Express & Star

Appeal lost for pub site homes scheme

Developers have lost their appeal to turn the site of a former Wolverhampton pub into homes.

Published

Developers have lost their appeal to turn the site of a former Wolverhampton pub into homes.

The Quarterhouse on Compton Road was demolished last year and earmarked for 10 homes with gardens and car parking spaces.

The site is worth about £500,000. After a week-long planning inquiry towards the end of last year, a planning inspector today revealed he had upheld the city council's decision to refuse permission. Developers Urban Cube are now going back to the drawing board to come up with new proposals for housing.

In his judgment planning inspector Paul Dignan said: "In this case I consider that the harm that I have identified to the character and appearance of the area, to the living conditions of future residents, to highway safety and the failure to make adequate provision for meeting the public open space and recreation needs of the development provide compelling reasons to refuse planning permission.

"Accordingly, having considered all other matters raised, I dismiss the appeal."

He said the gardens would be too small for residents.

Mr Dignan was also concerned about the number of front steps that would lead up to the houses, saying they would detract from the street scene.

Concerns were also raised about accidents caused by drivers reversing into Comp-ton Road but these were dismissed by Mr Dignan. Kevin Cooper, managing director of Urban Cube, said: "We will take on board all of the inspector's comments and will use them in redesigning the scheme in a way that is acceptable to the local authority.

"We are now considering our options and will be making a new application."

When the pub closed in September 2008, its final landlord Geoff Bangham, who had been been at the helm of the pub for around 18 months, held an emotional fundraising farewell party. It was bulldozed three months late. Wolverhampton City Council had wanted the pub to be saved, claiming its demolition would "result in the loss of a community used site without adequate justification".

Sorry, we are not accepting comments on this article.