Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 21 January 2016

Planning Committee 21 January 2016

I submit for your consideration the attached reports for the East team.

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 8 2015/08621/PA

155 New Coventry Road Sheldon Birmingham B26 3DX

Change of use from garage/tyre workshop (Sui Generis) use to community, educational and prayer centre (D1) use and erection of single storey rear extension to form ablution area

Approve - Conditions 9 2015/09008/PA

2288 Coventry Road Sheldon Birmingham B26 3JR

Change of use to a Traditional Thai Massage Treatment and Relaxation Centre.

Approve - Conditions 10 2015/05460/PA

Waterside Close Minworth Sutton Coldfield Birmingham B24 0NZ

Demolition of existing and erection of replacement two storey building for general industrial and shooting range centre uses with associated infrastructure works

Approve - Temporary 11 2015/09825/PA

Wordsworth Road Roundabout Birmingham B10 0DP

Display of 4 freestanding post mounted non- illuminated signs

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration Approve - Temporary 12 2015/09824/PA

Bordesley Green Belchers Lane Roundabout Bordesley Green Birmingham B9 5XZ

Display of 4 freestanding post mounted non- illuminated signs

Approve - Temporary 13 2015/09882/PA

Stechford Lane Roundabout Stechford Birmingham B8 2PJ

Display of 4 freestanding post mounted non- illuminated signs

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/08621/PA Accepted: 27/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/01/2016 Ward: Sheldon

155 New Coventry Road, Sheldon, Birmingham, B26 3DX

Change of use from garage/tyre workshop (Sui Generis) use to community, educational and prayer centre (D1) use and erection of single storey rear extension to form ablution area Applicant: Manarat Foundation 2051 Coventry Road, Sheldon, Bimingham, B26 3DY Agent: Z S Partnership 469 Coventry Road, Small Heath, Birmingham, B10 0TJ Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The proposal is for the change of use of a vacant garage/tyre workshop (sui generis use) to a community, education and prayer centre (use class D1). The centre is currently based at 2051 Coventry Road and the proposal would relocate this to the application premises, which are larger and detached premises with off-street parking provision. Activities undertaken at the centre include adult classes between 1000- 1400hours Monday to Friday, children’s class (Madrassah) for ages 6-16 years between 1600-2100hours Monday to Friday, Homeworking club during weekends and school holidays between 0900-2100hours as well as a prayer facility with times of prayer varying between 0330 and 2300hours. The premises would also be used for meetings when required as well as services relating to matters such as employment training and family counselling.

1.2. The applicant has indicated that only the ground floor would be used for prayer and the prayer area / community hall, including overflow areas, would have a capacity of 200 people. This does not include other areas within the building including the ladies prayer area and community activity area.

1.3. The proposal includes the provision of 18 parking spaces to the rear of the premises, accessed via a shared service yard and a further 7 spaces to the forecourt, access off the service road to the front of the adjacent parade of shops. The applicant as indicated that with managed parking during the busiest times, the capacity to the rear and front parking areas would increase to 25 and 16 spaces respectively.

1.4. The application also involves the erection of a small single storey extension to the rear to create an ablution area.

Page 1 of 10 1.5. The application submission includes a Design and Access Statement, Transport Assessment as well as 54 letters of support from people who are employed locally and 150 letters of support from residents (including Solihull) who use the prayer and education facilities.

1.6. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application premises are a single storey structure with a small area of accommodation at first floor level fronting New Coventry Road. The site has surface car parking to the rear and front, accessed off a service road fronting an adjoining parade of shops and a private service road to the side of an adjoining electricity sub- station which serves the rear of the shops as well as other businesses.

2.2. The premises are located to the western fringe of the Primary Shopping Area of the Sheldon District Centre. To the north is an Aldi food store, to the east is the adjoining parade of shops containing the applicants’ current centre as well as other commercial uses and to the south are residential properties (Wells Green Road). To the immediate west of the application premises is a dental practice and beyond that are residential properties.

2.3. The stretch of New Coventry Road fronting the application premises is a red route and parking is available to a service road fronting a parade of shops. Unrestricted on-street parking is available to the nearby residential street (Keswick Road).

2.4. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. This site: None of relevance.

3.2. 2051 Coventry Road (applicants’ existing premises):

3.3. 20/03/14 – 2014/00456/PA. Variation of condition 1, 3, 4 attached to planning approval 2012/05571/PA for increase in hours, increasing in people attending and to allow the use as a mosque facility and education centre. Approved.

3.4. 27/09/2012 – 2012/05571/PA. Change of use from sauna/massage parlour (use class sui generis) to education centre with ancillary prayer facility (use class D1) approved subject to conditions restricting total capacity for educational purposes with ancillary prayer only to 65 between 9am and 9pm daily. Approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions relating to revocation of existing use at 2051 Coventry Road, limit the capacity of the building and cycle storage.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to a condition restricting a maximum of 10 people at any one time between 2200-0700hours.

4.3. West Midlands Police – No objection.

4.4. West Midlands Fire Services – No objection.

Page 2 of 10

4.5. Neighbouring residential and commercial premises, and local residents associations, Councillors and MPs consulted.

4.6. Representation received from Councillor Sue Anderson commenting that parking is an existing issue, will become insufficient over time, the extension would reduce parking provision further, and the maximum capacity of the building should be conditioned.

4.7. Representation received from Councillor Mike Ward commenting he is aware of residents’ concerns regarding parking and traffic, there is demand for a small facility but disputes other statements contained within the application submission.

4.8. Representation received from Councillor Paul Tilsley commenting that there are parking issues in the locality and there would be insufficient parking in the long term, the extension should be incorporated within the existing building, the facility is well marshalled, parking restrictions have been introduced at the nearby Aldi store, highway improvements are required to address observed dangerous vehicle movements and the building’s capacity should be conditioned.

4.9. Representation received from Councillor Julie Hullard (Solihull MBC) highlighting concern raised by residents over parking in the locality.

4.10. Support for the application has been received from Julian Knight MP (Solihull MBC) expressing that the existing building is inadequate, the parking arrangement would improve the situation and many constituents are major beneficiaries of the facilities.

4.11. 85 representations have been received from residents objecting on the following grounds:

• Increase in traffic and parking with risk to highway safety. • Impact on local businesses and jobs. • Loss of employment land. • Increase in noise and disturbance. • Increase in waste and management of disposal. • No need for an additional facility. • Submission contains inaccurate statements. • Increase in the number of people attending. • Lack of consultation. • Sufficient facilities already exist. • Site could be put to a better use, such as new housing. • The number of attendees should be limited. • Attract visitors from outside the local area. • Claims that the centre would cater for 1000 people. • The facility should benefit all members of the community. • Fall in property values. • Uncertainty over the existing facility. • Do not own all the land within the application site. • Non-planning matters.

4.12. 2 representations in support of the application have been received referring to the proposal being a good use for the site and the facility is in demand.

5. Policy Context

Page 3 of 10

5.1. Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Shopping and Local Centres SPD, Places of Worship SPD, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, Places for All SPG and the NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy and principle:

6.2. The NPPF recognises that centres are at the heart of their communities and policies should seek to support their viability and vitality. Shopping and Local Centres SPD highlight that centres provide shops, services and facilities to meet local needs and that the presence of a diverse range of non-retail uses in centres, including community facilities, can complement the retail function of centres. Places of Worship SPD identifies the importance of finding the right location for prayer, and faith-related education and community facilities, which attract large numbers of users. In accordance with the Government’s commitment to reduce the need to travel and to achieve more sustainable patterns of development, so reducing reliance on the car, such uses should be located within designated centres.

6.3. The application site is located to the western edge of the Primary Shopping Area of Sheldon District Centre. The existing use of the premises as a garage/tyre workshop represents a non-retail use and therefore the proposal would not result in the loss of a retail use within this primary shopping area. Furthermore, it is considered that the proposed place of worship and faith-related community and education centre is more compatible with a district centre than the existing garage/tyre workshop use and thereby enhance the vitality and viability of this district centre. Therefore, no objection is raised in principle to the proposed use at this in-centre location with easy access to public transport on a major transport corridor.

6.4. Parking and highway safety:

6.5. It is noted that a significant proportion of the representations received relate to concerns over existing parking problems associated with the existing facilities as well as other premises/uses in the centre and the likely increase in parking demand in the locality as a result of the applicants’ proposed larger premises.

6.6. The applicants claim that the facility only serves an immediate and local need, with the majority of attendees coming from the local residential area and the Sheldon District Centre. The car parking associated with the current application site is currently being utilised by the existing facility at 2051 Coventry Road, with a maximum of 41 spaces available through managed car parking. The applicant has also stationed 6 stewards around the parking areas during Friday afternoon prayers to help guide incoming and outgoing cars.

6.7. The application is accompanied by a Transport Assessment, which includes surveys of attendance and mode of transport of worshippers attending the Friday afternoon prayers. A survey in 2013 noted that 111 people attended the 1st gathering (12:40) and 54 people attended the 2nd gathering (14:40). Further surveys were undertaken on 23 & 30/01/15 where 158 and 147 people attended the 1st gathering and 144 and 140 people attended the 2nd gathering respectively. The survey undertaken on the 30/01/15 identified that for the 1st gathering, 45 people travelled by foot and 5 by public transport whilst 41 people travelled by single occupancy cars and 25 people travelled by shared cars. Of these cars, 40 parked at the current application site, 13

Page 4 of 10 parked around the property, 2 parked on Keswick Road, 1 parked at Aldi and 6 parked at Tesco with 5 parked on other roads. For the 2nd gathering, 40 people travelled by foot whilst 32 people travelled by single occupancy cars and 12 people travelled by shared cars. Of these cars, 9 parked at the current application site, 11 parked around the property, 3 parked on Keswick Road, 2 parked at Aldi, 9 parked at Tesco with 1 parked on other roads. Comparing this data with that collected in 2013, it demonstrates that there has been a noticeably reduction of associated parking on Keswick Road as well as the Aldi and Tesco car parks. This could be a direct result of the availability of parking now at the current application as well as parking restrictions imposed at Aldi.

6.8. The surveys indicate that a maximum of around 150 people visit the existing premises per gathering during Friday afternoon prayers. The current proposal indicates that the new premises has a capacity of 200 prayer mats, however experience has shown that at peak times 3 people can occupy 2 prayer mats. Therefore, the building has a realistic potential, taking into account the ladies prayer area, to accommodate in excess of 300 people. Within the context of the existing consent at 2051 Coventry Road with no off-street parking and the current application site with a potentially doubled capacity and 41 parking spaces, it is considered that the new proposed premises represents an improvement in terms of parking and highway safety.

6.9. In assessing the application Transportation Development undertook an unannounced site visit in December 2015 and noted that the existing prayer facility mode share/parking demand/operational capacity appears to have increased from that considered in the 2014 submission and the car park at the current application site was operational with stewards. Transportation Development raises no objection subject to conditions including the revocation of the existing planning permission at 2051 Coventry Road to reduce the net impact of the proposal and to limit the capacity of the proposed facility. Whilst fully recognising the rationale behind these recommended conditions it is considered that they cannot be justified in planning terms. The existing and new facilities are both located within a large district centre with good public transport links, where such uses are strongly encouraged. The existing facility, with no parking facility, at 2051 Coventry Road was deemed acceptable and consequently granted planning permission. The proposed premises have a significant amount of dedicated parking, which is considered adequate and as such they are acceptable as freestanding facilities, for example if the existing facility was to be used by another group.

6.10. Transportation Development’s request that the capacity of the building is conditioned is noted but in light of its location within a large district centre where such uses that can attract large numbers of people are encouraged it is considered that this could not be justified. In general terms, capacity is not restricted by condition within centres but by the size of the physical building and other legislation.

6.11. Neighbour amenity:

6.12. It is recognised that the comings and goings associated with a large number of people has the potential to cause noise and disturbance to neighbouring uses, both residential and commercial. It is also noted that the application site is located within a District Centre, fronting a heavily trafficked transport corridor and adjacent to a variety of commercial uses. As such the ambient noise levels are relatively high in this location and it is considered that the proposed use, including the busiest time of Friday afternoon prayers, would not create such noise and disturbance over existing levels that it would constitute an unacceptable impact on neighbour amenity. During

Page 5 of 10 more noise sensitive periods (2200-0700hours) the applicant anticipates that attendance levels will be low at between 7-10 people between 0630-0730hours (winter time) and 0330-0430hours and 2200-2300hours (summer time). This level of activity is low, and characteristic of similar facilities, and would not have a detrimental impact on neighbour amenity within the context of its surrounds including Coventry Road which still carries a relatively high volume of traffic during these quieter hours.

6.13. Regulatory Services raise no objection subject to a condition restricting the maximum number of people to 10 at any one time during noise sensitive periods (2200-0700). Whilst Regulatory Services’ concerns are noted, experience has shown that attendance to late evening and early morning prayers are typically very low and as such unlikely to have an adverse impact in this busy locality. Therefore, on this occasion it is considered that such a condition is not required.

6.14. Other matters:

6.15. The small extension to the rear elevation of the existing building is modest is size and of matching materials. It would not be visible from the public realm and would have no adverse impact on visual amenity.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The relocation of the existing facilities to a detached structure with on-street parking provision within Sheldon District Centre and with good access to public transport represents a sustainable form of development that is in accordance with relevant policy and guidance. The proposal would have an increased capacity and benefit from 41 managed parking spaces. This is an improvement compared to the existing premises which have no such dedicated parking provision. The increased capacity would not result in an adverse impact on highway safety or neighbour amenity within this District Centre context to such an extent that it could support a reason for refusal.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

1 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

2 Prevents the use of amplification equipment

3 Prevents weddings and other major events to take place on site

4 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

5 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

6 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

7 Requires that the materials used match the main building

8 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

Page 6 of 10 9 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Peter Barton

Page 7 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Forecourt/car park fronting New Coventry Road

Figure 2 – Shared access leading to rear car park

Page 8 of 10

Figure 3 – Rear car park

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

107.5m NEW COVENTRY ROAD

101.9m 18

st & 8

DEF 133

FF 141

FW 101.0m FF

5 149

FF 151 FW 155

11 2045

Sub ElSta 8 2049

15 2551 2551a 2053 100.3m 2057

FF 2065

2071 135

10 WELLS GREEN ROAD

80 FF 2061

123

111 Def

68 99

Def

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/09008/PA Accepted: 09/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 04/01/2016 Ward: Sheldon

2288 Coventry Road, Sheldon, Birmingham, B26 3JR

Change of use to a Traditional Thai Massage Treatment and Relaxation Centre. Applicant: Mr John Williams 16 Ann Croft, Sheldon, Birmingham, B26 3RX Agent: Plans Drawn 4 Swallow Close, Carrbrook, Stalybridge, Cheshire, SK15 3LU Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This planning application seeks consent for the change of use from an existing vacant unit used as a printers operation (sui generis use) to a Massage Treatment Centre, specifically Thai massage, (sui generis) at ground floor level only.

1.2. The applicant has indicated that the proposed change of use would not necessitate the creation of any additional floor space and would instead require the reconfiguration of the internal layout at ground floor level to provide a reception area, 3 no. treatment rooms along with a W/C, staff room and storage room to the rear of the property. The total floor area would remain the same at approximately 85sqm.

1.3. The applicant has not indicated that the proposal would entail any exterior amendments to the existing shop.

1.4. The proposed use would operate between the hours of 11:00 to 20:00 hours daily, including bank holidays with up to three full-time employees employed at the site.

1.5. The applicant has stated that the site current provides 2 no. parking spaces and that no further dedicated parking provision is proposed as part of this planning application.

Link to Documents

2 Site & Surroundings

2.1 The application site comprises of a three storey mid terrace property which has operated previously as a retail unit and sui generis (print shop) at ground floor level with residential use undertaken at first and second floor level.

2.2 The access arrangement to the unit is from the front of the property from the Coventry Road (A45) frontage. There is a Traffic Regulation Order in place in the

Page 1 of 6 form of a red route which restricts any form of stopping on the public highway directly outside the application site other than in prescribed parking bays along the Coventry Road which limits parking between the hours of 07:00 to 19:00 to 1 hour only with no return within 1 hour.

2.3 There are 22 units, with a variety of uses, located within the frontage along this section of the Coventry Road which include a number of small scale retail uses and residential uses.

2.4 The surrounding area is mixed with both commercial and residential activities undertaken along Coventry Road, a main arterial route in the east of Birmingham. The application site is located within the primary shopping area of Sheldon District Centre as defined within Birmingham City Council’s Shopping and Local Centres SPD.

2.5 Site Location

3 Planning History

3.1 None relevant.

4 Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 Adjoining neighbours, Neighbourhood Forum and Ward Councillors have been consulted with 1 no. letter of objection from a local resident received on the following points;

• The proposal does not bring any improvement to the area. • The impression of the business would not be a positive one. • There are already several massage parlours along Coventry Road.

4.2 A petition has been received objecting to the proposal on behalf of 19 signatories on the following points;

• The unit should remain as retail space. • The use of the unit as a massage parlour is not in the interests of the community. • Would be a blight on a shopping precinct. • This may be the first of many applications for this type of use. • Not suitable for a residential area that prides itself on an inclusive attitude.

4.3 Transportation Development – No objection.

4.4. Regulatory Services – No objection.

5 Policy Context

5.1 National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013), Supplementary Planning Document for Shopping and Local Centres (2012), Supplementary Planning Document on Car Parking Guidelines (2012).

6 Planning Considerations

Principle of Development.

Page 2 of 6

6.1 The ‘Shopping and Local Centre’ SPD defines existing Local Centres within Birmingham. The site falls within the Primary Shopping Area of Sheldon District Centre. The surrounding area is mixed use in character.

6.2 Concerns have been raised by local residents through the submission of an objection letter and a petition with 19 signatories that relate to the inappropriateness of such a use within Sheldon, that the use does not bring any improvement to the area and that the unit should remain as retail space. However, the proposed service use is located within an established District Centre whereby the use would not result in the loss of a retail unit and would instead complement existing retail and services functions within the centre whilst bringing an improvement to the area through the reuse of a vacant unit.

6.3 Consequently, I consider that the proposed use at this location would not detract from the vitality and viability of the District Centre and is acceptable in principle.

Residential Amenity.

6.4 Regulatory Services have raised no objections to the proposal. However, given the proximity of residential uses above the proposed unit in question it is considered appropriate to ensure that an appropriate noise insulation scheme is provided, through the provision of a condition to ensure that the proposal’s operation does not adversely impact upon residential amenity.

6.5 The applicant has stipulated within their submission that the business hours would be between 11:00 and 20:00 daily which is also considered acceptable, although given its location within a district centre it is not considered necessary to restrict this via planning condition.

6.6 Concerns have been raised by local residents through the submission of an objection letter and a petition with 19 signatories that relate to the inappropriateness of such a use within Sheldon, that the use does not bring any improvement to the area and that the unit should remain as retail space. However, it is considered that the proposal is located within an appropriate location within a District Centre whereby we seek to locate retail functions and services and is also located within a high accessibility area with good public transport links. Also, it is considered that the proposal does bring an improvement to the area through it bringing back into use a vacant unit that has remained empty for a period of time. As such, it is considered that the concerns raised by local residents are not of a sufficient weight to justify refusal of planning consent.

Highway Safety.

6.7 Transportation Development has raised a no objection to the proposed use but has stipulated that there is a discrepancy within the submission as to how many existing spaces there are and the proposed level of parking spaces proposed. The applicant has indicated that 2 no. bays to the front elevation exist within the forecourt area. However, this was not observed on site and appeared that there were physical barrier in the way to stop such activity. As such, the proposal has been considered on the basis of providing no dedicated parking provision.

6.8 The site is located in an area that is subject to ‘Red Route regulations’ with limited on street parking that is restricted to 1 hour per stay (no return within 1 hour) throughout the day, although unrestricted after 7pm and which is the subject of high demand

Page 3 of 6 along this stretch of Coventry Road. However, the unit is also located within Sheldon District Centre which has a number of public car parks located within it and there are also a number of roads within 3-5 minutes’ walk of the unit that provide unrestricted on street parking.

6.9 As such, Transportation Development are of the view that there is sufficient parking provision in close proximity to the unit, both on and off street and could not sustain a reason for refusal on that basis.

7 Conclusion

7.1 The NPPF, adopted UDP and Shopping and Local Centres SPD seeks to locate service uses that complement the retail function of existing neighbourhood and district centres in order to maintain the vitality and viability of such areas.

7.2 The proposed massage treatment centre use would be located within such a centre, Sheldon District Centre, and furthermore it is considered that there are no adverse impacts related to highway safety and neighbour amenity that could not be mitigated by planning conditions that would be sufficient to warrant refusal of the application.

7.3 As such, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to the imposition of planning conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Approve, Subject to conditions.

1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

3 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Mohammed Nasser

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Fig 1 – Front Elevation of Property,

Fig 2 – Parade of units and on-street parking provision along Coventry Road, Sheldon.

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

4 1

2 14 71

GOLDTHORNE AVENUE

19 6 57

COALWAY AVENUE 29

98.5m 15 11

11 9

Club

2252

2260

2268 2280

2282 - 2290a

2284 2290

2292a 2292 2308 5m 2296

COVENTRY ROAD

96.8m

96.0m 2259

El Sub Sta

2309 to 2311 to 2309 2335

Lydon Court

El Sub Sta FF

15 to 26 to 15

Tank 10 to 5 11 to 14 to 11

FF 1 to 4 to 1

FW FF

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/05460/PA Accepted: 12/01/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 12/04/2016 Ward: Tyburn

Waterside Close, Minworth, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B24 0NZ

Demolition of existing and erection of replacement two storey building for general industrial and shooting range centre uses with associated infrastructure works Applicant: Eley Ltd c/o The Agent Agent: Cerda Planning Ltd Vesey House, 5-7 High Street, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B72 1XH, Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Background/ Proposal

1.1. The applicant (Eley Ltd.) is one of the world’s leading suppliers of small-bore target- shooting solutions and has been operating over 100 years in Birmingham. The company previously operated in Witton before moving to the adjoining site (Minworth) in 2002. The ammunitions are designed, produced and tested in Birmingham. Since that time, there have been numerous permissions granted for extensions, testing facilities etc. at the adjoining sites. The applicants (Eley Ltd.) now seek to expand the existing facility together with centre of excellence that would cement Eley’s reputation as a world leader in target shooting technologies for athletes that participate in Olympic and International Shooting Sport Federation World Cup events.

1.2. This current application seeks consent for the demolition of the existing building and erection of two-storey building for general industrial and shooting range centre uses with associated works.

1.3. The proposed building would be metal cladded with brise soleil to provide visual interest and relief. The proposed building would have a reduced ground floor built footprint compared to the existing building, which occupied a combined industrial with associated office and storage floor area of 2,918 sq. metres. The proposed two-storey building would measure 71 metres in depth, 32 metres in width and ridge height ranging from 10 metres to 12.5 metres (due to changes in ground level) and eaves height 10 metres to 12.5 metres (also due to changes in ground level) and would have a gross floor space of 4,211 sq. metres. Due to the constrained nature of the site, the proposed building would be arranged around the consultation zones (Licensed Explosive Sites) and the need to retain the existing sub-station on application site.

Page 1 of 13 1.4. The development comprises two principal elements and the internal layout would comprise:

Ground floor Main reception and display area (139 sq. metres), offices (245 sq. metres), open plan manufacturing area (1,654 sq metres) with communal w/c facilities. No change to the existing sub-station that would remain on site

First floor An indoor 50 metre depth by 30 metres wide, shooting range with 15 firing point lanes (1,898 sq metres) with communal secure store/ kit area, w/c, coffee and shop (130 sq. metres).

1.5. There would be a small ancillary storage building (approximately 5 sq. metres) to the rear of the site.

1.6. The proposed industrial operation at ground floor level would be incidental to the existing operations currently operating on Selco Way and Hansons Bridge Road. The proposed manufacturing element on the ground floor would operate 24 hours daily as does the adjoining and wider Eley sites on Selco Way and Hansons Bridge Road.

1.7. The shooting range centre at first floor would be available for athletes that seek advice on performance and accuracy of particular ammunition. The number of athletes using the facility would be dependent on number of lanes available, which would be limited to 15 persons. However, the maximum number of people visiting the centre together with the number of staff that would be restricted to 50 people at any one time. The 15 lane indoor shooting range facility centre would provide shooting at 10m and 50m disciplines. The shooting range centre on first floor would operate 0900-2100 Monday to Friday. The use would employee an additional 25 persons at the site over a 3 year period to the existing 130 staff employed at the site.

1.8. There would be no alterations to the two existing vehicle/ pedestrian access arrangements to the application site, which would remain from Hansons Bridge Road. The existing footway crossing and access roads would be retained and widened and would continue to operate to the sides of the proposed building with one that adjoins Waterside Close. There would be 7 parking spaces to include disabled bays splayed at 45 degree angle (chevron) proposed within the forecourt of the site. A further 17 spaces are proposed to the side of the building and within the rear car park.

1.9. The following documents have been submitted in support of the proposal: • Planning, Design and Access Statement together with addendum • Industrial sound impact assessment • Sustainable Urban Drainage Statement • Transport Statement

1.10. Since the initial submission of the planning application, an amended site plan has been submitted for the rear proportion of the site together with the removal of a Styphnic Acid Plant storage unit.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

Page 2 of 13

2.1. The application site comprises a part two-storey and part single-storey run-down brick and metal sheeting building that is currently occupied by Monk Metal Windows that manufactures bespoke metal windows and doors (Use Class B2). The application site has become available and has been acquired by adjoining occupier (Eley Ltd.) as Monk Windows have relocated all operations to elsewhere in the West Midlands. There are two existing vehicular access arrangements from Hansons Bridge Road that lead to the forecourt area or service yard to the rear. The rear informal car park accommodates 27 car parking spaces. The application is enclosed by a dwarf wall with railing on top on Hansons Bridge Road frontage and approximately 2 metre high close boarded fencing or walling adjoins Waterside Close and the existing Eley site.

2.2. The surrounding area is mixed residential and commercial in character. To the north is characterised by mix of house tenures that front onto Waterside Close, Hanson Bridge Road and Woodlands Farm Road. There is a large storage unit adjoining the site to the south on the opposite side of Hansons Bridge Road. Beyond the existing Eley site boundary on Hansons Bridge Road there is a pedestrian footbridge crossing facility over the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal to Kingsbury Road (A38). The application site is within consultation zones for other Licenced Explosive sites, specifically the Eley Ltd premises adjoining the application site. Eley Hawk Ltd. also has an explosives licence that operates on their Selco Way premises. Adjoining the site to the east is Plantsbrook Nature Reserve and Dragonfly Pool, which are a Site of Importance for Nature Conservation (SINC) are situated to the northwest and west boundaries of the application site.

Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. Application site and adjoining Eley sites

3.2. 23-12-2013 2013/09154/PA – Application for a non-material amendment to planning approval 2013/07751/PA for alterations to canopy roof – Approve

3.3. 29-11-2013 – 2013/07751/PA – Erection of storage buildings and enclosures (relocation of existing plant within the site) – Approved subject to conditions

3.4. 11-07-2012 – 2012/03704/PA – Removal of condition C8 attached to planning permission 2002/04081/PA to allow the cartridge testing facility to be used 24 hours daily – Approved subject to conditions

3.5. 14-11-2011 – 2011/03932/PA – Erection of chimney stack – Approved subject to conditions

3.6. 05-01-2004 – 2003/06458/PA – Erection of 2.4 metre tall palisade fencing, and new gates on Hanson's Bridge Road frontage – Approved subject to conditions

3.7. 15-05-2003 – 2003/02186/PA – Relocation and erection of test firing range facility, erection of an amenity building, employee rest room and amended car parking layout – Approved subject to conditions

3.8. 19-09-2002 – 2002/04081/PA – Minor building alterations to existing premises, erection of small ancillary buildings, structures, walls/fences/gates, revised access arrangements and engineering works to be used in conjunction with the

Page 3 of 13 reoccupation of property for class B2 (general industrial) use (assembly and manufacturing of sporting cartridges) – Approved subject to conditions

3.9. 14-05-1996 – 1996/00968/PA – Erection of single-storey office – Approved subject to conditions

3.10. 24-03-1994 – 1994/00424/PA – Change of use from Class B2 to Class B6 (Paint manufacturing) – Approved subject to conditions

3.11. 21-02-1991 – 1990/05172/PA – Change of use from Class B2 (Industrial) to Class B8 (Warehouse and distribution) with ancillary offices – Approved subject to conditions

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and press notice displayed. Adjoining residents and Ward Councillors consulted – 4 letters received from residents (to include one sent by Councillor Mick Brown on behalf of their constituent), who object on the following grounds:

• Shocked to see ammunition factory sited so close to a residential street • Erection of tin box containing a shooting gallery surrounded by the need of a blast wall would have detrimental impact to include property values • No attempt has been made to screen or blend the new building with the surrounding area • Concerns to the shooting range centre as the current building is single-storey and the proposed is two-storey in height • Invasion of privacy of the residents who live on the opposite side of the building as there are no trees proposed and building is one-storey high • Visual amenity grounds as the building is conspicuous and would look like a complete eye sore from Waterside Close • Existing neglected building being brick has some architectural style compared to metal box and harsh sign • The site is situated within an industrial area and it would be appropriate to move any building further away from existing housing and use this space between the building for a car park that would address car parking issues on Hanson Bridge Road (Cul-de-sac section) • Increased noise from echoes against a metal structure • Residents at Waterside Close currently pay £500 maintenance charge for the upkeep of the Close and the proposed building would ruin the view of the close • Increased traffic and noise • Works night shift and the proposal would create problems for sleep during daytime hours • Question - How can you assure us that there will be no sound pollution to the residents? • Question - Can you ensure safety of the guns as there are children that live in the area? • Question – Construction work - How long will the building take as there are residents who work shifts and this will greatly impact on their sleep? • Question - will the building be in keeping with the area as it will be overlooked by residents? • Question - why do they want to move to the proposed site? • Question - will there be windows facing the houses in the close?

Page 4 of 13 4.2. Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions to include construction management/ plan and existing visibility splays maintained at junctions.

