PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER:P10/0764

PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER:P10/0764

Type of approval sought Full Planning Permission Ward Castle & Priory Applicant Dudley College Location:

KUDOS HOUSE, LAND AT CORNER OF PRIORY ROAD & EDNAM ROAD, DUDLEY, WEST MIDLANDS, DY1 1HL

Proposal DEMOLITION OF KUDOS HOUSE, FORMER COACH HOUSE AND SPORTS HALL AND ERECTION OF SIXTH FORM CENTRE AND HIGHER EDUCATION CENTRE WITH PARKING AND ASSOCIATED ACCESS.

Recommendation Summary:

REFUSE

STATUS

1 This proposal (along with that which is the subject of the Conservation Area

Consent application – P10/0765) was deferred at your last meeting in order for

English Heritage to consider a request that Kudos House be listed. English Heritage

are currently undertaking an assessment of the site in order to produce an informed

recommendation to the Secretary of State at the Department for Culture, Media and

Sport on this matter. An update on this process and any results forthcoming will be

reported at your meeting in the form of a pre-committee note as necessary.

2 It is also anticipated that an update will be reported on the negotiations with regard

to potential Section 106 Planning Obligation requirements (in the event that the

application is approved).

3 The overall recommendation is, as originally tabled, to refuse the application for the

reasons set out in this report. The remainder of the report has been amended

slightly form that which was on the agenda of your last meeting to incorporate the

issues contained in the pre-committee note reported to that meeting.

SITE AND SURROUNDINGS

4 The application site is 0.4 hectares in size and comprises Kudos House and an

adjoining treed area incorporating a vacant outbuilding, along with part of the Priory

Road Car Park and a building at the rear of no. 2 Ednam Road (Ashleigh House).

The site slopes by approximately 4 metres from the Ednam Road frontage to the

boundary with the car park.

5 Kudos House is used as council offices (electoral services office). The building at

the rear of Ashleigh House previously accommodated a gymnasium. The

gymnasium and boundary treatment along Priory Road (wall, railings and posts) are

vestiges of the former use of the site as a girls’ school.

6 Kudos House and the outbuilding (former coach house) lie within Dudley Town

Centre Conservation Area and Kudos House is a locally listed building. Kudos

House is a 2 storey brick building (built in 1864/5) with entrances both on Ednam

Road and Priory Road. It has a feature cupola and semi-circular bay on the south

western elevation, looking out towards an overgrown area containing the

outbuilding. That outbuilding is a brick built structure with slate roof fronting onto

Ednam Road, where there is a wooden gated entrance forming part of the

boundary. It was previously a coach house associated with Kudos House.

7 The boundary onto Ednam Road comprises, in the main, a 1.5 metre high screen

wall, with blue brick coping. The boundary between Kudos House and Priory Road

car park is a 1.8 metre high wall. Between that wall and Kudos House is a yard area

used for servicing and informal parking. There is also a line of semi-mature and

mature vegetation along that boundary, on the car park side. The wall and the gates

to the former Girls’ School run along the back of pavement line on Priory Road, with

an opening for an access into the public car park.

8 The character of the area is mainly formed by relatively large former houses now

converted to offices (like Kudos House), on the edge of the Town Centre. However

on the opposite side of Ednam Road is a large, 4 storey council office block (no. 4

Ednam Road). On the opposite of Priory Road is no. 6 (a residential home for the

elderly) and further down Priory Road, a Baptist Church, which has a largely open

frontage. Ashleigh House is used as council offices. It is 2 storeys in height with a

double-gabled frontage.

PROPOSAL

9 This is a full application for the erection of a 3 storey teaching block for Dudley

College. It is proposed to accommodate a new 6th Form Centre (termed Dudley

Sixth) and a higher education centre (termed Dudley Higher). These facilities are

accessed off the same entrance lobby, but are then separated in different parts of

the building - Dudley Sixth is in that part of the proposed building which fronts onto

Ednam Road. The proposed building comprises approximately 1,795 square metres

of teaching accommodation, with Dudley Higher taking up 712 square metres.

10 Of significant importance is the fact that the proposal also involves the demolition of

Kudos House, the associated coach house, the former girls’ school gymnasium, the

wall onto Ednam Road, the wall between Kudos House and the car park (and the

removal of the vegetation there) and part of the boundary wall onto Priory Road

(with one of the gate posts relocated on the site).

11 The proposed building is shown set back from the corner of the site (junction of

Ednam Road and Priory Road), with that space shown as a hard landscaped

meeting space/congregation area defined by a long arced bench. Fronting onto that

space is the proposed entrance to the building shown enclosed by a glass wall and

roof light. A projecting semi-oval feature tower alongside the entrance with inlaid

glass bands, a rising parapet and a feature wind turbine on its roof, is proposed

alongside that entrance. A curved wall is shown in front of the facing elevation of the

proposed building enclosing the congregation area on its northern side. This is a

continuation of the sweep of the built fabric from off the tower and continuing behind

the glass fronted entrance. It contains a similar fenestration to that proposed on the

tower.

12 Vehicular access is shown off Priory Road (near to the location of the existing

access to the car park there). This is primarily proposed as a service access,

particularly for a biomass boiler (proposed to be housed in a 5 metre high [approx.]

boiler house, with timber louvres and 3 metre high chimney). This access also leads

to 4 no. mobility impaired parking spaces and space for 52 no. cycle spaces.

Landscaping is also proposed in the area between the rear of the building and the

residual public car park, including a wildflower bank at the rear of the proposed

boiler. Planting is also shown as a replacement boundary treatment onto Ednam

Road.

13 This scheme forms part of a wider package of proposals for Dudley College, which

is aimed at achieving a phased programme of relocation of its facilities to bring them

together in Dudley Town Centre. This proposal is within Phase 1. That Phase also

includes the development at Tower Street, which Dudley College have recently

obtained planning permission for (ref. P10/0761). Phase 2 comprised the

development on The Broadway campus site (recently granted Outline consent – ref.

P10/0954). It is intended that the three town centre sites will form a Learning

Quarter focused on Coronation Gardens as a linking townscape element.

14 In tandem with these proposed developments in Dudley Town Centre, Dudley

College is proposing to dispose of its existing campus sites at Castle View, Mons

Hill and Wolverhampton Street. You resolved to delegate the determination of the

Outline planning application for residential development on the Castle View site

(P10/0914) to the Director of the Urban Environment pending the resolution of

access issues, and future Outline planning applications, also for residential

development, are anticipated on the other sites.

15 The submission includes an indicative layout for the formal laying out of the residual

public car park for 291 spaces. That plan also shows the existing egress widened to

form a new access and egress. The submission also includes details of a new

signalled (puffin) crossing across Ednam Road.

