Page No 1
REPORT OF THE CHIEF PLANNING OFFICER – Date 4 July 2005
Community /Code No
/ Applicant / Recommendation / Page NoWRO / P/ 2003/0842 / Carpet Mill Factory Shops Ltd / GRANT / 3
OVE / P/ 2004/0998 / Amy MayCaswell / GRANT / 6
OVE / P/ 2004/0999 / Amy MayCaswell / GRANT / 14
BRY / P/ 2004/1371 / S & JLevitt / GRANT / 20
RUA / P/ 2004/1494 / Mr ARoberts / GRANT / 24
WRC / P/ 2005/0328 / Wrexham County Borough Council & Wilson Bowden Developments / GRANT / 28
WRO / P/ 2005/0375 / Wolverhampton & Dudley Breweries Plc / GRANT / 40
MAR / P/ 2005/0399 / Mr CDarlington / GRANT / 47
LLA / P/ 2005/0409 / Waste Recycling Group Ltd / GRANT / 52
WRO / P/ 2005/0429 / Mr & Mrs MBellis / GRANT / 61
WRO / P/ 2005/0433 / North East Wales Institute / GRANT / 65
LLA / P/ 2005/0446 / Norbury Developments Ltd / Michael Neild Homes Ltd / GRANT / 69
GRE / P/ 2005/0449 / Mr MPalamarczuk / GRANT / 75
WOR / P/ 2005/0468 / Mr & Mrs ABuckmaster / GRANT / 79
MAR / P/ 2005/0512 / Mr KevinJones / GRANT / 83
WRC / P/ 2005/0523 / Eardley Property Co Ltd / GRANT / 86
OVE / P/ 2005/0527 / Primelight Advertising Ltd / REFUSE / GRANT / 91
WRC / P/ 2005/0528 / Mr DHWilcox / GRANT / 94
WRO / P/ 2005/0533 / Mr MWhilding / GRANT / 97
WRO / P/ 2005/0541 / Mr TrevorEdwards / GRANT / 100
ESC / P/ 2005/0550 / SDavies / GRANT / 110
WRR / P/ 2005/0565 / Wrexham County Borough Council / GRANT / 114
WRA / P/ 2005/0582 / Vodafone Ltd / GRANT / 118
PEN / P/ 2005/0610 / Miss JPleasance / GRANT / 122
Total Number of Applications Included in Report – 24
All plans included in this report are re-produced from Ordnance Survey Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.
WCBC Licence No. LA0902IL
All plans are intended to be illustrative only and should be used only to identify the location of the proposal and the surrounding features. The scale of the plans will vary. Full details may be viewed on the case files.
APPLICATION NO:P/2003 /0842
COMMUNITY:
Offa
WARD:
Brynyffynnon / LOCATION:
Building No. 2Pentrefelin Wrexham
DESCRIPTION:
Relaxation of Condition No. 7 imposed under planning permission Code No. P/2002/1286 to allow use of building No. 2 for the display and retail sales of bedroom furniture
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
Carpet Mill Factory Shops Ltd / DATE RECEIVED:
11/07/2003
CASE OFFICER:
JM
AGENT NAME:
Bryan J Frewin
______
200/0842
THE SITE
The site is located on the south side of Pentre Felin, and it is also at the end of Pierces Square. The site is opposite the Central Station car park and adjacent school.
PROPOSAL
Alterations to elevations and change of use of Building 1 (fronting Pentre Felin) to allow the sale of bulky retail uses.
Amended plans submitted to alter the elevation facing Pentre Felin – to incorporate only one recessed entrance, with grey cladding and brickwork.
The part 2 form of the application states that the floor area of the units is 935sq m. Further information has clarified the previous uses – to be workshop/warehouse uses with ancillary offices and retail (trade) sales. The floorspace of Building 1 is 655sq m and Building 2 is 280 sq m. The parking area at the rear will be extended by 6 to 7 spaces, to give 20 spaces.
HISTORY
P/2003/0490Alteration to building in connection with proposed retail use.