4.3. West Midlands Police – Have liaised with West Midlands Firearms Licensing Department and no concerns are raised to the manufacture, storage and test firing of ammunition at the site. The applicant (Eley Ltd.) is a registered firearms dealer under the Firearms Act and as such is controlled and reviewed every 3 years. No objections raised subject to conditions to include CCTV cameras and lighting. The proposed scheme should also incorporate enhanced security standards as per “Secure by Design” Commercial Developments initiative.

4.4. Sports England – No objections

4.5. Health and Safety Executive - No objections. They do advise that Explosive Licence Variation application needs to be submitted before the building is first bought into use.

4.6. Regulatory Services - No objections subject to conditions to include restriction in delivery times from 0700-1800 hours daily, land contamination/ verification report and details of a scheme of noise insulation / mitigation to support the recommendations made in the Acoustic Report (MAS report MAS/ELE/DTB/150828) to include:

• Potential extension to barrier along northern boundary to screen deliveries and break line of site from noise source to existing dwellings on Waterside Close • No deliveries prior to 0700hrs or after 1800hrs (as proposed) and Monday to Friday only to a maximum of 5-6 only per week lasting around 20 minutes • Strategic placement of fixed plant (AC/extraction) to the southern boundary to provide screening to the closest dwellings to the north • Engineering measures to the building fabric and structure to prevent noise breakout from component manufacturing and cartridge testing

Details of verification checks are also required to confirm that the performance of the insulation / mitigation is as predicted.

4.7. West Midlands Fire Services – No objections

4.8. Local Lead Flood Authority - No objections subject to conditions requiring a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.9. Environment Agency – Awaiting comments

4.10. Leisure Services – Initially, raised concerns to the siting of new Styphnic Acid Plant adjacent to Plantsbrook Nature Reserve and Dragonfly Pool, which are a SINC site and a very important local nature conservation resource. They have requested that a risk assessments need to be submitted that demonstrates that there would be no possibility of any contamination from this plant or the wider development into the nearby pool and water course. There are no landscape proposals or proposed screen planting within the facility. As the use is 24 hours, any external security lighting needs to be baffled in order to prevent disturbance to bats in the nearby nature reserve. Amended plans submitted that have removed Styphnic Acid Plant from the proposed scheme. No further comments received.

Page 5 of 13 4.11. City Ecologist – No objections to the overall redevelopment of the site subject to lighting and Ecology Survey and report conditions.

5. Policy Context

5.1. NPPF (2012), Adopted UDP (2005), Draft BDP (2012), SPD Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses (2006), SPG Places for Living (2001), Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses (2006)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main considerations in the determination of this application are:

6.2. Planning Policy – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute towards achieving sustainable development and that the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. A ‘core principle’ is that the planning system should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development and growth; and Section 1 of the Framework (‘Building a strong, competitive economy’) requires local planning authorities to support business sectors. The general acceptability of the proposals against the three dimensions of sustainable development, namely economic, social and environmental and that these should be considered collectively and weighed in the balance when assessing the suitability of development proposals.

6.3. The NPPF also sets out that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and service a community’s needs, planning policies and decisions should plan positively; for the provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places, sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments; and ensure that established shops, facilities and services are able to develop and modernise in a way that is sustainable, and retained for the benefit of the community.

6.4. Principle of use – The permitted use of the site is general industrial and the current building on site is in poor and dilapidated condition. The application site and surrounding industrial and warehouse units on Hanson Bridge Road and Woodlands Farm remain undesignated within the Adopted UDP (2005) and Draft Birmingham Development Plan. The ‘Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses’ SPD states that there is a presumption in favour of retaining land in employment use where appropriate to ensure an adequate supply is maintained for future job creation and securing inward investment to the City. The application site is situated within consultation zones for other explosives sites. The proposed scheme represents significant investment by the applicants (Eley Ltd.) to facilitate necessary expansion to their established research and development and industrial production processes together with a shooting range centre that would be complementary and would improve the long term viability of their operation on this and adjoining sites. The requirement of 15 lanes would provide a competitive edge in providing a world class shooting facility and would also enable the athletes to test the ammunition. The sequential test into site selection for leisure uses as per the NPPF would not directly apply in this instance as the shooting range centre would be conditioned to remain ancillary to the ground floor industrial operations and would be restricted within its use class. The shooting range would also not be open to members of the general public and would operate on an appointment basis for athletes seeking advice on the best cartridge to use for improved performance and accuracy. The proposed

Page 6 of 13 scheme would achieve a quality development, where this site and other Eley sites are strategically located on Selco Way off A38 (Kingsbury Road) and within easy reach of the motorway network. Consequently, I consider that the redevelopment of this brownfield site is acceptable in principle that would meet regeneration aspirations as laid out within the Adopted UDP and Draft BDP in retaining and generating skills and job opportunities within the City.

7. Notwithstanding the above, the proposal also includes a coffee shop and shop of approximately 130 sq. metres, which is not proposed to open to the members of general public or operate independently to the shooting range centre and industrial uses. There is also a display and office area of approximately 384 sq. metres at ground floor level. Consequently, I consider that a condition should be attached restricting the use of these areas to remain incidental to the primary use of the premises.

7.1. Impact on design and visual amenity – Paragraph 56 of the NPPF advises that good design is a key aspect of sustainable development and should contribute positively to making places better for people.

7.2. I note concerns have been raised by a neighbour with regards to design, type of materials and scale and massing of the proposal. The design of the development has been the subject of detailed negotiation and amendments have been carried out following the initial submission of this application. City Design Team have suggested amendments, of which some have been incorporated whilst allowing for the constrained nature of the site such as explosive consultation zones, retention of an existing sub-station, and the adjoining residential dwellings. The building dimensions and form are also dictated by the specific requirements of the sport. From a visual amenity point of view, the existing building is in poor condition that comprises of brick and profiled metal sheeting and is of no architectural merit. The existing factory element of the building has a height of 8.7 metres to the ridge with 7 metres at the point of its roof valley. The proposed modern replacement building would be approximately 3 metres higher than the current structure (10 to 12 metres depending on ground levels), however the proposal would respect the existing scale and massing of adjoining industrial and warehouse buildings on Hansons Bridge Road and Woodlands Farm Road. The proposal provides an opportunity to improve the urban fabric of the area, primarily through the provision of new frontages on Hansons Bridge Road. Amended plans have been submitted with the scale and massing of the building visually lessened through the use of contrasting cladding materials and brise soliel which allow a vertical element to the facades on Waterside Close. The plans also maximise the creation of active frontage on Hansons Bridge Road. The design is therefore considered to be of appropriate quality and meets the aspirations of the NPPF, UDP, Draft BDP and SPG Places for All.

8. Impact on residential amenity – The NPPF seeks to avoid noise from giving rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life as a result of new development. The permitted use of the site is general industrial and there are no restrictions or conditions to include hours and days of operations on site. There are several existing openings (including loading bays) to the side and rear to the existing building that have potential to generate significant noise to the existing residential occupiers of dwellings on Waterside Close. The rear and side openings within the existing building are situated approximately 13 metres away from the closest ground floor window. There are also flues and vents within the roof and walls of the existing building. The nearest residential properties on Waterside Close would be located approximately 18.5 metres to the northwest of any openings to the rear of the proposed building. The applicant has submitted an acoustic report that highlights the

Page 7 of 13 implications together with a list of recommendations, which have been considered by Regulatory Services. It is concluded that subject to a condition requiring details to be agreed for a scheme of noise insulation and mitigation to support the recommendations made within the acoustic report (to include verification checks to confirm the performance of insulation and mitigation measures are as predicted within the Acoustic Report) that the proposal is acceptable from a noise-generating perspective. I concur with this view.

8.1. The site is currently used as general industrial (Use Class B2) and Regulatory Services have also recommended that intrusive land contamination investigations together with any verification reports are carried out. I largely concur with this view but also consider that it would be appropriate to attach further conditions limiting hours of use for the shooting range centre and delivery hours to those detailed within the application and acoustic report.

8.2. I note concerns have been raised to the height of the building and on outlook grounds. There are no specific guidelines setting out what might constitute an appropriate separation distance between residential and industrial properties and each case is assessed on its own merits. The adopted SPG Places for Living is an informally useful guide as it sets out criteria relating to separation distances to residential development to ensure that developments are well related to their surroundings and provide a good standard of amenity for occupiers. To safeguard residential amenity and to avoid physical dominance the SPG sets out guidance for minimum distances between proposed two-storey building which is 12.5m or for three-storey 15.5m between windowed elevations of dwellings and opposing flank walls. Where an adjoining development is larger than normal in terms of its size or mass, the SPG advises that greater spacing will normally be required.

8.3. Amended plans have been provided that have situated the proposed building further forward by 1.5 metres on the Hansons Bridge Road frontage, this would result in 17 metres separation distance provided from the side corner of the proposed building and to the front faces of the two-storey maisonettes at no. 8-10 Waterside Close. This compares to the existing Monk Window building that is situated 13 metres from the closest ground floor window of No. 8-10 Waterside Close. Topography plans submitted show that the maisonettes are built at a higher ground floor level than the application site by approximately 1.5 metres. Additional plans and supporting information provided also show that the closest two-storey maisonettes were designed to be single-aspect dwellings with large habitable living and bedrooms located to the rear with a bathroom and a small kitchen to the front elevation of the properties. The sizes of the kitchens (without dining space) do not lend themselves to use where the occupants would spend a considerable part of the day. Consequently, the separation distances would be sufficient to ensure that the proposed building would not be so close as to be oppressive, and would ensure acceptable levels of natural light and outlook to the existing occupiers residing within these dwellings.

8.4. Although there would be a continuous frontage that runs to the front of existing dwellings at no. 1-29 Waterside Close, there would be a minimum separation of 22 metres from the front elevation of no. 5 Waterside Close (at its closest point) to the proposed building. Properties no. 1-3 Waterside Close are orientated to face Hansons Bridge Road and there is a separation distance of approximately 18 metres. The outlook from the front of these dwellings is currently of run down industrial and storage buildings that extend to the skyline. There is an intervening buffer that would remain and contains trees, landscaping and parking forecourt along the boundary to the proposed building. Furthermore, the proposed building

Page 8 of 13 itself extends further into the site along the existing access road and there is acoustic screening proposed to the boundary, which would minimise impact from the proposed building by reducing its dominance whilst continuing to provide acceptable living conditions for the existing and future occupiers of the dwellings in terms of light and outlook.

8.5. I note concerns have been raised by neighbours on privacy grounds. With exception of glazing to the staircase to the front of the building, there are no windows being proposed on the side elevation of the building (Waterside Close). There would therefore be no adverse privacy issues, and the glazing to the staircase would overlook and provide surveillance onto the street.

8.6. Impact on highway safety – Concerns have been raised by neighbours with regards to traffic congestion. Transportation Development has raised no objections subject to conditions. I concur with this view. The proposal does not include the formation of any additional vehicle access points. Amended plans have been provided and there would be 24 parking spaces available to the front, side and rear of the building, which would be adequate provision as the proposal would relocate existing staff within the wider Eley site as well as employ additional staff at the application site. The proposal would also reduce the number of HGV deliveries to the site as these would continue to occur from Selco Way (Eley’s main site) with potential for one delivery a week to the application site. The proposed shooting range centre would operate on an appointment basis for security reasons and, for example, also ensure staff on site provides athletes with advice on the best cartridges to use to improve their performance and accuracy of a particular firearm. Consequently, the proposal is considered acceptable and is unlikely to have an adverse impact upon highway safety within the immediate area.

8.7. Concerns have also been raised by neighbours with regards to construction work. The application site adjoins onto Waterside Close, Hansons Bridge Road and Woodlands Farm Road, which are predominantly residential in character. There are existing commercial uses that operate on Hansons Bridge Road and Woodlands Farm Road. Consequently, I consider that it is reasonable to attach a construction management condition requiring the applicant to control operational management within the construction phase.

8.8. Impact on trees/ ecology – There is one tree to the front of the site, which would be felled and is not protected by a Tree Preservation Order. My Tree Officer has raised no objections to the proposal subject to the buffer of trees to the northeast of the site being retained, which would not be affected as they are outside the application site. My Landscaping Officer has raised no objection subject to conditions to include landscaping, site levels, boundary treatment and surfacing that would ensure that the proposal makes a substantial contribution to the site and overall area in amenity and biodiversity terms.

8.9. The proposal would involve demolition of an existing building and the City Ecologist has recommended that a condition is attached requiring an ecological survey to be submitted and approved prior to any demolition works on site. A further lighting condition is also recommended by the City Ecologist and Leisure Services to ensure that no light spillage encroaches onto the adjacent Plantsbrook SINC in order to protect bat forging habitat. I concur with this view and conditions are attached accordingly.

Page 9 of 13 8.10. With regards to concerns raised about the proposed Styphnic Acid Plant adjacent to Plantsbrook Nature Reserve and Dragonfly Pool, this has been omitted and site boundary amended to address Leisure Services and Ecologist initial concerns.

8.11. Impact on Flooding: The Council as Lead Local Flooding Authority has also recommended conditions which require the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan in the absence of any submitted drainage design for consideration. I concur with this view.

8.12. Impact on health and safety – The siting of the proposed building has been carefully considered based on advice from Health and Safety Executive, which forms part of the site’s licence requirements that specific distances (known as “exclusion zones”) between storage areas of certain materials and manufacturing are retained. The proposed building would be located within relevant consultation zones as it adjoins existing explosive sites. The Health and Safety Executive do not advice against the proposal. There is a separate regime of control for the storage of hazardous substances and if these were to be stored on the site the applicants would be required to make a separate variation of the current explosive license and/ or application for hazardous substance consent.

8.13. Crime and public safety – With regard to the suitable, safe storage of ammunition and children safety, this is covered by other legislation outside the planning remit, namely the Firearms Act, which is enforced by the Police and Home Office. It is therefore considered that the proposal does not raise any crime and disorder implications beyond normal site security measures. West Midlands Police have raised no objections to the proposal subject to CCTV and lighting conditions. I concur with this view and attach relevant conditions accordingly.

8.14. Other concerns - The issues of maintenance charge for the up-keep of the Close and devaluation of existing property have been raised by these are not material planning considerations and as such are not relevant to the consideration of this proposal.

9. Conclusion

9.1. The scheme would involve the re-use of an industrial site and would provide an extension to an existing industrial operation and shooting range centre. The application site would provide employment opportunity. The scheme would not adversely impact upon on public safety, health and safety, highway safety or nearby residential amenity subject to appropriate conditions. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions.

10. Recommendation

10.1. Approved subject to conditions

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Limits delivery time of goods to or from the site (0700-1800 Monday to Friday)

Page 10 of 13 4 Limits the hours of operation for shooting range centre (0900-2100 Monday to Friday)

5 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation/ mitigation details.

6 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

7 Requires the prior submission of an additional ecological survey

8 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

9 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

10 Requires the prior submission of hard and/or soft landscape details

11 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

12 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

13 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

14 Requires the prior submission of level details

15 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

16 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

17 Requires the parking area to be laid out prior to use

18 Requires the prior submission of a construction method statement/management plan

19 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

20 Requires the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan

21 Requires that the cafe, shop, gallery and offices is incidental to the main use

22 Requires prior submission of an operational management plan for shooting range centre.

23 Requires the shooting range centre to remain ancillary to the ground floor industrial use, and be restricted within the D2 leisure use class.

24 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Mohammed Akram

Page 11 of 13 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Front Elevation

Figure 2: View from Waterside Close

Page 12 of 13 Location Plan

Page 13 of 13

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/09825/PA Accepted: 07/12/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 01/02/2016 Ward: South Yardley

Wordsworth Road, Roundabout, South Yardley, Birmingham, B10 0DP

Display of 4 freestanding post mounted non-illuminated signs Applicant: Birmingham City Council Room M49, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B1 1BB, Agent: Immediate Solutions Dean Clough, Halifax, West Yorkshire, HX3 5AX, Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks advertisement consent for the installation and display of four non-illuminated fascia signs to be located on the Wordsworth Road Roundabout.

1.2. The proposed four non-illuminated fascia signs would be fixed to 0.76m (w) posts and would measure 0.5m (h) x 1.5m (w) x 0.79m (d). The height from the ground to the base of the advertisement would be 0.15m. The proposed signs would be sited approximately 2m (L) from the edge of the roundabout and the maximum height of any individual letters would be 0.5m (h). The materials would consist of an aluminium composite panel with post end mounted, a non-reflective scotch cal film sign face and steel posts.

1.3. The proposed advert unit is part of a contract with the City.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to the Warwick Road/ Golden Hillock Roundabout which is characterised by strategic landscaping and four free standing post mounted signs sited close to the roundabout edge.

2.2. The wider surroundings are characterised by areas of strategic landscaping with a number of vistas to nearby commercial and residential areas. Wordsworth Road Roundabout is a busy roundabout which links Coventry Road with Small Heath Highway. Small Heath Park is situated to the east of the roundabout.

2.3. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. None relevant.

Page 1 of 4 4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – no objection.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, Draft Birmingham Development Plan and National Planning Policy Framework

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Paragraph 67 of the National Planning Policy Framework states that advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.

AMENITY

6.2. The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area. It is considered the proposal would not result in unacceptable clutter and would be acceptable in this location. The proposed adverts are modest in size, in keeping with the character of the area and would not dominate the highway environment.

6.3 PUBLIC SAFETY

The proposal would not have a detrimental impact on public safety as the proposed signs would not be illuminated. The proposed signs would be sited 2m (L) from the edge of the roundabout in the interests of public safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed adverts are considered acceptable in terms of the impact upon the amenity of the area and public safety.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary.

1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Harjap Rajwanshi

Page 2 of 4 Photo(s)

Figure 1 - view from Wordsworth Road

Figure 2 - view from Golden Hillock Road

Page 3 of 4 Location Plan

13 47 15

13 12

Bakery

Park View

7 52 10

127.7m

Victoria Avenue 22 8

59 3

58 24 56 6

63 1 Park View3

71 51 GLOVERS ROAD

72 64

4 75

85 61 81

77 127.1m

79 84

WORDSWORTH ROAD 54

71 128.1m 60 81

Surgery

72 66

73 LB 0 78

76 76 88 Car

90 80 to 78 Park 128.4m

SEY ROAD

Posts

137 131 133

121

135 119 127

129 TCB

6 2

117 125 115 123

8 4 101

10 14 18 Shelter

103a 88

GOLDEN HILLOCK ROAD

22 30 26 Boro Const & Ward Bdy Garage

24 28 32 96

103 to 105 98

Golden Hillock Centre Waverley Rd Church and 109 Dawson Hall

Warehouse Ramgarhia

Sikh Temple 52

115

27 44 Tank 126.5m

Shelter SM 33

Garage 33b

Page 4 of 4

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/09824/PA Accepted: 07/12/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 01/02/2016 Ward: Bordesley Green

Bordesley Green, Belchers Lane, Roundabout, Bordesley Green, Birmingham, B9 5XZ

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought to install 4 freestanding post mounted, non-illuminated signs sited within Bordesley Green/Belchers Lane Roundabout, Bordesley Green.

1.2. The proposed signs would be sited approximately 2m away from the edge of the roundabout. The freestanding signs would be constructed with aluminium composite panels with 3M non-reflective film. Each flag would measure 500mm in height and would be 1500mm wide and would be fixed above 150mm posts.

1.3. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is a roundabout located at Bordesley Green/Belchers Lane. The application site has landscaping in the centre of the roundabout and there are existing highway equipment in situ. The surrounding area consists of commercial properties and there are residential properties nearby.

2.2. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. None

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objections.

Page 1 of 4

5. Policy Context

5.1. Relevant National Planning Policies: • National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

5.2. Relevant Local Planning Policies: • UDP (2005); • Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013);

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main considerations to be assessed are the impact of the proposal on visual amenity and public safety.

6.2. In terms of impact on visual amenity - The four freestanding signs would be sited within the existing roundabout and would be constructed with aluminium composite panels with 3M non-reflective film. Each flag would measure 500mm in height and would be 1500mm wide and would be fixed above 150mm posts. The application site is located within a predominantly commercial/residential area and I consider that the size, scale and position is acceptable and would not have a detrimental impact on surrounding amenity.

6.3. In terms of public safety – Transportation Development raise no objections to the proposed signage. I concur with this view and do not consider that the flagpoles would cause a detrimental impact on public safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I therefore consider that the proposed signs are acceptable and would not undermine the visual amenity of the surrounding area or adversely impact on public safety. As such, the proposed scheme is in accordance with relevant national and local planning policies and should be approved on a temporary basis subject to the attached conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions

1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Chantel Blair

Page 2 of 4 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Front view

Page 3 of 4 Location Plan

Page 4 of 4

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/09882/PA Accepted: 07/12/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 01/02/2016 Ward: Hodge Hill

Stechford Lane Roundabout, Stechford, Birmingham, B8 2PJ

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of 4 no. non-illuminated post-mounted signs on the roundabout at Stechford Lane. The proposed signs would be located close to the edge of the roundabout in the following locations:

• Near the junction with Stechford Lane, at the northern end of the roundabout; • Near the junction with Station Road, at the south east end of the roundabout; • Near the junction with Cotterills Lane, at the south west end of the roundabout; • Near the junction with Burney Lane, at the western end of the roundabout.

1.2. The proposed signs would each have a width of 1.8m and height of 0.5m and would be mounted on posts giving an overall height of 0.65m above ground level. The signs would be made of aluminium and the posts would be steel.

1.3. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises the whole of the roundabout which lies between Stechford Lane, Station Road, Burney Lane and Cotterills Lane. The roundabout is grassed with flowerbeds, and a large willow tree is located in the centre of the roundabout. Other street furniture currently located at the edges of the roundabout includes directional highway signage.

2.2. The immediate surroundings comprise a mix of residential, commercial and public open space. The River Cole is located to the south of the roundabout. Bus stops are located on Burney Lane near the roundabout junction.

2.3. Site Location

Page 1 of 5 3. Planning History

3.1. 13/05/2015 – 2015/03315/PA - Pre-application advice for the display of freestanding post mounted signs – Recommended 4 signs likely to be acceptable subject to compliance with Transportation Development comments.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – no objection.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework (2012), Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The NPPF restricts Local Planning Authorities to considering only amenity and public safety when determining applications for consent to display advertisements (paragraph 67).

6.2. Paragraph 67 of the NPPF states that poorly placed adverts can have a negative impact on the appearance of the built environment. It adds that only those advertisements that will clearly have an appreciable impact on a building or on their surroundings should be subject to a Local Authority’s detailed assessment. Finally, it states that the cumulative impact of advertisements should be considered.

Amenity

6.3. The proposed adverts would be situated at appropriate locations on the roundabout and as there are no existing elements of advertising on the roundabout, I consider the proposal would not over-burden the roundabout with advertising. The proposed adverts would be of a modest size, and would not dominate the highway environment.

6.4. The proposed signage is set within the landscaping in parts however this is considered an appropriate setting and would not result in the loss of any landscaping. I therefore do not consider that the proposals would constitute clutter within the street scene and consider the scale of the proposed advertisement signs would be acceptable.

Public Safety

6.5. The proposed signs would form part of the highway environment and an appropriate level of visibility would be provided in order for drivers to assimilate the contents of the advert without causing highway safety concerns. Such adverts are not an unusual feature on roundabouts and therefore would not cause an unacceptable degree of driver distraction.

6.6. Transportation Development raise no objection, stating that the proposed signage conforms to the previously agreed acceptable specifications, with a setback of 2m

Page 2 of 5 from the roundabout inner kerb noted to be achieved, and the signage dimensions being acceptable.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed adverts would not have an adverse impact on amenity or public safety and I therefore recommend consent is granted subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Temporary consent subject to conditions.

1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Claudia Clemente

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 21 January 2016

I submit for your consideration the attached reports for the North West team.

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve – Temporary 14 2015/09832/PA

Nechells Parkway 3 Central Reservation (opposite Home Tower) Nechells Birmingham B7 4QX

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve – Temporary 15 2015/09760/PA

A38 Kingsbury Road Minworth 1 (Inbound Verge)) Adjacent 7 Oakenhayes Crescent Minworth Birmingham B76 9RP

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/09832/PA Accepted: 30/11/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 25/01/2016 Ward: Nechells

Nechells Parkway 3 Central Reservation, (opposite Home Tower), Nechells, Birmingham, B7 4QX

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem Applicant: Birmingham City Council Commercial Development, Room 237, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B1 1BB Agent:

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. Advertisement consent is sought to install a new totem fascia sign. It is a freestanding double-sided digital LED (static) totem with illumination.

1.2. The totem would measure 2.6 metres in height and 1.2 metres in width. Its depth (thickness) would be 30cm. The stainless steel unit would contain a static digital screen that would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m2. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

1.3. The proposed advert is part of a city-wide contract.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed site is the grass verge of the central reservation of Nechells Parkway (A47), a dual carriageway and major arterial route through the city. The central reservation is landscaped with a grass verge, mature trees and shrubs. The carriageway has ‘2+’ traffic lane. A bus stop is adjacent to the proposed site.

2.2. Adjacent to the proposed site is a residential estate, Duddeston Manor, three Grade B Locally Listed blocks of flats (ten storeys) set back from the road in a landscaped setting. On the opposite side of the dual carriageway there is another residential estate with three storey terraced housing. These are also set back from the main carriageway. The surrounding area is predominantly residential.

2.3. Street furniture opposite the application site is a bus stop and a lamp-post. There is also a traffic direction sign (2+ lane operating hours).

Page 1 of 5

2.4. It is noted that there is a desire line across the central reservation at the proposed site, which is frequently used by pedestrians. This is not an allocated route, two traffic light-controlled pedestrian crossings exist either side of the application site.

2.5. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. No planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development raised no objection. They advised, subject to conditions, to restrict the interval between successive displays; no special visual effects between transitions or within advertisements; to prohibit message sequencing; no emission of noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours; to include a default mechanism that will freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs; not allow interactive messages/ advertisements to be displayed; shall be equipped to monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly within accepted legislative limits. A Grampian condition has also been requested for the relevant Highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP (adopted 2005). Draft Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Paragraph 67 of the NPPF states that: ‘advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.’ Control over advertisements should be efficient, effective and simple in concept and operation. The adopted UDP resists proposals that would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment and emphasises that improving the quality of the built environment is one of the most important of the plan’s objectives.

AMENITY

6.2. The application site is a major arterial route into the city centre, and the totem would be in a scale appropriate with surrounding structures and buildings. I therefore consider that the new sign would have no greater detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the site, and its appearance would be similar to other totems across the City.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3. Transportation Development has advised that the proposed advertisement would raise no issues in terms of restricting footpath width, or impact on visibility

Page 2 of 5 requirements for vehicles. In the interest of highway safety, animated displays will be restricted subject to conditions.

6.4. The requested condition for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed would not be reasonable and will not be applied.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the proposed advertising totem is acceptable in terms of impact upon the visual amenity of the area, and satisfactory in terms of public safety. The proposal therefore accords with policies 3.8, 3.10 and 6.39 of the Birmingham UDP and the NPPF.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Temporary approval subject to the following conditions:

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

5 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Caroline Ossowska

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Application Site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/09760/PA Accepted: 02/12/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 27/01/2016 Ward: Sutton New Hall

A38 Kingsbury Road Minworth 1 (Inbound Verge)), Adjacent 7 Oakenhayes Crescent, Minworth, Birmingham, B76 9RP

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem Applicant: Birmingham City Council Commercial Development, Room 237, Council House, Victoria Square, Birmingham, B1 1BB Agent:

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. Advertisement consent is sought to install a new totem fascia sign. It is a freestanding double-sided digital LED (static) totem with illumination.

1.3. The proposed advert unit is part of a city-wide contract.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed site is on a grass verge, parallel with the pavement of the A38 Kingsbury Road (inbound). This is a primary route coming off the Minworth Island roundabout. It is a red route. A slip road leading to Oakenhayes Crescent is approximately 83 metres north east of the application site.

2.2. The verge and pavement are on an embankment. The embankment slopes down on one side and is planted, quite densely, with mature trees. A residential development is at the bottom of the embankment. Opposite the proposed site is a grassed reservation with mature trees (loosely spaced) and a number of road information/direction signs. Lamp-posts are at intervals along the verge.

2.3. Site location

Page 1 of 5

3. Planning History

3.1. No planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP (adopted 2005). Draft Birmingham Development Plan (BDP) and the National Planning Policy Framework.

6. Planning Considerations

AMENITY

6.2. With regards to appearance and visual clutter, I consider that the new totem sign would have no greater impact on the visual amenity of the area, and the trees screen it from the residential properties. Its appearance would be similar to other totems across the City.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3. Transportation Development has advised that the proposed advertisement would raise no issues in terms of restricting footpath width, or impact on visibility requirements for vehicles. In the interest of highway safety, animated displays will be restricted subject to conditions.

6.4. The requested condition for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed would not be reasonable and will not be applied.

Page 2 of 5 7. Conclusion

8. Recommendation

8.1. Temporary approval subject to the following conditions:

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

5 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Caroline Ossowska

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Application Site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 21 January 2016

I submit for your consideration the attached reports for the South team.

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 16 2015/09538/PA

500 Brook Lane Billesley Birmingham B13 0BY

Change of use from domestic dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a residential institution (Use Class C2).

Determine 17 2015/05416/PA

Beechenhurst House 10 Serpentine Road Selly Park Birmingham B29 7HU

Conversion of existing buildings and erection of annex blocks (three storeys plus basement) to create student accommodation with associated ancillary facilities, car parking and external works.

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/09538/PA Accepted: 19/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 14/01/2016 Ward: Billesley

500 Brook Lane, Billesley, Birmingham, B13 0BY

Change of use from domestic dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a residential institution (Use Class C2). Applicant: Meadows Care Ltd Egerton House, Wardle Road, Rochdale, OL12 9EN Agent: GHP Architects Empire House, Mulcture Hall Road, Halifax, West Yorkshire, HX1 1SP Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought to change the use of 500 Brook Lane, Billesley from a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to a residential institution (Use Class C2).

1.2. The premises would be used as a young persons care home operated by the applicant Meadows Care Limited. Meadows Care Limited is a specialist provider of care, therapy and education operating 17 small homes housing 3 to 4 children and their care staff. They state that their aim is to ‘provide outstanding domestic settings to provide excellent homes for all our young people’. The children’s home would be registered and regulated by Ofsted. Each proposed admission to the home will be subject to a risk assessment which takes account of the environment and local community. Any young person placed in the home would have a plan of integration which seeks to cause minimal disruption to the local community.