16 The following documents have been submitted in support of the application –

• Planning and Heritage Statement;

• Design & Access Statement;

• Structural Assessment Report;

• Transport Statement;

• Framework Travel Plan;

• Ecology assessment;

• Landscape Framework Strategy;

• Arboricultural Survey;

• Employment and Training Opportunities Statement;

• Phase 1 site investigation report;

• Desktop Air Quality Report;

• VAT letter.

PLANNING HISTORY

17 The following planning history is relevant –

APPLICATION

No.

PROPOSAL DECISION DATE

DY/52/305 Conversion of existing house

to 2 no. houses

Approved 18/10/52

DY/61/46 Erection of school

gymnasium

Approved 23/01/61

CC/79/525 Change of use to office Approved 21/05/79

80/51892 Office development (outline) Approved 17/11/80

83/51882 Renewal of 80/51892 Approved 21/11/83


90/50217 Office development (Outline) Approved 21/03/91

93/51811 Office building (Outline) Approved 13/01/94

93/51869 Construction of car park Approved 13/01/94

95/51563 Use of land as temporary

long stay car park

Approved 14/12/95



P06/2028 Installation of disabled

access ramp and new

entrance

Approved 8/12/2006

P10/0765 Conservation Area Consent

(CAC) for the demolition of

Kudos House, former coach

house, sports hall and

boundary treatment

On this

agenda

18 A report on the CAC application (P10/0765) is found elsewhere on this agenda.

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

19 The applicants undertook public consultation prior to the submission of the planning

application. This included presentations to the Central Dudley area Committee (on

9th March, 2010) and the Dudley Town Centre Partnership (on 23rd March 2010),

along with a public exhibition of the proposals (between 24th and 30th April, 2010).

20 Within their Planning Statement, the applicants have confirmed that, with regard to

this proposal, most comments received related to Kudos House, with some

suggesting that it should be demolished, whilst others suggested it should be

retained. Other specific comments related to the loss of parking spaces at the Priory

Road car park and the need to improve crossing facilities at Ednam Road.

21 Following public notification of the application, a total of 13 no. representations have

been received, including one from Netherton Heritage and Conservation. Two

petitions objecting to the proposed development have also been received containing

a total of 320 signatures.

22 The main theme of the objections is the proposed loss of Kudos House, and to a

lesser extent, the design of the proposed building. In more detail –

- With the loss of Kudos House, the proposal does not respect Dudley’s heritage

and threatens to take away another of Dudley’s few remaining prestigious and

useful buildings, and so many wonderful buildings have been lost;

– the demolition of Kudos House would deprive future generations of yet another

heritage structure and there is little to encourage visitors to the town centre;

- Kudos House has genuine aesthetic qualities because of its unusual Italianate

design and prominent location, and the building also retains a lot of its original

internal features;

- a considerable amount of money has been spent on making Kudos House an

accessible building whilst not leading to the loss of its period features - Kudos

House is a prominent building and forms a welcoming entrance to the historic town;

– it imparts a sense of place and its scale and size are harmonious with other

buildings in the Conservation Area;

- the demolition of the building conflicts with the green and sustainable agenda;

- comparisons are made with the loss of Albert House in Coseley;

- The proposed building looks prison-like;

– its scale and height are unsuitable, the dominant and immense presence appears

overbearing, and it will change the feel of leafy Ednam Road, destroying local

character and distinctiveness and causing a negative impact on Coronation

Gardens;

- The proposal will result in a significant parking and traffic burden to the town

centre, and there will be a loss of parking;

- There will be an increase in noise from vehicles, litter and pollution in the town;

- the proposal will lead to the loss of a wildlife habitat.

OTHER CONSULTATION

23 English Heritage – recommends that the planning permission and conservation

area consent applications be refused –

- the proposed development will have a marked impact on the character and

appearance of the Dudley Town Conservation Area, in particular as the

development would involve the demolition of Kudos House.

- Kudos House is a substantial, well detailed and well preserved house of the 1860s

built to enjoy its corner position in which it remains a pivotal feature particularly as

seen from Coronation Gardens. In age and architectural style, Kudos House also

forms part of a sequence that is continued by other houses in Ednam Road and

within the conservation area.

- The building represents sound historic fabric and there is little merit in the

argument that the building is unsuited for college use – there are plenty of examples

of buildings of this age being converted to college and university use.

- In terms of the design of the proposed replacement building, there are no special

qualities or special reference to local character that would outweigh the loss of

Kudos House.

- the public benefits of this proposal are acknowledged, but theses benefits can be

achieved by the retention and reuse of Kudos House.

- as a result of the loss of Kudos House, the proposal does not make a positive

contribution to the character and local distinctiveness of the historic environment – it

fails the test set out in PPS5 for new development affecting historic assets.

24 English Heritage are currently considering a request that Kudos House be listed –

refer to the status section of this report: an update will be provided on this issue at

your meeting as necessary.

25 Head of Environmental Health and Trading Standards – a standard condition to

address ground contamination is recommended. Given that the proposal includes a

biomass boiler, and there is the potential for noise from fixed plant and machinery,

relevant conditions are recommended including a requirement to submit details of

chimney height to address the impacts of nitrogen dioxide and PM10 arising from

the biomass boiler. A restriction on the times of the fuel deliveries to the boiler is

also advised (0800 to 1800 Monday to Saturday).

26 Group Engineer (Development) – no objections to the development subject to a

satisfactory contribution to Transportation Infrastructure, a satisfactory car park

management plan covering all three town centre campuses, a mechanism for

monitoring on-street car parking within the agreed study area, satisfactory

improvements to the site access and Priory Road car park, the provision of a new

pedestrian crossing on Ednam Road and funding the implementation of Traffic

Regulation Orders.

27 In addition, the Group Engineer has recommended that revisions to the proposed

access onto Priory Road be made. This is as the proposed footway crossing cannot

maintain the 2.4 metre by 45 metre visibility splay required upon exit from the site

due to a physical obstruction to the splay by highway trees. This could be resolved

by building out the footway into Priory Road.

28 Ancient Monuments Society – object - the loss of Kudos House is serious – it is a

very polished design of 1864, is occupied and apparently sound. The proposed

development appears to owe nothing to the particular character of Dudley.

29 The Victorian Society – object – the loss of Kudos House, along with the coach

house and boundary walls will have a negative impact on the conservation area.

30 Save Britain’s Heritage – object - this is a highly sensitive site featuring a key

historic building in the heart of the conservation area – it is not agreed that the

domestic scale of the building makes it incompatible with modern educational needs

– there is concern about the poor quality of the replacement building which will

cause substantial harm to the conservation area - it is obvious from its scale and

materials that this building will undermine the distinct character of the area.

