Express & Star

Historic village pub granted approval for alterations despite objections

The owner of a pub in the village of Wall has been granted approval for alterations to the building despite objections from councillors.

Published
Last updated
The Trooper Inn. Photo: Google

Craig Chance from The Trooper on Watling Street applied for retrospective planning permission for two Juliet balconies at the pub, but Wall Parish Council said it felt the new uPVC window surrounds weren’t in keeping with the building’s locally-listed status.

They called for the uPVC frames to be replaced with timber frames in order to bring the scheme more in line with its historic setting and the wider Wall Conservation Area within which its located.

The Juliet balconies replace two small casement windows, and are located on the ground floor of the building.

The Trooper is classified as a non-designated heritage asset, and therefore does not have protected status beyond its local listing.

A planning officer at Lichfield District Council said: “The changes cause no harm to the visual appearance of the building.

“There’s a neutral impact on the historical significance of the building, and there’s no impact on archaeology.

“All that together results in a recommendation for approval – with a condition to say the changes have to be retained as they have been installed.”

Wall Parish Council felt the approval might set a bad example to people who follow the rules and wait for approval before carrying out work.

Parish clerk Pam Salter said: “Wall Parish Council is extremely concerned that this is yet another incident of retrospective permission being sought by the owners of The Trooper.”

She also raised concerns about the validity of some of the statements in the application.

She said: “It clearly states that the replacements will be of painted timber, in full knowledge that the work had already been completed in uPVC.

“It also fails to declare that two of these new doors – each now with new balconies – are both at least double the size of what were actually windows.”

She said the parish council felt the applicant should’ve waiting to receive approval of their planning application before the work began.

Ms Salter continued: “They’ve already caused so much harm during previous works that this extra work makes little difference.

“It highlights the history of detrimental treatment of the property, but surely that is not a good reason to permit further harm.”

She added that the parish council felt the planning application was “deceptive by its vagary.”

Ward councillor, Councillor Janice Silvester-Hall also spoke out against the alterations.

She said it seemed unfair that the application had been submitted after the work had already been completed, as she knew other people locally who were waiting for applications to be processed before starting work on their proposed developments.

She also said the application stated the site couldn’t be seen from a public highway, but commented that this is “entirely false”.

Applicant Craig Chance told the council’s planning committee he has owned The Trooper for 14 years and that the alterations have helped give the pub more room internally.

He said: “The work was done during the lockdown period to give us a more open space in the building, which is something The Trooper didn’t have.”

He said around 80 per cent of houses in the vicinity of the building that are visible from the street have uPVC windows – and suggested they should be made to replace their windows if his application was turned down.

He was, however, granted the approval he sought – with seven votes for and one against – at a special planning committee meeting held on Monday.