1.3. The care home would be occupied by maximum of 4 young people at any one time, aged between 10 and 18 years. The supporting Planning Statement states that the young people placed in the home have ‘challenging behaviours’ (rather than physical or mental disabilities). The young people residing in the care home would attend local schools and clubs.

1.4. This facility would be staffed by one Registered Manager, one Deputy Manager, two Senior Care Workers and six Residential Care Workers. The young people would permanently reside at the property. The Manager would work a 9am-5pm flexible shift and the other staff would work as a team on a rota system. During the day there will be the registered manager on site with up to three care workers. Overnight there will be two care staff sleeping over. The facility would be staffed 24 hours a day.

1.5. No internal or external alterations are proposed to the property. The ground floor would accommodate two lounges, a kitchen/dining room and a staff bedroom. The first floor would accommodate four young persons’ bedrooms, one bathroom and a

Page 1 of 10 staff bedroom with an en-suite bathroom. The rear garden area measures 114m². providing 28.5m² per resident.

1.6. The Application Form states that 5 parking spaces would be provided. However, these were not identified on the site plan. The Applicant has subsequently proposed that 4 spaces would be provided; two spaces within the existing detached double garage to the rear of the property and two on the hardstanding in front of the garage.

1.7. Site area: 0.05ha

1.8. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is located on the northern side of Brook Lane at its junction with The Hurst. The application property is a large, two storey dwellinghouse. There is a garden and paved driveway to the front although there is no footway crossing from Brook Lane. There is a large rear garden and a detached double garage located adjacent to No.102 The Hurst which is accessed via a footway crossing from The Hurst. The application property is currently vacant.

2.2. The surrounding area is predominantly residential with both Brook Lane and The Hurst characterised by large two storey detached and semi-detached houses in similar styles to the application property. The site location provides good access to schools, shops and other services and public transport links.

2.3. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 23/01/2003 - 2002/05988/PA - Erection of two storey side extension – Approve subject to conditions

3.2. 13/05/2003 - 2003/01894/PA - Retention of a detached double garage extension and erection of new gates including formation of footway crossing – Refuse

3.3. 05/10/2004 - 2004/04756/PA - Retention/modification of detached double garage – Approve subject to conditions

3.4. 2015/09539/PA - Application for a certificate of lawfulness for the proposed use of the property as a young persons' care home – Currently under consideration

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection to the proposal to provide 4 spaces (2 garage spaces and 2 forecourt spaces) subject to conditions requiring the existing footway crossing from The Hurst to be widened and the provision of suitable boundary treatment to prevent vehicular access to the frontage driveway

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection.

Page 2 of 10 4.3. West Midlands Police – It is reasonable to expect that this proposal may generate a level of crime. The use of the property as a home for young people introduces a diverse element that by reason of use may result in noise, disturbance and nuisance to the detriment of neighbours’ residential amenity. Incidents of Anti-Social Behaviour are high in this locality. Historically, residential care homes for young people create a demand for Police service, especially when young people are reported as absent/missing. Request that temporary permission is granted to allow any impact to be assessed. Subject to planning approval, recommend conditions to mitigate crime and anti-social behaviour including: CCTV, an access control system via key fob/swipe card is installed and anti-barricade doors are fitted to residents’ bedrooms.

4.4. Neighbouring occupiers and Ward Members notified and site notice displayed - 55 individual letters of objection received from residents of Brook Lane, The Hurst and Sarehole Road. One letter of objection forwarded on behalf of a neighbouring property from Steve McCabe MP and a petition of objection signed by 33 residents of Brook Lane has also been received. The objections are summarised as follows:

• Concern that the proposed use would cause noise disturbance and possible anti-social behaviour • The proposed use is unsuitable in this residential area • The use would pose a risk to personal and property safety • There would be a risk of gangs developing • There would be an increase in anti-social behaviour and possible vandalism • The proposed use would go against the long terms aims for children that are currently in foster care in the area • The area will be devalued along with property values • There would be people coming and going at all hours which will downgrade the surrounding area • The site is located at the corner of The Hurst which is a most sought after road will become run down very quickly • The proposal could result in nuisance, noise, vandalism, anti-social behaviour, petty crime and theft • Existing residents would no longer feel safe in their own homes or in the surrounding area • There are already children congregating around the shops on Brook Lane causing disruption and anti-social behaviour, this proposal would increase this • The children living in the application property would have a bad influence on children already living in the area • Do not want own children exposed to children with behavioural problems • Do not understand how a care home in this location will help to rehabilitate children with a main road, shops they can hang around and places that give them the opportunity to hide drugs • The proposed care home will lack community support which could detract from the care of the children • It is unfair to subject residents to disruptive, violent and lawless behaviour and would destroy our peace of mind • The proposal would have a serious impact on existing residents’ quality of life • Concern about used needles being left in public places with serious potential health consequences to humans and animals • There is a lack of recreational facilities in the immediate vicinity and so there is a possibility for potential residents to cause a nuisance as they will have nothing else to do

Page 3 of 10 • The area is characterised by single family dwellings, this use is not in keeping • What guarantee is there that the children will be accompanied by carers? • There is already a lack of school places in the area and this would place a greater strain on this • The development will have a significant impact on road safety • The proposal would increase the amount of traffic on the roads • There will be an effect on car parking • Concerned that a quiet road will become a noisy one • A use like this should be located in a cul-de-sac or quiet side road to avoid highway safety issues • The corner of The Hurst and Brook Lane is already over-parked • There is a technical error in the application in that there is no footway crossing serving the front parking area which was use illegally by the previous occupier. Planning permission would be required to construct a footway crossing. • The only reason the property owner is seeking an alternative use is because he has failed to sell the property after advertising it well above market rate • There is no mention of the intended future use of the existing detached double garage • It is inappropriate to pretend this business is going to provide a family-type setting • Concerned that the Applicant, Meadows Care Ltd is not based locally and so they have little experience of the type area this is and so do not fully understand the effect the proposal would have on existing residents • Do not know if the proposed operators will run the home appropriately and provide the staff levels that are stated • How much is known of the Applicant’s experience and reputation in the field of children with behavioural difficulties? • Other areas of Birmingham would be better suited to such a proposal • Nothing in the application establishes that there is a need for this institution in this area • The application has not been advertised widely enough • The timescale in which to respond was very short. • The single site notice displayed is not fit for purpose • The Council should have specifically states the purpose of the application in layman’s terms • Not enough information has been provided • The proposal would lead to previously private areas being overlooked • The height or proximity of the development would be such that unreasonable overshadowing would occur • The scale of the works means that the property/premises has an oppressive impact on surrounding areas/houses • Out-of-character – the design of the development, its scale and use, is such that it appears to be out of character with its surroundings • It will be overbearing

5. Policy Context

5.1. NPPF, UDP (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Car Parking Guidelines SPG, Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG

Page 4 of 10 6. Planning Considerations

Background information 6.1. On 1st June 2015, the City Council awarded a contract to Meadows Care Limited to provide 19 Children's Residential Home places (equivalent to 5 houses) within Birmingham. The first of these, located in Sutton Coldfield received planning consent in September 2015 (reference 2015/06080/PA).

6.2. The Council has a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of looked after children, including the provision of sufficient accommodation capable of meeting children's needs in the city.

Policy context 6.3. The NPPF confirms there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. The core planning principles set out at Paragraph 17 state that planning should (amongst other things) always seek a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land buildings. In additions Paragraphs 58 and 69 state planning decisions should aim to promote and create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the quality of life or community cohesion.

6.4. The UDP (2005) aims to ensure that there is a variety of housing to meet the full range of needs throughout the City (Paragraph 5.7). It also seeks to maintain and protect the existing housing stock and advises that the loss of housing in good condition to other uses would normally be resisted (paragraph 5.19A). Furthermore, paragraph 5.19B advises that some residential areas contain properties which have been converted into "institutional" uses such as hotels, hostels, day nurseries or nursing homes, subdivided into flats or are in multiple occupation. Although these are normally appropriate in residential areas, concentrations of such uses can have an adverse effect upon the essential residential character of a particular street or area.

6.5. Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG and paragraphs 8.28 and 8.29 of the adopted UDP apply to residential care homes as defined by Class C2 (Residential Institutions). The SPG and policy 8.29 of the adopted UDP state that proposals should not cause demonstrable harm to the residential amenity of occupiers of nearby properties by reason of noise and disturbance nuisance. Residential care homes are normally most appropriately located in large detached properties set in their own grounds. Furthermore, they state that in areas which already contain premises in similar use, and/or houses in multiple paying occupation and/or properties converted into self-contained flats, account will be taken of the cumulative effect of such uses upon the residential character and appearance of the area. Finally, proposals should not prejudice the safety and free flow of traffic in the adjoining highways and adequate outdoor amenity space (minimum 16sqm of space per resident) should be provided to ensure a satisfactory living environment for residents.

6.6. The main issues for consideration of this proposal are whether the principle of the proposed use is acceptable in this location and the potential impact on the amenity of existing occupants and on highway safety and parking.

Principle of use 6.7. The site is located within a residential area with good accessibility to local shops and services including bus services. Young people living at the care home would benefit from local services and have the opportunity to participate in community, leisure,

Page 5 of 10 sporting or cultural activities. This would allow the young people to feel part of a residential community, which would support social inclusion.

6.8. The application property is a large, five bedroom, detached dwelling set within its own grounds. This is considered to be the most appropriate type of house for use as a care home as defined by the Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG and policy 8.29 of the adopted UDP 2005. The existing detached garage would provide two off- street car parking spaces for staff members. The rear garden would provide 28.5m² of outdoor amenity space per resident, far exceeding the 16m² required by the SPG. There would be no cumulative effect of such a use on the residential character and appearance of the area. I therefore consider the application site is a suitable location for a young person’s care home in principle, subject to the following site specific considerations.

Impact on amenity of existing occupiers 6.9. The supporting Planning Statement states that the character of the application property would remain residential and the house would operate like a ‘normal’ family home. I consider that the day to day activity associated with the proposed care home would be similar to that of a large five bedroom family dwellinghouse, with people coming and going as children are taken and collected from school and staff and visitors leaving and arriving at the property. The maximum number of cars associated with staff members at any one time would be four which I consider is not a significantly greater number than could be owned by residents of a dwellinghouse of this size.

6.10. In terms of noise and disturbance, the proposed use is unlikely to generate a higher level of noise and disturbance than the existing use as a large dwellinghouse, which could be occupied by more than 4 children. Regulatory Services raise no objection to the proposal. The Applicants have advised that the care home will have a management plan which will set out the supervision and support provided to the residents. I also recommend a condition limiting the number of children living at the property to four. I am therefore satisfied that the proposed use would not result in a significantly greater impact on the amenities of adjoining residents in terms of noise and disturbance than that of a large family dwellinghouse.

6.11. The Applicants have submitted a Management Plan which sets out the way in which the care home would be operated and how Meadows Care Ltd would engage with the local community. The Management Plan acknowledges the concerns and anxieties that neighbouring residents may have about a care home being located within their community and seeks to address some of those concerns. The Management Plan includes details of how the care home would be registered and regulated by Ofsted and would operate within the policies and procedures of Birmingham City Council. It also includes how the resident young people would be supervised and supported, depending upon their individual requirements and risk assessments; how the resident young people would be involved with the local community; how the potential impact of the care home on neighbouring occupiers would be minimised, as far as is practicable, and; how Meadows Care Ltd propose to liaise with the local community both prior to the care home opening and once it is operating. I am satisfied that, based on the Management Plan submitted, the care home would be managed and operated in such a way that the amenity of existing occupiers would not be unduly harmed.

Impact on community safety

Page 6 of 10 6.12. The application site is located within a residential area and I note the strong views from neighbouring occupiers regarding the potential for increased anti-social behaviour and crime as well as a fear of crime and personal safety.

6.13. West Midlands Police have raised concerns about the proposal and consider it may generate a level of crime and introduce the potential for noise, disturbance and nuisance to neighbours. They advise that residential care homes can create a demand for police service. However they have not objected to the proposed change of use. In order to limit impacts they have recommended conditions be attached to any approval requiring CCTV, secure control access system and anti-barricade doors to bedrooms. However, I consider such conditions would be unreasonably onerous and I am of the opinion that such measures would result in the property being more like a secure institution rather than a care home. The Applicant has met with West Midlands Police to discuss their concerns. Whilst the Police have not amended their comments following the meeting, the applicant has advised that the planning conditions sought by the Police are regulated and controlled through the Ofsted registration process. As such, I therefore consider it would be inappropriate to require these measures by planning condition.

6.14. With appropriate management and supervision by staff and a condition limiting the number of young people occupying the property to four, I do not consider that this small care home would, as a matter of course, lead to an increase in anti-social behaviour or crime to the detriment of the character of the area, the amenities of nearby residents or necessarily place additional pressure on police resources. I am not aware of any other existing care homes in this area that have resulted in an increase in anti-social behaviour and/or crime that could be used as reliable evidence to suggest that this application would result in increased crime and anti- social behaviour. I therefore consider that there is insufficient evidence to justify refusal for this reason.

Highway Safety and Parking 6.15. The Car Parking Guidelines SPG requires two parking spaces for a residential care home of this size. This can be provided within the existing detached double garage and it is also proposed to provide two spaces on the forecourt in front of the garage. I also note that on street parking on Brook Lane and The Hurst is unrestricted. Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposal but note that the existing footway crossing from The Hurst does not currently align with the forecourt parking area; I therefore recommend a condition requiring this is widened. Although there is a paved driveway to the front of the property there is no footway crossing to this. The Applicant has stated they intend to re-instate the boundary around the frontage area and I recommend a condition requiring suitable boundary treatment in order to prevent vehicular access to the forecourt.

6.16. I note the concerns of neighbouring residents regarding an increase in traffic in the area. However I consider that the proposed use would not have a materially greater impact on highway safety and parking than if the property remained in use as a five bedroomed dwellinghouse.

Other issues 6.17. A number of objectors state that this planning application was not publicised widely enough and the time period to submit comments was too short. The advertisement of this planning application was in accordance with the Council’s approved public participation process.

Page 7 of 10 6.18. Concerns are also raised about the impact the proposed use may have on the value of their property as a reason for objection; however, property values are not a material planning consideration.

6.19. One response to the public consultation stated a number of objections which would not be relevant to this proposal because there are no physical alterations proposed to the application property.

6.20. Finally, concerns have been raised about the Applicant’s qualification to operate a care home. This is a matter beyond the scope of this planning application and the care home would be registered with and regulated by Ofsted.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed young person’s care home would meet a need to provide residential places in Birmingham and would support social inclusion. I consider the proposed care home would be suitably located in a residential area with good access to services and facilities. I acknowledge the high level of public opposition and the concerns, but not objections, raised by West Midlands Police but I note that no evidence has been provided that the proposed use in this location would result in an increase in crime. I do not consider the proposed use would have a significantly greater impact on the amenities of existing residents or on highway safety than the existing use of the property as a dwellinghouse. As such, I consider the proposal constitutes sustainable development and is therefore recommended for approval.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions

1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Limits the number of children living at the property to a maximum of 4.

3 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

4 Requires the prior submission of details of pavement boundary prior to occupation

5 Requires the existing footway crossing to be widened prior to occupation

6 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Alexa Williams

Page 8 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – 500 Brook Lane front elevation

Figure 2 – 500 Brook Lane side elevation

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

Knight House

66 The Lodge 1 to 6 to 1

CHARLECOTT CLOSE

382 THE HURST

Boro Const & Ward Bdy

57 88 67

394

102 79

406

496 516

500 508 484

BROOK LANE

120.4m

122.5m

129.8m

El Sub St

515

503

491 479

7 9

15 17

27 29

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her

Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 21/01/2016 Application Number: 2015/05416/PA Accepted: 07/07/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 31/12/2015 Ward: Selly Oak

Beechenhurst House, 10 Serpentine Road, Selly Park, Birmingham, B29 7HU

Conversion of existing buildings and erection of annex blocks (three storeys plus basement) to create student accommodation with associated ancillary facilities, car parking and external works. Applicant: Five Oaks Green Ltd c/o Agent Agent: The Tyler-Parkes Partnership Ltd 66 Stratford Road, Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands, B90 3LP Recommendation Determine

Report Back

Members will recall deferring a decision on the above application at the meeting of 17th December 2015, in order for the proposal to be considered by the City’s Conservation Heritage Panel (CHP).

Additional Information

Since the deferral, the applicant has submitted supplementary information, including a Local History Appraisal (Dr Carl Chinn), revised Conservation Area Appraisal (Joe Holyoak), updated Planning Statement, Building Survey Report (Knight Frank) and Initial Costs Estimate. These were alluded to in the applicant’s presentation to the Conservation Heritage Panel.

In its conclusion, the Local History Appraisal summarises that this was the 1st house in Serpentine Road (with neither the Architect or builder known), built for a local Solicitor (Edward Coleman). The property remained in Coleman’s ownership but was rented out after 1885, with tenants including John Nettlefold and family (until they moved out to Winterbourne in 1905).

The Conservation Area Appraisal acknowledges that Beechenhurst is a heritage asset, which makes a positive contribution to the Conservation Area, but is of poor architectural quality and therefore not even included on the local list. It concludes that the proposals will act as enabling development to make changes to the house (reversing former damage) and that the design of the new buildings/landscape design are appropriate to context.

The Cost Estimate Report considers the conversion of existing buildings against the application proposals, with the scheme proving economically viable only with the annex block.

Page 1 of 24

CHP considered the application on 11th January 2015. Members discussed the fact that the building, whilst not listed, is important within the Conservation Area. A query was raised concerning the erection of ‘blue plaques’ on historic buildings and the appropriateness in this instance due to the historic links with John Nettlefold, and Members were advised how this could be progressed (outside of the planning application process).

The elevations/floor plans were discussed to assess the impact of the proposals on the Conservation Area. There were concerns over the delivery of quality and finish, and parking was also discussed (provision of electric cars/non-car policy).

Generally, positive comments were expressed and the regeneration of the building was welcomed.

Further Public Participation Responses

• Further letter from Steve McCabe M.P.;

• 38 no. further individual objections;

• Petition received with 602 signatures;

• 2 no. responses in support.

M.P. - reiterates concerns regarding existing parking (which has worsened since opening of dental hospital). Nearly all cars on street are those of non-residents. Serpentine Road cannot cope with any more cars (no provision within scheme). Considers that Planning Committee members should visit the site to appreciate residents’ concerns.

Objectors – re-iterate concerns/identify a number of matters that they feel require further consideration (beyond that provided in the original report):

• Density. Conservation Area designation aims to preserve the unique qualities of this suburb - characterised by low density housing and attractive landscaping. Proposed population density of development is more in keeping with Bournbrook (more than 5 times population density here) and may set a precedent for future large-scale development;

• Threat to character of former family home of a key figure in Birmingham’s history (John Nettlefold). Will transform the building’s architecture. New build inappropriate design;

• Narrow road/existing congestion. Will exacerbate existing pressure on roads/car parking in this area. Proposed car ban is unenforceable. Resulting hazards;

• Should resist further student accommodation/HMOs in this area (potential over- supply). Area already given over to student housing, now encroaching into Selly Park. Increased pressure on local services and problems with rubbish;

• Family housing or apartments more appropriate.

Page 2 of 24 • Management of the property and potential noise/disruption. No supervisor out of office hours. Student occupiers/visitors will create nuisance in quiet family neighbourhood evenings/weekends. Officers previously asserted that management of this number of students would present no difficulties for the owner – this view was not evidenced in anyway and is misguided. No account taken of what will happen in future if concierge etc is removed.

• Impact on historic gardens/wildlife;

• Impact on property values.

• Request for Committee site visit.

Petition – concerns:

• Proposal would double the population of the road;

• Four storey extension planned with no car parking on site. Will not be adequately managed;

• Within a conservation area;

• Will set a precedent for spread of student accommodation into new areas;

• Area will be polluted with noise, rubbish and traffic.

Supporters - consider the campaign against the proposal to be without substance. Benefits of the development far outweigh any concerns. Many vacant properties in Selly Park could be better used as student accommodation, supported living or emergency housing.

Response to Objections

No new issues have been raised. These points were discussed in the original officer report, which concluded that the proposals (in their amended form) would have no unacceptable impact on the existing building or on the character and appearance of the conservation area.

The application property sits within substantial grounds, a large proportion of which would be retained as part of the proposal. With the exception of the proposed single storey addition at the entrance (to the north end), the extensions to the property would be almost exclusively to the rear and, as such, not visible within the street scene. As such, whilst it is acknowledged that the number of residents in the locality would increase significantly, the scale and density of development (in terms of built form) would not appear out of context.

The significance of the building in terms of its former occupant (John Nettlefold) is acknowledged. However, I do not consider that that this historic interest would provide a reason to resist the proposals. On the contrary, I consider that a sensitive conversion would be positive in bringing the building back into use, thereby halting any further deterioration of its condition.

My Transportation colleague is satisfied with the proposed parking management arrangement (which includes the provision of 4 no. electric cars) – an approach supported on other student developments in Selly Oak.

Page 3 of 24

The principle of the development (for student accommodation) accords with policy, including the recently adopted Wider Selly Oak SPD (2015). The site is in close proximity to the University of Birmingham and the submitted Student Needs Assessment is specific in demonstrating need associated directly with it.

In respect of nuisance to neighbours, I would re-iterate my view that the proposal could not be appropriately resisted on these grounds. My Environmental Protection Officer has raised no objections and, not withstanding concerns about ‘typical’ student behaviour, the proposal is for a residential use within an established residential area.

Community Infrastructure Levy

The development may now be liable for CIL, (following its adoption on 4th January). The submitted application forms specify that the floor area of the development would be 2,875sqm GIA (1,084.5sqm existing and 1,790.5sqm proposed). This would equate to a payment of £198,375 CIL. The applicant has been requested to complete the required CIL declaration form to confirm the applicable floor area.

Recommendation

I respectfully request that Committee now grant planning permission, subject to the attached conditions and completion of a S106 agreement as originally recommended, but with an extension of the time period for completion of the agreement until 5th February 2016.

Original Report

1. Proposal

1.1. The proposal is for conversion of an existing detached building and erection of a new 3 storey (plus basement) annex block within the rear grounds, to be occupied as student accommodation.

1.2. The accommodation within the existing main building would comprise 22 no. studios spread across 3 floors (including accommodation within the roof space), along with a communal cinema/library (30.8sqm) and residents’ lounge (32.6sqm). In addition, an existing stable block at the south end of the building would accommodate management offices, storage and 1 no. 2 bed residential unit for occupation by students as an independent unit.

1.3. Access to the building would be from its north end, where a single storey, partially glazed extension would form the entrance to a lobby/concierge area, beyond which would be the stairwell/lift core. Other external alterations to the existing building include a single storey addition to the rear of the stable block, the rationalisation of windows/openings, the introduction of 8 no. small dormers/roof alterations, and removal of existing fire escapes.

1.4. The new block to the rear would be sited perpendicular to the existing building beyond a raised terrace. Significant changes in level within the site enable the

Page 4 of 24 creation of a lower ground floor level at this point. A further 35 no. studios are proposed across the 4 floors.

1.5. The studios (total 57) would be between 21.8sqm and 43.1sqm in size and would each contain kitchen, living room/study area, shower room and sleeping area. The significant variation in size results from the constraints of the conversion, with the majority of the new-build units being 30-32sqm. The applicant has confirmed that the rooms are designed for single occupancy only.

1.6. The new building would measure 36.7m length x 18.4m width (maximum) and would be predominantly inward-facing, i.e. with studio windows (and balconies in some cases) overlooking the proposed landscaped grounds. It would be 11.7m in height from ground floor to ridge level and would be of a more contemporary design (although constructed in brick with a tiled roof to match the existing building). The lower ground floor units would have direct access to the grounds. Access to the annex block would otherwise be from the northeast corner, via the main concierge lobby.

1.7. A single storey, detached fitness room (10m x 7.5m) is proposed to be constructed towards the rear (west boundary), set into the substantial bank that exists on this side. A series of paved pathways would link the buildings through in excess of 2000sqm landscaped amenity space.

1.8. Vehicular access to the site would be from two existing access points off Serpentine Road, with a driveway to be reinstated (resin bound gravel) across the front of the existing building. An access from this driveway would extend a short distance into the site, along its west boundary, to the side of the new entrance (at which point it would be gated). It would terminate at 2 no. disabled parking bays adjacent to the top end of the annex block.

1.9. The scheme would make provision for charge points for 4 no. electric vehicles (to be provided for student use) adjacent to the main entrance, with parking for these vehicles/short term parking/drop-off on the main driveway. Provision would be made for 24 bicycles adjacent to the annex block and 15 bikes provided for student use. Residents would be required to sign a parking declaration to confirm that they will adhere to the tenancy agreement which prohibits them from bringing cars to the site.

1.10. The proposal would involve the loss of some existing trees. These include 5 no. Category U specimens recommended for removal in the submitted Arboricultural Survey, one of which is a diseased mature Beech on the street frontage. A category B Ash is regrettably proposed for removal in order to accommodate the new annex block. This is unavoidable and results from the desire to position the new block in a central location, away from the boundaries with adjacent properties and at the lowest point on the site. A landscaping scheme has been submitted which includes 17 no. replacement/additional specimens, predominantly focused around the edges to the site.

1.11. Site area: 0.54ha.

1.12. The submission identifies potential for 7 full-time and 3 part-time employees. The applicant has clarified that this would include an Operations Manager, Facilities Manager/Assistant, Concierge, Cleaners and Maintenance staff. The management office would be occupied and concierge in post during office hours Monday to Friday

Page 5 of 24 and on Saturday mornings. There would generally be 4 members of staff at core times. A 24 hour security contact would be provided out of hours.

1.13. The application is in an amended form, the significant changes since the original submission being:

- The stable buildings are now to be largely retained in their original form. A side/rear extension to create 1st and 2nd floor accommodation has been removed (with a small side/rear extension still proposed). - Existing window openings have been retained wherever possible and the provision of new openings, including dormer windows, have been reduced. - Existing elements such as chimney stacks, dormer windows and other architectural features have been retained and incorporated into the proposals.

1.14. The application was supported by a Planning Statement, Design and Access Statement, Arboricultural Report, Bat and Protected Species Report, Conservation Appraisal/Heritage Statement, Landscape Design Statement, Management Plan, Student Housing Needs Report/Supplementary Statement, Transport Statement/Student Travel Plan, and Sustainable Drainage Assessment/Plan

1.15. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application relates to an existing property at 10 Serpentine Road, known as ‘Beechenhurst House’. It is a substantial (2 ½ storey) dwelling constructed in the 1860’s. The building has undergone alteration, but does still contain architectural features of merit and retains a historic stable yard and buildings. It is set within spacious grounds, with the building actually orientated towards the ‘rear’, with the ‘main’ elevation facing the gardens rather than Serpentine Road. The property follows the building line on the road frontage, set behind a driveway served by two existing access points with a low, stepped wall along the back of pavement and mature trees behind.

2.2. The site was, until recently, in the ownership of the City Council, originally operating as a care home, but more recently in use as offices

2.3. The site falls within Selly Park Conservation Area - an area of spacious plots and generously proportioned, architect-designed residential properties, open space and secluded culs de sac. Several religious and educational establishments are situated within the boundary of the Conservation Area, as is St. Mary Hospice. There are also a number of listed/locally listed buildings in the area, including St Stephen’s Church and Selly Wick House to the south-east of the site (both Grade II listed).

2.4. Immediately adjacent to the north is the site of the former ‘Bourn House’, which is currently being redevelopment with housing. The remainder of this section of Serpentine Road is residential in nature, predominantly detached family residences of varying ages and styles. The property immediately adjacent to the south (no.30) is currently occupied by students.

2.5. Location

3. Planning History

Page 6 of 24

Application Site

3.1. 5th August 2011. Pre-application discussion for a proposed change of use to Class C1. Advised residential use acceptable in principle (proposed use class unclear), subject to impact on local residents/occupiers of accommodation, parking demand/highway safety and design/conservation area.

3.2. 9th July 2012. Pre-application no. 2012/0 3279/PA. Pre-application discussion for the conversion and extension of the existing building and proposed new student accommodation buildings. Advised no objection in principle, subject to details of accommodation, design, trees, parking, and impact on neighbours.

3.3. PA No. 2013/00885/PA. Change of use from care home (Use Class C2) to student accommodation (sui generis) comprising 68 bedspaces, erection of 3 and 4 storey rear extensions, alterations to windows, insertion of windows and car park to front – withdrawn.

3.4. 14th January 2015. Pre-application no. 2015/09714/PA. Pre-application discussion for proposed conversion and extension to provide student accommodation. Considerations include use, impact on neighbours (45 degree code, noise, overlooking), levels/trees/landscaping, car/cycle parking, design/conservation.

Adjacent Site to North (no.8 former Bourn House)

3.5. 11th November 2014. PA No. 2014/06666/PA. Demolition of former care home and erection of 4 detached dwellings with associated landscaping and access – approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Consultations

4.1. Transportation – No objection subject to a S106 agreement.

4.2. Regulatory Services – no objections.

4.3. Local Services – no comments or objections.

4.4. West Midlands Police – no objections.

4.5. Historic England – Consider that the amended scheme will not cause serious harm to Selly Park Conservation Area because of the changes made to the scheme and, as such, do not object.

4.6. Severn Trent – no objection subject to drainage details.

Public Participation

4.7. Adjacent occupiers, Councillors, M.P. and residents associations notified and site/press notices posted.

Response on Original Proposal

Page 7 of 24

4.5. 48 objections received, including Selly Park Property Owners Association, with concerns as follows:

• Existing residential street (with strict covenants regarding use, size and density) - detached houses and currently no other multi-occupancy buildings.

• The only non-family residences generally perform a valuable social function e.g. special needs housing (institutions to be welcomed/supported by community), different in character to student housing for profit by a private landlord.

• Within Conservation Area and mature residential suburb – use out of character. Temporary nature of student living (transient occupation) goes against development of a neighbourhood community and lessens social responsibility.

