 |
|
|
| Key to Second Deposit Written Statement text
- Added text and deleted
text |
| |
CHAPTER 10: SHOPPING AND THE ROLE OF CENTRES
|
| Page 139 |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
 |
| |
|
| Page 140 |
| |
| |
|
10.1
|
Introduction
|
| 10.1.1 |
Shopping is a vital part of people's lives, enabling them
to buy food to eat and clothes to wear and to fulfil a wide range of other
requirements. Access to a range of shops with competitive prices, and the
opportunity to shop in convenient and pleasant surroundings, is an important
part of the quality of life. Restricted access to shops or a poor choice
of shops is a form of deprivation, which can exacerbate other inequalities.
Shopping also contributes to the local economy, providing jobs and income,
particularly in a place like Wolverhampton, which serves a 'sub-region'
extending well beyond the City boundary. |
| 10.1.2 |
As part of the creation of a Wealth Creating City, a Healthy
City and a City of Communities, the Wolverhampton Community Plan aims to: |
| |
- Create more jobs in the service sectors through providing opportunities
to expand the role of the City Centre;
- Encourage the facilities that will enable the City to be marketed
to visitors and investors;
- Ensure all local communities have good access to healthy food;
- Provide sites for an accessible hierarchy of health care facilities;
- Encourage the role of appropriate district and local centres as the
focus of communities;
- Provide opportunities for retail and other services that meet the
needs of culturally diverse communities
|
| 10.1.3 |
The key aims of the shopping and role of centres policies
are therefore: |
| |
1. |
to maintain a pattern of provision across the City that gives
the best possible choice of shops and services in locations accessible to
people in their everyday lives; and |
| |
2. |
to support economic regeneration by sustaining and strengthening
the sub-regional role of the City Centre. |
| 10.1.4 |
Part of the overall strategy of the UDP is to focus the activities
to which people need frequent access, including social, community and leisure
facilities, as well as shopping and office employment, within a hierarchy
of centres, as part of a sustainable approach to land use. The policies
in this Chapter contribute to this by defining the broad roles of particular
centres and the types of development appropriate to each. |
| |
|
| Scope of the Policies |
| 10.1.5 |
Shopping provides the primary raison d'être for centres and
policies are therefore concerned principally with development falling within
Class A1 Shops of the Use Classes Order 1987. However there is a wide range
of other activities and uses that require a high degree of accessibility
to their users and/or generate a large number of trips, and whose location
therefore needs to be considered in accordance with similar principles.
The policies of this chapter are therefore relevant to all centre Uses,
as defined in Policy SH23
(59), although in a number of cases policies
elsewhere in the UDP also apply. |
| Supporting Documents |
| 10.1.6 |
Central to the review of policies for shopping and the role
of centres has been the Wolverhampton Shopping and Town Centres Study (1998)
by consultants DTZ-Pieda. The consultants' report examined the existing
retailing structure of Wolverhampton and the potential for new retail development
during the period covered by the review; and made recommendations as to
its location. The consultants undertook a partial update in 2000, the Supplementary
Report on Retail Capacity. This study was itself subject
to review in 2003 by consultants CB Richard Ellis. (1) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 141 |
| |
| 10.1.7 |
The consultants' main report,
submitted in 1998, pre-dated major developments in government guidance,
particularly in respect of the interpretation of 'need' and the application
of the 'class of goods' approach. A number of its recommendations have also
been overtaken by events on the ground, including those giving rise to the
re-orientation of City Centre core expansion from the Skinner Street/Salop
Street area to Cleveland Street/Temple Street. Nevertheless, particularly
in respect of quantitative need and capacity, the study and its partial
update remain a key basis on which the policies in this chapter are founded.
The Council has also produced a Retail and
Centres Background Paper to support UDP policies and proposals, covering
aspects where further technical work has been undertaken or where there
was a particular need to further update or supplement the consultants' findings.
Each of these reports is available from the Council. (2) |
| |
|
| National and Regional Policy Context |
| 10.1.8 |
The new policies reflect a change in central government policy
guidance since the UDP was adopted in 1993. This has involved a major shift
in national policy priorities in favour of sustaining town centres. Policy
guidance on transport (PPG13) issued in 1994 stated that in order to minimise
the need for car travel uses such as shopping, and other activities that
attract a large number of users, should be located where they are accessible
by a choice of means of transport. This would usually mean within town centres.
In 1996 there followed a fundamental revision of government guidance on
shopping and town centres (PPG6). The previous guidance, under which the
1993 UDP was prepared, included the presumption that out-of-centre retail
development was generally acceptable unless it was shown to have significantly
adverse consequences for existing town centres. The new guidance introduced
a major innovation in the form of the 'sequential approach'; under which
town centres are regarded as the normal location for major retail or leisure
developments. Such developments are expected to locate in town centres unless
it can be clearly demonstrated that there are no sites reasonably capable
of accommodating them there. In these circumstances edge-of-centre locations
may be considered. Only if there are no suitable town centre or edge-of-centre
sites should out-of-centre locations be considered and these should have
good public transport links. |
| 10.1.9 |
In preparing their plans local authorities are asked to anticipate
future retailing (and leisure) needs and to identify sites in accordance
with the sequential approach. A ministerial statement in April
2003 February 1999 (3)
clarified the issue of 'need' and confirmed that only where there is a demonstrable
need is there a requirement to identify additional sites. Any proposal for
an edge-of-centre or out-of-centre development, other than on a site identified
in the development plan, must be considered in the context of need and only
where this is demonstrated might such a proposal be acceptable. The government
has also indicated that, in applying the sequential approach, it is the
class of goods to be sold rather than the particular format proposed which
is crucial. The key question is whether or not the type of goods intended
to be sold, could be sold within, or failing that on the edge of, a town
centre assuming the applicant adopted a flexible approach. |
| 10.1.10 |
PPG6 also advises that UDPs (Part I) should set out the hierarchy
of centres within the plan area and the strategy for the location of shopping
and other uses which generate a large number of trips. In particular, the
development plan should indicate those centres where investment in new retail
and other development will be promoted and existing provision enhanced.
Part II of the UDP should go on to consider existing provision and identify
sites for development. Where site assembly is required, the plan should
indicate what action the local planning authority will take. The policies
set out in this chapter reflect these national policies and principles. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 142 |
| |
| 10.1.11 |
Regional Planning Guidance for the West Midlands (RPG11, 1998)
reiterates the national principles and sets out a development strategy for
town centres and retail development in the region. Local development plans
should ensure that centres remain the main foci for retail and office development.
Birmingham is identified as the regional centre, while the "Black Country
towns" (clearly including Wolverhampton) are amongst "other important retailing
centres" in the region. The current draft review of RPG proposes to identify
Wolverhampton as one of a network of 25 "strategic town and city centres"
serving the region, while Birmingham is to be further developed as "a major
regional capital of European and international standing". |
| |
|
| Local Changes and Consultants' Recommendations |
| 10.1.12 |
The pattern of retailing in Wolverhampton has changed significantly
since the 1993 Plan was prepared. Approximately 71,000 m² of new shopping
has been developed (1988-2001) mostly in the form of food superstores and
retail warehouse parks. The plan has had a fair measure of success in steering
these developments towards in-centre or edge-of-centre locations and a number
of out-of-centre schemes have been resisted. However existing centres have
clearly lost trade and some have significantly changed their roles. |
| 10.1.13 |
Improvement of the City Centre, and the town centres of Bilston
and Wednesfield, has in recent years become a key priority for the council.
Consultants Donaldsons undertook an audit of the City Centre in 1994 and
an action plan was adopted in 1995. There has been considerable success
on the ground, for example enhancement of the entertainment quarter and
progress with the scheme to improve the retail markets and create a new
town square in the Salop Street / School Street area. A forum bringing together
key stakeholders was established and its work is now being carried forward
and expanded through a City Centre company. Major improvements have also
been achieved in Bilston and Wednesfield town centres, including full or
partial pedestrianisation of their main shopping streets. |
| 10.1.14 |
At the same time, notwithstanding some recent evidence of
an uplift, Wolverhampton's ranking in the national and regional centre hierarchies
remains lower than it was in the late 1980s. The development of Merry Hill
shopping centre (major phase opened 1989) led to profound changes in shopping
patterns in and around the Black Country. Towns in immediate competition
with Wolverhampton like Walsall and Telford have also continued to extend
their retail provision. In addition, during the period covered by the UDP
review, major new shopping developments in Birmingham will fundamentally
increase that City's attraction. The need to broaden Wolverhampton's shopping
appeal is becoming increasingly urgent. |
| 10.1.15 |
The As
part of their 1998 study, DTZ-Pieda
study, as updated by the 2003 CB Richard Ellis review
examined the health of centres in Wolverhampton and made recommendations
on future action. Their principal findings
of these studies were: |
| |
- The overall hierarchy of centres in the City as set out in Policy
S1 of the 1993 UDP remains generally valid.
- Wolverhampton City Centre is an important catalyst for the regeneration
of the City as a whole and in seeking to attract new investment and
employment opportunities the focus should wherever possible be on the
City Centre.
- The City Centre remains reasonably healthy. However there is a quantitative
and qualitative deficiency in retail and leisure provision in Wolverhampton,
resulting from a lack of investment in recent years and this is reflected
in some increased dissatisfaction amongst shoppers.
- There is a quantitative need over the UDP period for new comparison
shopping floorspace in the City Centre as
well as for further retail warehousing and new foodstore provision.
This is supported by known demand from retailers and the growing investor
confidence evident since the Secretary of State's decision in 1997 to
refuse a major expansion of Merry Hill. The 1998/2000
DTZ Study also identified a requirement for further retail warehousing
and a new foodstore provision. The CB Richard Ellis review has confirmed
that this retail warehouse and foodstore need will be satisfied by development
proposals granted planning permission since 2000.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 143 |
| |
| |
- The most appropriate direction for expansion of the City Centre retail
core so as to enhance its overall appeal to shoppers is towards the
west south
in the Victoria Street/School Street area.
