Five new dwellings at Garage Site Behind 6 To 20 Pace Crescent, Wolverhampton

What was proposed

The application sought five homes with access, parking, landscaping, drainage and amenity space.

“Summary recommendation 1.1 Grant Subject to conditions. Application site 2.1 The application site comprises a former garage site located within an established residential area. The site has been in the ownership of the current occupier since 2015 and is currently used ad hoc for storage and a parking area in connection with a local construction business.”

“This report is PUBLIC [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] a terrace of three, two storey, three-bedroom houses (Plots 3, 4 and 5), together with associated access, parking, landscaping, drainage and amenity space. Vehicular and pedestrian access would be taken from the existing access serving the site off School Drive, with parking provided within a central courtyard area. The access off Pace Crescent would not be utilised and would be gated off.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because the scheme would redevelop brownfield land and provide five homes without unacceptable planning harm, subject to conditions.

“This report is PUBLIC [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] 8.7 The site lies within an area where contamination and historic coal mining activity may be present. These matters can be satisfactorily addressed through planning conditions requiring site investigation, remediation, verification and any necessary mitigation measures.”

“Conclusion 9.1 For the reasons set out above, the proposed development represents an appropriate form of residential development on a previously developed site within a sustainable urban location. The proposal would redevelop an underutilised brownfield site and provide five additional dwellings, each benefitting from two off street parking spaces and private amenity space, whilst maintaining an acceptable standard of amenity for neighbouring and future occupiers.”

Officer report

Main planning issues

Officers assessed the development’s principle, design, residential amenity, parking, highways, ground conditions and infrastructure.

“(CS/27082026/1) 8.0 Appraisal 8.1 The key issues are: • Principle of Development • Design and Character • Residential Amenity • Highways and Parking • Ground Conditions and Infrastructure • Planning Balance Principle of Development…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An objector spoke against the application and a supporter spoke in favour.

What members debated

Members were concerned that they could not access the site during the morning visit and could not visualise the development’s potential impacts.

“The report was considered by Committee, and the Planning Officer responded to questions asked.”

“During consideration of the application, the Committee raised concerns regarding the site visit that morning, where they had been unable to access the development site. This made it difficult for them to visualise any impact that the development may have, and therefore they did not feel comfortable making a decision on the application.”

Minutes

The committee vote

A councillor moved, and another councillor seconded, deferral until members had accessed the site.

“Councillor Paul Sweet moved an amendment that the application be deferred until members had accessed the site. Councillor Celia Hibbert seconded the amendment.”

Minutes

What was decided

The committee resolved to defer the planning application.

“Resolved: 1. That planning application 25/00406/FUL be deferred.”

Minutes