• Would set a dangerous precedent to allow student area of Selly Oak to expand into neighbouring areas, changing their character. Will undermine the Council’s efforts to address problems in Bournbrook associated with high density student provision.

• Introduction of commercialism will change character of Selly Park.

• Would destroy local environment and cause existing residents to move out. House will be bought by speculators and area will dissolve into student quarter. Will jeopardise development of adjacent site.

• Increased traffic (residents/visitors). Already busy, including junction at Bristol Road end.

• Lack of parking (zero provision proposed). If unable to park on site, will park in surrounding streets (already used extensively for parking by University staff, contractors and students, effectively making it single lane). Safety implications for residents and school children, particularly in icy conditions. Inconvenience (driveways blocked etc.). Restricted access for emergency services.

• ‘No car’ policy is not enforceable. Such policies do not work (as evidenced in Oxford). These more affluent students are likely to have cars. Staff will require parking.

• References to cycle parking and electric cars naïve. Very little cycling culture in Birmingham and high levels of car ownership.

• On street parking will damage visual amenity of Conservation Area.

• Impact on residential amenity. Increased noise, activity and disturbance (due to number/type of residents) and reduced security. Already problems with noise from students at no. 30. Student lifestyle not appropriate here.

• Existing problems during term time associated with students/landlords in nearby roads – noise (including unsociable hours) and rubbish in street.

• Impact on property values.

Page 8 of 24 • Contrary to Article 4 Direction which aims to prevent an over-concentration of HMOs in streets adjacent to Bournbrook. Will increase existing pressures.

• Financial return for developer should not be a consideration.

• Doubt about the sustainability of student accommodation. Danger of over-supply. Submitted Needs Assessment is based on sources with an interest in promoting student accommodation. The number of UK students attending university is stabilising (following decline as a result of tuition fees and wider economic concerns). More students now stay at home and number of international students is falling. Substantial numbers of accommodation spaces provided in recent years/coming forward.

• Actual shortage of housing stock for general population. Area needs flats for permanent dwellers – single people, young families and sheltered housing for elderly.

• Cannot understand the City Council’s position in resisting demolition. Not listed or locally listed and appears to have little to warrant retention. No historic or architectural merit.

• Huge number of existing property vacancies.

• Previous refusal of conversion of 2 Serpentine Road for student accommodation.

• Management Plan is flawed. Inconsistencies in submission regarding whether cars banned or students “strongly encouraged not to bring cars”. No indication of how would be enforced eitherway. No staff on premises out of hours. No consideration given to visitor parking.

• Discipline – applicant assumes the University will deal with annoying behaviour, but no confirmation provided that they have mechanisms/procedures in place for privately managed accommodation.

• External lighting will encourage use of external spaces within grounds - lighting/noise will impact on quiet residential area.

• Mature trees have already been taken down.

• Lack of local consultation by developer.

• Disturbance during construction. Inconsiderate of existing residents when works undertaken in past.

• Gym is unjustified when new sports centre just across Bristol Road.

• Misinformation/discrepancies in submission - should be invalidated e.g. previous use was offices (not non-residential institution) and building opposite is not telephone exchange. Site and building areas are different from those in previous submission.

• Opportunities for largescale student schemes have been identified - this site is not one of them. This use not referred to in sales particulars.

Page 9 of 24 • Examples exist of properties of this size reverting to single-family homes. Or could be divided into smaller units and still fit in.

• 4 storey block in garden inappropriately sited - overlooking gardens and existing facing windows, including nearby care home. Will dominate adjacent properties.

• Loss of privacy – dormer windows on front look into bedrooms opposite.

• Out of character with Conservation Area – spacious plots, generally architect- designed residential properties. Development is out of proportion. Too intensive.

• Alterations proposed to house threaten its character and will vastly alter streetscene. Whilst main elevation of existing building faces the garden, the street elevation also has merit. Proposed alterations destroy architectural features, resulting in a bland façade, detracting from the contribution it currently makes to the Conservation Area. Proposals show no sympathy for the building or understanding of its value. Entrance lobby is unsympathetic. Inadequate separation distance between old building and new wing.

• Any future restoration of original Bournbrook Road side will be blighted by the new build. As such, desirability of preservation should be re-considered.

• Contrary to Serpentine Road Development Brief (in respect of no. 8).

• Developer will not be able to offer adequate security without breaching rules of Conservation Area on railings/gates. Boundary treatment to Serpentine Road out of character – gates/railings should be removed.

• Large gardens are a characteristic of Selly Park. Should resist garden grabbing/backland development

• Detached housing schemes have been approved – development has not been frustrated in this area. Scheme is wrong in context.

• Design of new-build lacks ambition

• Construction of stable block will infill break in streetscene - out of character.

• Makes a mockery of Conservation Area status.

• Inappropriate density. Represents serious over-development. Development will double the population of Serpentine Road with 50% being students. Social structure will be altered/unbalance in community.

• Developer has purchased adjacent property (no. 30) – occupied by students – and breached covenants by moving boundaries.

• This is not a new concept for Birmingham. Similar developments already exist nearby.

• Planting plans do not reflect Winterbourne (as suggested).

Page 10 of 24 • Usual student provision is en-suite bedrooms with shared kitchen/living room or shared houses. Current proposal goes further - more expensive and less communal. More likely to attract older residents, potentially with cars and partners, who stay beyond term-time. Studio apartments are unlikely to be single occupancy (very generous internal layouts) – could have 80-110 residents in total.

• Request for committee site visit to look at surrounding streets.

4.6. Objection received from Steve McCabe M.P., as follows:

• Selly Oak already has lots of student accommodation (saturated); • Complaints from Constituents that local communities being destroyed by property developers; • Serpentine Road is a Conservation Area and predominantly residential. This could set a precedent for student accommodation in this area; • No evidence to demonstrate need for more student accommodation; • High quality accommodation already approved elsewhere e.g. Battery site; • Loss of privacy to neighbours from annex blocks; • Out of character; • Students may breach suggested ‘non-car agreement’ and park on Serpentine Road; • Consultation should be extended to avoid holiday period.

4.7. Objection received from Community Partnership for Selly Oak:

- Within Conservation Area. - Within Article 4 area. Whilst it does not cover halls of residence, it is a clear indication that area should remain for family residential. - Will destroy character of building and impact on other nearby buildings, including adjacent site (being developed for family housing in line with policy) and children’s home to the rear (potential overlooking). - Over-intensive. - Student numbers quoted to justify proposal should be ignored as city-wide. Only local student numbers are relevant (as policy requires accommodation should be well located to the educational establishment it serves). No need and no evidence that student numbers at the University likely to increase. Proposal will negatively impact on schemes which already have consent and result in students coming from further afield. - A scheme of this small scale will be particularly vulnerable to failing and being repurposed as hostel accommodation. - Nuisance. Other schemes fail to adequately control cars use by their tenants. - Will result in increased noise, litter and anti-social behaviour. - Problems with water pressure due to over-development. - Property should be restored as quality apartments.

4.8. Objection received from Councillor McCarthy: • Location is wholly unsuitable for use. Is within Selly Park Conservation Area – character buildings of varying ages and styles. Proposal would destroy character of this building and impact on nearby buildings, including new development of family houses on adjacent site. • Within Article 4 Area restricting HMOs – does not cover this proposal but highlights not a suitable area. Would loom over/overlook existing nearby care home. • Building has been deliberately neglected. Should be restored as apartments.

Page 11 of 24 • Needs assessment is based on city-wide figures. Only local numbers are relevant. No projected increase in student numbers at University of Birmingham. Would impact on student schemes that already have consent and draw students from outside area. Already excess places in halls/shared houses. Purpose-built accommodation does not automatically address imbalance of HMOs. A scheme like this could fail and be revived as a hostel. • Nuisance – parking, noise, litter, refuse, anti-social behaviour and impact on water pressure/sewerage.

4.9. Selly Oak Branch Labour Party object. Existing property is of historic significance (possibly by J.H. Chamberlain). Drastic conversion and new-build block will damage the building/its setting and detract from the Conservation Area. No need for further student housing in Selly Oak (although there may be a city-wide need). Large blocks recently completed/approved. No planned increase in numbers at the University.

4.10. 25 responses received in support:

• Impressed by services and quality offered. Good location (close to University) with modern, spacious living and large garden/gym.

• Tired of unsuitable HMOs. They need to be replaced. Existing shortage of high-end accommodation.

• ‘No car policy’ would address car issues in Selly Park.

• Purpose-built schemes are more effective in controlling student behaviour. Allows better engagement with local community.

• Good use of abandoned site. Derelict building needs bringing back into use.

• Will particularly suit post-graduates and international students (although not those on low income).

• Good for local business.

• Will create jobs and uplift area economically.

• Heritage Report demonstrates local history/knowledge.

Amended Submission

4.11. A further public consultation exercise was under taken in respect of the amended scheme. A further 23 letters of objection have been received from local residents, considering the amended plans not to be materially different, with the changes seen as being purely cosmetic. As such, objections remain as previously. These focus on:

• Too intensive/over-development. Out of character/scale. • Uninspiring/inappropriate architecture. • Already too much student accommodation (no further need). This extension of Bournbrook will impact on character/community here and set dangerous precedent. • Traffic/parking problems. Parking could be accommodated on site. ‘No car’ policy not enforceable. High pedestrian flows. • Inappropriate use in family residential area/conservation area. • Contrary to restrictive covenants/licensing laws.

Page 12 of 24 • Impact on neighbouring properties/amenity – disturbance/loss of privacy. • Possible impact on property values.

5. Policy Context

5.5. UDP (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Car Parking Guidelines SPD (2012), Places for All SPG (2001), Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG (1992), Wider Selly Oak SPD (2015), Selly Park Conservation Area (designated 2010) and Article 4 Direction, Mature Suburbs SPD (2008), NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

Principle of Student Accommodation

6.1. Paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) advises that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and that for decision making this means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Paragraph 17 states “Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land), provided that it is not of high environmental value.”

6.2. The Birmingham UDP contains no specific policies in respect of purpose built student accommodation. However, the Draft Birmingham Development Plan contains a specific policy (TP32), and has a set of criteria for off-campus development which includes; a demonstrated need for development; a good location in relation to the educational establishment, local facilities and public transport; that the development would not have an adverse impact on the local neighbourhood or residential amenity; the scale and massing of the building is appropriate and the design and layout of the accommodation would create a positive living experience.

6.3. The application site does not have any land use designation within the Wider Selly Oak SPD. The SPD acknowledges the attractiveness of Selly Oak for student accommodation and identifies some (larger) sites for potential purpose-built provision. At the same time, it reiterates the policy requirement in the draft BDP for accommodation to be well related to the educational establishment that it serves.

6.4. The Wider Selly Oak SPD acknowledges that whilst purpose built accommodation can still bring large numbers of students into an area, it can help minimise adverse impacts on areas that are over-populated with students by freeing up HMOs for potential reversion to family housing, thereby restoring a more balanced community and helping with certain local services such as take up of school places. There are high concentrations of students living in Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) in Bournbrook. This puts pressure on this area and both the quality of life for existing residents and the residential environments have been adversely affected.

6.5. A Student Needs Assessment was submitted with the application, with supplementary information more recently provided, which focuses on local need (associated with the University of Birmingham only), following criticism of the original City-wide analysis. This examines student numbers (based on statistical evidence from UCAS and Higher Statistics Agency and Knight Frank’s 2015 report ‘Birmingham - Market Report on Student Accommodation’). It includes a break-down of numbers at each of the City’s Universities (Birmingham, Aston, Birmingham City, Newman and University College Birmingham) and, within this, provides specific

Page 13 of 24 numbers for full-time students, undergraduates, post-graduates and international students. The total number of full-time students at the University of Birmingham is shown as 25,985 – 18,140 undergraduates and 7,845 post graduates (including 7,715 international students).

6.6. The report then considers student growth, indicating a 2% increase nationally in the total number of applications to higher education courses (in January 2015, compared to the previous year). In looking at student housing need, the submitted assessment suggests that this particular accommodation is likely to be occupied by students at the University of Birmingham. It identifies that the University is undertaking a significant programme of investment and development over the next few years, including the University’s School of Dentistry within the new dental hospital at Pebble Mill. The implications of this, the submission suggests, is that there will be a significant shortfall in the numbers of bedspaces available within purpose-built accommodation. Consequently students will be forced to look for alternative accommodation, generally consisting of Houses in Multiple Occupation (which have their own associated problems).

6.7. The report considers existing accommodation numbers. It identifies that UoB halls provide for 5,777 bedspaces (22.2% of the University’s full time student population), private sector purpose-built schemes providing a further 1,506 spaces (5.8%), with the remainder in other forms of accommodation including HMOs. Consented student schemes (under construction or with a valid planning permission) potentially provide a further 1,709 bedrooms. The assessment argues that, even if all these schemes were to be built-out, there would still be an under-supply.

6.8. I note local objectors’ concerns about the validity of the submitted assessment and regarding the over-supply of student accommodation/associated impacts in creating an unbalanced community. However, I consider that Selly Oak will always be a student hub because of its close proximity to the University. I consider the application site is ideally located to provide for purpose built student accommodation, being located on a brownfield site in close proximity to the University and Selly Oak District Centre. Consequently it would achieve sustainable benefits of students being able to walk to the University, facilities within the District Centre, bus services along Bristol Road and rail services at Selly Oak Railway Station. Current planning policy does not restrict the provision of student accommodation at this site and therefore I consider such development would be acceptable in principle.

6.9. Local residents have made reference to a refusal in 2002 for conversion of 2 Serpentine Road from a dwellinghouse to an HMO for 9 students (out of character, too intensive and impact on residential amenity). However, there have been significant changes in policy since that time, not least with the introduction of the NPPF (with the presumption in favour of sustainable development, including re-use) and the adoption of the Wider Selly Oak SPD, which supersedes the Selly Oak Local Action Plan.

6.10. Objectors also refer to the Planning Policy Document ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Article 4 Direction Area of Selly Oak, Edgbaston and Harborne Wards’. However, whilst the site does fall within the Article 4 area, the policy is not directly applicable because it relates to HMOs. I acknowledge the point made that the Article 4 was introduced in acknowledgement of the problems associated with a high concentration of HMOs (predominantly students) in the wider area and the potential creation of an unbalanced community. However, the majority of houses in the immediate vicinity of the site remain in C3 use and, as such, I do not consider that an

Page 14 of 24 argument could appropriately constructed to resist the proposal on the grounds of cumulative impact.

Transportation

6.11. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that decisions should take account of whether: “The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

6.12. Paragraphs 6.49A to 6.51B of the Birmingham UDP set out policies in relation to car parking provision. The key points of the UDP in relation to car parking provision in new developments are as follows: • Provision should be adequate for all transport needs. • Account should be taken of local factors, such as availability of public transport and public car parking. • Proposals which may generate significant on-street parking in residential areas will be required to contribute to parking management measures.

6.13. The Council’s Car Parking Guidelines SPD recommends a maximum of 1 space per 5 beds and a minimum of 1 cycle space per 4 beds for purpose built student accommodation.

6.14. The proposed scheme makes provision only for 2 no. disabled parking bays, the intention being that residents would otherwise not be allowed to bring vehicles to the site. The applicant has confirmed that this would be prohibited through a parking declaration attached to the tenancy agreement (though not to be secured by condition). The proposal shows the incorporation of charge points for 4 no. electric vehicles (to be provided for student use) adjacent to the main entrance, with parking for these vehicles/short term parking/drop-off on the main driveway. Provision would also be made for 24 bicycles adjacent to the annex block and 15 bikes provided for student use.

6.15. This approach has generated significant local concern with regards to the impact on the adjacent area/local highway network, which residents consider will be an inevitable increase in on-street parking.

6.16. Notwithstanding these reservations, your Transportation Officer notes that there is also significant support and raises no objection to the proposal subject to a S106 contribution. The University is less than 500m away and, with the added incentive of cycles already on site and the electric cars, your Transportation Officer is satisfied that there should be no reason for students (and staff) to bring their own cars to park on street. The applicant has demonstrated a willingness to prevent on-street parking by providing alternative transport solutions and discussions will continue with regards to the details of the Travel Plan. The S106 contribution is required to enable monitoring of the surrounding roads, to ensure the effectiveness of the non-car agreement, and provide any mitigation if deemed necessary.

Conservation

Page 15 of 24 6.17. Beechenhurst House is a substantial dwelling located within the Selly Park Conservation Area. The house was constructed in the 1860’s and was one of the earlier houses to be built in Selly Park. The building is unlisted. It has been the home of local dignitaries and contains alterations undertaken by Martin and Chamberlain and this therefore of some local historic interest. The building has undergone alteration, mostly in the 20th century and unsympathetically, however the building does still contain architectural features of merit and retains the historic stable yard and buildings. The site falls within Selly Park Conservation Area.

6.18. Paragraph 64 of the NPPF states that permission should be refused for development of poor design that fails to take the opportunities available for improving the character/quality of an area and the way its functions. Paragraph 131 requires that account is taken of: the desirability of sustaining/enhancing the significance of heritage assets and putting them to viable uses consistent with their conservation; the positive contribution that conservation of heritage assets can make to sustainable communities including their economic vitality; and the desirability of new development making a positive contribution to local character and distinctiveness.

6.19. Paragraph 132 states that when considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation. Significance can be harmed or lost through alteration or destruction of the heritage asset or development within its setting. As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification.

6.20. Paragraphs 133-134 advise that where a proposed development will lead to substantial harm to or total loss of significance of a designated heritage asset, consent should be refused, unless it can be demonstrated that it is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss Where a development proposal will lead to less than substantial harm, this should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal, including securing its optimum viable use.

6.21. Paragraph 138 identifies that not all elements of a Conservation Area will necessarily contribute to its significance. Loss of a building (or other element) which makes a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area should be treated either as substantial or less than substantial harm (in accordance with the above).

6.22. The UDP, at paragraph 3.20, emphasises the importance of Birmingham’s historic legacy and identifies that “redundant historic buildings offer a range of opportunities for conversion to new uses and can be an important focus for wider urban regeneration schemes”. It also states that designated Conservation Areas “will continue to provide a powerful means of preserving the best of our historic and architectural heritage and within these areas … “the emphasis will be on protecting and enhancing the individual character and appearance of the particular area”. Paragraph 3.22 states that “proposals which would adversely affect buildings or areas of architectural interest will not normally be allowed.

6.23. Paragraph 3.27 requires that development within a conservation area should preserve or enhance its character and “the demolition of buildings or removal of trees or other landscape features which make a positive contribution … will be resisted”.

6.24. Objections were raised by your Conservation Officer in respect of the original submission. Whilst he had no objection to the proposed use or the principle some development within the grounds, he expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on the conservation area and the building itself. The original plans did not accurately reflect the building’s proportions/details, the proposals involved the

Page 16 of 24 unnecessary loss of surviving architectural details/historic stabling, and the proposed replacement stable block building was considered to be over-dominant/out of character. As such, the original submission was recommended for refusal.

6.25. Historic England also objected to the original scheme, recommending refusal and re- design. It was considered that the proposal would cause serious harm to the Conservation Area. The scheme did not demonstrate an adequate conservation approach (loss of windows, roofscapes, entrances etc.) – existing openings should be re-used and historic features maintained/repaired. No objection was raised to the single storey entrance extension to the side (subject to maintenance of historic fabric behind), or to principle of new buildings in rear garden (although annex building considered too close to rear of existing). Objection to demolition of stable block – should be integrated into scheme and proposed replacement too dominant.

6.26. The proposal has subsequently been amended following a series of discussions with Historic England and your Conservation Officer. The revised proposal shows the retention/conversion of the original stable block (in the position of a far more substantial extension previously proposed in this position) and retention of original features, including historic openings and timber sash windows.

6.27. Historic England have acknowledged that their comments have been taken on board in the amended scheme and, as such, have withdrawn their objection. They advise that the revised scheme will not cause serious harm to the significance of the conservation area, and may enhance it through conservation of the external appearance of the house at its centre. Your Conservation Officer concurs with this view. Conditions are recommended to require details of e.g. new roof dormers.

Scale, Layout and Design

6.28. Paragraph 56 of the NPPF states that “The Government attaches great importance to the design of the built environment. Good design is a key aspect of sustainable development, is indivisible from good planning, and should contribute positively to making places better for people.” Policies in the Birmingham UDP, Places for Living SPG, Places for All SPG and Mature Suburbs SPD also give significant weight to achieving high quality design which recognises local character and distinctiveness.

6.29. The proposal was the subject of ongoing discussions with City Council Officers prior to its formal submission and has been significantly amended as a result. Further alterations have been made during the course of the consideration of this application in response to concerns raised by Historic England and your Conservation Officer (discussed above). Changes to the scheme include: retention of the stable block and removal of 1st and 2nd floor accommodation in this position; retention of existing window openings wherever possible and reduction in the number of new openings (including dormer windows); retention of existing elements such as chimney stacks, dormer windows and other architectural features.

6.30. The amended scheme minimises the alterations proposed to the existing building. As a result there would be limited impact on the property/street scene and the proposed conversion is considered acceptable.

6.31. In addition, the 3 storey annex block has been sited/designed to be sympathetic to the existing building and surrounding area. Properties within the locality are generally characterised as sitting within spacious plots and particular concerns have been raised with regards to development within the rear garden (contrary to the advice

Page 17 of 24 contained within ‘Mature Suburbs’ SPD). However, the property is not reflective of most others in the immediate vicinity in that it is of a larger scale, reflective of its former institutional use and I consider that the grounds are sufficiently large to enable the incorporation of the additional building as a perceived ‘extension’ to the existing, without significantly impacting on the substantial landscaped grounds that would be retained around it.

6.32. In addition, the adjacent site was until recently occupied by another institutional building (Bourn House care home). This building had a substantial footprint, which extended westwards into the site beyond the line of what is now proposed at Beechenhurst. This adjacent site has now been cleared and is currently being redeveloped with 4 houses. One of these new plots would be sited in what were originally the grounds of the care home (albeit with a direct frontage to Bournbrook Road to the rear). As such, I consider that a precedent exists for allowing development extending into the rear grounds at this particular site.

Impact on Adjacent Occupiers

6.33. Concerns have been expressed by local residents about the impact of the proposed alterations/extensions on existing residential amenity, including loss of privacy and over-bearing impact.

6.34. In terms of the relationship to the existing houses opposite across Serpentine Road, the only external alteration of significance in this regard is the proposed introduction of two small dormer windows within the existing roof slope on this side. However, these would be more than 35m from the nearest window of the facing property (and approximately 27m from the front of its curtilage). Particularly having regard to the existing/proposed tree planting across the front of the site, I consider that there would be no significant impact on the level of privacy currently enjoyed by residents of these existing properties.

6.35. Similarly, the dormer windows proposed on the north end of the building would be more than 18m from the side boundary with the adjacent site (currently being redeveloped for housing). Those on the south side face towards the blank side wall and front drive of no. 30, being 13.5m and 10.5m from the boundary respectively.

6.36. The proposed annex would be three storeys high (plus basement). It has been sited towards the north end of the existing building, but is still centrally located within the plot. As such, at its closest point, it would be a minimum of 20m from the southern boundary, 12.3m from the northern boundary and 16m to the rear. The building has been designed to be inward facing – with the windows to the majority of study bedrooms looking onto the proposed landscaped grounds on the south side. Any windows less than 15m from a boundary would serve circulation space only, including the main stair core and corridors. A condition is recommended to require the stair core to be obscure glazed on its north side.

6.37. The development currently under construction on the adjacent site has houses fronting onto Serpentine Road and Bournbrook Road (to the rear), with no side windows facing the application site in the position of the annex block. As such, there are no privacy issues in this respect.

6.38. Objections have also been received on the grounds of an adverse impact resulting from additional noise and external lighting. I acknowledge that the proposal would result in a significant increase in the number of people living at/visiting the site and that there are concerns about the perceived behaviour of ‘typical’ students. However,

Page 18 of 24 the proposal is for a residential use and, in the absence of any objections from your Environmental Protection Officer, I do not consider that the proposal could appropriately be resisted on the grounds of any undue disturbance that may result. A condition is recommended to require the submission of lighting details, in order to control appearance, orientation and luminance levels.

Living Conditions for Prospective Occupiers

6.39. The Council’s Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG (1992) recommends that a single bedroom within purpose built student accommodation should measure a minimum of 6.5sqm in size. Each proposed studio would have an internal floorspace of between 21.8sqm and 43.1sqm, and the bedrooms within the 2 bed unit would measure approximately 17sqm and 26sqm. As such, I consider that internal living space is of an acceptable size, particularly given the additional communal facilities on offer and bearing in mind the close proximity of the University campus (where there are numerous venues/opportunities to either study/socialise). In addition, the generous landscaped setting for the development would provide a significantly enhanced living environment.

Ecology

6.40. Your Ecologist notes and accepts the findings of the submitted Bat and Protected Species Survey , which shows that there is minimal / no potential for bats within the buildings but did highlight one tree that showed some potential for bat roosting. This tree is indicated as being retained on the landscape plans and, as such your Ecologist has raised no objection to the proposal in this respect (although he recommends that an updated survey be undertaken if any delay in implementing the proposal beyond March 2016.

6.41. The grounds have been regularly maintained and no evidence of other protected species was found. The submitted survey identified remnants of bird nests in one of the outbuildings and it is considered that there may be potential for nesting elsewhere in the surrounding vegetation. As such, it is recommended that any clearance of vegetation should take place outside of the main bird nesting season – March to September (or a pre-clearance check made by a competent Ecologist).

6.42. Your Ecologist recommends that some suitable hole fronted nest boxes would be a welcome addition and mitigate somewhat for any loss of nesting provision resulting from the removal/ renovation of the buildings and vegetation. The Landscape Design Statement indicates that there will be additional screening planting around the boundary of the site. Where possible this should include tree and shrub species that are beneficial to wildlife through their flowering or fruiting. Your Ecologist suggests that areas of open ground under the canopy of trees could be enhanced using a woodland wildflower mix or the use of native bulbs. It is noted that the ‘fitness suite’ building in the grounds shows a Green Roof. This would be a valuable addition to the site and provides an ideal opportunity for a large area of planting suitable for pollinating insects. Your Ecologist advises that an ecological enhancement strategy, based on the comments above, would be beneficial an appropriate condition is recommended to secure this.

Trees/Landscaping

6.43. Your Tree Officer advises that there have been problems in the past with unauthorised tree removals at this site and that the requirement for a replacement oak tree in the south-east corner of the site is now reflected in this proposal. He has

Page 19 of 24 also confirmed that more recent considerations and actions on site have been in full consultation with the City Council. Some tree removal is required, including a large beech on the frontage (as a result of a fungal disease) and an ash (in order to accommodate the proposals). Replacement/additional tree planting is proposed, including a semi-mature beech. Your Tree Officer raises no objection, on balance, and recommends approval subject to safeguarding conditions.

6.44. A Landscape Design Statement, layout and planting plans have been provided. These show large areas of green space, with lit paths between buildings and some ‘formal’ spaces, including terraces immediately adjacent to the house/annex block. Buffer planting is proposed to the southern, western and northern boundaries – primarily native shrub and tree planting to provide screening and soften the edges of the development. Tree planting here would include Field Maple, Wild Cherry, Hawthorn and Common Oak. Larger growing specimens – Beech and Lime – are proposed to the street frontage, with smaller trees (selected more for architectural interest) located in the ‘formal’ areas. Your Landscape Officer raises no objection in principle, but requests the imposition of conditions to allow for further discussions in respect of the detailed landscape scheme.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider that the development of the site for purpose-built student accommodation would be acceptable in principle, given this is a brownfield site in a highly sustainable location in close proximity to the University of Birmingham campus. Your Transportation Officer is satisfied with the approach that would be adopted in respect of parking provision and considers that a financial contribution would allow for adequate mitigation should the development result in any unacceptable impact on nearby residential streets.

7.2. The scale and appearance of the proposal, in its amended form, would be acceptable and in keeping with the character of the surrounding area, and the development would provide a high quality living environment for future occupiers. There would be no harm to the amenity of existing neighbouring occupiers through loss of outlook/privacy or unacceptable impact as a result of additional noise associated with the proposed use. The proposal would support the function of the University of Birmingham as a key provider of employment, culture and learning in the City. As such, I consider the proposal would constitute sustainable development and recommend that planning permission is granted.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

I. That consideration of application no. 2015/05416/PA be deferred pending the completion of a suitable Section 106 legal agreement to require:

a) A contribution of £18,328 (index linked to construction costs from the date of the Committee resolution to the date on which payment is made) to be paid prior to the implementation of the approved development. The fund would be used for parking and traffic monitoring and/or minor highway works and maintenance thereof and/or traffic regulation orders, local highway improvement measures in Serpentine Road, Selly Park Road, Bournbrook Road, Elmdon and Oakfield Road.

Page 20 of 24

b) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement of £1,500.