31 West Midlands Fire Service – no objections, subject to a suitable water supply for

fire fighting purposes being provided.

32 Access in Dudley – further information is required as to whether all steps, ramps

and doors will be compliant with Part M of the Building Regulations – the applicants

have confirmed in writing that the proposed development will be in compliance with

Part M.

RELEVANT PLANNING POLICY

33 Unitary Development Plan (UDP) (adopted 2005)

S1 – Social Inclusion

S2 – Creating a more sustainable borough;

S3 – Green Assets

S4 – Heritage Assets;

S5 – Local Distinctiveness;

S6 – Waste and Energy;

S11 – Urban Renewal;

S14 – Community Development;

S16 – Access and Movement;

DD1 – Urban Design;

DD4 – Development in residential areas;

DD6 – Access and transport infrastructure;

DD7 – Planning Obligations;

DD9 – Public Art

DD10 - Nature conservation and development;

UR9 – Contaminated Land;

CR1 – Hierarchy of Town Centres;

CR12 – Car parking in Town Centres;

DTC1 – (Dudley Town Centre) Thoroughfares and Public Spaces;

DTC2 – (Dudley Town Centre) Street Blocks;

AM1 – An integrated, safe, sustainable and accessible transport strategy:

AM3 – Strategic Highway Network;

AM11 – Cycling;

AM12 – Pedestrians

AM13 – Public Rights of Way;

AM14 – Parking;

AM15 – Personal Mobility:

AM16 – Travel Plans

CS4 – Education provision;

NC1 – Biodiversity;

NC6 – Wildlife species;

NC9 – Mature trees;

HE1 – Local character and distinctiveness;

HE4 – Conservation Areas;

HE5 – Buildings of Local Historic Importance;

HE8 – Archaeology and Information;

EP5 – Air Quality;

EP6 – Light Pollution;

EP7 – Noise pollution;

EP10 – Renewable Energy;

SO2 – Linear Open Space.

34 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) and Supplementary Planning Guidance

(SPG)

Parking standards and travel plans

Nature Conservation

Planning Obligations

Dudley Town Centre Area Development Framework (ADF) (Dec. 2005)

Historic Environment

35 Planning Policy Statements (PPS) and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG)

PPS1 – Delivering Sustainable Development (Feb. 2005);

PPS1 Supplement – Planning and Climate Change (Dec. 2007);

PPS4 - Planning for Sustainable Economic Growth (Dec. 2009);

PPS5 – Planning for the Historic Environment (March 2010);

PPS9 – Biodiversity and Geological Conservation (August 2005)

PPG13 - Transport (March 2001)

Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal (2005)

36 Sub Regional Planning

Black Country Joint Core Strategy (recently the subject of an Examination in

Public).

37 Other Council Policy

Community Strategy 2010

Council Plan 2013 (2010)

ASSESSMENT

38 The key issues are – • Strategic impact;

o i) Council Strategy;

o ii) Strategic Planning Policy

• Impact on Heritage Assets;

• Design issues;

• Access and parking;

• Landscape and ecology;

• Residential amenity;

• Planning Obligations.

39 Strategic Impact

i) Council Strategy

This redevelopment scheme represents a significant component in a high profile

project, aimed at Dudley College consolidating its educational base within the

Dudley Town Centre. It is a scheme which has involved pre-application discussions

between the Council and the applicants.

a) Community Strategy

40 With reference to the Council’s Community Strategy, this proposed development, in

principle, is considered to have concurrence with the priority of promoting individual

and community learning. However, given that the proposal involves the loss of a

building on the Local List (Kudos House), this has to be balanced against the

proposal’s discordance with the priority of Heritage, Culture and Leisure – ensuring

that heritage and culture is preserved, developed and promoted for all, and

celebrated and used by all.

b) Council Plan 2013

41 These priorities are taken forward within the Council Plan. On this, there is

considered to be particular confluence between this proposal and the objective of

increasing innumeracy, literacy and life skills of children and adults to improve life

chances. Indeed, it is contended that the package of potential enhancements to the

educational resource which this proposal forms part of, in particular the provision of

a sixth form facility, may help in enabling the Council to improve on one of its Key

Performance Indicators: to increase the participation in education and training of

post 16 year olds, who are not in education, employment or training.

42 However, again, this has to be balanced against the view that the proposal is

contrary to the priority of Heritage, Culture and Leisure, in particular the objective of

protecting the unique heritage of the borough, specifically preserving and promoting

unique historic assets and the uniqueness of the historic environment.

ii) Strategic Planning Policy

a) Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) Delivering Sustainable Development

PPS 1 sets out a number of Key Principles for sustainable development including

the fact that: -

“Planning policies should promote high quality inclusive design….Design which fails

to take the opportunities available for improving the character and quality of an area

should not be accepted”.

Equally unacceptable (paragraph 35) is “Design which is inappropriate in its

context”. A key objective, therefore, (paragraph 36) is to ensure that developments

“respond to their local context and create or reinforce local distinctiveness”.

Paragraph 19 of PPS 1 also states that:

“Planning authorities should seek to enhance the environment as part of

development proposals. Significant adverse impacts on the environment should be

avoided and alternative options which might reduce or eliminate those impacts

pursued”.

As detailed later the design is not considered to be appropriate to context and is

according to English Heritage insufficient to justify the removal of the heritage asset

b) Planning Policy Statement 4 (PPS4- Planning for sustainable economic growth)

43 In broad planning policy terms, there is an overarching objective to promote

sustainable economic growth. It is also recognised that education is a significant

contributor to the local economy.

44 This is highlighted in PPS4, which is considered relevant to the proposal. While

education facilities are not specifically referred to, PPS4 includes public and

community uses (which the proposed use can be termed) as part of the definition of

economic development, and sets out considerations which relevant proposals

should be assessed against, including the sustainability of the proposal, whether it

secures a high quality and inclusive design and impacts positively on local

employment.

45 Applying the objectives of PPS4 to the application proposal, it is considered that

there is significant concordance. This is primarily as a result of:-

i) the proposal is within a sustainable (town centre) location, where users of the

facility have the opportunity to avail themselves to the facilities of the town centre

including accessibility to public transport;

ii) the sustainable measures that are proposed to be incorporated within the scheme

iii) the potential regenerative benefits arising from the potential enhancement of the

vitality and viability of the town centre (from the increase in student numbers within

the town);

iii) the potential for the proposal to positively impact on local employment, not only

in involving local people in the construction process, but also the potential for the

enhanced educational achievement of local people allowing them to benefit from

wider employment opportunities.