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Within the settlement limits as defined in the Unitary Development Plan. The site is immediately outside the town centre area.
CONSULTATIONS
Community Council:No objection. Re-notified in respect of retail use 06.02.03.
Local Member:Would like further information.
Public Protection:No objections.
Highways:accepts that the increased parking provision will outweigh disbenefits – no objection to removal of condition
Site Notice:Expired 03.01.03
Adjoining Occupiers:On basis original submission – two letters received, raising the following:
1Whilst occupation of units would be desirable (vandals), there is concern that there is not enough information.
2Concern if noise, or storage of unsuitable substances. Some retail uses might be inappropriate next to a school, increased traffic across the pavement, and the blocking of the bus bay.
3Increased traffic will be a major problem at the rear of the premises. The units on this estate are only suitable for light industry and staff parking only. Customers should be discouraged from using the rear area.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ISSUES
Policy: The site is outside any defined shopping area, and therefore only local need shopping (for day to day needs) can be supported. UDP (Policy S6) allows small scale shopping development within settlement limits provided the sales floor area does not exceed 300 sq metres. The size of Building 1 is larger than 300m2 and since there is no internal subdivision of this unit, the unrestricted use of Buildings1 & 2 for a Class A1 retail use would be contrary to policy.
The only basis for allowing a large retail use in this location would be for appropriate special justification, as an exception to policy.
The applicant has confirmed that the retail use is likely to be restricted to a bulky retail use for beds and furniture, and as these uses require large storage/showroom areas, the retail element would be less intensive.
Some retail uses are still likely to have extensive sales areas, and will generate many customers who can visit the premises, and who will be able to take goods away with them. As a result this is likely to lead to unacceptable demands on the rear service/parking area, even though it is proposed to extend this area. But I do not object to allowing a carpet (or floor coverings and furniture) showroom use, because this is less likely to generate many customers would purchase and take away the goods with them.
On the basis of limiting the use to furniture, carpet and floor coverings, I am advised that Highways will not have any serious objections, particularly as parking will be increased and for a turning area to be retained. It is also noted that if Building 1 was properly divided to only allow a third of its floor area for retail and the rest for storage, the proposed parking provision would just about satisfy the Council’s parking standards. However, I note the layout and nature of the rear service area (from Pierces Square) is not ideal, and therefore control over the type of retail use is important.
Appearance: In view of the prominent location of the building, samples of the cladding and brickwork should be submitted for further approval.
RECOMMENDATION That permission be GRANTED
CONDITION(S)
1.No part of the development shall be commenced until samples of all external facing materials have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority. The development shall only be carried out in strict accordance with such details as are approved.
2.The use of the buildings shall be strictly limited to the retail sale of carpet and floor coverings and furniture.
3.The parking area of the rear of the premises shall be retained clear of any obstructions to car parking for customers.
REASON(S)
1.To ensure a satisfactory standard of appearance of the development in the interests of the visual amenities of the area.
2.In accordance with retail policy for the area.
3.In the interest of safety and the free flow of traffic on the adjoining highway.
______
P/2004 /0998
COMMUNITY:
Overton
WARD:
Overton / LOCATION:
Knolton Bryn MissionKnolton BrynOvertonWrexham
DESCRIPTION:
Dismantle and reinstate original structure, convert to residential studio with rear extension
APPLICANT(S) NAME:
Amy MayCaswell / DATE RECEIVED:
28/07/2004
CASE OFFICER:
SJG
AGENT NAME:
Amy May Caswell
______
This application was reported to Planning Committee on 8 November 2004. The recommendation was accepted, and the decision made was as follows:
(i)If Listed Building Consent is granted for Application Code No. P/2004/0999 the Chief Planning Officer be given delegated power to grant planning permission subject to conditions.
(ii)If Listed Building Consent is refused the Chief Planning Officer be given delegated power to refuse planning permission and to state the reasons for such refusal.
My original report is appended below in Section 1, and includes addendum items which were received.