II. In the event of the above Section 106 Legal Agreement not being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 21st December 2015, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason:-

a) In the absence of a financial contribution towards parking and traffic monitoring and/or minor highway works and maintenance thereof and/or traffic regulation orders, local highway improvement measures in Serpentine Road, Selly Park Road, Bournbrook Road, Elmdon and Oakfield Road the proposal would conflict with Paragraphs 8.51-8.53 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, the Wider Selly Oak SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

III. That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the appropriate Section 106 Legal agreement.

IV. In the event of the S106 Legal Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 21st December 2015 favourable consideration be given to application no. 2015/05416/PA, subject to the conditions listed below:

1 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

2 Requires the prior submission of a scheme for ecological/biodiversity/enhancement measures

3 Requires the prior submission of dormer window/window frame details

4 Requires the prior submission of details of balconies

5 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

6 Requires the prior submission of hard and/or soft landscape details

7 Requires the prior submission of earthworks details

8 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

9 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

10 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

11 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

12 Requires the prior submission of details of green/brown roofs

13 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

14 Requires the prior submission of level details

Page 21 of 24 15 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

16 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

17 Arboricultural Method Statement - Submission Required

18 Requires tree pruning protection

19 No approval given to boundary treatments indicated

20 Requires the prior submission details obscure glazing for specific areas of the approved building

21 Requires tree removal outside the nesting season

22 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Alison Powell

Page 22 of 24 Photo(s)

Front (Serpentine Road) Elevation

Rear of Property

Page 23 of 24 Location Plan

Page 24 of 24 Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 21 January 2016

Appeal Decisions Received from the Planning Inspectorate in December 2015

CATEGORY ADDRESS USE DECISION TYPE PROCEDURE

Enlargements to dwelling house comprising 30 Noel Road, Written Enforcement extension to side and rear Dismissed Enf Edgbaston Representations dormer window. 2015/0354/ENF

Retention of existing gates 16 Blackroot Road, Written Householder and piers to front Dismissed Delegated Sutton Coldfield Representations boundary. 2015/06012/PA

Erection of two storey and 103 Robin Hood single storey side and rear Written Householder Dismissed Delegated Lane, Hall Green extensions. Representations 2015/06791/PA

Retention of single storey 69 Craythorne Written Householder rear extension. Dismissed Delegated Avenue, Handsworth Representations 2015/04303/PA

Display of one internally Ackers Residential illuminated 96 sheet Written Advertisement Centre, Small Heath Dismissed Delegated advertising panel. Representations Highway 2015/03118/PA

32 Lomaine Drive, Erection of one dwelling Written Residential Land adjacent to, Dismissed Delegated house. 2014/07891/PA Representations Kings Norton

Demolition of existing public house building and clearance of site. Former Hare & Redevelopment to provide Allowed Hounds PH, Written Residential 34 new residential units (see note 1 Committee Kingstanding Road, Representations (16 houses and 18 flats) attached) Kingstanding together with parking and associated infrastructure. 2014/08371/PA

Allowed 34 Tenbury Road, Erection of one dwelling Written Residential (see note 2 Delegated Rear of, Kings Heath house. 2015/01773/PA Representations attached)

Page 1 of 2 Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 21 January 2016

Appeal Decisions Received from the Planning Inspectorate in December 2015

CATEGORY ADDRESS USE DECISION TYPE PROCEDURE

Demolition of existing two storey building and erection of 5 apartments 1b Reservoir Road, with undercroft parking, Written Residential Dismissed Delegated Selly Oak cycle storage and Representations associated external and landscape work. 2014/09052/PA

Change of use to a day Allowed 117 Soho Hill, Written Other nursery (Use Class D1). (see note 3 Delegated Hockley Representations 2015/04592/PA attached)

Change of use from 6 bedroom HMO (Use Class 563 Kingsbury Road, Written Other C4) to 7 bedroom HMO Dismissed Delegated Erdington Representations (Sui Generis). 2015/02198/PA

Retention of existing shisha lounge (Sui MCC House, Warner Written Other Generis) and part change Dismissed Delegated Street, Highgate Representations of use to restaurant (Use Class A3). 2015/04611/PA

Total - 12 Decisions: 9 Dismissed (75%), 3 Allowed

Cumulative total from 1 April 2015 - 83 Decisions: 65 Dismissed (78%), 16 Allowed, 2 Part Allowed

Page 2 of 2 Notes relating to appeal decisions received in December 2015

Note 1 (Former Hare & Hounds PH)

Application refused because 1) The proposed development would adversely affect the amenity of residential occupiers of Rushden Croft by reason of noise and disturbance as a result of the additional traffic using Rushden Croft as the primary vehicular access to the development. 2) The design and layout of the scheme would be out of character with the surrounding area. 3) The additional level of traffic generated by the proposed scheme could not be satisfactorily accommodated within Rushden Croft. This would therefore prejudice the safety and free flow of pedestrian and vehicular traffic on Rushden Croft.

Appeal allowed because the Inspector concluded that 1) The increase in noise as a result of traffic generated by the proposed development would be minimal and would not therefore result in a significant adverse impact on health or quality of life. 2) The scale, design and materials of the proposed development would be in keeping with their surroundings and would not cause any harm to the character and appearance of the area. 3) The development would not have an adverse effect on the operation of the highway and would not result in harm to highway or pedestrian safety.

Note 2: (34 Tenbury Road)

Application refused because the proposed dwelling by virtue of its overall design, scale and massing and unduly small size of plot would result in an incongruous, unsympathetic and overly dominant addition to the street scene that would be out of character with the surrounding area and detrimental to the visual amenity of the surrounding area and occupiers.

Appeal allowed because the Inspector considered that although the design of the proposed dwelling would be different in appearance to its immediate neighbours, it would not appear out of keeping with the overall character of the street scene, and although the plot size would be substantially smaller than those of neighbouring properties, it would not be discernible to public views.

Note 3 (117 Soho Hill)

Application refused because the proposed facilities for the picking up and dropping- off of children by motor vehicle are inadequate. As such, the proposed use is likely to result in increased instances of unlawful and inconsiderate parking on Soho Hill (a primary 'A' classified road) and/or parking and U-turn manoeuvring in Park Avenue, to the detriment of pedestrian and vehicle safety.

Appeal allowed because the Inspector considered that with the imposition of conditions requiring an amended car park layout and a parking management strategy the proposal would not result in any undue harm to highway safety.

The appellant’s application for an award of costs was dismissed.

BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

Appendix

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION

PLANNING COMMITTEE 21st January 2015

Draft Stirchley Supplementary Planning Document (SPD)

1.0 Subject and Brief Summary of Proposals

1.1 This report seeks Planning Committee’s views on the draft Stirchley SPD which has been produced to guide development, primarily in and around Stirchley District Centre.

1.2 This SPD will bring the City Council’s land use polices for Stirchley up to date and in line with the National Planning Policy Framework. Its adoption will help secure investment in this local centre and outline the Council’s aspirations for the strategically important development sites in the area.

2.0 Recommendation

2.1 That the contents of the report and the results of consultation to date are noted and that Planning Committee supports the overall direction and guidance contained within the SPD. Planning Committee is also invited to make comments on the draft SPD.

3.0 Contact Officer

John Richardson, Planning and Regeneration

Tel: 0121 303 7954

Email: [email protected] 4.0 Background

4.1 Local planning policy for Stirchley is currently contained within the Stirchley Framework, which has steered development since its adoption in 1994 and update in 2002. Over the intervening years, many of its proposals have been successfully implemented. However, circumstances have changed and new development opportunities have presented themselves, prompting a review and update; this draft SPD is the result of that review.

4.2 The significance of Stirchley as a location for investment was established in the Birmingham Plan (UDP, saved 2008) and the principle of investment in the centre is supported by policy TP20 in the Birmingham Development Plan Pre-submission version (2013).

4.3 Building upon the overall guidance provided by the strategic policy documents and the earlier Stirchley Framework, the SPD is intended primarily to set out a strategy for realising the potential of the area. It:

• Sets out a vision for the transformation of Stirchley. • Highlights the key development opportunities / sites (some of which are identified in the UDP). • Sets out policies to guide development, and assist in the determination of planning applications, to ensure development coming forward contributes to the overall vision. • Encourages investment in Stirchley, to secure the co-ordinated and comprehensive regeneration of the area. • Provides a framework to support bids for funding.

4.4 The draft plan sets out a number of key projects / policies

• A regenerated central heart to Stirchley including the development of land at Hazelwell Lane for a retail led mixed use development and investment in the existing shops to support a mix of retailers including independent shops • The development of other major sites including employment led mixed use on the Arvin Meritor Site, residential at 1650 Pershore Road and at Ten Acres on Pershore Road and further healthcare uses at St Andrew’s on Dogpool Lane • A series of environmental and traffic and accessibility improvements including o New and improved linkages between the Pershore Road and the River Rea o Improved traffic flows along the Pershore Road with improvements to the public realm o Improved links and signposting to Bournville rail station and the canal. • Key priorities for new investment will include protecting existing jobs and creating new jobs, protecting the unique characteristics of the area including the variety of the employment offer and the environmental and historical assets of the area.

4.5 The draft SPD sets the vision and the City Council’s aspirations for the area, in a realistic and deliverable framework for the next 10-20 years.

5.0 Consultation

5.1 The draft SPD has been the subject of extensive public consultation during the summer/autumn of 2015 including presentations to the Neighbourhood Forum and staffed exhibitions in the area. 5.2 The most common comments received are as follows:

• Support for the plan and its vision, and a strong desire to see investment in the area.

• Support for investment in the centre, with respondents saying that support is needed for local shops, in particular strong support for independent shops. However concerns at delay with Tesco scheme.

• Support for local employment however, owners/agents for Arvin Meritor site wish to promote a more flexible approach to the site to allow other uses including retail, and residential.

• Desire to see investment to regenerate the Ten Acres area. This includes support for expansion of St Andrews healthcare and residential development to the west of Pershore Road. (N.B. the EA has serious concerns over housing on land east of Pershore Road. This is in flood zones 2 and 3 and would require major flood prevention measures on the Rea and Bourne before residential development could be considered).

• Support in principle for public transport etc. more/better parking needed for shoppers and further junction improvements needed.

• More housing needed of mixed size and tenure.

• Investment in public spaces needed, with support for policies that protect the areas’ heritage and green spaces.

5.3 The draft SPD is being revised in light of the comments received.

5.4 This report seeks the views of Planning Committee on the revised SPD as part of our statutory consultation, prior to seeking adoption by Cabinet.

6.0 Legal Implications

6.1 The relevant legal powers for undertaking public consultation and implementing the policies set out in the draft SPD are contained in the Town & Country Planning (Local Planning) (England ) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

7.0 Financial Implications

7.1 The staff and resource costs associated with the preparation of the draft plan, undertaking the statutory public consultation and the subsequent adoption of the SPD have been provided for within the existing Planning and Regeneration revenue budget. There are no other financial implications for the City arising out of the contents of this report.

8.0 Implications for Policy Priorities

8.1 The proposals are in compliance with the Council’s aspirations to deliver economic growth in the city. The draft document has been prepared in the context of the Birmingham Plan (UDP), the draft Birmingham Development Plan and the Council’s Business Plan.

9.0 Implications for Equalities

9.1 An initial equalities screening & consultation has been undertaken to assess the need for a full Equalities Assessment (EA) (Appendix 3 - EA executive summary). This screening has determined that a full EA is not required due to the safeguards built in to the statutory consultation and planning approval processes. Any views that arise out of the consultation will be taken into account in the adopted SPD.

10.0 Background Papers

Stirchley Framework 1994 (updated 2002)

Waheed Nazir

Director of Planning and Regeneration

Stirchley Framework Draft Supplementary Planning Document

May 2015 Contact Planning and Regeneration Economy Directorate Birmingham City Council

Click: E-mail: [email protected]

Call: Telephone: (0121) 303 7954

Visit: Office: 1 Lancaster Circus Birmingham B4 7DJ

Post: PO Box 28 Birmingham B1 1TU

You can ask for a copy of this document in large print, another format or another language. We aim to supply what you need within ten working days. Call (0121) 303 7954 If you have hearing difficulties please call us via Typetalk 18001 0121 303 7954 or e-mail us at the address above.

Plans contained within this document are based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.

Foreword 3

Vision 4

Introduction 6

Development principles 8 Growth Public space and connectivity Community facilities and open spaces Design and heritage assets Sustainability

The opportunity 18

Development opportunities 20 North Stirchley (Ten Acres) Central Stirchley Southern Stirchley

Delivery 26

Glossary 30

contents / stirchley supplementary planning document 2

stirchley supplementary planning document / foreword Foreword 3

Stirchley has one of the largest district centres in the City, it is well served by public transport, has good access to major employers and it is a popular area to live.

With major development sites available and other opportunities for investment, there is potential for positive change to revitalise the shopping centre, bring an increase in employment prospects and prosperity to Stirchley and improve the quality of life for all. The time has come to capitalise on this potential.

The Stirchley Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) has been prepared to provide planning and development guidance to maximise the potential of Stirchley district centre and the surrounding area.

The transformation of Stirchley into a thriving sustainable retail, residential and commercial/industrial area for local people and businesses will require a co-ordinated effort by landowners and developers, the Council, local residents, community organisations and public and private sector partners, working together to deliver this vision over the next 5-10 years.

This SPD has been produced as the basis for public consultation. Its purpose is to both encourage new investment into Stirchley and to protect and enhance its vibrancy and viability.

We welcome your views on this draft document as these will help us to finalise the SPD before it is formally adopted.

Councillor Tahir Ali Cabinet Member for Development, Transport and the Economy Birmingham City Council

foreword / stirchley supplementary planning document 4 Vision

The regeneration of Stirchley is a key aspiration for Birmingham City Council.

At the heart of Stirchley, there will The centre itself has the potential be a revitalised district centre with to become one of south new retail provision in larger stores. Birmingham’s most important These will complement existing and sustainable district centres new independent and specialist with a strong mix of retail and shops in an attractive centre. The employment opportunities centre will be supported by its local performing on a par with Kings community, with traders feeling Heath and Harborne, Stirchley their investment in a quality retail will match the vibrancy of these offer is a reason for seeking them successful neighbourhoods. out, with visitors coming from a wide area to use the centre. To achieve this will involve:

New investment throughout the • Managing the private and area including sites at Hazelwell public sector investment that is Lane, the former Arvin Meritor site, needed to bring about change, Dogpool Lane as well as smaller ensuring sites coming forward for sites will create new employment, development contribute to the new housing and retail and breathe vision. new life into local businesses and the district centre. • Improving the attractiveness and vitality of the retail centre through All new developments and existing/ public realm improvements retained buildings will contribute to and enhancing the pedestrian the street scene by presenting the experience. very best design, reflecting the rich • Protecting and enhancing the architectural heritage of the area. special historic and ecological Retaining these distinctive features character of the area, with and investment in refurbishing investment in its heritage and character buildings will contribute green assets. to the enrichment of the public realm of the area. • Promoting and enhancing the employment offer in the area Stirchley will have better by attracting investment and connections; bus stops, and priority endorsing local employment for pedestrians will be improved, measures. with more provision made for travel by bike. The contribution of • W orking with businesses e.g. Bournville station to the area will supporting the Lifford Business be made obvious with improved Association in promoting a BID signage. (Business Improvement District) group along the Pershore Road. With improvements in the public realm, community and leisure assets and transport connections; Stirchley will become a more attractive place to live and visit with a vibrant, sustainable future.

stirchley supplementary planning document / vision 5

vision / stirchley supplementary planning document 6 Introduction

Stirchley SDP covers a neighbourhood of local shops, housing and employment in south Birmingham about 6km south of the city centre. Stirchley is mainly situated in Bournville Ward, partially in Selly Oak Ward. The plan area of approximately 100ha extends from Ten Acres in the north to Breedon Cross in the south (see Plan 1).

In the heart of the area is a linear The National Planning Policy a need to improve its environment shopping centre stretching along Framework and enhance its shopping function, the A441 for just over 1km. One The NPPF outlines that the purpose and that the centre is in need of of the main district centres in the of the planning system is to achieve investment to enhance its status. south of Birmingham, Stirchley is sustainable development. a focal point for community life with a wide range of independent The three strands relevant to Shopping and Local Centres SPD shops, services and community Stirchley are: • Defines the boundaries of facilities. Surrounding the centre • Building a strong, responsive and Stirchley District Centre. are bulky goods retail units, clusters competitive economy. of employment sites and residential • Defines the Primary Shopping areas. • Supporting strong, vibrant, Area (PSA) where the main retail healthy communities. uses are concentrated. Close to Bournville rail station, the area has good bus connections and • Protecting and enhancing • Sets out policies for the is within easy access of significant the natural, built and historic composition of district centres employment opportunities at the environment. including the maximum/minimum Cadbury factory, the University percentages for various use types. of Birmingham and the Queen The Submission Birmingham Elizabeth Hospital complex, the Development Plan proposed Life Sciences Campus SPD Status in Selly Oak (one of the City’s key This sets out a clear spatial This draft SPD adds detail to, Economic Zones) and Longbridge. framework for the growth of the Submission Birmingham Birmingham up to 2031. It identifies Development Plan, the City’s Stirchley is a unique place. It retains a hierarchy of centres, sets out Unitary Development Plan (UDP) much of its historic character and policies to protect and enhance and other city-wide policies, and buildings. It is characterised by a centres and promotes a diverse has been written to conform mix of uses with small-scale retail range of uses in centres. to the National Planning Policy and industrial premises surrounded Framework (NPPF). Once adopted Regeneration and redevelopment by attractive residential areas, open it will replace the existing Stirchley within Stirchley centre and its spaces and important ecological Framework (1994 revised 2002). adjoining area will reflect the assets such as the River Rea valley, various thematic policies of the the Worcester and Birmingham When adopted this SPD will plan and focus on place making, canal and the rail line. There are a become a material consideration improving the quality of the public number of industrial areas along and will provide guidance to realm and the natural environment. the canal, rail line and river, which support the determination of historically provided transport and planning applications. power. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan The transformation for Stirchley This plan sets the current outlined within this SPD builds framework for development in the upon the proposals and policies area. The Birmingham Plan (UDP) outlined in the National Planning was adopted in 2005. Paragraph Policy Framework, Submission 20.35 acknowledges that Stirchley Birmingham Development Plan and shopping centre has an important Unitary Development Plan 2005 role in providing for the day to day (saved 2008). needs of the community. There is

stirchley supplementary planning document / introduction 7

Selly Park Road

Dogpool Lane

Umberslade Road Pershore Road

Cartland Road

Bournville Lane

Bournville Station

Pershore Road

FordhouseLane

KEY SPD Boundary Rail lines Canal n River NORTH NOT TO SCALE

Plan 1 Location

introduction / stirchley supplementary planning document 8 Development principles

Stirchley has opportunities for new investment in retail, leisure uses, offices, residential, services, employment and community facilities; together with the potential for improved connectivity with the rail station and the green corridors of the canal and River Rea.

sustainable district centre with a more than 45% of units within the Growth vibrant core. primary shopping area of Stirchley Retail context centre should be non (A1) retail, Stirchley was once the eighth High quality urban design will also no more than 10% within the largest shopping centre in be essential to integrate new centre as a whole being in (A5) hot Birmingham (by floorspace) but it development with the centre. The food takeaway use. has since lost a significant amount largely Victorian streetscape will be of retailing. It is defined as a enhanced as a valuable character Retail development in Stirchley medium-sized district centre. asset in the new Stirchley. To centre improve the visual appeal of the New retail led developments are In line with the UDP and the high street suitable investment in encouraged and should normally Submission Birmingham the public realm, better public car be located in the Primary Shopping Development Plan a major retail parking and sympathetic shop front Area (PSA). A prime example, led mixed-use development (with improvements are needed. the Hazelwell Lane site provides planning consent), is planned an opportunity for retail led for the area around Hazelwell Two key policies in the Shopping mixed use development to aid Lane. This will be the largest new and Local Centres SPD are relevant the regeneration of this part of development in Stirchley for many to the type of retail growth Stirchley. years and will trigger a renaissance encouraged. These are that no in the area.

This should see investment in the wider area with a reuse of vacant retail units and redevelopment of underused sites. This could include investment by the merging of some units by national chains or franchises.

At the same time the large number of independent retailers should be retained, and will be encouraged to grow in numbers, to give this district centre a unique shopping offer.

This mix of retailers from sole traders to multinationals will make Stirchley centre stronger and encourage investment by existing retailers.

Proposals will also seek to consolidate the retail offer into a more attractive Primary Shopping Area (in line with the Shopping and Local Centres SPD); this targeting of retail investment in the PSA will result in a smaller but more Pershore Road

stirchley supplementary planning document / development principles 9

Opportunities for group to various courtyard developments • The former Arvin Meritor works refurbishment schemes for retail to the rear of properties facing the off Fordhouse Lane. use and to create larger units Pershore Road. There are also a through the sensitive merging of number of large industrial buildings • The former Lifford Curve Public existing units (with suitable plot running along the canal between House on Fordhouse Lane. capacity) will be supported. The Mary Vale Road and Breedon retention and refurbishment of Cross/Lifford Lane to the south. Small scale office developments small and medium shops, to meet These existing businesses will be will be encouraged in the centre the needs of independent retailers, encouraged to remain as Stirchley and on the edge of centre in will be supported within the PSA. prospers. appropriate locations.

The vitality of the centre should Stirchley is well placed to meet Existing industrial and commercial not be compromised by allowing local employment needs in the sites should be retained in further loss of the retail opportunity south of the City, where there is a employment use to maintain the within the PSA by development for limited supply of good employment variety of Stirchley’s employment other non A Class uses (including land. With good road and public offer; and support the City’s need residential use). Proposals to bring transport access, Stirchley offers a for employment land. vacant shop units back into retail sustainable location for investment use will be encouraged. in employment. The plan area The employment of local people currently supports the employment will be encouraged. On larger Outside the Primary Shopping of around 1,000 to 1,400 people schemes developers will be Area and within centre boundary, in the various shops, offices and encouraged to sign a local proposals for reuse or conversion/ industrial units throughout the area; employment agreement, during redevelopment will be encouraged including the refurbished offices on the construction and subsequent for uses in keeping with a district Fordhouse Lane (Lifford House). operation, in conjunction with the centre e.g. services, leisure, office, Council’s Employment Access Team. health, community. The City Council is committed to maintaining a mix of employment Redevelopment for ground floor land to support a range of Housing context residential will also be permitted businesses including small and Most of Stirchley’s housing (62%) subject to appropriate design. medium size enterprises (SMEs). is made up of traditional Victorian Stirchley is well suited to meet this terraces with the bulk built between New developments should commitment and investment in 1891 and 1901, when there was a be in scale with surrounding these areas will be encouraged. twelve fold increase in the area’s development (two storeys), be population. integrated with the centre, maintain With growth in the healthcare sector around Dogpool Lane, an active frontage on the Pershore The houses in the area are largely the redevelopment of the former Road, and have upper floor uses in in good condition and young adults Arvin Meritor works and other sites keeping with the centre. are buying a number of these, due and the revitalisation of the high to the attractive prices and good street, Stirchley could support an transport links. Commercial, industrial and additional 500-600 jobs. employment context Stirchley has a large number of industrial and commercial Development for employment New housing development businesses in close proximity to the uses Stirchley has some potential sites centre. These companies occupy New industrial and commercial uses to provide additional attractive a variety of premises from the and employment led mixed-use housing in a sustainable location to more modern such as the Stirchley developments will be encouraged meet the City’s needs. Residential Trading Estate off Hazelwell Road, in the area, at these sites: accommodation is also encouraged

development principles / stirchley supplementary planning document as part of mixed-use schemes; There is scope to increase the Public space and 10 these would enhance the housing number of residential units at offer for the area. first floor level on the high street. connectivity This could bring a new vibrancy A high street with public spaces There are two sites with potential and security by improving natural The objective is for Stirchley high for residential development: surveillance. This is providing street to have a more pleasant • 1650 Pershore Road - (at the that care is taken to ensure that and viable shopping centre with corner of Lifford Lane) with the residential use is compatible with improvements in public realm and potential for attractive canal side existing neighbouring uses. a reallocation of road space to development. prioritise pedestrian movement. Proposals for, small residential This reallocation of space will • The former Whitmarley Works site schemes (less than 15 dwellings) also accommodate new public on Ivy Road due to the prevailing and infill developments should spaces and other areas for seating, residential nature of the road. reflect the design and mix of planting and cycle stands where housing in the area. Larger possible, in line with the aspirations New housing will also be schemes i.e. those with more than of Birmingham Connected, a encouraged elsewhere provided it 15 dwellings, (including residential vision for the future of transport in is not in the following locations: in mixed-use developments) should Birmingham. • The Primary Shopping Area. have a mix of dwelling type size and tenure with a minimum of 35% Improvements to the environment • Employment sites. affordable housing. While retaining would provide a more attractive the scale and massing of local high street for shoppers, with • Flood zones 2 and 3. development. improved facilities and safety for cyclists and pedestrians and generally provide a stimulus to further investment by traders through a BID. Some of this investment will come from the Local Sustainable Transport Fund (Government funding programme) and upgrading/renewal as part of the council’s PFI with Amey, while the rest could be funded by developer contributions.

Improvements to the urban realm on the high street are welcomed, to encourage pedestrian use and increase shopper dwell time. These could include new public spaces such as street parks/public squares/plazas (and pedestrian crossings in the PSA). These will make Stirchley a more welcome place to visit. Improvements should also accommodate attractive and convenient bus stopping facilities throughout the area.

For example:

• The ‘pocket parks’ outside 1219- 1239 Pershore Road.

• The new public square associated with the Tesco development.

Encouraging sustainable transport The objective is to ease travel across the whole plan area Local housing by improving linkages - from

stirchley supplementary planning document / development principles residential, retail and employment • Improvements to the River Rea Public transport areas to - walking routes, cycle corridor. This is an important The Stirchley area has good public 11 paths and public transport. green link between Digbeth and transport links, with the adjacent Longbridge in the southwest; it Bournville rail station and a number In particular, opportunities should offers a pleasant break from the of bus services. There is however be taken for improved walking and busy Pershore Road for walkers a lack of car parking at Bournville cycling connections to Bournville and cyclists. However, this route station to support park and ride station, the canal and the River Rea. would benefit from improved for the area. Should a suitable signposting, access routes and site come forward it could bring Sustainable forms of transport new crossing points. considerable benefits for the area should be encouraged to reduce with greater connectivity. The dependency on the motor car. Developers may be asked to provision of a cycle hub/cycle provide new access routes and parking near the station would also contribute to improvements to benefit the area especially if links Walking and cycling existing facilities, signposting, to the millennium cycle route and This plan seeks to encourage linkages and pedestrian/cycle canal towpath were strengthened. walking by providing new and access. improved routes; ensuring new Parking and loading development is easily accessible Routes should be attractive, safe Car parking and loading in the on foot, providing improved and legible, generally well lit and high street should be rationalised. pedestrian crossings and public overlooked from buildings. realm. In order to facilitate Where appropriate, on street parking and loading bays could pedestrian movement and improve Care will need to be taken that the be relocated in order to improve safety, new crossing points are ecological impacts of such changes conditions and safety for needed on main and side roads in are avoided or suitably mitigated. the shopping area. pedestrians.

Local cyclists and pedestrians benefit from the national cycle route No.5 (the Rea Valley Millennium Cycle Route). This potential of the River Rea and canal as safe cycling routes should be maximised with improved access, linkages and infrastructure. Improved routes for pedestrians and cyclists will be provided across the plan area. These will include the locations shown on Plan 2.

For example: • Signposting and links to (and between) Bournville rail station, the river Rea and canal.

• Improvements to the canal. The canal’s links with Stirchley need improvement to increase the accessibility of this important asset including the potential for freight use. Improved moorings, boating facilities including lighting of walkways and signposting near Bournville Station would encourage visits to the area by leisure boaters and improve the leisure value of the canal for other users.

River Rea

development principles / stirchley supplementary planning document In order to improve centre parking • Warwards Lane/Ribblesdale Community facilities and 12 overall, when off-street car parking Road/Pershore Road. is provided as part of any major open spaces retail/mixed-use development, • Cartland Road (Bourn Bridge)/ Stirchley benefits from a number developers will be expected to: Pershore Road. of social and community venues • Provide parking for shoppers including a public library, sporting, using other shops in the Stirchley • Fordhouse Lane/Pershore Road. games and leisure facilities, parks area. and green space, health facilities, • Lifford Lane/Pershore Road. clubs, pubs, places of worship and • Include a car park management a vibrant community market. scheme. These may also include new pedestrian crossings on There is also scope for new facilities • Replace on-street parking surrounding roads. either as part of new developments removed by highway or by improvements to existing improvements required to Plans for the Hazelwell Lane/Tesco ones. facilitate the development. developments include the re- engineering of the road layout of • Provide cycle parking facilities. the Pershore Road/Hazelwell Street Community uses gyratory system. This new layout Uses such as healthcare, schools, Provision for off-street loading would still allow for northbound leisure and entertainment are vital will be encouraged in new traffic along Hazelwell Street while for a successful neighbourhood developments where appropriate. the Pershore Road would become and their continued presence in partly two way with traffic signals Stirchley will be supported. for pedestrian and vehicle access Junction and highway from the south to the store car Existing community uses will be improvements park, and a new public square supported and investment in new In order to reduce congestion and to the south of the Community and existing facilities encouraged, provide the road capacity increases Church. The design should include for example, work is in progress needed by new development; traffic calming/management and to bring the former Baths, next to traffic, cyclist and pedestrian safety environmental enhancement the Public Library, at the corner improvements may be required at measures to minimise the impact of Bournville Lane and Hazelwell the following junctions: of traffic, reduce traffic speed Street back in to community use • Dogpool Lane/St Stephens Road/ and allow easy safe access for to replace some of the community Pershore Road. pedestrians across roads. facilities on the Hazelwell Lane Site. The land for the Library and Baths was originally gifted by the Cadbury Family for community use and this ongoing investment will retain these buildings for future generations.

Promoting community initiatives The council seeks to support the provision of the community market and other community initiatives e.g. through design of public and private spaces to allow for these uses, and the community use of buildings.

Bournville Station and canal

stirchley supplementary planning document / development principles Public open spaces The Stirchley area benefits from 13 its suburban location by having a number of important green spaces and ecological assets. These include the currently underused Stirchley Park (behind Farmfoods and the Co Op), Hazelwell Park and adjoining allotments on the far bank of the Rea.

The proximity of the River Rea (with its nature and heritage trails), the Worcester & Birmingham Canal and other wildlife corridors together with these parks and allotments give Stirchley a considerable green offer for residents and visitors alike.

There are multiple benefits to be gained from protecting and enhancing Stirchley’s green space assets. These spaces promote health and well-being through air quality improvements and recreation opportunities; they promote urban quality and improve the area’s image and attractiveness.

In addition to their intrinsic value for wildlife (because of the ecosystems they provide), Mayfield Road Chapel these green assets also make a positive contribution to climate change adaptation; help to manage flood risk, help reduce the impact of urban storm water and • Public access, signposting, Design and heritage improve water quality. infrastructure (eg. seating, bins) and appropriate planting. assets The recreational and ecological The plans objective is for Stirchley potential of these sites should be Other measures that will be to become an area which retains maximised and improvements and encouraged include: a unique mix of high quality enhancements will be encouraged built heritage with enhanced as will the creation of new sites. • Reducing the impacts of public realm. It has a number of development on adjacent open listed buildings and buildings of Improvements in the following spaces and other established architectural or townscape value. areas will be supported: habitats. • The recreational and ecological Design that responds to the local value (of the open spaces) • Improving the over ground context including playing fields and play sections of the Bourn and River Stirchley has retained many of the facilities. Rea to provide amenity and features and building forms of reduce flood risk. its Victorian and Edwardian past. • Nature conservation, (including These are a positive asset for the retention and protection of • The incorporation of biodiversity rejuvenation of this area. important trees and other enhancements into new green habitats). infrastructure/building design. Their sympathetic treatment and i.e habitat creation and planting supporting sensitive, high quality • Green links and wildlife corridors schemes. design in new developments can (especially between the canal and help to promote a sense of place in the River Rea). Stirchley.

development principles / stirchley supplementary planning document In waterside developments, it is 14 expected that buildings should face the waterside where feasible to encourage natural surveillance, and include new planting to enhance the function of these wildlife corridors. Development should promote waterside walking, cycling and recreational activities on adjacent canal towpaths or by the Rea.