- It is not feasible, or necessarily desirable, to accommodate all City
Centre development pressures within the ring road. Some of the centre
retail and leisure uses expected
in a sub-regional centre, and other activities contributing to the role
of the City Centre, could be located outside providing good links are
created. (4)
|
| Retail Need |
| 10.1.16 |
UDP policies and proposals seek to address the above issues,
within the context of an assessment of quantitative need derived from DTZ-Pieda's/
CB Richard Ellis’ work. By assessing future changes in population
and spending power within the catchment area the consultants were able to
identify the additional expenditure likely to be available to shops in Wolverhampton
over the review period. This, in turn enabled the need for additional floorspace
to be predicted. Separate estimates were made for
capacity associated with the city centre and retail warehouse comparison
goods market and that associated with the foodstore market. Separate
estimates were made for pure comparison goods shopping, retail warehousing
and foodstores. (5) |
| 10.1.17 |
In using these figures the Council has been conscious that
projections of this kind are subject to margins of error and are likely
to be overtaken by events as particular developments come forward. Furthermore,
estimates of expenditure capacity do not in themselves demonstrate need.
Whilst such capacity is usually a necessary condition for development, qualitative
considerations are often of equal importance
in determining the scale and form of need. (62) |
| |
|
| Pure
Comparison Goods |
| 10.1.18 |
For pure comparison goods
the consultants studies have identified the following
broad quantitative need for development associated with the city centre
to 2011: such as fashion clothing usually
bought in major centres an additional expenditure of £132 m per annum (1994
prices) is expected to become available to Wolverhampton City Centre by
2011, giving rise to the following potential for new floorspace: |
| |
| 1997-2001 |
12,390 m² gross |
| 2001-2006 |
16,720 m² gross |
| 2006-2011 |
21,370 m² gross |
|
| 1997-2011 |
50,480 m² gross |
|
| 2003 |
9 630sqm net |
| 2006 |
15 620sqm net |
| 2011 |
27 880sqm net |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 144 |
| |
| 10.1.19 |
Only one significant comparison shopping
development was completed in the 1997-2001 period, Beatties Department Store
extension (3,200 m²). This leaves a potential capacity in the 2001-2011
period for approximately 47,280 m². By April 2001 permission had been granted
for a Matalan clothing store at Springvale, Bilston (4,180 m²). It had also
become clear, following the full planning permission granted in October
2000, that part of the 12,350 m² 'main site' development at Bentley Bridge
retail park may take the form of comparison-shopping. A proportion of both
these developments represents demand that would otherwise be accommodated
in the City Centre. Taking this into account, the Retail and Centres Background
Paper calculates that remaining capacity for City Centre comparison shopping
developments during the UDP period is approximately as follows: |
| |
| 2001-2006 |
20,730 m² gross |
| 2006-2011 |
21,370 m² gross |
|
| 2001-2011 |
42,100 m² gross |
|
| |
This analysis has not been extended
to assess the capacity associated with Bilston and Wednesfield centres,
and any such capacity associated with these centres would be over and above
that identified. Given the size of these centres, this would be comparatively
modest, and reflect their role in serving the south eastern and north eastern
sector of the City respectively. (6) |
| |
|
| Retail Warehousing |
| 10.1.20 |
The overall capacity for bulky goods
retail warehousing in the catchment area, based on an increased expenditure
of £112m per annum within this sector by 2011, is estimated as follows: |
| |
| 1997-2001 |
15,700 m² gross |
| 2001-2006 |
13,900 m² gross |
| 2006-2011 |
21,100 m² gross |
|
| 1997-2011 |
50,700 m² gross |
|
| |
|
| 10.1.21 |
The only retail warehouse development
completed between 1997 and 2001 was the Halford store at Springvale, Bilston
(1,150 m² gross) leaving a potential for 49,550 m² during 2001-2011. Since
this calculation was made additional commitments to retail warehousing have
been entered into. These consist of the 'front site' at Bentley Bridge (2,320m²);
the Yarnold site, Birmingham Road (1,680m²) and the balance of the Bentley
Bridge main site not likely to be taken up by pure comparison retailing.
Making allowance for these developments it can be calculated that the residual
capacity in the whole catchment area and the minimum to be accommodated
in association with the City Centre is as follows: |
| |
| |
Catchment Area |
City Centre |
| 2001-2006 |
18,310m² |
9,150m² gross |
| 2006-2011 |
16,470m² |
8,240m² gross |
|
| 2001-2011 |
34,780m² |
17,390m² gross |
|
| |
With regard to quantitative need associated
with the retail warehouse market, additional floorspace requirements for
Wolverhampton to 2011 are very modest beyond that currently with the benefit
of planning permission. |
| |
On the basis of existing commitments and a
modest uplift in market share (resulting from the development of modern,
good quality and permitted floorspace), the anticipated requirement arising
out of this market is: |
| |
| 2003 |
490 sqm net |
| 2006 |
surplus of 3 870 sqm net |
| 2011 |
surplus of 1 130 sqm net |
|
| |
The most significant retail warehousing commitments
are at Bentley Bridge Park (Wednesfield) and Raglan Street on the edge of
Wolverhampton City Centre. Planning permission for the Bentley Bridge development
was granted by the former Black Country Development Corporation as part
of a mixed leisure / retail scheme. Due to its out of centre location, changes
in central government guidance since the original planning permissions were
granted, the location of sequentially superior sites and an absence of quantitative
need for the scale of development permitted, this site is no longer an appropriate
location for large scale retail development. These factors, and uncertainty
over whether the development will proceed requires that the UDP should make
allowance for the planning permissions not being implemented. If the Bentley
Bridge permissions are not implemented the anticipated requirement arising
out of the retail warehouse market is: |
| |
| 2003 |
490 sqm net |
| 2006 |
1 810 sqm net |
| 2011 |
1 060 sqm net |
|
| |
The range of uses considered appropriate
for Bentley Bridge Park is set out in Policy C6. In interpreting this requirement,
it must not be assumed that retail capacity in the retail warehouse market
should be associated with a specific need for further provision in a retail
warehouse format, as this pre empts the flexibility required by sequential
test set out in Policy SH3. (7) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 145 |
| |
|
| Foodstores |
| 10.1.22 |
With regard to foodstores there is
no quantitative requirement for additional large scale development beyond
that currently with the benefit of planning permission. The CB Richard Ellis
study identifies a very small surplus of residual spending on convenience
goods which equates to a requirement of 120 sqm by 2011. The need for one
large food store identified in the 1998 DTZ Pieda study will be satisfied
by the approved proposal at Raglan Street. This assessment is made on the
basis of the existing Sainsbury store at St Georges Parade ceasing to trade,
and it not being replaced by another foodstore operator, following completion
of the new store at Raglan Street, anticipated for 2007. If the existing
store continues to trade, or is occupied by an alternative foodstore operator,
the small surplus of residual spending will disappear. Council's
consultants concluded that the only location in the City where there is
capacity to support a new store or stores is in the vicinity of the City
Centre. Potential capacity was reviewed in the Supplementary Report on Retail
Capacity following Sainsbury's acquisition of the extended former Coop superstore
at Wednesfield (which was expected to lead to a substantially higher turnover
for this store than anticipated in the 1998 Study). Remaining expenditure
potentially available to the City Centre is put at around £22-27m per annum.
This is based on (i) a modest increase in personal spending supplemented
by (ii) a diversion from existing stores apparently trading above capacity;
along with (iii) increased penetration in sectors of the City (principally
the north west) where the City Centre's market share is currently below
average. If supplemented by around £20-25m released by the closure of an
existing store this would be sufficient to support one large new store on
the edge of the City Centre without adverse impact. (8) |
| 10.1.23 |
The above forecasts of capacity in each of the main retailing
sectors provide the basis for the detailed policies and proposals set out
below. |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 146 |
|
|
10.2
|
Centres Strategy and the Sequential Approach
|
| Policy SH1: Centres Strategy (Part
I) |
| |
| The network of centres shown on
the Proposals Map will be maintained and enhanced as a means
of providing access to a wide range of shops, services and other
activities in readily accessible locations, and as a focus for
regeneration in the City. Centre uses, as defined in Policy
SH2, will be expected to locate
within centres and will be subject to the application of a sequential
approach. In applying this strategy the following broad roles
of centres will be recognised: |
- Wolverhampton City Centre will be maintained in its role
as a sub-regional centre and the principal location for
employment, shopping, commerce and leisure activity in the
City. Uses serving a sub-regional or City-wide catchment
area will be encouraged to locate within the City Centre.
- Bilston and Wednesfield will function as town centres
providing a wide range of shopping and other services in
the sectors of the City that they serve. Appropriate activities
will be encouraged to locate within them.
- The 10 district centres identified on the Proposals Map
and listed in Policy SH76,
will be supported as the focus of convenience shopping and
other local services, social, leisure and community uses
within their respective localities.
- The 25 local centres identified on the Proposals Map
and listed in Policy SH87,
will be fostered and protected in order that an accessible
range of local shops and services is available, especially
to those who do not have access to a car. (59)
|
| Outside identified centres, retail
and other centre uses will only
be permitted where they are small in scale and meet the day
to day needs of a population living mainly within walking distance
which cannot conveniently be served from an identified centre,
as required by Policy SH9. The development of large scale centre
uses in out of centre locations will only be permitted in exceptional
circumstances and subject to Policy SH3 and where relevant SH11-13.
(9) |
|
|
| |
|
| 10.2.1 |
The strategy for centres forms part of the wider strategy
of sustainable development. Centres are accessible by a choice of means
of transport and are thereby available to all sectors of the community.