Further matters following the deferment including revised details and consultation responses are reported in Section 2, and also my revised RECOMMENDATION (which appears on page 12)
------
SECTION 1
THE SITE
The site is on the south side of a minor road on the west side of the A528, 1km north-west of the County Boundary with Shropshire at The Trotting Mare.
PROPOSAL
Is for the reconstruction and extension of the former Mission Church to form a residential studio. The building would be the same height and width as the original fire-damaged listed building, and a glass/brick extension is proposed on the south side. Foul drainage is to be conveyed to a composting toilet and a reed bed system (full details of which have been supplied). Full historical evidence and architectural details have been supplied with the LBC application.
RELEVANT HISTORY
P/2004/0999Listed Building Consent for same.
Next application on agenda
DEVELOPMENT PLAN
Outside the settlement limits as defined in the Unitary Development Plan. Policies EC9 H3 and GDP1 of UDP are relevant, together with LPGN 3 and 13.
CONSULTATIONS
Overton C Council.:Object on grounds of:
a)owner has encroached onto adjoining woodland and felled trees
b)Rear extension encroaches onto common land
c)Railings have been removed and replaced with post and wire fence
d)Foul drainage is likely to cause problems in this area where drainage is poor due to thin topsoil over clay. The details of proposed system do not allay their concerns. A porosity test is required. Soakaway area adjoins common land and is close to a dwelling.
e)The reed beds will be in front of the building, in front of the windows and in view from the road.
f)Temporary church building was never intended to be a dwelling and should be re-instated as before. Wrexham Council advised that a residential use was not appropriate.
g)No parking space available due to limited site area and location of the reed beds.
h)Question whether structure would meet Building Regulations
i)Raising the height of the building is unacceptable.
j)Lowering the floor level would create flooding problems.
k)Request a site meeting (held on 8/9/2004). The above points were all discussed and clarified. The Community Council confirmed that they regard this building as a very important part of the community and want any development to be carried out in a sensitive and appropriate manner.
Local Member:Consulted 2/8/2004
Highway Authority:Recommend refusal as there is no provision for vehicular access and parking, encouraging parking on the highway with consequent additional danger to users of the highway. Appreciate that the previous use would from time to time have created parking difficulties, but the proposed use including residential use could create a continuous problem. No objections if a parking space can be provided.
Environment Agency:The Agency is satisfied with the foul and surface water drainage proposals.
Wrexham Civic Society:Welcome the application
CPPO:Comments regarding foul drainage and fires on site.
CCW:Site/ building has potential to support protected species and a prior bird nest/bat roost survey. Comments
Legal :Site is not registered common land but the adjoining land is.
Site Notice:Expired 31/8/2004
Other representations:Adjoining occupiers notified 6/8/2004
3 letters of comment received, referring the need to ensure that the access road to the west is not blocked, parking space is provided within the site, lack of details of the foul drainage system and possible nuisance, business use not appropriate.
1 objection received on grounds of:
a)building was sold for non-residential use.
b)Reinstatement of a listed building should follow the original design. The proposal involves a rear extension and as a result the building will have totally lost the character of the original Mission. The plans imply that the height may be raised.
c)Site does not contain adequate space for an extension, parking facilities, a garden or drainage
d) Proposal involves reed beds for foul drainage. Land in area is heavy clay with low water absorption. Excess water will cause problems. The revised details do not reassure neighbours that the system will operate effectively.
e)The boundary fence has been removed, making it appear that there is more land available than there really is
f)Noise and disturbance to neighbours from activities at the site would be detrimental to this small and quiet community
g)Area is home to many protected species. Habitats have been destroyed at the site by the owners.
h)Original fence should be re-instated.
SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS/ ISSUES
Policy: In policy terms the proposal involves new development in the countryside. However it is a proposal for a replacement building for the fire-damaged structure, albeit involving a change of use and extension at the same time. It is recommended that the policy objection to development in the countryside should be set aside if the scheme is granted listed building consent. In this way part of the history of the area will be retained and repaired. For this reason it is not proposed to issue any planning permission until/unless a listed building consent is in place.