Realising heritage assets Retention and sympathetic reuse of heritage assets is expected in planned developments, in order to retain and enhance the historic character of Stirchley.

Like the retained Ten Acres Works’ frontage there are a number of buildings in the area worth retaining, these include: Millennium Cycle Route (River Rea) • The Dogpool Hotel. New large-scale retail led or mixed- • All building conversions • Three Horseshoes and British Oak use developments will be expected should ideally reflect the public houses. to be integrated with the centre local predominantly Victorian and maintain an active frontage vernacular, reinstating original • The Friends Meeting House on on Pershore Road and other road features where appropriate. Hazelwell Lane. frontages in order to provide legibility for the scheme, and • The design of shop fronts should • The Public Library and Baths. encourage the flow of customers to be in line with the Shopfronts and from the High Street. Design Guide SPG (or any replacement). The feasibility of retaining the former chapel building on Mayfield In order to promote local Road should also be explored. distinctiveness, in all developments: Public realm • Buildings’ scale, massing and When designing for the public Stirchley also has a number of type should reflect the local realm - new public spaces and archaeological finds and other context. The aim should be highways - should contain attractive assets on the historic environment to create a coherent, legible street furniture, hard and soft record ranging from stone axes to a urban form with a strong sense landscaping including trees where Roman road and the remains of the of place. Design factors will appropriate. New developments water mills that once dominated include existing site features and should ideally be permeable for the side of the Rea. buildings, the scale of streets, walkers, with access at grade from topography and views. The the Pershore Road. Public spaces Archaeological desk based prevailing fine grain aspect of the should contribute to a sense of assessments and field evaluations streetscape should be reflected in place. They should cater for the may be required when there are the development design. needs of all residents, provide proposals which impact on heritage for local pedestrian and cycle assets, including sites within 100m • Developments should respect movement. of the route of Icknield Street the road hierarchy and present (Roman Road). an active frontage to the street Waterside rather than be inward facing. With the canal, Rea and Bourn, This is especially important for water features represent a common developments in or adjacent thread and a unique selling point to the main shopping area to for Stirchley. There are several promote the vitality of the high potential waterside development street. opportunities.

stirchley supplementary planning document / development principles Sustainability • Flood alleviation works. Green assets, surrounded by wildlife corridors (the canal, the 15 Sustainability is central to • Easements to facilitate Bourn and the Rea which is also the way forward for Stirchley. maintenance access at a SLINC), and with a number of Developments will be expected appropriate locations. green spaces such as parks and to help realise this through the recreation grounds, Stirchley has application of these principles. • Reductions in surface water a rich biodiversity. Opportunities discharge through sustainable should be taken to strengthen this drainage systems. ‘green ring’ by: Sustainable transport • Improving or creating green Priority should be given to walking • Improvements to water quality. and cycling to access public open bridges (wildlife corridors, areas space, with local facilities and local of native planting or woodland) travel supported by good public between sites to allow for transport connections. Sustainable Urban Drainage foraging and migration, and Systems (SUDS) will be required enhancing the ecological quality Parking should be carefully planned for all developments, including and biodiversity of existing and more sustainable solutions arrangements for the long- habitats. term maintenance of SUDS such as car clubs and electric Creation of waterside spaces for infrastructure. • charging points considered. the enhancement of the wildlife corridors. As development proposals come forward the following should to be Nature Conservation and Developments which may impact implemented by employers and Biodiversity on (or be in the vicinity of) wildlife developers: Birmingham and the Black corridors or other green space Country is one of the first 12 assets will require an Ecological • Travel management plans ‘Nature Improvement Areas’ Assessment (Biodiversity Survey (including promotion of public (NIA) in England. With a network and Report) as part of any planning transport for work and leisure). of wildlife corridors and Sites application. of Local Importance for Nature Where possible, the introduction of • Provision of cycle parking/ Conservation (SLINC), the key street trees into the public realm, storage. priorities are to protect and in new public plazas and as part enhance the areas rich biodiversity, of site development should take • Provision of electric vehicle which will contribute to NIA place. recharging parking bays and objectives. infrastructure.

Managing flood risk and improving water quality Flood risk assessments will be required when considering development proposals in areas susceptible to surface water flooding (most notably around Dogpool Lane/Ten Acres and the confluence of the Bourn and the Rea). These will include appropriate mitigation measures to address any issues identified and reductions in surface water discharge in line with the Strategic Flood Risk Assessment and the Birmingham Development Plan.

Opportunities for flood risk management and improvement of the River Rea the Bourn and Cotteridge Brook will be encouraged including: Lifford House

development principles / stirchley supplementary planning document Building codes Sustainable waste management 16 All new residential development should be incorporated from should meet lifetime homes the beginning of development standards, and should aim to be through sustainable demolition and zero carbon from 2016. construction techniques and the recycling of building waste. All non-residential built developments over 1,000sq.m Properties should have good floorspace or being developed on a recycling provision from the start site having an area of 0.5ha or more with facilities designed in where should meet BREEAM standard necessary. excellent. With scope for some large Climate change effects are likely developments in the area, there is a to lead to greater pressure on the significant opportunity for energy- City’s water resources. Population saving or generating technologies, growth in the City will further for example the use of multi- increase these pressures, so new fuel combined heat and power development will need to make and area heating in mixed use efficient use of water resources, developments. such as grey water recycling and water saving technologies like dual flush toilets and spray taps.

Bournville Market

stirchley supplementary planning document / development principles 17

Pershore Road 2

Cartland Road

5 Bournville Station

KEY SPD Boundary Stirchley Centre boundary

Primary shopping area Pershore Road 10 Listed Buildings 7 Locally Listed Buildings 9 SLINC Fordhouse Lane Wildlife corridor Rail lines/station

Canal

River 11 Development opportunity

Pedestrian access 8 improvements

Retail units with potential for consolidation Potential residential developments Potential junction improvements

Employment to be retained n New square NORTH NOT TO SCALE

Plan 2 Assets and aspirations

development principles / stirchley supplementary planning document 18 The opportunity

The area covered by this SPD has been divided into three zones, North Stirchley (Ten Acres), Central Stirchley and Southern Stirchley.

All three areas include streets of terraced housing and are linked by the both the Pershore Road and the River Rea. The river valley includes an important cycle and pedestrian route (the Rea Valley

Millennium Route) within a strategic

linear green space that connects the area with the city centre via Cannon Hill and Calthorpe Parks to the north and to the canal network in the south.

North Stirchley (Ten Acres) Building on recent investment in Ten Acres Mews and St Andrews Healthcare on Dogpool Lane, Stirchley’s northern gateway with the listed New Dogpool Hotel and Ten Acres Works frontage (Ten Acres Mews) has the scope to become a welcoming, bustling, mix of commercial, residential and healthcare developments.

Central Stirchley This area of Stirchley has the greatest potential for change with a large food store and mixed-use development planned for the Hazelwell Lane site. The spin-off from this development, and the investment it will attract, would have the potential to radically transform this area.

Southern Stirchley South of the main shopping area, there are still many small high street units with shops, and services either side of the Pershore Road. With a major development site on the east side and several bulky goods stores, there are also development opportunities here.

stirchley supplementary planning document / the opportunity 19

the opportunity / stirchley supplementary planning document 20 Development opportunities

Connectivity and public space Key outcomes North Stirchley At the junction of the Pershore • Improvements to the public realm (Ten Acres) Road and Dogpool Lane and St along the Pershore Road; will Stephens Road, Ten Acres is well Stirchley’s northern gateway has provide context for the heritage connected to Stirchley by frequent development potential for a mix assets of the New Dogpool Hotel bus services. of commercial, residential and and Ten Acres Works frontage. healthcare. Although adjacent to the Rea • Key landmark development for Valley the Ten Acres area has St Andrews Healthcare on the poor connectivity with the river. Growth former Kidderminster Carpets site Access to the valley is restricted and further expansion of existing Ten Acres Industrial Estate and to two points via Dogpool Lane facilities. adjoining area in the north and Bewdley Road 1. Ther e is scope to improve the in the south. Developments on • New and improved linkages Ten Acres Industrial Estate and the eastern side of the Pershore between the Pershore Road and the adjoining area (between Road would give opportunity the River Rea. the residential area and the for new links to and across the Rea) with further new light Rea to the housing beyond, and industrial and warehousing improve the existing access points. uses or extensions to existing Redevelopment of this area would businesses. also provide the opportunity to improve the public realm along 2. St Andrews Healthcare Pershore Road for example, have produced plans for an carriageway realignment, wider expansion of their existing pavements, and street trees. facilities, this would almost double their capacity and provide much needed flood Design and heritage assets Still partially lined by terraced alleviation works. These outline KEY plans would see development houses the road is narrower here SPD Boundary phased over a number of than other sections of the Pershore years bringing long vacant Road. Stirchley Centre boundary land back into productive Primary shopping area use and providing additional There is one locally listed building Listed Buildings employment in the area. and the remaining part of another; the Dogpool Hotel (Listed as the Locally Listed Buildings Hibernian Public House) and the Land to the south of Ten Acres SLINC Mews retained frontage of the Ten Acres Works. Both have seen recent Wildlife corridor 3. On the west side of Pershore investment with the refurbishment Rail lines/station Road the former scrap yard of the Dogpool Hotel and the could become a residential building of Ten Acres Mews behind Canal site. A high quality residential the works frontage. By reflecting River build in a pleasant environment, these historic buildings, new Development opportunity along the lines of Ten Acres developments will help to deliver a Mews, with a mix of tenures Pedestrian access positive sense of place for this area. improvements would enhance the area. Retail units with potential There is an identified risk of for consolidation 4. Ther e may also be some flooding to the east of Pershore potential for improvements Potential residential Road. Developments in this area developments to the residential offer to would need to introduce measures the east of Pershore Road Potential junction to reduce the risk, of flooding, improvements at this point if suitable flood to the south near the Bourn and alleviation measures were to be around Dogpool Lane. Employment to be retained undertaken. New square

stirchley supplementary planning document / developoment opportunities 21

• Improvements at the Dogpool Lane/St Stephens Road and Warwards Lane junctions with the Pershore Road.

• Residential redevelopment of the west side of Pershore Road, between Ten Acres Mews and Warwards Lane.

• Reduced risk of flooding from the Rea together with the opportunity for the creation of new habitats.

• Improved traffic flows on the Pershore Road at this point, with improvements to the public realm.

Pershore Road 2

n NORTH NOT TO SCALE

Plan 3 North Stirchley (Ten Acres) Cartland Road

developoment opportunities / stirchley supplementary planning document

5 Bournville Station

Pershore Road 10

9 Fordhouse Lane

8 Central Stirchley Stirchley Community Hub ground, and the housing estates beyond to the east. Maintaining 22 6. Plans are being implemented This area of Stirchley has the and improving these links is for the area around the Baths/ greatest potential for change of all essential for the economic growth Community Centre and with a large food store and mixed of Stirchley. Library to replace some of the use development planned for the community facilities displaced Hazelwell Lane site. This will result Central Stirchley is well served for by the planned Hazelwell Lane in a radical transformation of this open space with the Stirchley and development and provide a area, with spin off investment for Hazelwell recreation grounds and new base for community use. the wider regeneration of Stirchley. River Rea corridor. However, there This will bring the building back is scope for improvements to the into use. The £3.3m investment public realm along the High Street involves the conversion of the Growth especially around the gyratory and former local swimming pool into the end of Bournville Lane. Hazelwell Lane a multipurpose hall for sport, 5. Planning consent has been recreational and community activities, as well as the granted for a Tesco food store/ Design and heritage assets provision of meeting rooms, a mixed-use development at The predominant urban form in this cafe and classrooms. Hazelwell Lane will result in area is that of the terraced houses increased footfall with an in the surrounding streets. Even There is further potential to additional retail choice and on the Pershore Road, most of the remodel Stirchley Park and improve an increased employment retail units are converted houses access and visibility especially offer for local residents. This with a similar plot width to the side to the north and east, if any development with its additional streets. The larger buildings tend to development was to take place in offices and retail units and be two storeys with a proportional the area together. This would also associated benefits for the massing to the smaller ones. urban realm will make a positive give an opportunity to enhance its function as an ecological stepping change in Stirchley’s economy The new development on Hazelwell stone between the Bourn and Rea and appearance. Lane should reflect this scale and corridors. massing with an active frontage to These developments represent a major investment in Stirchley Appropriate compensation has also on a prime site at the north of been secured for the loss of the the primary shopping area. The unused bowling green with funds addition of 640sq.m new office secured to improve other space in space and three new shops with the area including Stirchley Park. KEY improvements to four others at While the Stirchley United Working SPD Boundary Men’s Club is to be relocated to the corner of Hunts Road will help Stirchley Centre boundary to reinvigorate the area. These the former TASCOS social club developments also present an building. Primary shopping area opportunity to address traffic Listed Buildings flow issues on this section of Locally Listed Buildings the Pershore Road and secure Retail growth significant environmental/public A number of shop units on this SLINC realm improvements and improved section of the high street are Wildlife corridor ripe for investment. These shops pedestrian/cycle crossings. These Rail lines/station include pedestrian and urban realm have deep enough plots to make improvements outside the new consolidation of a number of them Canal Stirchley Community Hub (former into larger ones a possibility. River baths site) and the potential for a Development opportunity new public square opposite. Connectivity and public space Pedestrian access improvements It will be important to establish Central Stirchley occupies a prime space on the transport network Retail units with potential a safe and strong link between for consolidation the former baths/new community with links to the rail station and canal via Mary Vale Road and Potential residential centre at the south of the gyratory developments to link the community facilities with Bournville Lane, and to the millennium cycleway via Hazelwell Potential junction the Hazelwell Lane developments, improvements housing areas to the east of the Lane. These links extend to the Rea Valley and the rail station and Bournville Estates and Cadbury to Employment to be retained canal. the west, the Hazelwell recreation New square

stirchley supplementary planning document / developoment opportunities Pershore Road, which will allow it British Oak public houses, Friends • Improved car parking in the area to integrate with the centre. The Meeting House, the local school to allow shoppers to visit local 23 development should improve car and District Office. Not listed but shops and encourage the use parking in the area with a shopper’s also of architectural merit is the of Bournville rail station with the car park for the store and the Community Church on Hazelwell potential for park and ride. centre, to allow shoppers to visit Street. These buildings are vital to local shops. It could also make a inform the urban form of Stirchley • Improved traffic and pedestrian valuable contribution to the high and should be retained in any new circulation around the gyratory (Pershore Road/Hazelwell Street). street and improvements to the developments Pershore Road public realm. • Improved car parking and traffic2 Key outcomes flow issues along the high street, New development should reflect through reallocation of road the existing links between the River • A rejuvenated shopping centre space providing1 a mixed priority Rea corridor and the Pershore with a sustainable retail economy. route to benefit pedestrians and Road. This historic link, shown in cyclists. the 1884 Ordinance Survey maps • A wide retail offer with a strong of Worcestershire, is well used by independent sector. • A new public space/square at the local residents and needs to be southern junction of the Pershore • Active frontages to the Pershore respected and enhanced in future Road and Hazelwell4 Street. Road to improve the shopping developments. experience. 3• Retained employment areas either side of the Pershore Road, This area is the historic core of • Improved links and signposting Stirchley, which developed around with opportunities taken to to the River Rea and the facilities minimise impacts of industrial this part of Icknield Street (Roman beyond. Road). There are a number of traffic in residential areas. listed buildings (both statutorily • Improved links and signposting • A regenerated central heart to and locally listed); the Library and to Bournville rail station and the Stirchley. Baths, the Three Horseshoes and canal.

Cartland Road

5 Bournville Station

Pershore Road 10 n NORTH NOT TO SCALE 7 Plan 4 Central Stirchley 9 developoment opportunities / stirchley supplementary planning document Fordhouse Lane

8 Southern Stirchley Whitmarley Works Road to the River Rea, works on this site would benefit from the 24 10. The site of the former With a major development site remodelling of the Fordhouse Whitmarley Works on Ivy on the east side off Fordhouse Lane/Windsor Road/Pershore Road Road provides an opportunity Lane and several bulky goods junction to improve traffic flows for small scale residential stores and industrial buildings, this across the junction. This would have development to fit in with the area has several development/ the potential of creating a small surrounding housing. redevelopment opportunities. public space or site for an urban art feature. Changes to traffic flows Other opportunities in this area will affect the Lifford Growth 11. Although currently occupied, Lane junction further south which Fordhouse Lane the sites of Magnet, Wickes will also need to be considered in and the former GKN 7. The vacant Arvin Meritor car conjunction with any scheme of works offer potential for parts factory was demolished improvements undertaken to the an employment led mixed in early 2010, and the site is Fordhouse Lane junction. use development should now cleared. This site has seen redevelopment occur. recent developer interest and This area has fewer heritage assets has the potential for a major than the rest of Stirchley, apart employment led/mixed use from the canal and the school Connectivity and public space development. and district office there is only This area has strong road links with the locally listed ex gun makers This site could act as a catalyst Cotteridge and Kings Heath via for significant regeneration of the the Pershore Road and Fordhouse south of Stirchley especially with Lane. Although adjacent to the an active frontage on the Pershore canal, the access to the towpath is Road at the north of the site to poor and poorly signposted with a integrate the development with the single entry from the roadside and centre. a hidden pedestrian bridge to take the towpath from one side of the 1650 Pershore Road canal to the other. Developments at the GKN works or 1650 Pershore 8. Once the site of Hunt’s Foundry Road could give scope for this vacant car repairs/scrap improvements to this access. yard has had planning consent for residential use. This has the The only link with the Rea Valley potential to become a gateway in this area is where Fordhouse KEY development for the southern Lane crosses it; there is no direct SPD Boundary end of Stirchley and provides access from the Pershore Road at Stirchley Centre boundary an opportunity to enhance the this point in Stirchley. However, canal corridor through new developments on the former Primary shopping area native tree and shrub planting. Arvin Meritor works may offer an Listed Buildings ideal opportunity to make new Locally Listed Buildings The Lifford Curve pedestrian/cycle links across the SLINC 9. This vacant (former public site to and from the Rea Valley if house), site on Fordhouse Lane Mayfield Road was to be used for Wildlife corridor has potential for an employment access to a new development. Rail lines/station led mixed use integrated with Canal the industrial unit to the north. Design and heritage assets River This also has potential to provide a This end of Stirchley is a mix of the Development opportunity new access route for the Stirchley prevailing terraced development Pedestrian access Trading Estate further north, to dominated by a number of larger improvements Fordhouse Lane. When combined buildings, the retail stores of Retail units with potential with works on the Fordhouse Lane Magnet and Wickes and the former for consolidation junction with Pershore Road, it GKN factory, which rises above Potential residential would result in taking heavy goods them. developments traffic away from Hazelwell Road. Potential junction Traffic congestion on Pershore The largest development site is the improvements Road at the junction with Hazelwell former Arvin Meritor works site. Employment to be retained Road, from large vehicles accessing With the potential for a two-storey the estate, would reduce. development linking the Pershore New square

stirchley supplementary planning document / developoment opportunities Pershore Road 2

workshop on Ash Tree Road. Key outcomes • Junction improvements to Lifford However, the small courtyard Lane junction. • Improved public realm. 25 developments to the rear of the east side, Rose and Dorset • Enhanced canal corridor. • Mixed priority route. Cottages to the west, the former Methodist Chapel on Mayfield • New investment, protecting • Improved car parking and traffic Road and the traditional fruit and existing jobsCartland and creating Road new flows along the high street, vegetable grocers (Harry Wards) are jobs. through reallocation of road all of local interest. space. Although not listed, parts of the • Improved linkages between the former GKN works may date back Pershore Road, canal and the to the 1860s when James & Son River Rea. built a screw mill on this site (they were bought out by Nettlefold & • Active6 frontages to improve the Chamberlain in 1866). However the shopping experience. outside of the building has seen major works in the 20th century and 5 • Junction improvements to the only a thorough study may be able Fordhouse Lane/Windsor Road to discover how much of the earlier Bournville junction. Stationbuilding phases remain.

Pershore Road 10

9 Fordhouse Lane

n NORTH NOT TO SCALE

Plan 5 Southern Stirchley

developoment opportunities / stirchley supplementary planning document 26 Delivery

This SPD provides a clear vision for the transformation of Stirchley. The successful delivery of the proposals outlined in this SPD will ensure that Stirchley can fulfil its potential to be an attractive place to live and visit with a vibrant, sustainable future.

In order to secure and deliver Community building Where this is the case, appropriate change the following key elements It is important to work with existing measures will be used, to ‘future will be important: and new residents to meet their proof’ planning obligations to • Working in partnership with needs and to foster a sense ensure that the value of the developers and other agents/ of community and long term package of contributions is bodies; including the use of stewardship. Methods of achieving maximised throughout the lifetime the Council’s CPO powers, this include: of the proposed development. The City Council will therefore require where appropriate, to secure • Supporting the emerging BID developers to submit full viability development. (Business Improvement District) appraisals to demonstrate the level group along the Pershore Road. • Ensuring development quality of obligations that can be afforded/ through the statutory planning • Utilising the Community Asset delivered. process. Transfer process to enable the community to manage assets The City Council is preparing its • Working with the established that they have identified as being evidence base to support the local business groups and important to the local area. introduction of Community Neighbourhood Forum. Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to deliver the infrastructure required to • Funding and planning Funding and planning obligations support the planned growth of obligations. The City Council may seek to the City. Once introduced CIL secure a package of planning will replace elements of S106 obligations to ensure the agreements and will be used Working in partnership delivery of balanced sustainable to support the delivery of key The SPD acts as a mechanism to communities and addressing the infrastructure. attract developers and investors social, business and environmental into the area. This will be achieved needs/impacts of development. Planning obligation potential by: requirements (subject to meeting The City Council will seek to secure the statutory tests). • Strengthening links with the local employment opportunities private sector including existing through the use of targeted businesses and landowners as employment strategies to link District centre well as potential developers and training to employer demand, All new development should investors. and the use of the local workforce improve environmental quality and in the construction phases of support the Stirchley District Centre • Co-or dinating public sector the development to maximise by: investment to maximise the the opportunities to reduce objectives and impact of public unemployment within • Environmental enhancements. sector resources. This would Birmingham. include working with the Homes • Creation of public spaces. and Communities Agency, the This SPD has been prepared Canal and River Trust, health at a time of ongoing financial • Provision and management of and education providers, sports constraints and a challenging public car parking. organisations, and other bodies economic climate. Viability is an within the area. issue in bringing sites forward • Highway and traffic management for development and it may not improvements. • Supporting existing and new be possible in the short term for businesses looking to locate development to provide a full within the area. range of planning obligations.

stirchley supplementary planning document / delivery 27

Employment • Nature conservation, (including Community facilities For new developments the retention and protection of Contributions may be sought from employment of local people will important trees). developments that impact on or be encouraged, as part of a local generate a need for, community employment agreement, during • Green links and wildlife corridors initiatives or facilities. This may the construction and subsequent (especially between the canal and include a contribution to: operation, in conjunction with the River Rea). • Providing space for the the Council’s Employment Access • Public access, signposting, Community Market. Team. infrastructure and maintenance, including appropriate planting. • New or improved community facilities. Commercial and industrial • The over ground sections of the Highway and traffic management Bourn and River Rea to provide • Support for community initiatives/ improvements. amenity and reduce flood risk. programmes.

Housing New development will be required Waheed Nazir to contribute to the level of Director of Planning and affordable accommodation in the Regeneration area, in line with the Affordable Housing policies of the City Council.

Connectivity and public realm Contributions may be sought from larger developments, which generate sufficient traffic, that require improvements to the highway or junctions (over and above any direct access/egress required to support the planning application) in order to mitigate increased traffic flows on the A441 or surrounding streets.

Open spaces Developer contributions may be sought from development in the plan area for improvements to: • The recreational and ecological value of public open spaces.

• Playing fields and children’s play areas.

Stirchley Community Church

delivery / stirchley supplementary planning document 28 Glossary

Birmingham Connected and alterations which would National Planning Policy Birmingham Connected presents destroy historic features or affect its Framework a twenty year strategy to improve character. This is a key part of the current transport in the City. This will government’s reforms to make the reinvent the City’s transport system, The whole of a building is listed - planning system less complex and meeting current and future mobility the exterior and interior, together more accessible, and to promote challenges, to facilitate strong with any outhouse, wall or other sustainable growth. This document and sustainable economic growth. structure built before 1 July 1948 replaced all previous national The plan will change the way that within the grounds of the building. planning policy when it was people and businesses think about adopted in April 2012. travel into and around the City. By influencing travel behaviour and Locally Listed Building embracing technological change A Locally Listed Building is a Private Finance Initiative (PFI) we will reduce carbon emissions building, structure or feature which, This is a way of creating ‘public- and improve road safety and health whilst not listed by the Secretary private partnerships‘ by funding for all citizens. of State, the Council feels to be public infrastructure projects with an important part of Birmingham’s private capital. The City has a heritage due to its architectural, 25-year PFI (2010-35) with Amey Compulsory Purchase Order historic or archaeological for highways maintenance and (CPO) significance. renewal. A Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO) is a legal function in the The most important of these United Kingdom and the Republic buildings are of statutory list Site of Local Importance for of Ireland that allows certain quality and would be referred Nature Conservation (SLINC) bodies which need to obtain land to the Secretary of State if they The SLINC designation applies to or property to do so without the were threatened with demolition only those sites with an important consent of the owner. or unsympathetic alterations. A nature conservation interest. These Building Preservation Notice could are locally designated wildlife sites also be served if the building were of sufficient importance to receive Heritage Assets to be threatened. protection, in planning policy, from A building, monument, site, damaging development. place, area or landscape positively identified as having a degree of Mixed Priority Route significance meriting consideration Mixed Priority Routes are streets Strategic Flood Risk Assessment in planning decisions. Heritage that carry high levels of traffic and (SFRA) assets are the valued components also have: The purpose of the SFRA is to of the historic environment. They • A mix of residential use and assess and map all known sources include designated heritage assets commercial frontages. of flood risk, including fluvial, and assets identified by the local surface water, sewer, groundwater planning authority during the • A mix of road users, i.e. shoppers, and impounded water bodies, process of decision-making or cyclists, bus passengers, taking into account future climate through the plan-making process schoolchildren. change predictions, to allow the (including local listing). Council to use this as an evidence • A mix of parking and deliveries. base to locate future development primarily in low flood risk areas. Listed Building They are not just transport routes. A statutory Listed Building is a Although dealing with transport building or structure which the and safety is a key element, other Submission Birmingham Secretary of State for Culture, concerns associated with the local Development Plan Media and Sport considers to be economy and local communities The Birmingham Development of special architectural or historic may also generate an interest in Plan (BDP) will set out the statutory interest. Listing gives a building improving the area with economic framework to guide decisions on legal protection from demolition regeneration and environmental development and regeneration in improvements. Birmingham up to 2031. It will set out how and where new homes,

stirchley supplementary planning document / glossary 29

jobs, services and infrastructure be released slowly back into the will be delivered and the type of environment, such as into water places and environments that will courses. be created. The Plan will cover the whole administrative area of the City. Unitary Development Plan (UDP) A statutory document that sets By 2031 Birmingham’s population out the Council’s planning policies is projected to grow by 150,000. used to guide development, This level of growth, based on conservation, regeneration and recent trends, is greater than environmental improvement activity previously considered and presents (Pre 2004 System, to be replaced by a challenge for planning the future the Birmingham Development Plan homes, jobs and infrastructure the when adopted (expected 2015)). City needs.

The Plan was the subject of an Use Classes Order examination in public during The Town and Country Planning October/November 2014. (Use Classes) Order 1987 (as www.birmingham.gov.uk/plan2031 amended) puts uses of land and buildings into various categories known as ‘Use Classes’. Some of Supplementary Planning these are shown below. Document (SPD) Class Use This is a local development A1 Shops/retail document that may cover a range A2 Financial and professional of issues, thematic or site specific, services by providing further detail of A3 Food and drink policies and proposals in a ‘parent’ A4 Drinking establishment development plan document A5 Hot food takeaway (Birmingham Development Plan or Area Action Plan). Water Framework Directive This establishes a legal framework Supplementary Planning to protect and restore clean water Guidance(SPG) across Europe and ensure its The predecessor to SPDs see long-term, sustainable use. (Its above, adds detail to the UDP (see official title is Directive 2000/60/ below). EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Sustainable Urban Drainage Community action in the field of Systems (SUDS) water policy). Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS) are designed to reduce the potential impact on Wildlife Corridors new and existing developments A wildlife corridor is a link of with respect to surface water wildlife habitat, generally native drainage. The idea behind SUDS is vegetation, which joins two or to try to replicate natural systems more larger areas of similar wildlife that use cost effective solutions habitat. Corridors are critical for with low environmental impact to the maintenance of ecological drain away dirty and surface water processes including allowing for run-off through collection, storage, the movement of animals and the and cleaning before allowing it to continuation of viable populations.

glosary / stirchley supplementary planning document

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses

CONSULTATION SCHEDULE

STIRCHLEY FRAMEWORK SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (SPD)

Record of responses

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K7K-F Agree urgent attention is needed regarding traffic and pedestrian areas, parking/loading arrangements, and the idea of parks/green spaces and signposting to footpaths will greatly enhance the area and community experience.

Retail

Work to encourage independent retailers as well as chain stores

Connectivity

public square should be available for markets (Stirchley community market is already established but struggling for suitable venues), exhibitions and activities

Central Stirchley

improved access / parking is vital. pedestrian-friendly areas too

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K75-S but it must take on board the small shops and business that are already there.