46 However PPS4 also has an objective of conserving the historic, archaeological and

architectural heritage of centres. There is consequently a conflict in planning policy

inherent in the proposal: it is contended that the securing of educational provision at

the direct expense of the loss of a heritage asset cannot be viewed as sustainable

economic growth.

b) Black Country Joint Core Strategy (JCS)

47 Policy HOU5 states that new education and health care facilities are required to be

well designed, well related to public transport infrastructure and directed to a

Centre, incorporate a mix of compatible community service uses, and include

maximum provision for the community use of sports and other facilities. Again, it is

considered there is broad concurrence between the application proposal and these

strategic policy aims. This is with particular regard to the proposed facility being

located in an environmentally sustainable location, within the town centre.

48 However, the proposed development is not considered to be well designed (refer to

the assessment later on in this report), and again, the positive aspects of the

proposal inherent in the sustainable location of the site have to be balanced against

the impact of the proposal on the unique heritage and urban structure of the Black

Country. This is with particular reference to the proposed loss of Kudos House.

There is considered to be particular discordance with this aspect of the scheme and

the provisions of JCS Policies ENV2 and CSP4. Policy ENV2 states that all

development should aim to protect and promote the special qualities, historic

character and local distinctiveness of the Black Country, with particular attention

paid to, inter-alia, the preservation and enhancement of locally listed historic

buildings. One of the objectives contained in Policy CSP4 is that all development

will be required to demonstrate a clear understanding of the historic character and

local distinctiveness of the area.

c) Unitary Development Plan (UDP) and Area Development Framework (ADF)

49 The proposed incorporation of a biomass boiler and wind turbine within the scheme

is considered positive, broadly aligning it with UDP Policies S2 and S6. However,

this needs to be balanced against the fact that the proposal does not include the re-

use of the existing buildings on the site, which constitutes an inherently

unsustainable approach in the context of the loss of their already embedded energy

and thereafter the expenditure of further energy in the processes of demolition and

rebuilding. This being one of the criteria for creating a more sustainable borough as

set out in Policy S2. Any benefits in terms of sustainability therefore need to be

balanced against this.

50 There is general accordance with Policy CS4, in that the proposal represents the

provision of an educational use, with the applicants demonstrating a need for such

facilities within their phased development programme entailing the focusing of

educational facilities within the town, decanting students in from their outlying sites

which they are seeking to dispose of.

51 With reference to UDP policies relating to Dudley Town Centre (UDP policies DTC1

and 2), the site is designated as within Town Centre Development Block 17, with

Priory Road car park designated as Opportunity Site G. Kudos House, the former

coach house and the overgrown land in-between falls within the Dudley Town

Centre Conservation Area. Coronation Gardens is designated as a Local Park and

Primary Public Space. Identified acceptable uses for Block 17 include non-

residential institutional uses (D1), reflecting the proposed use.

52 Policy DTC2 also identifies part of the Priory Road car park as a potential residential

site (referred to as Opportunity Site G). This designation is carried forward in more

detail in the ADF, with a vision of a high quality residential quarter with development

focused on the Priory fields open space and Priory Road.

53 It is considered that there is no, in principle, conflict between this designation and

vision and the proposal. This is as the proposed residential use is focused on the

car park, primarily outside of the boundaries of the application site and the

application proposal is not dependant on the car park to provide parking for the

proposed facility.

54 In addition, in broad terms, the ADF acknowledges the location of the college within

the town as a major asset: A student population is an important source of patronage

for local businesses, which is not fully exploited at present, and could be more

actively engaged as a youthful and creative dimension to cultural activities in the

town. The proposal, as part of the overall development package, can therefore be

seen as strengthening the link between the college and the town, physically,

functionally and economically.

55 Given the above, there is therefore a degree of concurrence between the ADF and

UDP and the proposed development. However, this has to be balanced against the

proposed loss of Kudos House and other heritage assets.

56 Indeed, within the ADF vision for this area, Kudos House is shown as being

retained, with the proposed residential scheme reflecting the area’s established

Edwardian character.

57 Furthermore, the ADF states that the quality of the historic environment is not fully

appreciated by the community at large and not exploited to the full and the quality of

the streetscape and public spaces could in many areas be greatly enhanced to

emphasise and set off the quality of the buildings.

58 While the ADF states that there is scope for the addition of high quality,

contemporary designed new buildings to the town’s built form, this is subject to that

existing historic form being respected, with an inference that such new development

be additions to the townscape as opposed to replacements. This is evident in the

aim of concentrating high quality residential accommodation within the centre,

including the conversion of historic buildings and generally taking advantage of the

attractiveness of the historic core and the inherent potential offered by the further

consolidation and enhancement of the town’s unique historic character.

e) Environmental Impact

59 In terms of the general environmental impact of the scheme, the applicants

requested a Screening Opinion under the terms of the Town and Country Planning

(Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 1999 at the pre-application stage.

The Council’s decision on this request was that an Environmental Assessment was

not required. This was on the basis that the site area was below the threshold which

may have triggered a requirement for an Environmental Assessment and the site

was not within an environmentally sensitive area.

60 In summary, in broad planning policy terms, on balance, the impact of the proposed

development is considered marginally positive. This is with particular reference to

the proposed use of the site for an education use, with the sustainable

environmental measures included and with the potential benefits for the vitality and

viability of the town. However the loss of Kudos House, which is considered a

significant contributory towards the town’s historic character, weighs heavily against

this positive impact. Indeed, it is the more detailed application of planning policy,

discussed below, which is considered to be paramount in the assessment of the

proposed development.

61 Impact on heritage assets

National planning guidance on the historic environment is primarily set out in PPS5.

This states that, in general, the significance of affected heritage assets should be

taken into account and assessed by applicants as part of their submission to identify

the extent of impacts, harm and any potential public benefits arising.

62 PPS5 at HE9.2 further states that where a proposal would lead to substantial harm

to or total loss of a significant heritage asset, local planning authorities should

refuse consent unless it can be demonstrated that:

(i) the substantial harm to or loss of significance is necessary in order to deliver

substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss; or

(ii) (a) the nature of the heritage asset prevents all reasonable uses of the site; and,

(b) no viable use of the heritage asset itself can be found in the medium term that

will enable its conservation; and (c) conservation through grant-funding or some

form of charitable or public ownership is not possible; and (d) the harm to or loss of

the heritage asset is outweighed by the benefits of bringing the site back into use.

63 In addition, PPS5 requires that local authorities should take into account the

desirability of new development making a positive contribution to the character and

local distinctiveness of the historic environment.

64 In terms of UDP Policy: Policy HE1 states that proposals which would result in the

loss of physical features that strongly contribute to the local character and

distinctiveness of the Borough’s townscape will be resisted; Policy HE4 states that

proposals for the demolition of buildings in Conservation Areas and proposals which

could prejudice views into or out of Conservation Areas will be resisted: Policy HE5

states that the Council will resist development which will involve the demolition of

buildings or structures on the Local List.

65 The Historic Environment SPD has an overarching aim of protecting and conserving

the locally distinctive characteristics of the Borough’s existing townscapes and

landscapes whilst also ensuring that new development respects and/or enhances

the existing character of distinctive localities. These localities are defined further

within the Dudley Town Conservation Area Appraisal.

66 The Dudley Town Conservation Area Appraisal identifies six locations as being sites

which have a sense of entrance. The Priory Road/Ednam Road junction is one of

these locations, and is described as a gateway which leads through a leafy

residential avenue to the administrative heart of the Borough. The site is also

identified within the residential quarter, which has a defined character different to

that of the civic quarter with its tighter urban form.

67 The application scheme impacts on heritage assets as follows: the demolition of

Kudos House, the former coach house and the removal of the wall along Ednam

Road and part of the wall along Priory Road; the impact on the character of Dudley

Town Centre Conservation Area; impact on views into and out from the

conservation area.

68 Kudos House is a locally listed building within the Dudley Town Centre

Conservation Area. It was originally constructed in 1864/5 as Priory Villa for a local

surgeon (John Hyde Houghton). It was built at the same time as a dispensary (now

demolished and the site of 4 Ednam Road). It is of an Italianate style, however it

uses modern materials in the form of art stone cills and lintels, and the large

entrance hall and grand staircase are typical of grand suburban houses of the

period. It was built with two formal entrances, with the Priory Road entrance

providing access to the surgery and rooms upstairs and thus probably used by

patients, and the entrance onto Ednam Road being private.

69 Ednam Road was built in 1876/77 and separated Priory Villa from the dispensary.

The coach house was built at the same time – it provided for a coach and horses in

two separate bays with a heated room for the coachman between.

70 The Dudley Girls’ School was constructed in 1910, with Kudos House becoming the

house of the headmistress. The school was demolished in 1996. The boundary

walls and gates survive along Priory Road. The gym building, constructed between

1955 and 1963 also remains and falls within the development site.

71 The applicants have sought to demonstrate the acceptability of the demolition of

Kudos House, along with the coach house and boundary wall on Ednam Road, in

summary, as follows-

• Internally Kudos House retains few original features and has been

modernised to provide office accommodation;

• The conservation area appraisal contains no specific reference to Kudos

House – e.g. it is not identified as a landmark building or point of reference;

• The demolition of the former girls’ school and the development of a 4 storey

office block on the opposite side of Ednam road (no. 4 Ednam Road) have

significantly changed the heritage context and setting of Kudos House;

• The Council granted permission for the demolition of Kudos House in the

1980s – such history provides evidence that Kudos House is not a building meriting

statutory listing;

• The setting around Kudos House has already undergone significant change;

• This part of the conservation area, whilst important is of lesser significance

than other parts;

• The boundary walls are a characteristic feature along the north western part

of Ednam Road, but have been removed in other areas and are not a characteristic

feature in other parts of the conservation area;

• The former coach house was until recently covered in ivy – the planning

history recalls that it was approved for demolition and described as a derelict brick

garage;

• The design of the proposed development relates positively to the character

and appearance of the conservation area, responding to the design principles set

out in the conservation area appraisal, especially in creating new frontages to Priory

Road and Ednam Road and retaining/reinforcing building lines;

• The public benefits of the proposal (in terms of providing an enhanced

educational resource in the town centre) outweigh the loss of Kudos House;

• Alternative locations for the proposal in the town centre have been assessed,

but rejected, primarily on the distance they would be away from The Broadway site

(campus hub containing the college’s administrative functions);

• The potential incorporation of Kudos House into a scheme has been

assessed but rejected – the building not being readily adaptable to meet modern

educational needs due to internal space arrangements, room sizes and ceiling

heights – the foundations of the building are also considered inadequate for the

design loadings of the college;

• The position of Kudos House would make it impossible to create a distinctive

entrance to the college facility.

• There are complex VAT issues relating to the re-use of the building which

would have significant financial implications for the project – this is confirmed

further in the letter on VAT which forms part of this submission.

72 In response to the applicants’ position, it is contended that firstly, in general, there is

a duty on the Council to have special regard to the desirability of preserving or

enhancing the character or appearance of a conservation area, with the demolition

of positive components of a conservation area treated for the purpose of decision

making as though they were statutorily listed.

73 Secondly of significance is the strong objection from English Heritage (a statutory

consultee) to this scheme. (Although should you be minded to approve this

proposal, as no listed buildings/structures would be involved, this would not result in

the proposal being called in as a result of this objection.)

74 This objection clearly sets out a position that the relevant tests set out in HE9.2 of

PPS5 (refer to para. 53 of this report), which may have justified the loss of this

heritage asset, have not been met. Indeed, English Heritage describe the

applicants’ evidence in seeking to meet these tests as very weak. In particular, they

state that while they acknowledge public benefits could accrue from the

development of the site by Dudley College (this is considered to refer to the

centralising of education facilities within the town), it is clear that these benefits can

be achieved by the retention and reuse of Kudos House.

75 Kudos House is considered a significant heritage asset, as confirmed by its status

as being on the Local List, the results of the in-depth and revealing assessment of

the conservation value, including its local historical associations contained in the

historic environment assessment forming part of the submission documents

(summarised in paras. 58 to 60 above), and its value to English Heritage and the

local community (evident from the number of objections to its loss).

76 Furthermore, one of the conclusions of the submitted structural assessment is that

the general condition of Kudos House is good for a building of this age and

alternative schemes which show the incorporation of Kudos House into the scheme

are shown in the submitted Design and Access Statement as part of the evolution of

the proposal. The accompanying commentary on those schemes – that they were

rejected primarily on the basis that the building cannot easily be adapted to meet

modern educational needs – is not considered sufficient to help substantiate a case

for the removal of Kudos House and disputed by English Heritage who state there

are plenty of examples of similar buildings being converted to education use.

77 The proposal to remove Kudos House, therefore fails to meet the provisions of

PPS5, particularly the tests set out at HE9.2, especially at ii)a and ii) b.

78 Thirdly, the applicants’ contention that the significance of this heritage asset has

been downgraded, due to the erosion of its setting and previous permissions is

countered.

79 With regard to setting, it is contended that while there have been alterations, both

internal and external to the building, its legibility as a former grand dwelling (with

idiosyncratic design features) remains and can be read from the public realm,

particularly in the context of similar buildings on this side of Ednam Road and along

St. James’s Road, forming the residential quarter described in The Dudley Town

Conservation Area Appraisal.

80 With respect to previous approvals for schemes which involved the removal of

Kudos House, it can be seen that the majority of these permissions were made prior

to the publication of planning policy documents which sought to safeguard heritage

assets and valued this locality and building in particular: the most recent decision

which involved the removal of Kudos House was made in December 1996 (as a

renewal of an Outline permission granted in January 1994) – that date being prior to

the designation of the Dudley Town Conservation Area in 2005 (it being noteworthy

that the site was not within the previously designated town centre conservation area

– Priory Street); the original approval for that scheme in January 1994 was prior to

Planning Policy Guidance 15 (the predecessor document to PPS5) (September

1994) and the inclusion of Kudos House on the Local List (December 1996).

81 Fourthly, the applicants’ assertion that this part of the conservation area is by some

means of a lesser value than other parts of the conservation area, inferring that the

townscape here is less sensitive to change than say the townscape at its heart, is

countered.

82 Indeed, there is considered merit in a position that, given that the site is at a

gateway to the conservation area (as identified in The Dudley Town Conservation

Area Appraisal) and thereby heralds a marked transition into townscape of

identifiable conservation value, emphasised by the physical prominence of the site

particularly when viewed across Coronation Gardens and up from Priory Road, it

has the potential to be more sensitive to change. English Heritage is of the opinion

that Kudos House (and therefore de facto the site) is a pivotal feature which

positively contributes to the Conservation Area.

83 With regard to the wall along Ednam Road, this is considered a highly visible

structure within the public realm, not only forming a distinctive part of the curtilage of

Kudos House, but also helping to form the character of the residential quarter of the

conservation area (screen walls, at the back of pavement line, being a

distinguishing feature in this part of Ednam Road).

84 Thereby, to an extent, a similar case for its retention can be made as with Kudos

House. In particular, there does not appear to be any overriding reason for its total

removal as part of the proposal – for instance there are no pedestrian access points

shown puncturing this boundary on the proposed layout plan

85 In summary, and in reflecting the strong objection of English Heritage tothe scheme,

the proposed demolition of Kudos House and the total removal of the boundary wall

along Ednam Road cannot be supported, and is considered to be a sufficient

reason to reject the scheme, due to the fact that:-

• It would involve the loss of a significant heritage asset, with the evidence submitted

by the applicants failing the tests set out in PPS5 (which might have justified its

removal);

• It would result in substantial harm to the character and integrity of the Dudley Town

Centre Conservation Area, particularly at this sensitive gateway location.

86 With regard to the loss of the former coach house, it is concurred that while it does

have a degree of conservation value, particularly due to its association with Kudos

House and its unusual layout, its dilapidated state and the fact that, until recently

when the ivy which shrouded it was removed, it has not been a visible structure

within the public realm and thereby a contributory element to the character of the

conservation area, potentially justifies its removal.

87 With regard to alterations to the wall along Priory Road (forming a distinctive

boundary to the former girls’ school), a relatively small section is shown to be

removed with one of the gateposts relocated to form part of the boundary treatment

enclosing the side elevation of the proposed building (near where a pedestrian

access is proposed). This is considered to be acceptable.

88 With regard to the existing wall between Kudos House and the car park (and the

vegetation which runs alongside it), this is considered not to be significantly visible

within the public realm, with the potential for replacement planting on the site

compensating for the loss of the landscaping.

89 Design of the proposed building

Planning Policy Statement 1 (PPS1) states that sustainable development should be

facilitated and promoted by, inter-alia, ensuring high quality development through

good and inclusive design and the efficient use of resources, and by protecting and

enhancing the natural and historic environment. Parameters for good and

appropriate design are set out within UDP Policy DD1. This policy states, inter-alia,

that all new development should make movement easier through and within the built

up area, emphasise elements of streetscene that people will use to help navigate

(particularly corner sites, landmarks and street frontages and public spaces) and

make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the area, with

appropriate massing, bulk, height, orientation and materials. In addition, UDP Policy

DD9 states that public art is to be promoted in public spaces and buildings and

prominent townscape locations.

90 One of the reasons put forward by the applicants seeking to justify the removal of

Kudos House as a heritage asset, is that the replacement building relates positively

to the character and appearance of the conservation area. PPS5 and UDP Policies

HE1 and HE4 are also therefore particularly relevant.

91 This view of the applicants, that the proposed building represents a positive

contribution to the conservation area, is countered for the following reasons:-

• while the proposed building seeks to reinforce the building lines along Ednam

Road, either side of Priory Road, these building lines are not significantly

regimented so as to warrant emulation and are muted by mature vegetation

between frontages and the highway;

• the scale and massing of the proposed building, particularly when viewed

from Ednam Road, provides for a frontage where there is little vertical relief and

variety in built form – it would essentially appear as a monolithic block from this

vista – this is considered inappropriate, particularly when set against the (domestic)

scale and massing of other buildings within the residential quarter of the

conservation area – while the applicants refer to the proposed building reflecting the

scale of the buildings in the civic quarter of the conservation area (e.g. no 4 Ednam

Road), the application site is clearly within the residential quarter, with Ednam Road

providing a clear dividing line;

• the applicants state that the proposed building will help to reinforce the

identified gateway to the conservation area – it is considered that this is already

achieved by the prominent siting of Kudos House – the retention of Kudos House,

with this siting, and adapting a scheme around this building is considered a more

appropriate approach to reinforcing this gateway.

92 In general design terms, there are considered to be some positive aspects of the

proposal notably the incorporation of environmentally sustainable measures: the

biomass boiler and the intent to obtain a BREEAM rating of very good as a

minimum - in general BREEAM rated buildings use less energy and consume less

water, with lower running costs and reduced carbon emissions. However, while the

proposed wind turbine also helps further such aims, it appears over-dominant and

incongruous, particularly when set against the character of the conservation area.

93 The applicants have purposefully set back the proposed building from the corner of

Priory Road and Ednam Road, to form an open area there partially enclosed by the

feature tower, entrance and sweeping wall on the facing elevations of the proposed

building. They state that this is to provide a sense of arrival to the building and

emphasises the visual link across Coronation Gardens from the development at

Tower Street and also linkages to The Broadway campus.

94 While there is considered to be a degree of merit in this approach from an urban

design perspective, the retention of Kudos House (and its potential incorporation

within the scheme, as originally proposed) would have better emphasised the

building when viewed from across Coronation Gardens, also aiding the legibility of

the proposal and helping to orientate people around the town. Indeed the views of

English Heritage support this view: we note that the proposal replaces a strong and

positive built corner with a space that weakens the otherwise strong corners at the

junction of Priory Road and Ednam Road. This element of the proposal is therefore

considered to be of an inappropriate design.

95 The design of the rear elevation of the proposed building is also considered

unsatisfactory: it has an angled configuration that does not relate well to the urban

fabric, giving rise to a significant amount of left over space within recessed sections.

Yet, notwithstanding this, when viewed from a distance (from Priory Road into the

conservation area), it is considered that the stagger in the elevation would visually

meld into a block- like frontage similar to that which is proposed onto the Ednam

Road frontage.

96 In summary on the design of the proposed building, the views of English Heritage

are concurred with. This is in that there is no special quality or specific reference to

local character that would outweigh the view that Kudos House should be retained

as part of the scheme.

97 Furthermore, it is considered that, even setting aside the context of the site and

impact on heritage assets, the design of the proposed building is not considered

adequate to appropriately articulate a building of this scale and profile.

98 Access and parking

In terms of relevant planning policy, objectives within PPG13 are primarily aimed at

reducing the need to travel, especially by car, with LPAs guided to actively

managing development to make the fullest use of public transport and focusing

major generators of travel demand in existing centres to achieve this aim.

99 UDP policies AM1 and DD6 also state that development needs to make adequate

and safe provision for access and egress by vehicles, pedestrians and other road

users. In addition, policy AM11 requires the provision of convenient and secure

cycle parking in major development, AM12 states that the Council will maintain and

enhance pedestrian facilities, including links between key land uses and public

transport, and Policy AM14 requires levels of off-street parking which seeks to

reduce reliance on car usage and encourages the use of other travel modes. Policy

AM16 states that the Council will require the provision of Travel Plans in conjunction

with suitable development.

100 The proposal contains no off-street parking, except for 4 no. mobility impaired

spaces at the rear of the proposed building. In addition 52 no. cycle stands are

proposed in that part of the site. Access is shown approximately 15 metres further

north along Priory Road than the existing access. This is primarily proposed as a

service access, in particular for the servicing of the proposed biomass boiler. In

addition plans have been submitted to show: a) the residual Priory Street Car Park

remodelled, formally laid out with 291 car parking spaces and with the existing

egress widened to facilitate access and egress; b) a new Puffin Crossing across

Ednam Road, replacing, and about 20 metres west of, the existing pedestrian

crossing there.

101 With regard to parking provision, the applicants have stated that the wider campus

will retain its parking provision at its Broadway site (amounting to 453 spaces) and

that a significant proportion of students already use bus services to access the

College (39% from a questionnaire survey undertaken in 2009), and that such

patronage is likely to increase further with the proposed agglomeration of the

college within the town. They also state that overall Dudley Town Centre has

adequate public car parking provision. It is also proposed that a new college Travel

Plan will be produced – a framework has been submitted with the application.

102 The Transport Statement states that the overall proposals for the college campus

will result in the college having an increase of approximately 180 students under the

age of 18 and a reduction of approximately 140 students over the age of 18 –

bringing the total students at the proposed learning quarter to approximately 2390

under-eighteens and 560 over-eighteen full time.

103 The Transport Statement also refers for a need to monitor the existing Traffic

Regulation Orders (TROs) in the streets around the college sites for potential

displaced parking resulting from the proposed college developments, with these

TROs revised or added to as a result of this exercise.

104 Within this context, it is considered that the sustainable location of the site (within

the town centre and within walking distance of the bus station) is an overarching

positive element in the assessment of the proposal on this issue, particularly as it

relates to parking provision.

105 The applicants have stated that the parking requirement for this site, particularly in

relation to staff, will be catered for by provision on The Broadway campus site. It is

considered that this could be confirmed and implemented through a condition

requiring a parking management strategy to be submitted, agreed and adhered to.

106 With regard to the impact on the Priory Road Car Park, the applicants have stated

that its remodelling with the provision of 291 spaces (replacing the existing 303

spaces) would only lead to a net displacement of 12 vehicles. It is considered

reasonable that the works undertaken to achieve this could potentially form the

basis of a condition. Such works are likely to have to be implemented so as not to

prejudice the potential future disposal of this car park.

107 The details of the proposed Puffin Crossing across Ednam Road are considered

satisfactory, but are likely to have to be augmented by additional pedestrian guard

railing. The Group Engineer’s recommendations on revisions to the proposed

access (by building out the footway onto Priory Road) have been brought to the

attention of the applicants, who have submitted amended plans in response. These

amendments are considered satisfactory.

108 Consequently the parking provision (to be provided off-site) and the access details,

along with measures to offset any impact on local highway infrastructure, are

considered sufficient so as not to give rise to highway safety being unduly

prejudiced.

109 Landscape and ecology

The main aims of PPS9 include ensuring that developments take account of the role

and value of biodiversity in supporting economic diversification and contributing to

the high quality environment. PPS9 also highlights that many individual wildlife

species receive statutory protection under a range of legislative provisions. UDP

Policy DD10 requires the Council to retain existing wildlife habitats of value and

provide new habitats and features through the design of buildings, landscaping and

open space provision. Policy NC1 states that the Council is committed to the

protection and enhancement of biodiversity. Policy NC6 states that development

proposals which would harm recognised protected wildlife species will not be

permitted unless criteria can be met including it not being detrimental to the

maintenance of the population of the species.

110 The landscape framework, referenced within the submitted Design and Access

Statement, states that the aim of the landscape proposals for the site is to develop a

stimulating and vibrant learning and social environment that can be enjoyed by

students, staff and visitors, with a contemporary suite of street elements, including

benches, litter bins and signage.

111 Significant emphasis is placed on the open area on the corner of the site, where a

mixture of hard and landscaping is proposed, including a bespoke arced bench. The

landscape proposals also include planting around the perimeter edge of the site,

including a wildflower bank along the boundary of the site with the residual car park,

and trees and shrubs at the back of pavement line along Ednam Road and Priory

Road (outside of the proposed visibility splay).

112 Subject to the incorporation of further details, including measures to enhance the

nature conservation value of the site/locality, the landscape scheme is considered

satisfactory, including providing for compensatory tree planting for those trees which

are likely to be lost on the Priory Road frontage.

113 The submitted Phase 1 Habitat Survey and Ecological Report was initially

incomplete: while surveys had been carried out for the former gymnasium and

coach house which are proposed to be demolished, the assessment excluded

Kudos House (also proposed to be demolished).

114 An amended Ecological Report has therefore been submitted, which includes a

survey of Kudos House. This reveals that no bats were observed emerging from the

building and no activity was recorded during emergence time. Also, no foraging

activity was recorded or observed during the survey period.