The concentration of activities within them therefore helps to counteract
social exclusion. It also allows a variety of needs to be met in a single
trip, so reducing the overall need to travel. Centres also help to define
local communities and to promote a sense of identity. |
| 10.2.2 |
In applying this strategy the City Council does not seek to
impose a rigid 'hierarchy' within which the relative status of all centres
is permanently fixed. Nevertheless the recognition of broad categories of
centre and the identification of types of development appropriate to each
has important benefits, providing a framework of complementary roles within
which retail and other services requiring widely different 'support populations'
can be accommodated and accessibility optimised. |
| 10.2.3 |
Wolverhampton City Centre is the most accessible location
in the City and the hub of public transport services. It is the key focus
of employment, shopping, commerce and leisure activity in the City and a
surrounding 'sub-region' and its continued vitality is crucial to successful
regeneration. Improvements to the centre's infrastructure and the provision
of opportunities for further development of a City-wide or sub-regional
scale will therefore contribute to environmental, social and economic objectives
(see Policy SH5). |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 147 |
| 10.2.4 |
Other centres also have a significant strategic role to play.
On the eastern side of the City, Bilston and Wednesfield are important town
centres at the core of strong local communities. Both have been the focus
of regeneration initiatives in recent years and the Council is committed
to maintaining this momentum (see Policy SH65).
Both centres are at the core of Strategic Regeneration Corridors (see Policy
S2) and inset proposals (see Chapters 16 and 17) provide opportunities for
appropriate development to reinforce their roles. |
| 10.2.5 |
Other sectors of the City do not have major centres like
Bilston and Wednesfield. However there is an important network of district
and local centres, often within walking distance of people's homes, many
of which include community uses as well as retail services. Plan policies
aim to protect these centres and to steer appropriate development towards
them. A sequential approach has been applied in preparing the Plan's detailed
policies in respect of centre uses and this approach will also be applied
in assessing specific development proposals (Policy SH32).
(10) |
| |
|
|
|
10.3
|
Centre Uses
|
| Policy SH2: Centre Uses |
| |
| The following will be regarded
as centre uses: |
- Retailing of all kinds, including all convenience and
comparison goods shops including warehouse clubs that share
the characteristics of retail outlets, factory and designer
outlet centres and retail markets;
- Class A2 (financial, professional and other services)
offices;
- Class A3 food and drink uses (but see also Policy C2 on
local community uses including public houses);
- Class B1 (a) offices;
- Public service, cultural, community and health facilities
in Class D1 that serve more than ‘local needs’
as defined in Policy SH9;
- Hotels, entertainment, leisure, indoor sports, health
and fitness centres and other Class C1
- Assembly and Leisure (D2) and ‘sui generis’
uses (uses which are not within a specified use class, for
example warehouse clubs) which attract a significant number
of trips;
- Higher, further and adult education facilities.
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10.3.1 |
This Policy sets out the uses which the Council
regards as town centre uses for the purpose of applying the sequential approach.
The definition of centre uses is consistent with the definition of “town
centre uses” set out in PPG6. Retailing which is associated with on-site
manufacturing or distribution activities but which is on such a scale as
to be more than subsidiary to these activities (see Policy B11) will be
subject to this Policy. In the case of warehouse clubs, where these do not
sufficiently share the characteristics of retail outlets, they will be treated
as ‘sui generis’ uses, although the tests set out in this Policy
will apply insofar as they are relevant. |
| |
|
|
|
10.4
|
Need and the Sequential Approach
|
| Policy SH32:
Need and the Sequential Approach |
| |
| Proposals for the
development of centre uses (as defined below
in Policy SH2) which
serve more than a local need (as defined in Policy SH9) in locations
outside defined centres (having regard to the definition of
centres as set out in Policy SH4) and not in accordance with
allocations made in this Plan will be assessed in terms
of need for the development, the appropriateness of its location
and the likely impact on the vitality and viability of neighbouring
centres. (11) |
| Applicants
will be required to submit a statement which Any
applicant seeking permission for a development involving centre
uses will be required to demonstrates
that: |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 148 |
| |
| 1. |
There is a need for the proposed development. |
| 2. |
A sequential approach to site selection
has been adopted. |
| 3. |
The proposed development is of a scale
and nature appropriate to the size
and function of the centre
location concerned. |
| In preparing their proposals,
developers should consider the catchment area that the development
is intended to serve; how the scale and type of development
relates to the defined network of centres; and the likely impact
on centres at all levels of this network. A lower-order centre
proposal that adversely impacts on a higher order centre will
not be acceptable. |
| When adopting a sequential
approach to site selection the first preference should be for
sites within a defined centre appropriate in role and scale
to the proposed development and its intended catchment area.
Only in the absence of such sites should edge-of-centre sites
be considered, and then out-of-centre sites accessible by a
choice of means of transport. “In centre” and “edge-of-centre”
are defined in Policy SH3. |
| Where an edge-of-centre
or out-of-centre site is proposed, applicants will need to demonstrate
that sites within the main shopping areas of appropriate defined
centres are not suitable, viable and likely to become available
over the period within which the need is likely to arise. Proposals
for out-of-centre sites will also need to demonstrate that,
irrespective of the particular format proposed, the type of
goods to be sold could not be sold within, or failing that on
the edge of, a centre., assuming
the adoption of a flexible approach. The
Council will apply the sequential test in a flexible, realistic
and sensitive manner, and consider the needs of developers and
operators. It will also expect applicants to be flexible in
their requirements in terms of unit sizes, layouts, ancillary
facilities, car parking, servicing and design, so as not to
preclude the possibility of identifying locations in centres.
Where an edge of centre or out of centre proposal comprises
different elements or units, or involves adding floorspace to
or within an existing or permitted development, then each part
of the proposal should be considered separately for an in centre
location. (12) |
| The following additional
criteria will also need to be met: |
| 4. |
The proposed development will not have
a harmful effect on the vitality or viability of any defined
centre (including centres outside Wolverhampton), either alone
or cumulatively. |
| 5. |
The proposed
site is accessible by a choice of means of transport, including
access by public transport from a wide range of destinations.The
proposal must offer genuine and realistic safe and easy access
by public transport, walking and cycling for all sections of
the community, and from a wide catchment, to help achieve better
access to facilities and development by a choice of transport
modes. Consideration must be given to whether an alternative
location within a centre would achieve easier access. Where
an out of centre or edge of centre scheme is to be permitted
the Council will require the development to make provision for
appropriate improvements to public transport and facilities
for pedestrians and cyclists, as necessary to meet the access
standards set out in Chapter 14 of this Plan. (13)
|
| 6. |
The proposed development contributes
to the objectives of reducing the need to travel and reducing
car use. |
| 7. |
There is no significant detriment to
local amenity. |
| 8. |
The proposal is consistent with other
UDP policies. |
| Where the impact of a development
would otherwise be unacceptable, but can be satisfactorily mitigated
by appropriate provision – for example new or improved
transport or social and community facilities – the Council
will seek an appropriate planning obligation or agreement to
secure the implementation and retention of the necessary measures.
Planning conditions relating to the size of units or the type
of goods to be sold may also be imposed. |
| Where necessary, when edge of
centre or out of centre developments are approved, the Council
will impose appropriate planning conditions and / or obligations
to ensure that such developments will not change their character
in such a way as to have an adverse impact in terms of the policies
of this Plan. The particular conditions and / or obligations
to be attached will depend on the character of individual schemes,
but the following principles will be followed for retail developments: |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 149 |
| |
| i. |
maximum and minimum unit sizes will be controlled
and, in particular (apart from external sales and storage areas)
no comparison retail units of under 929 sq metres (10 000 sq
ft) gross will normally be allowed unless it meets a local need
in accordance with Policies SH1 and SH9 |
| ii. |
sub division of units will be restricted |
| iii. |
the insertion of mezzanine floors which increase
the sales area above that which led to the edge of centre or
out of centre site being justified will be restricted |
| iv. |
the ranges of goods to be sold will be restricted
to those which led to the edge of centre or out of centre site
being justified |
| v. |
consideration
will be given to the range and proportion of ancillary services
and activities proposed, particularly post offices and pharmacies
(14) |
|
In applying this policy the following will be regarded as
centre uses:
|
- Retailing of all kinds, including all convenience and
comparison goods shops including warehouse clubs that share
the characteristics of retail outlets, factory and designer
outlet centres and retail markets;
- Class A2 (financial, professional and other services)
offices markets;
- Class A3 food and drink uses (but see also Policy C2 on
local community uses including public houses);
- Class B1 (a) offices;
- Public service, cultural, community and health facilities
in Class D1 that serve more than ‘local needs’
as defined in Policy SH8;
- Hotels, entertainment, leisure, indoor sports, health
and fitness centres and other Class C1
- D2 and ‘sui generis’ uses which attract a significant
number of trips;
- Higher, further and adult education facilities.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| 10.4.12.6 |
The Council's strategy is to concentrate new retail and other
activities used regularly by large numbers of people in centres. In allocating
sites for centre uses in the UDP, the Council has carried out assessments
of need, and has adopted a sequential approach to identifying sites to meet
such need. The continuing application of these tests to future development
proposals is the primary means by which the plan will sustain the network
of centres defined in Policy SH1 and ensure that shopping and other activities
that attract large numbers of people are accessible by a choice of means
of transport. |
| 10.4.22.7
|
All significant proposals for centre uses outside
defined centres (15) will have to
establish a need. The Council's definition of need refers to meeting the
requirements of all sections of the population for a good choice of shopping
and other services in accessible locations close to where they live. These
needs are not necessarily the same as predicted growth in and
availability of (63) expenditure,
although in the case of retailing this will usually be a necessary condition.
In certain circumstances the need to promote regeneration, or social inclusion,
may also be important. However the requirements of particular retailers
or developers will not in themselves be relevant. |
| 10.4.32.8 |
If need can be demonstrated, a sequential approach to site
selection must then be followed. If no sites within a defined centre of
appropriate scale and role are suitable, viable or likely to become available
within a reasonable time, edge-of-centre sites are next to be considered
because, if appropriately located, these can also provide for joint shopping
trips. If there are no edge-of-centre sites, out-of-centre sites will be
a last resort. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 150 |
| |
| 10.4.42.9 |
Where the above criteria lead to proposals for edge of centre
or out of centre sites, a more detailed assessment will be made on the basis
of the second group of criteria. If there is a question of potentially significant
retail impact on a defined centre, a retail impact assessment in accordance
with PPG6 will be required. For an edge-of-centre location the proposition
that the development would support the role of the centre through joint
shopping trips will need to be considered. Edge-of-centre sites are often
already accessible by a choice of means of transport although convenient,
barrier-free pedestrian and cycle routes to and from the existing main shopping
area of the centre will need to be demonstrated (see Policy SH43).