Connectivity

the policy must ensure there is a safe cycle route from river rea route to 5 to the canal at bourneville station and if monies will allow link it to the merritts brook greenway there by linking stirchley to bournville and northfield.by off road routes.

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K7P-M On the whole I agree with the aspirations, although I would want to ensure that Stirchley does not become another 'carbon copy' suburb with the usual national chains scaring independents away from the high street. We have a real opportunity to encourage new independent businesses to find a home here 2

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change without being competing with established names we can find in so many instances around Birmingham. A very careful balance needs to be struck to make sure that Stirchley is unique and not merely trying to be a copy of other surrounding suburbs.

Development Principles

Development should be sympathetic to the heritage of the area and not synthetic.

Retail

Please refer to my comments on the 'vision for Stirchley'. Also, would be great to see some affordable live/work spaces incorporated, to encourage new talent - think of them as little incubators!

Housing

New housing developments should retain sympathetic heritage design. Some investment needed to encourage residents with existing dwellings to be proud of them and make the most of the frontages would be great - Stirchley in Bloom, perhaps?

Connectivity

Investment in public spaces is crucial - parks need to be safer and better utilised. Public space on the high street as a focal point is important - the high street is such a corridor at the moment, it's easy for people to shuttle through but not stop and pause for a moment!

Design & Heritage

Retain heritage buildings and make it key to new developments to incorporate heritage design in new builds.

Ten Acres

Entering Stirchley is a miserable affair at the moment - from the north or south of

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Pershore Road. Make it more welcoming!

Southern Stirchley

Entering Stirchley is a miserable affair at the moment - from the north or south of Pershore Road. Make it more welcoming!

ANON-JVSW- Response removed at request of respondent

8K7E-9

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K7H-C I do have doubts over how will improve some of the very shoddy old Bric a brac shops and numorous take aways. Businesses won't want to invest with all that plus with the ongoing uncertainty over Tesco looming like a dark cloud.

Housing

I am a tenant above one of the shops in the high street its ok but access to out parking is sometimes blocked especially on Fridays/Saturday's when too any park on the high street - sode roads often also very packed - so if bringig in more housing please provide sufficient parking too.

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K7M-H The emphasis must be strongly on independent shops and businesses - this has always been a place for independent businesses and turning it into a high st which looks like every other high st will not do the area any favours. The best way to regenerate the area will be to harness the energy and enthusiasm of the existing entrepreneurs and community activists.

Housing

There is an acute need for larger family housing in Stirchley. It is extremely difficult to find houses with more than 3 bedrooms (and a large number have only 2). The current trend of young professionals buying terraced properties is welcome as it is injecting fresh vitality and entrepreneurship into the area. However these people will move away when their families grow, with a resulting 4

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change negative impact on schools and long term sustainable community. Any new residential developments must take this into account.

Sustainability

There is a potential conflict between creating wildlife corridors and encouraging increased use of the green spaces for cycling/walking. One example of this would be improving the connection to the Rea from Bewdley Rd. This side of the river is currently not well used and therefore a real haven for wildlife. If it becomes a more widely used access point to the river, this wildlife could be harmed. So while I greatly desire to see more people use and enjoy the Rea valley, some areas must be retained as quiet, little used areas for the benefit of wildlife.

Ten Acres

"See previous comments re access to the river along Bewdley Rd.

The traffic build up along this stretch is very unpleasant. Fumes build up due to the tunneling effect of houses so close the street - the health risks in these properties must be fairly substantial. The noise pollution is also significant. There is need to somehow manage the traffic so there are fewer tailbacks on this particular stretch.

There is wonderful wildlife along this part of the Rea - real scope for a wildlife conservation project here and creation of new habititats. Please involve the community in this! some clean up efforts will be required due to fly tipping not being cleared for many years."

ANON-JVSW- Vision (repeated for Central & Southern) 8K7Y-W I think Stirchley can only be improved by improving the high street, not only in terms of its cleanliness, but also attracting a wider variety of shops.

At present, the majority of retail shops are either fast food takeaways or carpet and furniture shops, and this does not attract local residents at all.

There should be no more superstores, and instead, these areas used for the 5

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change creation of parking areas for local residents and visitors to the village.

There should be no parking bays along the high street, replaced by the above suggestion, apart from deliveries to retail shop fronts in the day.

ANON-JVSW- Retail 8K7B-6 I think it is a great pity that a large supermarket lies at the heart of this proposal. The area is already served by a large Co-op whose business will probably diminish when Tesco opens. The citizens of Birmingham only have a certain amount of money to spend in a supermarket and this will just spread that amount more thinly than it is at present leading to lower profits for both supermarkets. Exponential growth in supermarkets does not lead to the same growth in spending. Additionally if the council wishes to promote smaller independent retailers a large retail outlet like Tesco will not help. Independent retailers cannot compete on price and with both supermarkets also selling a plethora of non-food items, it will just lead to empty shop units like at Longbridge.

Commercial, Industrial and Employment

Anything that brings employment into the area has to be a good thing, particulalry where it is not just in the retail sector. Birmingham needs high skill jobs to boost spending power in the local area (and not just in large supermarkets).

Housing

I am pleased that thought has been given to retaining the green areas within the area and that the housing will need to be of a high quality.

Connectivity

"I am concerned about the way roads are 'improved' within the City. I often drive through Longbridge and I am very concerned about the number of traffic lights, fences and other road furniture which detracts from and spoils the area. Another example would be the desperately poor road system in Selly Oak where ugly fences and traffic lights have totally ruined a once bustling High Street. 6

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change What was once there has now gone forever as Sainsburys sucked the life out of Selly Oak. I would be very sad if the same mistakes are made in Stirchley which is an old and historic area within Birmingham.

So yes, improve traffic flow but please ensure that this doesn't just mean a ridiculous number of traffic lights at car level, lorry level and every other level known to man."

Design and Heritage

I am pleased that shops will open outwards onto roads and that the original designs of the area have been considered. Bournville has remained an attractive area because it has been allowed to remain essentially early 20th century in appearance,

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K7X-V Looks good, is this tied in with the work that has already happened along parts of Pershore Road? A change to the junction where access from Ribblesdale to Pershore Rd has been blocked and the removal of a pedestrian refuge so you could cross over to Dogpool Lane seem to go against what is being proposed here.

Ten Acres

Please look at the junction of Ribblesdale to Pershore Rd and look at the access for surrounding roads - Cherington, Windrush, Rissington and Gristhorpe. the move to block access has made this junction dangerous and confusing, there is a temporary sign saying 'no right turn' yet people do turn right from the Warwards direction (blocking the access if you want to turn left), it makes no sense to drive up Warwards to turn down St Stephens and the traffic is as bad as ever on Pershore in terms of queues, it has made Warwards Lane a kind of rat run and Ribblesdale a confusing conflict of interests with people making up their own use/arrangements. Please admit this has been a mistake and put back the access so that residents form Cherington, WIndrush, Rissington and Gristhorpe have sensible access to Pershore/Cartland. It is no an improvement for pedestrians since the refuge has been removed where you turn left out of Ribblesdale onto Pershore and cyclist are directed by new signs down 7

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Umberslade to the Rea valley cycle route so what is the point of that?

Network Rail, Central Stirchley Town Planning Team LNW Consideration should be given by the LPA to ensuring that CIL funds / developer contributions are included as part of the planning consents process for funding enhancements at Bournville Railway Station as a result of increased footfall from third party commercial developments potentially impacting the station.

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K77-U Stirchley is crying out for investment and reuse of derelict land. It offers the opportunity to enhance the environment whilst also generating jobs and homes and improving the natural environment.

Development Principles

I largely agree, but I think there are weaknesses and potentially missed opportunities.

Retail

"Generally acceptable, it recognises the continued importance of small shops and individual shopkeepers and the importance of shops serving the local community.

Stirchley greatly lacks open communal space on the Pershore road a place to escape the traffic for a few minutes. I think any development should ensure some breathing space for the public alongside this busy road. The tiny green space on the gyratory system will not be enough, could it not be linked to a green space on the west of the Pershore Road adjacent to the British Oak pub - the site of the old Webbs plant rental shop?"

Commercial, Industrial & Employment

These are worthy aspirations, but I have lived in Stirchley for over 10 years now walking past empty flat land, ideal for redevelopment and all I have seen is further demolition of perfectly good housing - something which the country 8

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change desperately needs.

Housing

I think there is too little space devoted to good high density, low cost housing. If commercial land cannot be used because there is no demand for it then Stirchley is a good place to build some houses or flats because of the public transport and bicycle routes through it.

Connectivity

"There needs to be a bigger public open space straddling or adjacent to the Pershore road in order to create a focal point in the centre of Stirchley. Ideally adjacent to the British Oak public house.

Stirchley is essentially two green corridors separated by a busy road, which is visually and traffic congested. I don't think the current strategy identifies strongly enough the need to provide links across the Pershore road between the River Rea route and the canal. Specifically a link from somewhere need Fordhouse lane to the canal, and maybe a link along te River Bourn from Stirchley park to Cartland road. This would help to separate pedestrians from the busy Pershore road enhancing access to the green routes - via the shopping area."

Community Facilities

The document talks about 'some' of the community facilites being relocated to the new community centre. It does not specify which services and facilities are being lost or located outside the area - wouldn't it be more transparent to state this so a proper understanding can be gained by the public of what is not being relocated?

Design & Heritage

Stirchley High Street has been sadly neglected and poorly served by planning. The 'village' is not a high class suburb and never was, but this seems to be used as an excuse to allow anything to be done to properties in this area. Shop conversions into flats opposite Fitness First for instance remain uncompleted, but are occupied. Other shop conversions are aweful from a design point of view

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change and so Bournville gets whilst Stirchley gets worse and worse. Despite the neglect of the past the Victorian buildings deserve to be sensitively repaired and used in order to imporve the overall quality of the area. The comments on good shop frontages etc. is welcome.

Ten Acres

Better connection with the River Rea would be good as per my main point about the canal and river routes being isolated from each other by the Pershore Road.

Central Stirchley

"A larger green central public space to get away from the traffic - by just 20 or 30 metres would be nice!

It is essential to keep public access from the high street across the Tesco site to the footbridge over the Rea as this is very heavily used by people coming off buses and the train and also represents an old historic route as you point out in the report. The area need more east-west connectivity for bikes and pedestrians, you say this is needed, but do not propose how it will be achieved."

Southern Stirchley

Some more housing and better pedestrian and cycle links east-west again please.

Sustainability Appraisal

"Mind blowing and I don't think I really understood it, but nice to know someone is thinking about being sustainable.

I think the importance of the railway line to the east of the area as a further wildlife corridor should be referenced, as it again reinforces the need for east- west links to link up this with the Rea and the canal - developing an east-west corridor ans well as the north-south corridors of the railway lines the Rea and te canal."

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change BHLF-JVSW- Connectivity 8K7T-R "I believe you should certainly examine the potential for using the environs of the Bourne Brook (broadly speaking along the wildlife corridor marked on your plan) for connecting the pathways/cycleways from the Rea Valley to the re-surfaced Worcester and Birmingham Canal towpath and the recently vastly improved Merritts Brook parkway. At the moment the 'missing link' is the area around the Cadbury site.

A link could be established using the disused rail bridge 77A across the canal to

link Raddlebarn Road to Laburnham Road and on to Bournville Park.

This could pass to the west of the two small pools between Elm Road and the canal using the former railway line route.

There is also a pathway to the west of Oxford Street which could access the canal. All of this area was of course the former goods yards for the Cadbury Factory when it had its own rail link. There is a lot of scope here for some imaginative thinking which could open up this area and bring long term benefits to Stirchley residents."

Highways Vision England We have reviewed the Draft Supplementary Planning Document and can confirm we have no objection to the SPD as drafted. Highways England supports the principles of regeneration of local centres as these are consistent with the principles of sustainable development; reducing the need to travel in order to access services and employment opportunities.

Historic Design and Heritage England Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Draft Stirchley SPD.

The evident commitment to ensuring Stirchley’s past informs its future is welcomed and will provide the means to reinforce the areas identity and local distinctiveness.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change ANON-JVSW- Vision 8KYP-P I agree to a certain extent. However, Stirchley has and always will be a road corridor to the City Cente. There is no heart like other shopping centres. We are not Bournville.

Development Principles

"The above will be difficult to deliver.

Public spaces, we only have Stirchley Park and Hazelwell Park. Community facilities will come with the Stirchley baths when finished but even that won't be able to provide a vibrant community meeting place, it is too small.

Design and Heritage, keeping buildings in the fashion needs lots of money."

Retail

Primary shopping area, at the moment the Co-op is the main shopping store. Other shops offer very little. This is not their fault it is the way things have changed. You do not encourage vacant shops to be brought back into retail use. You demand, expecting some owner to invest in a non viable business. The only thing that keeps shops open is the small business relief.

Commercial , Industrial and Employment

From experience once a project is undertaken, i.e. community centre. The promise of local tradespersons being used is untrue. The company puts in the tender then employs people from out of the area. This is down to the economics of the tender. Also ..The bupa road race employs security staff from miles away Wales!!Even though there is a promise of using locals!!!!

Housing

New housing must first use brown field sites. The developers must offer accommodation to locals first, not out of town people, buying up the houses for profit. Although I would personally prefer first time buyers housing and less social housing. Housing developments need infrastructure, school places,

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change doctors, transport etc., is there the school places available?

Connectivity

"If the Tesco development goes ahead, this will encourage people to shop at Tesco. Pershore road, causing stress to pedestrians and drivers alike, I cannot see anyone wanting to stay in Stirchley too long. Be realistic, you cannot provide useless cycle lanes and paths, there just isn't enough room on the road. It is now a dangerous road being so narrow.

The only thing that is good, is the walk along the renewed canal path."

Community Facilities

"A library that is full of old books with very limited hours. One fitness centre! We should definitely improve the play areas for the kids. Entertainment, where?????

Why would visitors come to Stirchley? By mistake on their way to Cadbury/Mondelez (not Kraft)

Seating, well yes, but in appropriate areas not where drunks can sit and drink their cans of beer in the daytime."

Design and Heritage

"The Dogpool Hotel, is in Ten Acres Selly Park, since when was it Stirchley?

three Horseshoes Pub, trying desperately to rid their image of a trouble pub. The architecture, I didn't realise was Victorian? British Oak, privately owned, architecture good, but right dump inside. No visitor would enjoy having a pint here.

Friends meeting house, owned by the Coop only bought as spoiling tactics for Tesco. Now an eyesore in front of the new community centre. Yes City council

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change buy it back and renovate it in with the community centre.

Public Library, nice architecture, but not fit for purpose.

Baths, now the new community centre, with little space and no adequate parking. Also has something against disabled. Their access will be around the back, can't be seen going through the front doors!!!!!!!"

Sustainability

"Priority should be given to pedestrians and car drivers. There is excellent transport within the area already.

Provide parking, this will allow shoppers to do their shopping in the proposed shops. Why is everyone in the Council against drivers? If you provide a green charging point. Dont put it in a valuable parking space along the main Pershore Road. Rather it be put on the Co-op car park. Or the new Tesco car park. and pay them for the priviledge.

We did have lovely trees in Bond Street Stirchley, until the council chopped them down. Couldn't afford the maintenance. So who will pay for new trees???

If we want Stirchley to be as green as Bournville. Maybe we could re-introduce front gardens to the shopping parades that have long since closed and become houses. this would look nice and help the wildlife, bees etc.I am sure the home owners would welcome front gardens."

Ten Acres

"Good luck with all of the above.

As I have mentioned before. Dogpool in my lifetime of living here has always been Selly Park. The Stirchley residents will not thank you for calling Selly Park, Stirchley!!!"

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Central Stirchley

I am a business owner and being hit with a stick gets nowhere. Apply the carrot. Grants to modernise our shops and bring back into use. Planners must realise you cannot apply the same planning to Stirchley high street as Kings Heath and Northfield. Both of these areas have the room for expansion and having larger stores come along encourage the shoppers. Business is hard. Stirchley does not have the space for these grand plans.

Southern Stirchley

I would say it is imperative the junction at both Lifford lane and Fordhouse Lane should have traffic light control. Trying to slow the traffic is one thing, but it is making Lifford lane a no go area at certain times of the day. Accidents could be avoided if there was proper traffic light control.

Sustainability Appraisal

"I have lived in Selly Oak and Stirchley for 63 years. Stirchley has always been the poor village compared to Bournville, Kings Norton, Selly Oak. Stirchley needs to have an identity. Trying to turn Stirchley into a Kings Heath or Northfield will not happen. Bournville has its history with Cadbury's and the Bournville village trust.Kings Norton too.

Selly Oak has its University. We need something else. The very biggest problem has been the lack of investment. Just when things start to pick up, the high street is turned into a no go area, with narrowed road space and a reduced speed limit, which does nothing to calm a road that was already calm. People I have spoken have said the lack of parking in the area is a big issue. I know people want a society without cars, but they need to get real. Please do not use Stirchley as another experiment. Sustainability comes with a good safe area where shopkeepers can make a business. I do not think the investment will come to Stirchley. So unfortunately I think the plan cannot work."

ANON-JVSW- Vision

8KYA-7 Stirchley doesn't have a heart, so where do the planners envisage this will be?

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Does all of this depend on Tesco fulfilling their promise to build a store here?

Development Principles

We need confirmation which businesses and shops are considered to be in the PSA?

Retail

"I am concerned we already have shops that because of failing business have needed to turn them to residential. I do not see a problem with this. I am worried

the council will stop this happening in the future.

You do say redevelopment for ground floor residential will be permitted subject to appropriate design. Who decides what is appropriate?"

Commercial, Industrial and Employment

"Most of this I agree with. However, small scale office developments will be ok but what is appropriate locations?

I think it is ideal to employ local tradespersons. BUT if the tradespersons aren't available then there is a need to go elsewhere. Although I would object to foreign countries supplying tradespersons."

Housing

"Agree with most of this but still where is the primary shopping area?

Who will provide the affordable housing, council, trust's or private developers?"

Connectivity

"We have enough pedestrian crossings in Stirchley high street. There are

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change enough 'bus stops.

Bournville station should have its own car park. It should also cater for disabled and provide a lift."

Community Facilities

I agree with the above, but seating has to be where people would like to sit. Not for drunks to sit and drink their cans as we do at the moment. We do need more litter bins, cigarette butt bins.

Design and Heritage

The Friends meeting house, should be bought back from the Co-op who only purchased it to spoil Tesco and their plans. It is needed to be incorporated into the baths project.

Sustainability

My suggestion would be to allow closed down shops where appropriate land is available to turn their frontages into front gardens. This would look lovely, and help the wildlife. It would go towards making Stirchley look pleasing to the eye. Maybe too give away free water butts so residents can water their gardens with rainwater. Saving our water supply.

Ten Acres

We need traffic lights at Dogpool.

Central Stirchley

I agree with most of the above however, non of this can happen if Tesco do not develop their land.

Southern Stirchley

We need traffic lights at Lifford Lane.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Sustainability Appraisal

"I worry that this all depends on one major retailer coming to Stirchley. If Tesco don't go ahead then we must definitely invite other stores to come.

Smaller shops need shoppers. Not sure Stirchley shops or residents have the will after so many years being ignored by the City council."

Council for Vision British "We welcome the statement on p4 about protecting and enhancing the Archaeology, West Midlands special historic and ecological character of the area, with investment in its heritage and green assets"

Connectivity

The Walking and Cycling section should also mention the River Rea Heritage Trail

Design and Heritage

"We welcome the recognition that the high quality built heritage is an asset of the area and we welcome the statements about its retention and sympathetic reuse. We suggest that reference should also be made to the City Council's Historic Landscape Characterisation.

We welcome recognition of the archaeological remains in the area and the requirements for archaeological desk based assessments and field evaluations, and we strongly recommend that, in accordance with the NPPF and the Council's own policies, an additional paragraph be added stating that where preservation of archaeological remains cannot be achieved, archaeological excavation will be required in advance of development followed by analysis and publication of the results.

In addition, it may be useful to indicate the line of the Roman road on Plan 2."

Southern Stirchley

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change In the final paragraph, it should be noted that this area does include part of the line of the Roman road. Some of the development opportunities identified here are near the line of the road.

Sustainability Appraisal

Key sustainability issue (e), Built and historic environment, should also mention archaeological remains.

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8KY3-S I'm concerned about the reference to larger stores both in terms of what they are and the traffic implications - Pershore Road already has too much traffic. Stirchley needs to become more pedestrian and cyclist friendly.

Development Principles

Generally but it depends how they are put into practice. I do not support chain stores and major retailers coming into the area. Stirchley isn't far from Kings Heath, Moseley or Cotteridge so should offer something different.

Retail

I'm not keen on major retailers and hope that there will be support for independent retailers.

Commercial, Industrial and Employment

These seem fine

Connectivity

There's no mention of the railway line opening behind Pineapple Road. Traffic is already a serious concern on Pershore Road and any proposals for investment and development should aim to support public transport, walking and cycling.

Sustainability

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Agree strongly

Canal & River Housing Trust We note that a site at 1650 Pershore Road has been identified as a site for new housing development. We would require any development adjacent to or within the canal corridor to; not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or encroachment; detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality and character of the waterways; prevent the waterways potential for being fully unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. This is particularly important as there are embankments in this area which should not be adversely affected by development.

Connectivity

"We welcome the references to improved walking and cycling connections to the canal under public space and connectivity. We would welcome the opportunity to work with the Council to identify the priorities for enhancement.

We note the references to the canal under walking and cycling and accessibility improvements. We would welcome the opportunity to be involved in agreeing the details and the location for these projects. As well as future maintenance.

We consider that while the scope for transporting freight on waterways may be limited due to the size of the navigations and the available navigation routes, where it is appropriate to move freight by water this option should not be disregarded."

Community Facilities

The public open spaces section of the document lists the Worcester and Birmingham Canal as a wildlife corridor. The canal is multifunctional and a wildlife corridor is just one its functions. The multi-functional roles, include: an agent of or catalyst for regeneration; a contributor to water supply and transfer, drainage and flood management; a tourism, cultural, sport, leisure and recreation resource; a heritage landscape, open space and ecological resource; sustainable modes of transport; and routes for telecommunications; supporting 20

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change climate change, carbon reduction and sustainability.

Design & Heritage

"We note the references to the canal in the waterside section of the document. We recommend a number of guiding principles for waterside developments. Individual waterways and water spaces need to be viewed as an integral part of a wider network, and not in isolation. Water should not be treated as just a setting or backdrop for development but as a space and leisure and commercial resource in its own right. The ‘added value’ of the water space needs to be fully explored. Waterways themselves should be the starting point for consideration of the development and use of the water and waterside land – look from the water outwards, as well as from the land to the water. A waterway’s towing path and its environs should form an integral part of the public realm in terms of both

design and management. It is important that the siting, configuration and orientation of buildings optimise views of the water, generate natural surveillance of water space, and encourage and improve access to, along and from the water. New waterside development needs to be considered holistically with the opportunities for water-based development, use and enhancement. Improve the appearance of the site from the towing path and from the water at boat level, and enhance the environmental quality of the waterway corridor. It should be recognised that appropriate boundary treatment and access issues are often different for the towing path side and the offside.

As previously mentioned the canal is multifunctional and a wildlife corridor is just one its functions."

Sustainability

The nature conservation and biodiversity section of the document recognises the benefits the canals can have for biodiversity within the city which is welcomed. The canal corridor adds to the biodiversity of the area and is a wildlife resources, albeit manmade infrastructure. The canal provides water related habitats supporting protected species, fauna and flora.

Southern Stirchley

"We note the reference to the canal within the Southern Stirchley proposals. We 21

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change consider the canals are attractive settings for development and are being utilised as vehicles in place making and place shaping. Native species for new developments are preferred in order to maintain the appearance and biodiversity.

We note the references to the canal in the Southern Stirchley section of the document. Where appropriate and in accordance with the tests, planning obligations secured from the development or regeneration of sites on the waterside or otherwise benefiting from it should be reinvested and framed positively to benefit the waterways infrastructure."

Sustainability Appraisal

"We welcome the proposals to work with us as a partner.

Any references within the document to us should read Canal & River Trust (with an ampersand “&” not the word “and”)."

Tyler Parkes Vision for: Police and Crime The PCCWM are disappointed that the Vision for the SPD makes no reference Commissioner to the aim of creating a safe and inclusive environment. The need for planning for West policies and proposals to seek to create safe and accessible environments Midlands where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life (PCCWM) or community cohesion is a strong message repeated in the NPPF in both chapter 7 ‘Requiring Good Design’ and Chapter 8 ‘Promoting Healthy Communities’. It is therefore appropriate that the theme of community safety should be included within the Vision and it would be appropriate for it to be considered within all aspects of the SPD. It should be a key component of the Council’s growth and regeneration agenda as it is a matter of considerable concern to residential communities, commercial areas and businesses, as well as, of course, to achieving successful development and redevelopment enterprises.

The PCCWM formally requests that the following wording typed in ‘bold’ is added to the Vision on page 4, paragraph 2: ‘...sites will create new employment, new housing and retail, all in a safe and inclusive

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change environment ...’

In addition, the PCCWM formally request that a new bullet point be added under the section which sets out how the vision will be achieved as follows: ‘measures will be sought to create and maintain environments that design out crime and create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.’

Development Principles

The PCCWM are disappointed that the Development Principles for the SPD makes no reference to the aim of creating a safe and inclusive environment. The need for planning policies and proposals to seek to create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community cohesion is a strong message repeated in the NPPF in both chapter 7 ‘Requiring Good Design’ and Chapter 8 ‘Promoting Healthy Communities’. National Planning Practice Guidance also requires a number of specified issues to be considered these include: crime prevention; security measures; and safe, connected and efficient streets. It emphasises that designing out crime and designing in community safety should be central to the planning and delivery of new development.

It is therefore appropriate that the theme of community safety should be included within the Development Principles and it would be appropriate for it to be considered within all aspects of the SPD. It should be a key component of the Council’s growth and regeneration agenda as it is a matter of considerable concern to residential communities, commercial areas and businesses, as well as, of course, to achieving successful development and redevelopment enterprises.

The PCCWM seeks the inclusion of references to the need to create safe environments that design out crime through carefully considered site layouts, designing buildings and open spaces that promote positive social interaction and natural surveillance. They formally request introduction ofa requirement for all developments to meet ‘Secured by Design’ standards and a requirement for consultation with the PCCWM, including the Crime Prevention Design Advisor team (CPDAs), at the pre-application and planning application stage. The 23

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change PCCWM is keen to be involved in all development proposals at the design stage with the aim of encouraging developers to build to ‘Secured by Design’ standards and to ensure that issues of crime prevention and designing out crime are taken into account at the earliest opportunity.

Over the past two decades, independent, academic assessments have demonstrated that developments which attain the Secured by Design (SBD) award maintain long term, sustainable reductions in recorded crime. The PCCWM’s own flagship project, ‘The Four Towers’ at Duddeston Manor, Birmingham has maintained a 98.7% reduction (as based on the figures for 1988) in domestic burglary for over 20 years, whilst reductions in other property crime categories replicate the research findings of Armitage and others, some of which are listed below:  Dr Rachel Armitage in 1999 found 50% fewer burglaries and 25% fewer vehicle crimes and criminal damage reports;  Glasgow Housing Corporation project refurbishing to SBD standards resulted in 65% burglary reduction;

 Armitage R and Monchuk L in 2009 re-evaluated previous research and researched new SBD sites and found; burglary levels in original SBD sites (1999) were 62% down, and burglary levels in the newest SBD developments were 75% down.

‘Designing Out Crime’ and ‘Secured by Design’ are the most sustainable and therefore cost-effective of all crime reduction interventions, with little or no evidence of displacement of crime and far more likely a 'diffusion of benefits' to surrounding areas. There have been at least six evaluations of the impact of Secured by Design and all have found greatly reduced crime levels.

The PCCWM formally requests that the following wording typed in ‘bold’ is added to the Development Principles section as follows: Subsection Retail Context, paragraph 7 ‘High quality urban design will be essential to integrate new development with the centre, including measures that design out crime. New developments will be expected to deliver safe environments that design out crime and build to ‘Secured By Design’

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change standards.’

The PCCWM welcomes the reference in subsection Retail Development in Stirchley Centre, paragraph 6, that new developments should maintain an active frontage. They also agree with the observation in paragraph 3 of subsection New Housing Development, that an increase in the number of residential units at first floor level on the High Street could add security by improving natural surveillance.

Connectivity

The PCCWM support the objective in subsection Public Space and Connectivity, to prioritise pedestrian movement, increasing the area available for public spaces, seating and cycle stands with improved facilities and safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Paragraph 3 suggests that improvements should also accommodate attractive and convenient bus stopping facilities throughout the area. The location and construction of both bus stops and cycle stands are two of the many areas which the PCCWM would be keen to have input into.

The PCCWM seek the introduction of wording to ensure consultation with them both at an early stage in the transport and connectivity improvement process and on an on-going basis. It is vital to ensure that any potential policing issues for the SPD area or on specific sites subject to development proposals can be taken fully into consideration, for example in respect of investment in all extended/improved public transport provision and networks.

It is important that PCCWM is consulted about transport routes, to ensure that crime and fear of crime is minimised. For example, the siting of bus shelters is vitally important, as is the design, style and materials used. Passengers awaiting their bus should be able to feel safe and be visible, as well as being able to shelter from the elements. The siting of bus shelters is important to ensure they are placed in the most appropriate locations for the local community, to prevent people taking shortcuts through poorly-lit areas, and the shelter should be well-lit so people feel safe while waiting for the bus during the hours of darkness.

Cycle and pedestrian routes, including routes between transport hubs, are vitally important to a vibrant, inclusive community, and even more so when a large- scale development is being planned. Ideally cycles should be stored away from 25

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change public view in a lockable room or container. However, most cycle storage facilities will be external. Therefore, it is important that they are located in view of habitable rooms of offices/dwelling/shops etc.