115 The submitted reports also identify a stand of Japanese Knotweed on the site. This

is an invasive species requiring thorough eradication. It is considered that this could

best be actioned through the requirements of a potential condition.

116 Residential amenity

The impact of the proposal on residential amenity needs not only to be assessed

with regard to the impact on the occupiers of the existing residential accommodation

on the opposite side of Priory Road, but also on the future occupiers of the potential

housing development on the Priory Road Car Park (part of the vision of the ADF for

this area).

117 On this, it is considered that if the recommendations of the Head of Environmental

Health and Trading Standards are taken forward, including those relating to the

biomass boiler and deliveries, then the residential amenity of existing residents will

not be unduly prejudiced, particularly over and above the existing situation.

118 Planning Obligations

The categories, set out within the SPD, which are considered relevant to this proposal are:-

I. Public realm;

II. Economic and community development;

III. Highway Infrastructure works;

IV. Transport Infrastructure;

V. Nature conservation;

VI. Public art

119 While it is accepted that there is potential scope for some of these measures to be

provided on site, rather than through commuted sum payments to fund off-site

works, the relevant requirements are set out in full, to be the subject of potential

negotiations with the applicants

120 Public Realm

In lieu of on-site provision, the creation of 2259 square metres of floorspace (gross)

on the site as proposed would require a commuted sum payment of £90,511 to

mitigate against the proposal’s impact and, in so doing, provide for an uplift to the

public realm.

121 Economic and Community Development

The applicants have provided an Employment and Training Opportunities

Statement. Inter-alia, this includes statements that: the college is committed to

providing employment opportunities….the college will seek to maximise the number

of apprenticeship placements within the construction works and associated support

by ensuring the contractors provide a minimum of 10% of the workforce as

apprentices…the college will explore links with Wolverhampton University to provide

graduate placements on the project in such areas as site management and project

management….the college will require the main contractor to attempt to source its

labour force locally through initiatives such as Future Jobs Fund and Future Skills.

122 These statements are considered positive. There is the potential for a condition to

ensure that the specified actions are delivered.

123 Highway Infrastructure works

It is considered that the following infrastructure works have the potential to form part

of the terms of a planning obligation-

a) the provision of works which would enable the remodelling of the Priory Road Car

Park, to include alterations to the existing egress;

b) the provision of the Puffin Crossing across Ednam Road, with amendments to

highway markings and TROs there as necessary;

c) a package of measures starting with the monitoring of parking within the streets

around the college sites and the implementation of TROs as necessary.

124 Transport Infrastructure

Off-setting the trips that would have been generated by the existing use of the site,

the additional trips generated by the proposal would generate the need for a sum of

money (£9,622.70) to provide for off-site transport enhancements to mitigate the

impact of the proposal on the local transport infrastructure.

125 Nature Conservation

Proposed development at such a scale, and on a site of this size (0.4 Hectares),

would require a payment of £2000 to offset its impact on the nature conservation

interests of the locality, in lieu of any on-site provision.

126 Public Art

It is considered that there is the potential for such a facility to be provided on site,

for example, as part of the proposed landscaping measures, off-setting the need for

a commuted sum payment for off-site measures. This could be delivered by the

requirements of a potential condition.

127 In summary, it is recommended that the applicants enter into a Section 106

Obligation to off-set the impact of the proposal on local infrastructure. In detail, this

would relate to: the provision of a sum of money for off-site transport infrastructure

improvements, public realm and nature conservation improvements, along with the

provision of highway infrastructure works comprising the remodelling of the Priory

Road Car Park, the provision of a Puffin Crossing at Ednam Road and associated

works and the monitoring and controlling of the potential impact of parking in streets

nearby to the college sites. There will also be associated management and

monitoring charge (£1,239.50), and legal costs. The remainder of the relevant

infrastructure requirements can be potentially secured through associated

conditions.

128 A response has been received from the applicants on this issue, and, at the time of

writing, without prejudice discussions are taking place. Notwithstanding this, there is

measures in full, to help mitigate the proposal against its impact on the

infrastructure of the local environment and provide for the local community. A

reason for refusal on this issue is consequently also recommended.

CONCLUSION

129 While, in principle and on balance, the proposal would help deliver certain strategic

planning objectives, the manner in which the proposed scheme seeks to realise this

through its form and design is inappropriate. It will also give rise to significant and

negative impacts on the qualities and character of the local environment. This is

with particular regard to the loss of heritage assets and the inappropriate and

incongruous design of the proposed building. There is also no formal commitment to

ensure that the proposal’s impact on local infrastructure is mitigated against.

RECOMMENDATION

130 It is recommended that the proposed development be refused for the following

reasons.

Conditions and/or reasons:

1. The proposal involves the demolition of Kudos House, which is a designated building on the Council’s Local List and within the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area. It also involves the loss of the whole of the boundary wall along the Ednam Road frontage, also within this conservation area. These structures are considered significant heritage assets that positively contribute to the character of the Conservation Area, particularly given their siting at the gateway to, and within the defined residential quarter of, this area. There are no demonstrable reasons, which can be sufficiently substantiated, so as to justify the loss of these assets. As a result of this, the proposal unduly and unnecessarily adversely impacts on heritage assets and on the character of the Conservation Area, causing irrevocable harm to that character and the qualities inherent in the local environment in general. It is

consequently contrary to the provisions of Planning Policy Statement 5 (PPS5) and the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area Appraisal (DTCCAA), and saved policies HE1, HE4 and HE5 of the Unitary Development Plan (UDP).

2. The design and form of the proposed building, with particular regard to its massing, scale and emphasis, is considered inappropriate and incongruous to the distinctiveness and character of the local environment. This is with particular reference to the proposed building’s massing onto the Ednam Road frontage and the lack of variety in the design of the elevation on that frontage, and also that the proposal entails the removal of built form on a prominent corner of the townscape (the junction of Priory Road and Ednam Road), thus representing a weakening of the gateway. It would particularly adversely impact on the character of the Dudley Town Centre Conservation Area, neither safeguarding nor enhancing the defined character of this area. It is consequently contrary to saved UDP Policies DD1 and HE4, and the provisions of PPS1, PPS5 and the DTCCAA.

3. No formal agreement has been made by the applicants for the provision of a contribution towards off-site highway infrastructure works, public realm improvements, nature conservation enhancement measures and transport infrastructure investment monies. The Local Planning Authority is therefore not satisfied that the necessary infrastructure improvements required in connection with the development would be provided. The proposal is therefore considered to be contrary to saved UDP Policies DD6, DD7 and DD10, and Planning Obligations Supplementary Planning Document.

PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER:P10/0764

Documents

Transcript of PLANNING APPLICATION NUMBER:P10/0764