(16) Consideration of wider travel patterns
and the impact upon car use will need to be demonstrated in a suitable statement.
Consideration of compatibility with nearby uses will ensure the protection
of residential amenity. Consideration of compatibility with other UDP policies
will ensure a suitable design and layout. If the site is allocated for some
other use in the UDP (for example as a housing or business development allocation),
this will take precedence. |
| 10.4.52.10 |
For any out-of-centre site it will need to be demonstrated
that this is accessible by a choice of means of transport or can be made
so. Public transport accessibility must be, or be capable of becoming, extensive.
It must provide the opportunity of reaching the site from a wide range of
places and for a diverse range of people, with particular reference to those
without access to private transport. |
| 10.4.62.11 |
The imposition of a minimum unit size and restrictions on
the range of goods to be sold from retail warehouse developments will ensure
that the retail impact of a proposal upon a defined centre will be controlled.
Comparison goods that could be expected to be found within the defined centres
will be excluded. As a minimum, conditions will usually prevent the sale
of clothing and footwear, books, electrical and audio-visual goods, pharmaceutical
goods, jewellery, silverware, watches and clocks and sports and recreational
goods. |
| 10.4.72.12 |
All proposals for centre uses (as defined
in Policy SH2), whether in, (17)
on the edge of, or out of centre, will be subject to this policy and will
have to be accompanied by supporting material demonstrating compliance.
The level of detail required will depend on the scale of development and
the range of policy issues it is likely to give rise to. |
| 10.4.82.13
|
The definition of centre uses for the purposes of this Policy
is consistent with the definition of "town centre uses" set out in PPG6.
Retailing which is associated with on-site manufacturing or distribution
activites but which is on such a scale as to be more than subsidiary to
these activities (see Policy B10) will be subject to this Policy. In the
case of warehouse clubs, where these do not sufficiently share the characteristics
of retail outlets, they will be treated as 'sui generis' uses, although
the tests set out in this Policy will apply insofar as they are relevant. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 151 |
| |
| |
|
|
|
| Policy SH43:
Integration of Development into Centres |
| |
| To ensure the proper integration
of developments in or on the edge of centres, proposals should
be sensitively integrated, in functional and visual terms, with
the primary shopping area and with other land uses, pedestrian
routes, car parking, public transport facilities, servicing
arrangements, traffic circulation, and the local townscape.
Development proposals will be considered as 'in centre' or 'edge-of-centre'
according to the following principles:- |
| Wolverhampton City Centre
and Bilston and Wednesfield town centres: |
| 1. |
- Retail development should be within or
directly adjoining the defined Pprimary
Sshopping
Aarea,
(the Shopping Quarter in Wolverhampton
City Centre as defined in Policy CC6)) and linked
directly to a shopping frontage in that area. Locations
outside this area will be regarded as off centre and will
be subject to Policy SH3.
|
| 2. |
- Leisure and uses that attract a
significant number of trips, or oOther activities
that are likely to be visited on shopping trips should also
be located close to the Pprimary
Sshopping
Aarea.
In Wolverhampton City Centre, sites
within the ring road and/or having regard to the range of
uses identified as being appropriate for the ‘Quarters’
as set out in Chapter 15, are likely to satisfy this requirement
and can be regarded as ‘town centre’ locations.
The corresponding area in Bilston and Wednesfield is within
the Inset Map boundary.
|
| 3. |
- B1 offices and other uses that do not attract large numbers
of visits from members of the public need not necessarily
be close to the heart of the centre, but should
be within the Inset Map boundary and where relevant, be
compatible with the range of uses identified as being appropriate
for the Quarters as set out in Chapter 15. Sites
they should still
have good pedestrian access to the centre's main facilities
and public transport.
|
| Edge of Centre |
| 4. |
- Edge-of-centre developments should satisfy
the requirements of Policy SH3 and have a positive
relationship to the centre, taking account of the nature
of the development and its potential users / customers,
the location of the site and any barriers to pedestrian
movement.
|
| District and local centres:
|
| 1. |
- In centre developments will be within the centre boundaries
shown on the Proposals Map.
|
| 2. |
- Edge-of-centre developments - for retailing and other
uses - should be well located immediately adjoining or close
to existing shopping / service provision.
|
| All developments within
and on the edge of established centres should make best use
of land and buildings within or on the edge of the centre, including
upper floors. Development proposals that would prejudice a comprehensive
approach to the use of land and buildings will be resisted.
(18) |
|
|
|
|
| 10.4.92.14
|
It is important that all developments within centres are carefully
integrated into the existing urban fabric, both visually and functionally,
so that they function properly as part of the centre as a whole and contribute
positively to the local townscape. Policy SH43
sets out some general principles that will help to ensure that this is achieved.
The policy will be applied at every level of the centre hierarchy, including
local centres. |
| 10.4.102.15 |
Government guidance (PPG6) provides some indications as to
what may reasonably be regarded as an edge-of-centre, sites with 200 to
300 metres of the primary shopping area being regarded as an acceptable
walking distance subject to topography, barriers to movement and the attractiveness
of the route concerned. Larger centres are generally able to attract people
to walk further than small centres. This Policy seeks to provide an interpretation
of the national guidance in the context of the centres identified in the
Wolverhampton UDP. The circumstances of individual sites will determine
what can reasonably be regarded as edge-of-centre. In the case of the City
Centre, Bilston or Wednesfield any site up to 300
metres by a safe, easy and convenient pedestrian route from edge of the
Primary Shopping Area will be regarded as edge of centre for a retail use
it is unlikely that any site that is
more than 250 metres by a convenient pedestrian route from the primary shopping
area could be regarded as edge-of-centre for a retail use. (19)
A distance of up to 400 metres may be appropriate in the case of leisure.
In district or local centres a maximum of 100 metres for any centre use
is likely to be more appropriate. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 152 |
| |
|
|
|
10.5
|
City and Town Centres
|
| Policy SH54:
Wolverhampton City Centre |
| |
| The role of Wolverhampton
City Centre as a sub-regional centre providing a comprehensive
range of shopping and other services for a catchment area embracing
the north-western part of the West Midlands Conurbation, southern
Staffordshire and eastern Shropshire will be maintained and
enhanced. |
| Shopping, office, leisure
and cultural, educational, health, transportation and other
facilities appropriate to this role will be encouraged. This
will include convenience shopping and other services important
to nearby residents and to people working within the City Centre. |
| Development in the City
Centre area will be guided by the detailed policies and proposals
set out in Chapter 15 and the associated
City Centre Inset Plan. Priority will be given to the following: |
| 1. |
Expansion of the prime comparison shopping
core in the Victoria Street and Cleveland Street area; |
| 2. |
Implementation of the Wolverhampton
City Centre Access and Interchange Scheme; |
| 3. |
Facilitating the further development
and consolidation of the University; |
| 4. |
Further development of the Cultural/Entertainment
and Artist Quarters; |
| 5. |
Development which contributes to the
achievement of the Wolverhampton Urban Village; |
| 6. |
Enhancement of the Canalside Quarter
and its integration with the rest of the City Centre. |
| 7. |
Retention and enhancement of convenience
shopping provision within the City Centre, including the existing
retail markets; |
| 8. |
Development of
the approved Provision of
a large foodstore and bulky goods retailing as part of
a mixed-use development at Raglan Street; (20) |
| 9. |
Achievement of a mixed use redevelopment
of the former Royal Hospital area including
residential, but excluding large scale retail. (21) |
|
|
|
|
| 10.5.13.1 |
Wolverhampton's role as a major sub-regional centre, providing
shopping, leisure, business, higher education and other services, is a key
element in the local economy. Notwithstanding competing developments, the
City Centre continues to serve a substantial catchment area extending well
beyond the City boundary. It accounts for some 33,000 jobs (one third of
the City total) a significant proportion of which are attributable to the
sub-regional role. In addition, the quality and range of services available
in the City Centre is a key element in the quality of life and experience
of residents and visitors to the City. |
| 10.5.23.2
|
The wide range of activities concentrated in the City Centre
tend to reinforce each other and the maintenance of a healthy shopping base
is essential if there is to be continued development of Wolverhampton's
role in respect of, for example, business services and cultural and leisure
activities. The Shopping and Town Centres Study concluded that most of the
additional shopping floorspace required in Wolverhampton - other than that
required to meet purely local needs - should be located within or immediately
adjoining the City Centre. The key requirement, if Wolverhampton is to retain
its market share, is for new quality shopping space integrated with the
existing shopping core to accommodate a further department store and other
comparison retailers. This will be provided primarily by development in
the Victoria Street / Cleveland Street area, where there are opportunities
for integration with the Mander and Wulfrun centres, Beatties department
store and the retail markets (see Chapter 15: Wolverhampton City Centre). |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 153 |
| |
|
| 10.5.33.3 |
The Shopping and Town Centres Study also indicated a need
for an additional large foodstore and further non-food shopping of the 'retail
warehouse' type during the period to 2011. The CB
Richard Ellis review confirmed that these needs can be accommodated This
will be provided principally by the approved
within a major mixed-use redevelopment
in the Raglan Street area to the west of the ring road and
other small scale developments. Convenience shopping is a significant
component of the City Centre generally, including the prime-shopping core.
It complements comparison-shopping and provides regular food shopping opportunities,
particularly for public transport users and people employed in the City
Centre. The Council will seek to retain and where possible enhance these
facilities, including supermarket facilities and the existing retail markets.
(22) |
| 10.5.43.4
|
Accessibility is crucial to the role of the City Centre. Major
enhancement will be achieved by implementation of the Access and Interchange
scheme, which has now been accepted for LTP funding. This development will
create a major public transport hub by integration of the rail station with
a remodelled and extended bus station and potentially with Midland Metro,
extended in the form of an extension along the Wednesfield corridor. The
high accessibility of the interchange will promote opportunities for intensive
forms of land use in its vicinity. The eastern side of the City Centre generally
provides opportunities for regeneration, in part associated with the transport
interchange. This area is defined as the Canalside Quarter and is the subject
of proposals, particularly for new business and leisure uses, which are
set out in detail in Chapter 15. |
| 10.5.53.5
|
The presence of a large university is a positive factor in
the educational, economic, social and cultural life of the City generally.
The main campus of the University is a key land user in the northern sector
of the City Centre. There are major interactions between the University
and the other functions of the City Centre and the presence of a large staff
and student population is an important contributor to the overall vitality
and viability of the centre. The UDP makes provision for the continued consolidation
and expansion of the campus area. |
| 10.5.63.6 |
A major success of recent years in diversifying the role
of the City Centre has been the consolidation of a strong cultural and entertainment
quarter, focussed in particular in the Lichfield Street area, and the associated
expansion of the 'night-time economy'. This potential will be further developed,
in particular through the creation of an 'artists quarter'. |
| 10.5.73.7
|
The UDP also seeks to substantially augment the residential
population of the City Centre through the promotion of an urban village.
This embraces the St. John's area on the southern side of the centre together
with adjacent areas outside the ring road - Royal Hospital / All Saints
to the east and Chapel Ash to the west. This proposal is an important component
in meeting the City's housing needs as well as contributing to the vitality
of the City Centre. Additional housing is to be provided both through adaptation
of existing buildings (including "living over the shop") and by new development
including mixed-use schemes. A key mixed-use scheme will be that for the
Royal Hospital area. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 154 |
| |
|
|
|
| Policy SH65:
Bilston and Wednesfield Town Centres |
| |
| The role of Bilston and
Wednesfield as town centres serving the south-eastern and north-eastern
sectors of the City respectively will be maintained and enhanced.
The main role of these centres will be to provide for bulk convenience
shopping, an element of comparison-shopping, and other services
and community facilities for the areas they serve. |
| Development in the two centres
will be guided by the detailed policies and proposals set out
in the Bilston and Wednesfield
inset chapters and the associated inset plans. Priority will
be given to the following: |
1. Continued environmental
improvements in both centres.
2. Enhanced linkages:- |
- In Bilston between the town centre and the retail markets
and between the town centre/retail markets and the Morrison
superstore and proposed Bilston Urban Village area;
- In Wednesfield between the town centre and the Sainsbury's
superstore and the Bentley Bridge retail and leisure park
developments.
|
| Complementary residential
use may be appropriate in both centres subject to the creation
of a satisfactory residential environment. |
|
|
| |
|
| 10.5.83.8 |
The hierarchy of centres in Wolverhampton differs substantially
between the east of the City and the other sectors. In the east, Bilston
and Wednesfield have a role as town centres, which is not paralled in any
of the more local centres that serve other parts of the City. Although Wednesfield
is a substantially smaller centre than Bilston, both centres have a long
history as the focus of areas with a strong sense of local identity. Both
retain a significant range of services and of business and community facilities
in addition to their retail role and both act as significant nodes in the
public transport network. |
| 10.5.93.9 |
The UDP recognises and seeks to reinforce the distinctive
roles of Bilston and Wednesfield. The main emphasis over the UDP period
will be consolidating the major changes which have taken place in both centres
over the past five to ten years and ensuring that both continue to act as
a focus for regeneration in their respective areas. Proposals, which are
set out in detail in Chapters 16 and 17, aim to ensure that the future development
of both centres is fully integrated with, and benefits from, the major changes
which will be taking place in their immediate localities. |
| 10.5.103.10 |
The 1993 UDP proposed for both Bilston and Wednesfield a combination
of improved accessibility; environmental improvements (associated with the
removal of through traffic by the Black Country Route and Wednesfield Way
respectively); and the introduction of a large foodstore and non-food retailing
to complement existing retail facilities. These proposals have largely been
implemented. Major environmental improvements in the form of full and partial
pedestrianisation have been achieved in both centres and complementary food
and non-food retail development has taken place or is committed. The nodal
position of both centres in the public transport network has been enhanced.
In Bilston, Midland Metro Line 1 now provides an interchange with the bus
station in the heart of the town centre, whilst in Wednesfield bus showcase
services have been implemented along the Wolverhampton to Ashmore Park and
Bloxwich corridor. Furthermore, the Wolverhampton - New Cross Hospital -
Wednesfield section is now identified as one of four routes for the further
development of Midland Metro following the imminent Birmingham City Centre
and Brierley Hill extensions and is identified as a priority in the local
Community Plan. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 155 |
| |
|
| 10.53.11
|
Unfortunately in neither centre has new food and non food
retail development been as fully integrated with the town centre as was
intended in the plan and improvements in this situation are a major emphasis
of the review proposals. The Morrison foodstore at Bilston, is
although separated from
the retail core by the Black Country Route, but
has complemented the existing town centre to some
a reasonable degree. Surveys in Wednesfield,
however, suggest that the Sainsbury's
(ex. Coop) store tends to act as a free-standing attraction, little used
in association with the town centre proper. In both cases action is required
to secure better integration and to overcome the barriers to pedestrian
movement. In Bilston these linkages will be associated with measures to
link the centre with the proposed Bilston urban village mixed-use development
to the south. In Wednesfield some remodelling of land use is required to
enhance the links between the centre and the new foodstore. (23) |
| 10.53.12 |
Non-food retail and leisure development has taken place or
is committed in proximity to both Bilston and Wednesfield - at Springvale
and Bentley Bridge respectively. In both cases the sites are too distant
be regarded as edge-of-centre. For this reason, if
the planning permissions for the Bentley Bridge Park developments are not
implemented, other uses as set out in Policy C6 will be promoted.
However action will be taken as far as possible
to secure improved linkages and to ensure that in any further development
in the vicinity of either Bilston or Wednesfield is of a form which complements
the existing centre, in accordance with Policy SH3. (24) |
| 10.53.13 |
Although recent developments have largely fulfilled UDP requirements
for additional retailing in both centres, limited further development or
redevelopment appropriate to the role defined in Policy SH5 would be acceptable
within the main shopping area in both cases. Development
which is of a scale to serve City wide centre use needs, particularly retail
and leisure, will be directed to locations within Wolverhampton City Centre
as defined in Policy SH3. Sites within Bilston and Wednesfield are unlikely
to satisfy these needs and may have the effect of compromising further investment
in the City Centre. (25) Other uses
appropriate to the role of these centres will be welcome, subject to Policies
SH2 and SH3 and the detailed proposals in Chapters 16 and 17. Although recent
experience suggests a very limited market for office development in either
centre, office uses will be also acceptable on appropriate sites. |
|
|
10.64
|
District and Local Centres
|
| Policy SH76:
District Centres |
| |
| The role of the following
district centres, providing a wide range of convenience goods,
an element of comparison shopping and a range of other services
for the areas they serve, will be maintained and enhanced: |
| 1. Pendeford Park |
6. Tettenhall Village |
| 2. Stafford Road (Three Tuns) |
7. Whitmore Reans / Avion Centre |
| 3. Cannock Road (Scotlands) |
8. Compton Village |
| 4. Fallings Park |
9. Warstones Road |
| 5. Ashmore Park |
10. Dudley Road / Blakenhall |
|
| The Council will support
proposals for new retail and other centre
use (26) development
appropriate to the role of these centres within their defined
boundaries, subject to Policies SH1
and SH3 and environmental and traffic
considerations. Medium sized supermarkets
(of up to approximately 1,400 m² gross floorspace) will in principle
be regarded as appropriate in district centres. These centres
may also provide a suitable location for additional retail markets
including farmers' markets. (27) |
| The location of new community
facilities within or adjacent to these centres will be encouraged,
subject to environmental and traffic considerations. Complementary
residential use may also be appropriate, subject to the creation
of a satisfactory residential environment. Environmental improvements
will be undertaken in these centres as opportunities arise. |
| Any proposal involving the
loss of a shop or shops within a district centre will also be
subject to Policies SH9 and SH10. |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 156 |
| |
|
| |
|
| 10.64.1 |
The ten centres listed in Policy SH6 were all identified
as local centres in the 1993 UDP. However the UDP now recognises a further
tier of smaller, more strictly local centres (Policy SH7). The ten original
local centres are therefore re-designated as district centres. Most have
between 25 and 50 shops and approximately 2,500 m² to 5,000 m² gross of
retail floor space. |
| 10.64.2 |
These centres, by virtue of their range of shopping (generally
including at least one supermarket) and other services, and an element of
off-street car parking, have a particularly significant role distinguishing
them from the newly recognised local centres now covered by Policy SH7.
Some of the district centres, such as Tettenhall Village, are highly nucleated.
Others, like Stafford Road / Three Tuns, are linear in form. However they
are all important in meeting a wide range of convenience shopping and other
needs in their localities. Comparison retailing is generally limited, although
it is significant in some centres that perform a specialist role, such as
Dudley Road / Blakenhall, which serves the needs of particular minority
ethnic communities. |
| 10.64.3 |
The establishment of centre boundaries on the Proposals Map
provides a framework within which existing uses and new development can
be consolidated. District centres provide a particularly suitable, accessible
location for medium-sized supermarkets, including discount food stores.
Where new community facilities are proposed in a particular part of the
City it will often be appropriate to locate these in the appropriate district
centre. |
| |
|
|
|
| Policy SH87:
Local Centres |
| |
| The role of the following
local centres, providing mainly for the day-to-day convenience
shopping needs of a population mostly living within walking
distance will be maintained and enhanced: |
| 1 Fordhouses |
14 Upper Penn |
| 2 Broadway |
15 Penn Fields |
| 3 Bushbury Lane |
16 Owen Road |
| 4 Showell Circus |
17 Bradmore |
| 5 Wood End |
18 Merry Hill |
| 6 Stubby Lane |
19 Castlecroft |
| 7 Heathtown |
20 Finchfield |
| 8 East Park |
21 Tettenhall Wood |
| 9 Ettingshall |
22 Newbridge |
| 10 Bradley |
23 Staveley Road |
| 11 Parkfield |
24 Aldersley |
| 12 Spring Hill |
25 Dovecotes |
| 13 Penn Manor |
|
|
| The Council will support
proposals for new retailing and centre
uses (28) appropriate
to the role of these centres within their defined boundaries,
subject to Policy SH2 and environmental
and traffic considerations. The centres will also be encouraged
to develop as a focus for social, community and leisure uses
which serve the immediate local area. Complementary residential
use may also be appropriate, subject to the creation of a satisfactory
residential environment. |
| Any proposal involving the
loss of a shop or shops within a local centre will also be subject
to Policies SH8 and SH9. |
|
|
| |
|
| 10.64.4
|
In addition to Bilston and Wednesfield town centres and the
ten district centres, 24 additional local centres are now identified on
the Proposals Map. Most of these centres have between 10 and 20 shops and
approximately 750 to 1,500m² of retail floor space (although significantly
more in a few centres where there is a discount food store / supermarket).
They usually include several food and other convenience stores and in most
cases they provide other goods and services including a pharmacy and a post
office. In the Council's view these centres generally conform to the definition
of a "local centre" in PPG6. A few centres with only a restricted range
of facilities have been included, on the basis that otherwise the area concerned
would be remote from any alternative local shopping provision. East Park,
Ettingshall, Bradley and Dovecotes fall within this category. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 157 |
| |
|
| 10.64.5
|
The protection and enhancement of local centres
is particularly important if people are to have the opportunity of making
basic convenience purchases close to their homes. They are particularly
valuable to the elderly and other less mobile groups. The definition of
local centre on the Proposals Map provides the opportunity to identify suitable
sites for additional retail and non-retail facilities appropriate to their
role. |
| |
|
|
|
10.75
Local Shops and Centre Uses
|
| Policy SH98:
Local Shops and Centre Uses outside defined
centres (29) |
| |
| The Council will seek to
ensure the provision and retention of local shops and
other centre uses (as defined in Policy SH2) (30)
to meet essential day-to-day needs within reasonable walking
distance of people's homes. |
| Existing Local Shops |
| Shops that provide an important
service to a local area, whether they are within a defined centre
or in a free-standing location, will wherever possible be protected.
Development involving the loss of a convenience shop², pharmacy
or post office will be resisted where this would result in an
increase in the number of people living more than 400 metres
from alternative provision. |
| New Centre
uses meeting Local Needs Local
Shops (31) |
| Where shopping and
other town centre facilities are inadequate to meet the
needs of an existing or growing local population, planning agreements
will be negotiated for the inclusion of shops and
other town centre facilities within new housing or other
development schemes. (32) |
| The
Council recognises the important role that shops owned and run
by local community groups can have in providing low cost and
healthy foodstuffs and other commodities, particularly in areas
of social and economic disadvantage. Subject to normal amenity
considerations, proposals to establish such shops will be considered
favourably. (71) |
| Other new local shops and
centre uses (whether provided by new build or change
of use) should be located adjacent to existing shop clusters
or parades. Proposals on sites outside of defined centres, for
new local shops and other centre uses,
(33) or extensions to
shops, will be permitted where: |
| 1. |
In
the case of new retail facilities, the proposed new shop
or extended shop does not exceed 250 m² gross floor space; |
| 2. |
The proposal will help to reduce
the need to travel, especially by car, and offer safe and easy
access by public transport, walking and cycling for all sections
of the community for the catchment it is intended to serve;
|
| 23. |
there is a local need that
cannot be met by existing provision in the area; |
| 34. |
there
are no suitable vacant premises in the area, which should normally
be the preferred locations to accommodate new facilities;
(34) the
vacancy rate of comparable existing shops within easy walking
distance is low; |
| 45. |
there would be no significant
retail impact upon a defined centre, including
centres outside Wolverhampton; (35)
and |
| 56. |
there would be no adverse
impact on highway safety, traffic generation and residential
amenity (in particular, the establishment of shops in terraced
properties adjoining residential accommodation will be resisted).
|
| These considerations will
apply in respect of proposals for non-ancillary retailing at
petrol filling stations outside of defined centres. |
| - |
the main role of 'local
shops' is to meet the everyday needs of people living within
walking distance |
| - |
'convenience shops' are
those selling predominantly food and other everyday requirements. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 158 |
| |
|
| 10.75.1
|
Notwithstanding the identification of additional local centres,
there remain many individual shops and small parades outside defined centres
that perform an important role in the City's shopping and
services provision. These facilities shops
often provide a 'top-up' convenience shopping facility close to people's
homes and they are particularly significant to the less mobile members of
the community. This Policy defines the Council's approach in respect of
such shops and services and also states its
approach regarding the protection of key local shopping facilities generally,
whether these are in or outside the defined centres. (36) |
| 10.75.2
|
The provision and retention of essential local shops and
services within easy walking distance of people's homes and workplaces
is an important element of the Council's shopping
centres strategy. Where the Council is itself
the landlord it can use its powers in this capacity to encourage the provision
or retention of essential local shopping facilities. Elsewhere however it
cannot prevent the closure of a shop or a change of use from one type of
Class A1 retail shop to another, notwithstanding that such changes can have
a profound effect on the shopping facilities available to a local community.
The Council's powers are generally limited to determining applications for
changes of use of shops to Class A2 financial and professional services,
Class A3 food and drink, and other non-retail uses. In seeking to ensure
the retention of shopping facilities which are important to a local area
the Council will take into account the availability of convenient alternative
provision within a reasonable walking distance which will be taken as a
maximum 400 metres by existing pedestrian routes. It will also apply policies
that seek to retain the predominant retail use of key retail frontages (see
Policy SH109).
(37) |
| 10.75.3 |
Non profit-making shops run by local community groups can
play an important role in improving access to good quality low cost food
and other essential commodities, particularly in areas of social and economic
deprivation. Where planning consent is required there will be a strong presumption
in favour of such uses unless there is a serious impact on local residential
amenity in the vicinity. |
| 10.75.4 |
In terms of new shopping development outside identified centres,
it would be inappropriate to identify a rigid maximum size of unit that
could be regarded as a new 'local shop'. The acceptable scale for new local
shopping provision will depend on local circumstances including the nature
of the retailing envisaged, the characteristics of the site and the relationship
to existing shopping facilities. However it can generally be taken that
proposals for units of more than 250 m² gross floor space will not fall
within the terms of this policy. This approach towards
small scale development seeks to provide flexibility to existing retailers
and to promote appropriate community shopping facilities. (69)
Proposals in excess of this size are likely to raise issues of impact on
existing centres and will need to meet the requirements of the sequential
approach. They will not be permitted unless it can be shown that they meet
a genuine local need and that there are no conveniently placed centres capable
of accommodating the development in question. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 159 |
| |
|
| 10.75.5
|
While wishing to ensure an adequate provision of local shops
the Council is also aware that shops, if not well located, can be a major
nuisance to the amenity of nearby occupiers. It is therefore essential to
set down rigorous requirements against which proposals will be assessed.
Where residential areas are not already served by defined centres or existing
local shops, proposals for appropriate new shops such as neighbourhood convenience
stores, or for changes of use to retailing may be considered favourably,
subject to these criteria. These requirements are most favourably met where
new shops are provided adjoining existing shop clusters or parades; as part
of a new development scheme or within a new mixed use residential development. |
| |
|
|
|
10.86
|
Protected Frontages
|
| Policy SH109:
Protected Frontages |
| |
| Frontage use policies for
Wolverhampton City Centre, Bilston
Town Centre and Wednesfield Village
Centre are set out in the relevant inset chapters. |
| Within district and local
centres, proposals to use ground floor units for non-retail
uses will be considered favourably only where: |
| 1. |
the overall retail function
of the centre/group of shops would not be undermined; |
| |
Permission will not be granted
where non A1 uses constitute any of the following: |
| |
i |
more than 30% of shop units in the centre
concerned; |
| |
ii |
more than 30% of frontage length; |
| |
iii |
more than three consecutive units; |
| 2. |
the use would make a positive
contribution to the overall role of the centre/group of shops; |
| 3. |
there would be no conflict
with Policy SH8 in respect of the
retention of convenience shops, post offices and pharmacies;
|
| 4. |
the use is compatible with
other UDP policies; and |
| 5. |
shop front treatment, including
security measures, is in accordance with SPG on Shop Front Design,
attractive and maintains views into the unit in the daytime
and at night. |
| The impact of the proposal
on the retail function will be determined on the basis of: |
| a) |
the location and prominence
of the unit within the relevant frontage; |
| b) |
the width of the frontage
unit; |
| c) |
the number and proximity
of other units occupied by non-retail uses or with permission
for those uses; and |
| d) |
compatibility of the proposal
with nearby uses. |
| For
the purposes of this Policy a frontage is defined as one side
of a street or parade which is not separated by a significant
gap such as a road junction. Proposals to change the
use of a shop to a restaurant, a hot food take-away, or an amusement
centre, will also be subject to Policies SH13
and SH15 respectively. (38) |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10.86.1
|
Many non-retail uses which provide for visiting members of
the public (mostly falling within Classes A2 and A3 of the Use Classes Order
1987 along with certain sui generis, social, community and leisure uses)
are appropriate in shopping centres and within groups of local shops. Examples
of such uses are banks and building societies, estate and employment agencies
and catering outlets. Such uses complement shopping and help to provide
the visitor with a complete range of shops and services in one location,
minimising the need to travel. They can also provide an alternative form
of commercial investment where the shopping role of a centre is declining.
However an excessive concentration of non-retail uses can threaten the retail
role of suburban shopping locations and the service which they provide to
local communities. Policy SH109
therefore provides criteria through which a reasonable balance can be maintained.
(70) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 160 |
| |
|
| 10.86.2 |
Certain non-retail uses attract levels of pedestrian activity
comparable to some shops. It is also recognised that some financial service
establishments are similar in appearance to shops. However some uses do
create 'dead frontage' which reduces the attraction of a centre or part
thereof, with cumulative effects on remaining retailing. The Policy therefore
seeks to ensure that such uses are dispersed within a centre as well as
being limited in overall number. Conditions limiting future changes of use
may also be imposed on planning permissions where appropriate. |
| |
|
|
|
10.97
|
New Retail Development
|
| Policy SH110:
New Retail Development -Town Centre
Comparison Goods |
| |
| Based on the likely future
expenditure of the City's residents and those of its immediate
catchment area, the Council has identified a capacity for approximately
27,880 sqm net 42,000
m² (gross) of comparison goods floorspace to be provided
in Wolverhampton City Centre over the period 20031-2011.
Most of this floorspace will be developed in the form of an
extension to the retail core area, in accordance with policies
and proposals in the Wolverhampton City Centre Chapter. |
| Proposals that include an
element of comparison floorspace within the retail core areas
of Bilston and Wednesfield town centres will also be supported,
providing that the proposals are consistent with the defined
role of these centres and with detailed policies and proposals
in the relevant inset chapters. |
| Where no suitable site exists
within the retail core area of these centres and the development
proposed is adjacent to it, the Council will require that the
development is fully integrated with the core area in terms
of its proximity, character and pedestrian and vehicle circulation
(see Policy SH43). |
| Any other proposals for
comparison shopping development will only be supported where
there is a proven need for the development and it will not cause
harm to the vitality and viability of any neighbouring town
centre. Any such proposals in edge-of-centre or out-of-centre
locations will also be subject to the further requirements of
Policies SH32
and SH43. |
|
|
| |
|
| 10.7.1 |
The Council regards the term 'town
centre comparison shopping' as referring to: |
| |
- non-food goods such as clothing and footwear,
and the other commodities listed in the reasoned justification to Policy
SH2, typically sold from 'high street' type retail outlets; and
- the kinds of retail outlet such as departmental
and variety stores and smaller specialist non-food stores (including
'factory' or 'designer' outlets) typically devoted to the sale of these
goods. (40)
|
| 10.97.2 |
In terms of expenditure changes and floor space requirements
for city centre comparison these
types of retailing, the Wolverhampton Shopping and Town Centres Study
implies a remaining need for an additional 42,000
m² gross 27 880 sqm net (41)
of floor space in the City Centre (2001-2011). The key requirement in providing
this floor space is for an expansion of the primary retail core. The plan
contains detailed policies and proposals in Chapter 15 for implementing
this development, and the Council will be taking action in partnership with
private developers to bring forward appropriate proposals. |
| 10.97.3
|
Any proposals emerging elsewhere in the City will be treated
with extreme caution in the light of the priority for City Centre core expansion.
It is possible that small-scale additions of pure comparison retailing could
be appropriate to the defined roles of Bilston and Wednesfield town centres.
However any such developments must be fully integrated into the retail core
of the centre concerned and should not be of such a scale as to jeopardise
the priority for City Centre investment. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 161 |
| |
|
|
|
| Policy SH121:
New Retail Development - Bulky Comparison Goods |
| |
| The approved mixed use development
at Raglan Street, at Bentley Bridge and other small scale commitments
will accommodate the requirement for additional large scale
retail warehousing floorspace to 2011. |
| If the Bentley Bridge Park retail
proposals are not implemented, there will be a requirement inherent
in the retail warehouse market for 1,060 sqm net floorspace
by 2011. This need could be accommodated by the redevelopment
of the existing Sainsbury’s store at St George’s Parade
subject to Policy CC9(vii). The range of appropriate uses for
Bentley Bridge Park is set out in Policy C6. |
| The Council has also identified
a capacity for an additional 35,000m² (gross) of bulky comparison
goods floor space in the City over the period 2001-2011. |
| In addition to appropriate
locations within the main shopping areas of Wolverhampton City
Centre and Bilston and Wednesfield town centres, the following
sites are identified on the Proposals Map and the City Centre
inset map to meet this need: |
| 1. |
at Raglan Street on the edge of the
City Centre (mixed development also including a food store);
|
| 2. |
as part of the redevelopment of the
Royal Hospital area; and |
| 3. |
at Bentley
Bridge, Wednesfield. (42) |
| These developments are largely
expected to meet the requirements of
for bulky goods retailers
and any additional proposals will be considered on their merits
and in relation to other UDP policies. (64) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10.97.4 |
Bulky goods retail units in the form
of ‘retail warehouses’ Retail
warehouses (43)- large single level
stores specialising in the sale of household goods (such as carpets, furniture
and electrical goods) and bulky DIY items - are now a familiar feature in
the retail structure of the City. The main concentrations, mostly comprising
groups of units ('retail parks') are located on radial routes close to the
City Centre and ring road (e.g. Lower Stafford Street, Bilston Road and
St. John's) and there are further developments or commitments in the vicinity
of Bilston and Wednesfield. Policy SH3 explains that
planning conditions will be imposed to ensure that new bulky goods retail
developments do not change their characteristics in such a way as to have
an adverse impact in terms of the Policies in this Plan. (44)
With an increasing number of retailers expressing a preference for large,
free-standing units, developer interest remains strong and there is also
pressure to broaden the range of goods which can be sold through these outlets
to include goods which can be sold from centres some
of the 'pure comparison goods' categories. Where
such units are in out of centre locations, proposals for the variation of
conditions that restrict the range of goods sold, proposals for the insertion
of mezzanine floors, or proposals for the sub division of units will be
determined against Policy SH3. (45) |
| 10.97.5 |
To maximise the potential benefits from such developments
in terms of City or town centre regeneration and of accessibility to all
sections of the community, the Council, utilising the sequential approach,
has identified a range of sites to accommodate
the anticipated demand. These comprise principally sites on the edge of
the City Centre, in locations where integration with the retail core inside
the ring road can be achieved. (65) |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 162 |
| |
|
|
|
| Policy SH132:
New Retail Development - Foodstores |
| |
| The
approved mixed use development at Raglan Street and other small
commitments will accommodate the requirement for large scale
convenience goods floorspace to 2011. (46)
|
| The Council has identified
a need for one major new food store in the City in the period
up to 2011. A site is identified on the Proposals Map, as part
of the mixed-use development at Raglan Street on the edge of
Wolverhampton City Centre. |
| Additional
convenience goods floorspace in the form of new stores, or extensions
to existing units Small to
medium-sized food stores will be encouraged to locate
within the identified City, town, district and local centres
providing that they are of a size appropriate
to the scale and function of these centres as defined in Policies
SH5-SH9 need can be demonstrated
and they meet the other requirements of policyies
SH2 and SH3.
(47) |
| One
major new store and a limited number of small to medium size
stores in defined centres are expected largely to meet the need
for additional convenience retail floorspace over the period
covered by the plan. Any other proposals will be considered
on their merits against the general policies of the plan.
(48) |
| Retailing at petrol filling
stations should be ancillary to the principal use of the site
for the sale of fuel and confined to motoring accessories, newspapers
and magazines, tobacco and confectionery and a limited range
of basic food and other convenience goods. The gross retail
floorspace should not exceed 50 m². Proposals for filling station
retailing which do not comply with this definition will be subject
to policy SH2 and
SH8. (49) |
|
|
| |
|
| 10.97.6 |
Since the existing 1993
(66) UDP was prepared three large new food
stores - all in the 6,000 to 8,000 m² size range - have opened in Wolverhampton,.
tTwo associated
with Bilston and Wednesfield town centres respectively and the third on
a free-standing site at Penn Road (where it is conveniently placed to meet
a previously recognised deficiency in the south west of the City). The Wolverhampton
Shopping and Town Centres Study identified a limited further potential up
to 2011 which, after allowance is made for the expansion of the Wednesfield
store which has already taken place, can be met through the provision of
a single large store in the vicinity of Wolverhampton City Centre. This
need will be met by the foodstore element of the approved mixed use development
at Raglan Street. (50) |
| 10.97.7 |
The development of some smaller stores with a local catchment
area is not ruled out, particularly in those areas of the City currently
lacking immediate access to large (67)
food store facilities. The introduction of additional
convenience goods floorspace small to
medium-sized supermarkets into a number of district and local centres
and of a size appropriate to their scale and function
where they are currently absent - subject to the other criteria of
the plan - would be particularly welcome. The Council's position on local
shopping provision outside defined centres is set out in Policy SH98.
(51) |
| 10.97.8 |
An emerging form of retailing at the local level is the introduction
of small supermarkets/convenience stores in association with petrol filling
stations. The Council recognises that in certain circumstances such developments
may provide a local shopping facility in an area that might otherwise remain
deficient. However in general such developments, strongly orientated as
they are to access by car, are contrary to the principles of sustainability.
They may also be damaging to existing and potential future investment in
centres or other more widely accessible locations. The Council will wish
to be satisfied on these matters wherever such developments are proposed.
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 163 |
| |
|
|
|
10.108
|
Other Centre Uses
|
| Policy SH1413:
Catering Outlets |
| |
| Catering outlets should
be located within defined centres. Proposals
for catering outlets in locations outside defined centres will
only be permitted where a local need can be satisfied as set
out in Policy SH9 and will
be discouraged outside these locations. Proposals within
defined centres (52)
will be permitted provided that they are compatible with nearby
uses and there would be no significant
(53) harmful cumulative impact
due to the existence of any existing or proposed catering outlet. |
| In considering all proposals
for Class A3 (food and drink) use, whether by new build or change
of use the Council will have regard in particular to: |
| 1. |
the likely impact on the amenities of
any residential accommodation in the vicinity, including the
cumulative impact of an additional proposal where one or more
such outlets exist in the immediate area; |
| 2. |
the likely impact, where appropriate,
on the shopping centre concerned (including compatibility with
any frontage use policy); |
| 3. |
the adequacy of parking or servicing
provision; |
| 4. |
the likely effect of car parking and
servicing on the free and safe flow of traffic and the amenities
of any residential accommodation in the area; |
| 5. |
the adequacy of provision for refuse storage and disposal,
and the effect of such provision on the amenity of other properties.
|
| These issues should be addressed
within the design statement accompanying the application and
within the plans, where appropriate. |
| Ventilation and fume extraction
equipment should not be detrimental to visual amenity. Where
there is residential accommodation on upper floors the Council
will require ducting where necessary
(54) to discharge above eaves
level, together with the provision of adequate soundproofing. |
| Proposals for such uses
will not be permitted in any of the following circumstances: |
| a) |
Where the proposal
adversely affects the amenities of existing or proposed dwellings
including those on the upper floors above commercial premises)
by reason of noise, smell, disturbance or traffic impact. where
there is existing housing at upper level in the premises concerned,
or at ground or upper level in adjoining premises; (55) |
| b) |
where the applicant cannot show that
he/she can implement necessary
(56) measures relating to discharge
of fumes or soundproofing through control over all relevant
land and buildings; |
| c) |
where the implementation of the proposal
would be contrary to the policy on protected frontages (SH109)
or the relevant frontage use policies for Wolverhampton City
Centre and Bilston and Wednesfield town centres, as defined
in the relevant inset chapters. |
| For all such proposals which
could, directly or indirectly, affect the amenities of residential
accommodation, the Council may impose limits on the permitted
hours of operation through conditions on planning permission
where it is considered that such effects can thereby be mitigated.