Conservation issues: A full investigation is yet to establish the full extent of fire damage to materials and the actual proportion of which can be retained. Efforts should be made to salvage as much of the original fabric as possible and a full schedule of works should be submitted, once this is known. A full method statement showing how the works will be carried out should be required to ensure that as much of the building is retained.
The vestry has been completely destroyed and is to be replaced with a larger glazed structure. Although not quite to the same footprint as the original, the lighter predominantly timber and glazed structure does not try to copy what has been lost and its simple form does not dominate the original structure. An existing plan, showing the church in its original form has now been submitted.
The building height should not be raised, as this could ultimately be damaging to the integrity of the building. It may be possible to lower the floor level internally to achieve the extra height whilst retaining the original external appearance. A section through the building has been submitted, indicating how the mezzanine will fit within the building.
The window designs match those of the original; they are to be single glazed, timber and painted. The glazing to the garden room is also painted timber. The restoration of individual features also should be addressed such as that of the bellcote, internal panelling and the picket fence.
Residential Use: I am satisfied that the residential use proposed in the application fits within policy H3 of the UDP, as the proposal includes an artist’s studio which would fall within classes B1 and/ or D1 (the existing use class) thereby providing a commercial use A beneficial use is essential to ensure that the renovation takes place, and I believe that a use that did not involve residential use would not be viable. Therefore the proposal is considered to be acceptable under the terms of policy H3.
Highway Safety: The property lacks any parking provision. It would be possible to provide a small parking area within the site, subject to consideration of the impact on the re-instatement of the original fence and railings. This matter could be made the subject of a condition requiring prior agreement of details on site.
Drainage: Despite the concerns of the Community Council, the detailed scheme submitted by the applicant has been approved by the Environment Agency, and will also be subject to examination under the Building Regulations. Appropriate conditions could be imposed to safeguard environmental concerns. I accept the concerns over the prominent siting of the tanks to hold the reed beds, and a more appropriate location has been found for these structures away from the road and track.
Conclusions: There are problems in constructing this building on such a confined site. However the scheme provides for the reconstruction of a fire damaged listed building with an appropriate alternative use, and as such complies with the guidance contained in Welsh Office Circular 61/96. Therefore I am prepared to recommend that planning permission be granted providing that the application for listed building consent is acceptable to CADW.
RECOMMENDATION
That I be given delegated authority to issue planning permission if Listed Building Consent P/2004/0999 is granted
SECTION 2
Updated information & recommendation
Further details of the scheme have been received including the following:
- Timber window/door and bell tower details
- Revised plans and sections showing a basement under the proposed Garden Room, with low level windows in the north elevation
- Revised internal layout.
These plans have been referred to Overton Community Council for their further comments. Affected local residents and the local member have been notified and asked to comment by 27/6/2005.
Further representations have been received from Overton Community Council as follows:
- Letter dated 10/2/2005.
- The changes to the plans should be subject to re-consultation with Cadw.
- The addition of a basement/cellar is a significant change and should be the subject of a fresh application. The land is clay with a high water table. Deep foundations will be required.
- Lack of detail of foul drainage. Again question the operation of reed beds on the site.
- Materials must be of suitable, superior quality.
- Do not support or approve of the revised plans.
2. Letter dated 31/5/2005
- The building is a listed building and must be reinstated exactly as it was. The plans submitted have shown many changes including raising the roof, digging out a basement, lowering the floor level, lowering window levels, adding a double glazed extension and creating reed beds for drainage. These changes must affect the character and look of the building.
- The site is home to various species of wildlife including toads and great crested newts, is used as a nesting site by birds of prey, and is close to a badger’s sett. The development will destroy these habitats and a full survey is required before development proceeds.
- Applications have been refused in the vicinity for similar developments. Proposal is contrary to adopted policies EC5 H5 PS1 and PS2. Question why are these policies being ignored in this case.
- Report recent tree felling, use of site for camping and the sound of gunfire.
Comments on the above points: