Roof guardrails and ladders at Lower Green Health Centre, Lower Street, Wolverhampton

What was proposed

The application sought retrospective permission for steel roof guardrails, access ladders and a gate at the health centre.

“Planning application no. 24/00999/FUL Site Lower Green Health Centre, Lower Street, Wolverhampton, WV6 9LL”

“Proposal Retrospective Application for the installation of steel freestanding guardrails (1.1m high) at roof level and access ladders with gate at the Lower Green Health Centre…”

Officer report

The site

The health centre is a prominent flat-roof building beside a conservation area and near listed buildings in a mainly residential area.

“Summary recommendation 1.1 Grant. Application site 2.1 The application site is Lower Green Health Centre which occupies a prominent location at the junction of Lower Street and Aldersley Road. The building is part two storey, part single storey with a flat roof.”

Officer report

Officers’ recommendation

Officers recommended approval because the works would support maintenance safety and would not harm the building, streetscene, listed buildings or conservation area.

“The flat roof is an important part of the character of this building and as a result ensures the building sits low and relatively unobtrusively in its site. The addition of the guardrails and access ladders are considered as not to adversely affect the character and appearance of the existing building and the streetscene having an open appearance and being in scale with the proportions of the original building.”

“Conclusion 9.1 The proposal has no adverse impact on the character and appearance of the existing building, the streetscene and neither the adjacent listed buildings or the adjacent conservation area and therefore is considered to be acceptable. Detail recommendation 10.1 Grant.”

Officer report

Who spoke

The planning officer outlined the report, read the agent’s supporting letter, and an objector addressed the committee against the application.

What members discussed

The planning officer addressed publicity and community-asset points, while officers explained that the current proposal differed significantly from the one refused in 2008.

“The Planning Officer responded to comments made, stating the following: • The application had been correctly publicised. • The new proposal was significantly different to the previous one. • The community asset would be retained, and the proposal would not adversely affect the area.”

“The Planning Officer responded to questions asked, and Stephen Alexander, the Head of City Planning detailed how the current proposal was significantly different to the proposal refused in 2008.”

Minutes

The vote

Councillor Butt moved the report’s recommendations and Councillor Russell seconded them.

“Councillor Butt moved the recommendations within the report. Councillor Russell seconded the recommendations.”

Minutes

The decision

The committee granted the planning application after debating the report and hearing that children’s roof-climbing risk was not a material consideration.

“The report was debated by Committee, and Councillor Paul Sweet, Chair of Planning Committee reminded members that the health and safety risk of children potentially climbing onto the roof was not a material consideration for the application before them.”

“Resolved: That Planning Application 24/00999/FUL be granted.”

Minutes