Proposals will also be considered in terms of the requirements
of Policy EPNV1
Pollution Control. |
| Proposals that include a
drive-through facility will be subject to Policy SH154. |
| The Council will seek the
retention of pubs which provide an important local community
facility and any proposal involving the loss of an existing
pub will be subject to Policy C2.
(57) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 164 |
| |
|
| |
|
| 10.108.1 |
Catering outlets (Class A3) typically include pubs, restaurants,
cafes and hot food takeaways. There can be considerable overlap between
these different types of facility as well as considerable variations. The
policy will apply both to proposals for new buildings and to changes of
use/conversions. Policy SH109
(Protected Frontages) and the frontage use policies for Wolverhampton City
Centre and Bilston and Wednesfield town centres will also need to be considered.
(58) |
| 10.108.2
|
The Council recognises that catering uses provide a useful
and necessary service to the community and can add to the vitality of shopping
centres. They can however cause considerable pedestrian and vehicle activity
and the Council needs to consider the likelihood of noise, fumes and disturbance
to nearby residents, particularly at the weekend and late at night. |
| 10.108.3 |
In order to minimise the environmental and transport issues
raised by catering outlets and to ensure that they are accessible by a choice
of transport modes they should be located within the defined centres, subject
to frontage use policies. In some cases they may also be suitable in employment
areas where there are unlikely to be problems with residential amenity and
they can provide a service to local employees. In local shopping areas (i.e.
those not identified as defined centres), proposals for catering outlets
may be acceptable provided they do not cause significant problems with residential
amenity, parking or highway capacity or threaten the local shopping role.
Outside any of these locations, proposals will generally be discouraged
because of residential amenity, parking or highway capacity problems. |
| 10.108.4 |
In all potential locations the Council will consider compatibility
with nearby uses in order to ensure the protection of residential amenity
and achieve a suitable design and layout. Particular attention will be paid
to the arrangements for fume and ventilation extraction which, if inappropriately
located, can generate noise nuisance and be visually intrusive. |
| 10.108.5 |
Highway considerations, which include capacity, road safety,
car parking and delivery facilities may be considered to distinguish between
hot-food takeaways and other types of outlet (for example, restaurants and
cafes open during normal shop hours). If there are problems with these criteria,
a condition preventing takeaway sales may be imposed where it is felt that
such problems could thereby be overcome. There may be locations where it
is felt that a significant group of catering outlets could cause cumulative
problems, for example in competing for a limited amount of car parking and,
if so, such concentrations will be discouraged. |
| |
|
|
|
| Policy SH154:
Drive-Through Facilities |
| |
| Drive-through or drive-in
facilities will be discouraged, unless it can be shown that
this format is an absolute requirement of the use proposed,
which cannot be met in any other way. |
| The inclusion of a drive-through
facility should not be a reason to require an edge-of-centre
or out-of-centre location. Facilities should instead be provided
in centres, where they will be accessible by a choice of means
of transport, and must be well integrated, both functionally
and visually into the centre concerned, with any parking provision
serving the centre as a whole. |
|
|
| |
|
| 10.108.6
|
The concept of drive-through or drive-in facilities usually
involves dedicated on-site car parking provision for customers, who may
park either while they visit the premises or are served in their cars. The
format is most commonly applied to fast-food outlets but might also be used
for other goods and services. |
| 10.108.7 |
Since this marketing format is clearly aimed at encouraging
car-based trade it is liable to be in direct conflict with Government policies,
and the policies of this plan, for reducing reliance on the private car.
For this reason this policy discourages such facilities and encourages operators
to provide goods and services in other ways. |
| |
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
| Page 165 |
| |
|
|
|
| Policy SH165:
Amusement Centres and Arcades |
| |
| The Council will only permit
amusement centre and arcade uses within Wolverhampton City Centre
and the town and district centres as identified on the Proposals
Map. |
| Within
these centres Ssuch
uses will only be permitted outside of the designated
Primary and Secondary shopping frontages in Wolverhampton City
Centre (as defined in Policy CC6 and outside the Primary Retail
Areas of Bilston Town Centre (as defined in Policy BTC6) and
Wednesfield Town Centre (as defined in Policy WVC6) core
shopping areas, where these have been defined, and where
there is no adjoining residential accommodation or other sensitive
use such as schools or places of worship. (61) |
| In considering proposals
for these uses, particular regard will be given to: |
| 1. |
the impact on the amenities of any
nearby existing or potential residential accommodation and other
sensitive uses, including the potential
impact upon crime and disorder in the locality; (68) |
| 2. |
the impact on visual amenity (especially
in conservation areas) and on the character of the area; and
|
| 3. |
road safety considerations. |
| These issues should be addressed
within the design statement accompanying the application and
within the plans, where appropriate. |
| Any such uses which are
approved must be satisfactory to the Council in respect of the
following matters, details of which must be submitted as part
of the planning application or subject to control through planning
conditions: |
| a) |
hours of operation; |
| b) |
arrangements for the management and
permanent supervision of the centre and measures to prevent
any undue nuisance by reason of noise, general disturbance or
other causes; |
| c) |
the limitation of the use to the ground
floor only; |
| d) |
provision of a shop front and permanent
shop display to ensure that there is not a break in the shopping
frontage. |
| Proposals will also be subject
to the policy on protected frontages (SH109)
or the relevant frontage use policies for Wolverhampton City
Centre and Bilston and Wednesfield town centres as appropriate.
(60) |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 10.108.8
|
The most suitable locations for these uses are within the
larger shopping centres, on the fringe of the main shopping core. However
the impact on adjoining occupiers and the area generally will be given careful
consideration. In particular, the Council will seek to avoid any adverse
effect on the amenities and viability of existing or potential residential
accommodation. In this context the Council's intention to encourage the
re-use of vacant upper floors above shops for residential use is relevant. |
| 10.108.9
|
Moral and social implications associated with gambling, especially
by young people, at these premises is not a matter which can be considered
through existing planning control legislation. The Council will, however,
in dealing with the issue of licences consider, as far as they are able
under current legislation, these broader implications in consultation with
the police, education and welfare services and environmental health and
consumer services. |
| |
|
| REASONS FOR PROPOSED CHANGES |
| 1 |
In response to updated information |
| 2 |
In response to updated information |
| 3 |
In response to changing Government Guidance |
| 4 |
In response to updated information |
| 5 |
In response to updated information |
| 6 |
In response to objection 126/450 |
| 7 |
In response to updated information |
| 8 |
In response to updated information |
| 9 |
In response to objections 74/160, 118/403 |
| 10 |
For clarification |
| 11 |
In response to objections 82/203, 83/211,
118/404, 121/414, 150/680, 156/716 |
| 12 |
In response to objection 195/939 |
| 13 |
In response to objection 84/237 |
| 14 |
In response to objection 99/317 |
| 15 |
For clarification |
| 16 |
For clarification |
| 17 |
For clarification |
| 18 |
In response to objections 83/212, 121/415,
150/676, 150/973 |
| 19 |
In response to objection 150/676 |
| 20 |
In response to updated information |
| 21 |
In response to updated information |
| 22 |
In response to updated information |
| 23 |
For clarification |
| 24 |
In response to objection 99/319 |
| 25 |
In response to objection 195/943 |
| 26 |
In response to objection 82/202 |
| 27 |
In response to objections 118/405, 124/443,
150/674 |
| 28 |
In response to objection 82/201 |
| 29 |
For clarification |
| 30 |
For clarification |
| 31 |
For clarification |
| 32 |
For clarification |
| 33 |
For clarification |
| 34 |
For clarification |
| 35 |
In response to objection 84/238 |
| 36 |
For clarification |
| 37 |
For clarification |
| 38 |
For clarification |
| 39 |
In response to updated information |
| 40 |
For clarification |
| 41 |
In response to updated information |
| 42 |
In response to updated information |
| 43 |
In response to objection 174/927 |
| 44 |
In response to objection 126/448 |
| 45 |
In response to objection 126/448 |
| 46 |
In response to updated information |
| 47 |
In response to updated information |
| 48 |
In response to updated information |
| 49 |
For clarification |
| 50 |
In response to updated information |
| 51 |
In response to updated information |
| 52 |
For clarification |
| 53 |
In response to objection 82/204 |
| 54 |
In response to objection 82/204 |
| 55 |
For clarification |
| 56 |
In response to objection 82/204 |
| 57 |
In response to objection 82/204 |
| 58 |
For clarification |
| 59 |
For clarification |
| 60 |
For clarification |
| 61 |
For clarification |
| 62 |
For clarification |
| 63 |
For clarification |
| 64 |
For clarification |
| 65 |
In response to updated information |
| 66 |
For clarification |
| 67 |
For clarification |
| 68 |
In response to objection 20/55 |
| 69 |
In response to objection 84/238 |
| 70 |
For clarification |
| 71 |
In response to objection 156/713 |
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|