.3
Consequently the proposal is judged to be in compliance with Staffordshire and Stoke Structure
Plan 1996-2011 Policy D2 and Tamworth Local Plan Policies ENV9 and ENV19.
8.3
Highway Safety
8.3.1
The Highways Authority raised initial concerns with regard to the effect of the access on Highway
Safety reporting that the application contained insufficient information on the maintenance regime
proposed; the types of vehicles intended to use the access and the arrangements for visitors
accessing the reserve.
8.3.2
The applicant and agent have since provided additional information with regard to the above
matters. They confirm the access will be used for maintenance vehicles only and that there will be
no public vehicular access to any part of the reserve. It is also confirmed that the vehicles using the
access will be a tractor with a mowing attachment, initially in the first grass cutting season and
subsequently, once every two years. It is the applicant’s intention to leave the meadow to nature as
much as possible. The applicant has confirmed the new access gate will be restricted to the general
public by a padlock with the key held by the applicant and signage will be erected stating ‘no
parking’ to discourage public use. Pedestrian access will continue to be through the relocated
kissing gate. The agent also confirms the tractor will not require a dedicated turning area as after
mowing the area, the tractor will be able to exit the site in a forward gear.
8.3.3
The Highways Authority have since indicated that in light of the additional information submitted,
they have no objections to the proposed access provided it is used relatively infrequently as stated
in the supporting information. They do request however, that the vehicular crossover between the
gate and the footpath is surfaced in a bound material as opposed to being left to grass as proposed.
This is required in order to minimise debris being deposited on the highway after vehicles have
exited the site. Officers consider a condition would secure the provision a bound material. Subject
to the condition imposed, it is judged the proposal is in compliance with Staffordshire and Stoke
Structure Plan 1996-2011 Policy T13 relating to amongst other matters, highway safety.
9.
Conclusion
9.1
The application proposes the creation of a vehicular access to the eastern side of Tameside Nature
Reserve in order to permit periodic maintenance of the area. It is considered the proposal is justified
in terms of the requirement for the access, that the works proposed will conserve the character and
appearance of the area and, given the intensity of use of the access and the measures to be put in
place to discourage public use, the proposal will not present a risk to highway safety. Consequently
the development is considered to comply with Staffordshire and Stoke Structure Plan 1996-2011
Policies D2 & T13 and Tamworth Local Plan 2001-2011 Policies ENV9 and ENV19.
Conditions / Reasons
1.
The development shall be started within three years of the date of this permission. Reason:
To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by
Section 51 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004).
2.
The development hereby approved shall only be carried out in accordance with the
application form and the drawings received on the 01 February 2012 unless otherwise
agreed in writing by the Local Planning Authority. Reason: To define the approval.
3.
The vehicular crossover between the rearmost section of the footpath and the gate hereby
permitted shall be surfaced in a bound material. Reason: In order to minimise the transfer of
debris from within the site onto the highway in the interests of highway safety in accordance
with Staffordshire and Stoke Structure Plan 1996-2011 Policy T13.