Rooftop leisure and food court at Multi Storey Car Park, George Street, Walsall

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission to use the rooftop as a mixed leisure, hot food takeaway and outdoor cinema venue.

“25/1272 Site location: MULTI STOREY CAR PARK, GEORGE STREET, WALSALL Application proposal: Retrospective full planning application for a change of use of the rooftop of the George Street multi-storey car park as a mixed-use involving leisure, hot food takeaways and outdoor cinema (Sui Generis) Application type: Full Application: Change of Use Link to application documents: https://go.walsall.gov.uk/planningapps?id=25/1272 Applicant: Easy Park C/O Anjum Design Ltd Page 84 of…”

Officer report

The site and surroundings

The proposal covered the uppermost level of a multi-storey car park in the Church Hill Conservation Area, near homes and designated heritage assets.

“The application relates solely to the uppermost level of the multi-storey car park, which serves shoppers associated with Asda, the wider town centre, and the residential apartments located at roof level. The site lies within the Church Hill Conservation Area and is in close proximity to a number of designated heritage assets, including the Grade II* Listed Church of St Matthew, Memorial Gardens, 56–65 George Street, and The Guildhall.”

“The surrounding area is characterised by a mix of town centre commercial uses in close proximity to the site, alongside residential apartments, including those attached the car park structure and properties located opposite along Dudley Street.”

Officer report

Earlier applications and enforcement

The site has a long planning history, and an enforcement investigation into the unauthorised change of use remained open pending this decision.

“Planning applications • 22/0281 – Car Park, Asda, George Street, Walsall – 4 no. non-illuminated window graphic signs – Advertisement Consent approved (5 years) on 03/05/2022.”

“Enforcement investigations • E25/0413 – Unauthorised Change of use – Currently open pending the decision of this application.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended refusal because the rooftop location would be detached from the town centre and the proposal raised heritage, amenity, highway, fire, security and drainage concerns.

“This application has failed to demonstrate that the principle of the development in this specific location would be acceptable. Statutory consultees have also raised a number of objections relating to harm to the Conservation Area, insufficient information to determine the impact on residential amenity, insufficient information in relation to preventing crime, concerns raised regarding access, firefighting and public safety from West Midlands Fire Service and concerns…”

“The proposed development, by reason of its siting on the rooftop of the existing multi-storey car park, would represent a physically detached and elevated form of development that would operate as a largely self-contained destination with limited integration with the surrounding town centre.”

Officer report

What consultees said

Consultees objected on conservation, environmental information, drainage, highways, firefighting and crime prevention grounds, while some raised no objection.

“Conservation Officer Objection due to the harm to the character of the Conservation Area.”

“Environmental Protection Objection due to insufficient information to adequately assess noise, lighting, odour and air quality.”

Officer report

What people said

Four neighbour or interested-party objections raised noise, disorder, parking, congestion, litter and heritage concerns, while 71 comments supported the proposal.

“Objections 4 neighbour / interested party comments received objecting to the proposal for the following reasons: • Noise disturbance (particularly evenings/night-time). • Proximity to residential properties and sleeping areas. • Concerns regarding increased gatherings, drug use and disorder. • Risk of conflict between visitors and residents. • Increased congestion on George Street.”

“Further comments are summarised below: • Concerns over the landlord preventing residents to use their allocated parking area on the roof. • Suggestion that the applicant intends to remove their designated rooftop parking for food customers. • Anti-social behaviour, littering, car displays/racing and pests.”

Officer report

Who spoke

Two speakers supported the application, discussing fire exits, possible remedial works, car meets, local enterprise, entrepreneurs and the time needed to address concerns.

What members debated

Members and officers discussed the unsuitable rooftop location, fire safety, blocked exits, drainage outside the application boundary, parking, pedestrian safety and conservation impacts.

“At this juncture, the Interim Head of Planning and Building Control acknowledged the intention to bring activity to the town centre but considered the fourth-floor location to be unsuitable, as it would not bring natural vitality and viability to the town centre. He raised concern that the proposal was carried out in the wrong way, due to issues with drainage and fire safety; and noted that the police had been involved on two occasions during its operation.”

“Members reiterated concerns regarding fire safety and blocked fire escapes and noted that events had taken place at the location, despite these risks and the potential for harm.”

Minutes

The vote and decision

Councillors voted unanimously to refuse planning permission for the reasons set out in the officers’ report.

“It was moved by Councillor Murray and seconded by Councillor Waters and upon being put to the vote it was;”

“That Planning Committee refuse Planning Permission for application 25/1272 for the reasons set out in the Officers’ report.”

Minutes