The PCCWM have detailed design recommendations for cycle stands, for example, the cycle stand should enable both wheels and the crossbar to be locked to the stand rather than just the crossbar. Minimum requirements for such equipment include; Galvanised steel bar construction (minimum thickness 3mm) and a minimum foundation depth of 300mm with welded ‘anchor bar’. The storage units should also be positioned so they are illuminated at night and monitored by CCTV. Cycle storage should ideally be provided by one of the ACPO Secured by Design approved suppliers. These products meet rigorous security standards (see http://www.securedbydesign.com/companies/index.aspx )

Consideration of safe cycle and pedestrian routes, including routes between transport hubs, are important especially when any large-scale development is being planned. For example, when a bus route is diverted or major roadworks have resulted in a road closure. People need safe access to transport routes to, for example, work and home.

The PCCWM believe it is important for them to be consulted on major developments/schemes. All large-scale developments have a major impact on both transport and connectivity. From a connectivity point of view, if roads are closed for months (and sometimes years) during the build phase, it is important for PCCWM to consider how emergency service vehicles will navigate their route through the city to reach the destination and subsequent person in need.

During large-scale developments, PCCWM can offer advice regarding the safe storage of plant machinery (e.g., JCBs, boom-arm JCBs, diggers etc). If the machinery is left at the side of the road it will become a target for thieves. Plant material is often stolen and shipped abroad, or used to commit other crimes (e.g. stolen JCB used to rip an ATM out of a wall at a bank or shop).

It is important to ensure any development proposals within the SPD area do not have an adverse effect on the police’s ability to respond to calls for the police service’s attendance. For these reasons it is important to have a system in place which ensures the PCCWM is consulted so that it is able to help inform more 26

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change detailed proposals as and when they present themselves as planning applications come forward.

The PCCWM welcome the objective of seeking to improve walking and cycling safety with, for example, new crossing point. They also support the aim for new and improved routes to be attractive, safe and legible, generally well lit and overlooked from buildings with improved signage and linkages.

With respect to car parking provision, the PCCWM welcome the proposal on page 12 that where off-street car parking is provided as part of a development it will be expected to include a car park management scheme and provide cycle facilities.

In addition to this, the PCCWM also request that any new, rationalised, or retrofitted/redevelopments of car parks, are encouraged to achieve the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) ‘Park Mark’ award/accreditation. By achieving the Park Mark standard, the car parks must achieve a much higher standard of security which means that both crime and the fear of crime should be reduced. Car drivers using Park Mark car parks are able to leave their vehicles safe in the knowledge that they are considerably less likely to become a victim of crime. This strategy would accord with the aims of the Framework.

The PCCWM welcomes junction improvements where necessary to reduce congestion and improve safety. They also support traffic calming/management measures where appropriate.

The PCCWM requests a strategy to meet the objectives of the national planning policy Framework to ensure that issues of safety and any impacts on policing as a result of proposals are addressed in respect of transport, connectivity and parking. The following wording is suggested for inclusion in the Puclic Space and Connectivity subsection of the SPD:

The PCCWM will be consulted about all development proposals including any transport, connectivity and management proposals to ensure that opportunities to improve safety, both on the transport system itself and in the surrounding environment, are identified and appropriate measures included to promote safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do 27

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.’

New, rationalised, or retrofitted/redevelopments of car parks will be encouraged to achieve the ACPO ‘Park Mark’ award/accreditation .

Design and Heritage assets

The SPD area includes Listed buildings and those of historical interest. Theft of lead flashing, cast-iron down pipes and other historic artifacts, is a significant problem, particularly in Conservation Areas and for Listed Buildings. The PCCWM request that a flexible approach be adopted in respect of replacement building materials lost or stolen from Listed structures or those of historical interest. Instead of insisting in all cases on a like-for-like reinstatement of materials where they have been removed, consideration ought to be given to the use of alternative materials and /or artifacts which are less likely to be vulnerable to repeat theft. This approach would be a positive response aimed towards reducing heritage crime and the fear of crime.

Research in 2012 suggests that there are around 75,000 crimes affecting designated historic buildings and sites annually – around 200 a day. Offences range from damage to listed buildings and other sites, theft of artefacts, theft of metal, antisocial behaviour and damage to conservation areas. 18.7% of all listed buildings were physically affected by crime last year. That is over 70,000 listed buildings. Heritage crime generally is also a significant threat in conservation areas with an incidence rate of 14.9% last year.

The PCCWM request that the SPD should:

• Consider the particular circumstances of a heritage environment, site context, and merits of the case. In particular whether repeat crime (such as theft of materials from a building) is highly likely. • Have regard to the potential damage to an historic asset that may result from repeated theft of existing and subsequent like-for-like replacement materials. For example metal theft (roof, gutters and down pipes) from historic churches. And, • Consider the significance of that particular element of the building (to be re-instated in the event of theft) in terms of its contribution to the value of that particular heritage asset. For example the lead roof on one building 28

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change may not be as important to the historic asset as another due to its size, aspect or prominence on the building.

There will be cases where the use of alternative materials is the most appropriate way of avoiding such crime. For instance if the site is open, has no defensible boundaries, is not subject to natural surveillance, poorly lit, and the design of the building offers offenders a number of potential routes up to the roof to target metal fixtures and fittings. This makes it difficult to install suitable measures to prevent access to the roof. Any defensive anti-climb measure, such as metal spikes, would potentially not be in keeping with the historic or architectural status of the site and would certainly not be aesthetically pleasing.

The use therefore of replacement material (along with the installation of signage around the site indicating the material has been replaced by a ‘no theft value’ option) that proves valueless to any potential thief may be the only suitable measure, or an important part of a range of measures, to deter crime.

The principle of this approach is accepted by English Heritage (the 3rd paragraph in Section 3 of the document ‘English Heritage Guidance Note: Theft of Metal from Church Buildings’ (2011)) states:

“Every case is assessed on its merits, but we appreciate that there will be instances in which a change of material will be appropriate, especially when the area of roof is not visible from ground level. After a theft, the first priority must be to provide emergency cover whilst the permanent replacement is arranged. In some situations, a durable replacement such as terne-coated stainless steel, tiles or slates, rather than lead, might be the most prudent way to repair the building”.

By way of example, West Midlands Police received regular calls for service at incidents at a church in Solihull. These have related to both crime and anti-social behaviour committed on the site. Since May 2010 there were 10 crimes reported to West Midlands Police relating to the site. Four of these, from May 2010 to November 2011, directly related to the theft of metal from the site, with downpipes and guttering from a number of sections of the church. In October 2012 an alternative, non-metal, solution (Glass Reinforced Plastic) was installed on the church to replace previously stolen metal. Since that date there have

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change been no reported incidents of theft from or damage to the building.

The PCCWM has recommended introduction of wording into Birmingham’s Development Plan policy document which would allow for a pragmatic approach to the replacement of historic and traditional materials stolen. Rather than seeking ‘like for like’ replacement, use of ‘alternative’ products available on the market, such as those produced by Rain Guard, should be accepted as a suitable alternative in appropriate instances. Replacement of stolen goods effectively by ‘replica’ products which visually match items stolen (with signage to indicate that they have no value), would prevent repeat theft and mean that the building owner was not vulnerable to this crime again.

The PCCWM request that the final version of the SPD include reference to the favourable consideration of the use of approved ‘alternative’ materials to replace building materials and artefacts stolen to reduce crime and the fear of crime.

Development Opportunities

The PCCWM formally request that the principle of designing out crime and the need for developments to meet Secured by Design standards are reinforced and referenced in each of the development opportunity area sections. They request that one of the key policy priorities should be to; ‘Ensure all proposals meet ‘Secured by Design’ standards.’

Turley on Southern Stirchley behalf of Revelan UK, We write on behalf of our client, Revelan UK Limited (hereafter referred to as Owners of Revelan), in response to the consultation on the draft Stirchley Supplementary Fordhouse lane Planning Document (SPD). site. Revelan owns the former Arvin Meritor site (hereafter referred to as ‘the site’) off Fordhouse Lane which was formerly occupied by industrial units and was cleared in 2010. Revelan has previously sought planning permission for the development of a foodstore on the site. The previous proposals for a medium sized foodstore were dismissed on appeal in 2013 on the grounds of the absence of robust justification for the loss of an employment site to alternative uses and there being a sequentially preferable site for retail development at

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Hazelwell Lane.

KEY DEVELOPMENT SITE

Our client’s site is a key development opportunity and could provide a catalyst for further much needed investment and regeneration in Stirchley.

We support the fact that the draft SPD recognises the importance of the site for development. We consider that it could provide a significant contribution to the objectives of the SPD.

It remains Revelan’s intention to redevelop the site subject to securing suitable interest for a viable scheme. It is therefore in the interest of the City Council, in seeking to promote sustainable regeneration of Stirchley, to ensure that the emerging SPD provides a suitable stimulus for new development proposals to be brought forward at the site without unnecessary policy limitation.

The relevant planning history and decline in health of Stirchley as a district centre over the last decade is well documented. The poor health of the Centre provides important context in our view to the emerging SPD, particularly in terms of the negative effects that limited investment in the centre on the extent to which existing shops, services, and facilities are able to fully serve the needs of the local community. In that context, the document and its policies should be proactive and positive in their encouragement of new investment in and around the centre and a return to higher levels of vitality and viability.

To achieve its objectives and the primary aim of regeneration, the SPD needs to provide a suitable policy framework to support the development of our client’s site, as a key investment opportunity.

It will also be important to ensure that there is sufficient flexibility to support the delivery of development to meet market demand. The development of this site should not be constrained by onerous and unjustified policy requirements which could frustrate future regeneration.

The remainder of this letter, therefore, demonstrates that the site should no longer be considered as an employment site and that alternative uses should be considered acceptable and indeed encouraged to support investment and vitality

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change within the centre.

EMPLOYMENT LAND

The SPD promotes the site for employment led mixed use development. Our client objects to this ‘designation’ of the site within the SPD as it is unnecessary and unreasonable.

The SPD’s promotion of employment led development is inconsistent with the Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework (the Framework) as there is no reasonable prospect of development for traditional employment uses within classes B1, B2 and B8 being delivered and the site should no longer be protected for such uses.

The Framework is clear in its advice about employment sites and states that Local Authorities should not seek to safeguard land for employment uses if there is no reasonable prospect of development being delivered (paragraph 22). The Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses SPD requires employment sites to be marketed for a period of two years before alternative uses can be considered. The site has been actively and continually marketed as an employment site since September 2013 but has not attracted any interest. Evidence of the relevant marketing of the site is appended to this letter.

Two years of marketing (in addition to the previous marketing of the site undertaken prior to the last application) without interest demonstrates that there is no reasonable prospect of employment led development being delivered on the site and justifies the development of alternative uses. The requirement for the development of the site to be employment led is overly onerous and will frustrate both the delivery of development on this important site and the regeneration of the wider area.

Therefore, the site is no longer considered to be an employment site and the development of the site for alternative uses is supported by the Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses SPD and the Framework and should also be supported by the Stirchley SPD. The SPD should be amended to remove the requirement for development on the site to be employment led to allow flexibility which will help deliver development on the site and contribute towards achieving the SPD’s

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change overarching objective to achieve regeneration in Stirchley.

OTHER POTENTIAL USES

The site is a brownfield site in a sustainable location which should be a priority for development (in accordance with paragraphs 17 and 111 of the Framework). The site is identified as a key development opportunity which should be promoted without unnecessary policy inhibition. Given the marketing already undertaken, there should no longer be any form of requirements, bias, or favour given to ‘employment-led’ uses on this site.

Having established that the site is no longer an employment site, given the evidence of marketing enclosed, consideration should be given to potential alternative uses. Whilst these representations do not seek to address all potential uses for the site, or at this stage seek to put forward any fixed or definite proposals, it is worth considering the scope for regeneration and investment that could be provided for by a range of potential alternative uses. In that respect, the SPD should allow flexibility for a range of potential uses to be brought forward.

Retail

Notwithstanding the previous appeal decision in 2013, and irrespective of the absence of any substantive progress on the Hazelwell Lane site in terms of delivery of new development, it is a matter of good planning to ensure that the SPD does not prevent the delivery of a future scheme at the site that may involve uses that would help to enhance the vitality and viability of the centre and its high street.

The site lies immediately adjacent to the existing centre. It has the scope for enhanced linkages to the high street (similar to those put forward with the previous proposals) which could provide significant benefits in terms of increased levels of footfall, the attraction of new expenditure to the centre, and the opportunity to provide new activity and vibrancy at the southern end of the high street.

For these reasons, there should still be the scope for an appropriate element of retail to be brought forward at the site, potentially as part of a mixed use 33

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change scheme, and the SPD should not therefore exclude the potential for retail use in the future.

In that respect, a retail use would represent an employment generating use, as would other potential commercial uses that may be appropriate for the site, and so therefore could help to provide a boost to economic development within Strichley and the local area.

A core objective of the SPD is to improve the attractiveness and vitality of the district centre. The Hazelwood Lane site continues to be the main focus of retail development in Stirchley. However, despite planning permission being in place for a number of years, the longstanding foodstore proposals have not been delivered and Stirchley has continued to decline in the interim.

This further demonstrates that the SPD should be flexible in the consideration of key development opportunities (such as this site) which could have significant regeneration benefits. Flexible policies which support a range of uses (subject to meeting other key policy requirements) will have the greatest prospects of securing investment and ensuring wider benefits for Stirchley.

Residential

Our client’s site represents a sustainable location. It is a brownfield site that could help contribute to the supply of housing to meet existing needs and to provide for a mix of housing locally and across southern Birmingham. Residential is therefore a use that should be allowed for by the SPD in the context of our comments above on the need for flexibility.

New housing would attract new residents who in turn would provide new expenditure to support existing and potential future shops, services, and facilities for the benefit of the wider existing and future community. This will also help create vibrancy and contribute to the revitalisation of the area, meeting the objectives of the SPD.

Residential development is promoted by the SPD but is not supported on employment sites (page 10). As our client’s site should no longer be reasonably considered as an employment site, it is worth noting that this part of the SPD no

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change longer applies to the site and residential uses should be supported in principle.

SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE SPD

In light of the above, the following table sets out the suggested amendments to the SPD which will remove the restriction to employment led development (for the reasons set out above) and ensure the necessary flexibility to allow for a range of uses and potential regeneration options:

Stirchley SPD - Suggested Amendments

Page Current wording Suggested amendment 9 New industrial and commercial uses Amend to remove The former and employment led mixed-use Arvin Meritor works off development will be encouraged, at Fordhouse Lane. these sites: - The former Arvin Meritor works off Fordhouse Lane. - The former Lifford Curve Public House on Fordhouse Lane. 24 This site has seen recent developer Amend to: The site has the interest and has the potential for a potential for regeneration major employment led/ mixed use including major mixed use development. development.

SUMMARY

Revelan are committed to the delivery of development on this site and are keen to work in partnership with the City Council to ensure that much needed regeneration is achieved at the earliest opportunity. The comments and suggestions we have made above seek to ensure that the SPD objectives are deliverable and stand the best chance of securing regeneration so that Stirchley becomes a vibrant and attractive centre and place to live, work, and visit.

The site is a key development opportunity and has the potential to make a significant contribution towards meeting the objectives of the SPD. The development of this site should not, therefore, be constrained by unnecessary or onerous policy restrictions that would frustrate the delivery of new investment 35

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change and other significant benefits for the local area.

The site should no longer be considered as an employment site given the lack of interest (over a sustained period of marketing). The SPD should be amended to remove the requirement for any future development to be employment led as this represents an unnecessary and prejudicial policy limitation on the site. The SPD should allow flexibility in respect of the type of development and uses that will be supported at the site. This will encourage investment and contribute towards achieving regeneration in Stirchley and enhancing the vitality of the District Centre.

BHLF-JVSW- Vision 8KYJ-G Yes, if investment can be obtained.

Retail

Once the Tesco's development is completed it should breathe new life into the adjacent retail centre.

Growth

Investment required in these areas

Housing

Yes, in favour of your proposals. Would also suggest that empty retail premises could be changes to residential.

Connectivity

These seem to be adequate.

Community Facilities

Pleased to see that Stirchley Baths is now going to be open as a Community

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Centre. Also Stirchley Neighbourhood Forum is a great supporter and organiser of local events.

Design & Heritage

Great, if you can get property owners to comply!! Bourne Fabrics at 1401 Pershore Road was shown in your 1994 Stirchley Draft Framework as an example of a good shopfront. In the last two years this was demolished, a modern front added, new business opened - but closed after 2 weeks and has been closed ever since !!

Sustainability

These policies seem to be adequate - providing that the area is vibrant and trading well.

Ten Acres

In general more suited to residential development and light industrial premises, as it is not suitable for retail outlets.

Central Stirchley

This area will continue to stagnate until Tescos development is completed. Then owners of vacant premises will have more incentive to upgrade their properties.

Southern Stirchley

The suggested residential development should be implemented.

BHLF-JVSW- Vision 8KYV-V "Aspirations are all very well, but reality is altogether different! It's called progress. We can never return to 1930's style trading on the High Street. Those days are long gone, due to complex social and lifestyle changes.

We have to face the reality that huge numbers of shoppers use cars and therefore need car parks. A car is needed if you purchase a weekly shop in a supermarket, where everything is available under one roof. Which is far more 37

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change convenient for the busy shopper.

Unless small businesses can offer something really unique they will fail to attract the casual visitor to the area. Small premises on the High Street need a completely new policy. No experienced businessman would invest money and stock in an area with no footfall.

Closure of the Post Office made a big difference. Also two recessions, one in the 1970's and this present larger financial chaos.

Having had three businesses in Stirchley over the last 50 years, we can confirm that we noticed a steady decline in footfall over that time - culminating in the Tescos debacle - partly caused by delaying tactics from the Co-op. The uncertainty surrounding this development has delayed any investment in this area of Stirchley."

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8KXK-G On the whole, the aspirations for Stirchley are good. However Stirchley is and has always been a hive of independent business and activities, and of co- operation. Large national chains are not the answer for Stirchley, and should not be relied upon for inward investment in the area. In partnership with a regional brewery and a community loan scheme, Loaf attracted £330,000 of inward investment into one double-fronted property in the PSA. There are more creative and independent ways of revitalising the high street than knocking buildings together to make large units and ushering in lots of national chains.

Retail

"The PSA excludes some important and historic business in the South Stirchley Area including Wards Greengrocers and Stirchley Wines and Spirits - it should be extended to the south to the junction of Ash Tree Rd.

Merging units to create large floor areas will attract national and multinational chains to the area and price many local SME's out of the market for these units and adversley affect the vitality and independent spirit of Stirchley PSA. There are lots of people that want to launch small businesses in Stirchley's vacant properties (I speak to at least one person a week who wants to do something!), 38

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change but access to void units is extremely difficult because of absent landlords and other issues. A focus on freeing up and smartening up void properties should be a much greater priority."

Housing

Birmingham is short on residential moorings for narrowboats and the feasibility of creating permanent moorings and an active boating community in Stirchley should be investigated. Stirchley is well served for other transport links and local services and moorings would provide affordable housing options locally. A residential boating community would also contribute to the social and cultural life of the area and contribute to the local economy, particularly the independent retailers. It would also help to open up access to the canal from the pershore road and improve linkages to Bournville station. Secure access could be gained to new moorings via the former GKN site.

Connectivity

There are a lot of cyclists in Stirchley and who pass through daily. The new 20mph zone is an improvement to safety for cyclists but a cycle-priority zone (similar to the Cowley Road in Oxford) would be a great step forward and contribute to traffic calming. We are also in desperate need for locking up facilities outside independent shops along the high street.

Community Facilities

Planters on the high street would be a welcome addition and should be transferred after installation to a community group for ongoing management as they are likely to be maintained to a high standard by keen local gardeners.

Heritage

The chapel on Mayfield Rd should be considered as a locally listed building and retained with any development on the Arvin Merritor site.

Sustainability

"Parking is a major concern to independent retailers in Stirchley. Creation of

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change several small 'shoppers car parks' along the 1km of PSA should be investigated. For example at Mayfield Road, Ivy Road (Whitmarley until housing development), Mary-Vale Rd, and on the former Kwik Save site.

Cycle loops are desperately needed all along the pavement in the PSA."

Central Stirchley

See previous comments on car parking

Southern Stirchley

Improved access to the canal and development along the canal should be a key priority for Southern Stirchley and would give the area a unique feel.

ANON-JVSW- Agrees with Vision and Development Principles

8KXC-8

ANON-JVSW- Agrees with Vision and Development Principles

8KX8-W

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8KXE-A "Yes, I do to a certain extent. Securing investment, increasing employment/training opportunities, providing clear guidance for planning applications and maintaining a balance between homes, shops, commerce, industry and community facilities are all great things. Sadly, there is insufficient detail in the Stirchley Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to see whether this very long awaited regeneration will happen.

The vision focuses on attracting national and multinational retailers to Stirchley. The heart of Stirchley is the creative independent stores. Some larger stores (more than 500 sq m) are only part of the solution. If Tesco does eventually open a store at Hazelwell Lane, Stirchley would benefit from another larger store at the other end of the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) near Lifford House. Starter units and smaller units under 50 sq m should make up 15% of the PSA. This gives successful market stall holders a way to develop and grow their businesses within Stirchley, in addition for the offices at the new Community 40

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Centre.

The Business Improvement District has been rejected by local businesses, but a group of residents, businesses and landlords are working together to develop improvements in Stirchley. This is known as Stirchley Moving Forward."

Development Principles

"Yes, I broadly agree with the development principles. Its 13 years since the Stirchley Framework was revised. The fact that the plans still revolve around the Hazelwell Lane site and the long-awaited Tesco store is troubling. Given their financial situation at present, it is time to look at alternative proposals for that mixed use site. It should reflect the wishes of the local community, who want a mixture of retail, housing and community space, as a venue for the Stirchley Market and local events. The Council must work with existing community groups to develop a truly shared vision for Stirchley.

Bringing derelict land/buildings back into use is long overdue and I hope that the Council is exploring all available sources of funding to do so.

The SPD will bring medium and long term benefits, but will not bring many short term benefits. There is no quick fix for the years of neglect that Stirchley has suffered, at the expense of expensive city centre developments.

I believe that more than 10% of the PSA is hot food takeaways at present. This needs to be redressed."

Retail

"The retail area (PSA) seems sensible. I do wonder if it is wise to have the Co- operative and proposed Tesco supermarkets so close together. That will lead to footfall decreasing on the high street, unless there is a broader range of specialist independent stores with unique selling points, such as the tobacconists, Loaf, the Drum Shop and Bike Foundry or another national store on the old Lifford Curve site, for instance.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change

It is vital that starter units and smaller units (under 50 sq m) should make up 15% of the PSA. This gives successful market stall holders a way to develop and grow their businesses within Stirchley, in addition for the offices at the new Community Centre.

There are a couple of repair shops in Stirchley and co-operatives too. Stirchley has a proud tradition of alternatives to consumerism. This should be treasured.

I agree that no more than 45% of the PSA should be non retail units.

Merging retail units (more than 500 sq m) might encourage more national companies to set up shop in Stirchley, but that might be to the detriment of the remaining convenience stores.

The BID has been rejected, but Stirchley Moving Forward are working together on small scale improvements in Stirchley. This group was created after the BID failed and is trying to bring about positive changes."

Commercial Industrial & Employment

"Stirchley has a mixture of commercial and industrial units on the high street and in the surrounding area. It is vital that some support is provided for existing businesses by creating Industrial Zones.

Employment opportunities across all sectors must be encouraged. It is crucial that the employment of local residents is promoted. Stirchley has several metal recycling sites and this should be emphasised along with attracting new high tech sustainable industry to Stirchley."

Housing

"There are several brownfield areas for affordable housing to be built. I would suggest a mix of sale / rental / social on all new developments over 5 residential units.

It is vital that new housing is efficient in its use of natural resources, such as water. Grey water reuse, renewable energy generation and optimal insulation 42

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change should be used. The homes should be zero carbon by 2016.

All housing developments will increase pressure on Stirchley's congested roads. This must be considered.

New housing developments must include gardens/grounds that are naturally absorbent, so the area does not become more prone to flooding."

Connectivity

"Stirchley has good bus and train connections. Traffic congestion is bad and air quality is poor as a result. There are too many cars on the roads.

More people must be encouraged to walk, cycle and use public transport. This can be encouraged by more and clearer signage on shared pathways along the canal and river. This will also direct leisure boaters to local amenities.

Active travel should be promoted. For example, the promotion of walking should include signage for toilet facilities and the provision of some seating along the main road, river and canal.

The promotion of cycling must include the provision of more cycle parking facilities in the PSA.

If possible, all cul de sacs should have walking and cycling through-routes.

Traffic management measures need to be improved, such as, physical restrictions including the pedestrianisation of some streets, road narrowing, speed limits, even a local congestion zone.

All new developments should include parking provision, including parking facilities for bicycles.

New parking facilities should have permeable parking surfaces, to preserve absorbtion and to reduce the risk of flooding.

Some off street parking should be provided. Local residents should have priority for off-street parking spaces (London has a permit system for visitors in

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change residential streets).

The public should be allowed to use some of the parking space on the corner of Ashtree Road and Pershore Road.

At present, Tesco is allowing car parking on the corner of Hazelwell Lane and Hazelwell Street and is considering allowing car parking on the old Kwik Save site, after Balfour Beattie finish their work on the Old Baths site.

Deliveries should be restricted to before and after peak traffic times.

The proposal for a public square will only be beneficial if air pollution levels are addressed. If they are reduced, it will be a focal point for the community. The public square needs to be built with an improved road layout that ensures vehicular traffic on only 2 sides of this space."

Community Facilities

"Stirchley has the library, former baths development, primary school, district office, waterways and green spaces that need to be protected. The services at these sites need to be maintained and developed sensitively. For example, seating along the River Rea and the promotion of active travel and public transport to reduce congestion.

The Community Market needs a permanent site in order to thrive. The develoment of a Public Square, that is a mixture of paving and planting with good pedestrian access would be ideal."

Heritage

"The Victorian vibe of Stirchley should be respected. Existing buildings should be re-used in a sensitive way. This is an important aspect of the local identity and ambience.

New developments should be sympathetic in design. They should be no more than 3 storeys along the main road.

There should be every effort to make historic buildings accessible for everyone

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change with careful modifications."

Sustainability

"Sustainable development in Stirchley will involve encouraging more people to live, work and spend their free time in the area.

Active travel must be encouraged. Walking and cycling reduce vehicle usage, traffic congestion, air pollution and improve health. Encourage people to leave their cars behind, by making walking and cycling safer by the design of the roads and junctions and encouraging shared use paths along the river and canal.

Cycle parking facilities, seating and signposting to toilet facilities should be provided.

All parking facilities should have permeable surfaces.

There needs to be further investment in flood defences and consideration of climate change upon the urban heat island effect.

Any homes that are built must be on brownfield sites. They must use resource efficient methods, such as insulation,rain water harvesting and renewable energy generation.

The green spaces in Stirchley must be protected and any improvements must not alter the biodiversity and character of the area.

Sustainable development of derelict land, empty shops/workshops/offices/ commercial and industrial sites will bring much needed regeneration to Stirchley.

If this SPD does not take the views of local people into account, then the redevelopment will not be sustainable. Stirchley's economy will only thrive if the residents and workforce have sufficient input and involvement with the planning."

Ten Acres

"The mixed development at Ten Acres seems reasonable. However, there are long standing traffic issues with the Pershore Road between Dogpool Lane and the Ten Pin Bowling site. The design of the road and junctions will need careful 45

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change consideration, particularly with more housing being built.

There must be a concerted effort to reduce car usage in Stirchley, by encouraging walking, cycling and use of local buses and trains."

Central Stirchley

"The development of Central Stirchley centres upon Hazelwell Lane and the proposed Tesco. My reservations are about the likelihood of Tesco being able to build and open their store with their current financial situation and the capacity that the local roads have for more delivery vehicles and local traffic.

The new Community Hub at the Baths site and a public square will both be assets for Stirchley. Locating a public square surrounded by stationary and slow moving traffic polluting the air seems counter-productive. The public square needs to be built with an improved road layout that ensures vehicular traffic on only 2 sides of this space.

The regeneration of empty shops, offices etc. may attract new business and that could be good, if Stirchley decides upon its vision for the future. Without that vision, Stirchley's high street could be reduced to charity shops, pawn brokers and cash-a-cheque shops. Central Stirchley is a mixture of independent shops, the Co-op, social enterprises, repair shops, takeaways and restaurants, commercial/ industrial units and DIY stores at present. If larger units are created or built, other national companies might be attracted to Stirchley. However, it would be detrimental to Stirchley's character for too many big stores (no more than 50%) to be opened."

Southern Stirchley

The plans for the empty shops and units at the southern end of Pershore Road and the derelict land on Fordhouse Lane are for mixed development. There will be issues with the existing road layout and it will need to be re-designed to enable traffic flow and to reduce the number of car crashes. It is a good idea to have a pedestrian walkway from Fordhouse Lane through to Pershore Road. Careful consideration must be given to encouraging people to feel safe when walking through.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Sustainability Appraisal

The SPD will bring medium and long term benefits for Stirchley, but will not bring many short term benefits. There is no quick fix for the years of neglect that Stirchley has suffered, at the expense of expensive city centre developments.

Cllr Huxtable Retail

The creation of a local centre regeneration fund To ‘encourage’ the redevelopment by Tesco of the Hazelwell Lane site To bring forward a shop front improvement grant To prevent any further hot food take away in Stirchley Village

Housing

To extend the Article 4 direction with regard to HMOs to cover Stirchley Village/SPD area

Connectivity

To install protection measure along the grass area in Hazelwell Park adjacent to both Hunts Road and Ripple Road, Stirchley to prevent illegal incursion

(specifically by travellers) and damage to Hazelwell Park

To improve as a gateway feature the traffic island at the junction of Pershore Road./Hazelwell Street and Umberslade Road

Community Facilities

To encourage the creation of micro parks and tree/flower planting along the Pershore Road (especially if connected with development)

To create a community orchard on the land owned by BCC (BPS) on the Stirchley gyratory island (access/egress from Hazelwell Street)

Heritage

The restoration of the Mayfield Road chapel (heritage project)

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Sustainability

To undertake a biodiversity project along the River Rea, including the creation of a wetlands meadow on the western bank of the River Rea between the River Bourn and Dogpool Lane

Central Stirchley

The need for a Park & Ride along Mary Vale Road, Stirchley to serve Bournville Railway Station

To upgrade, working with the Rivers and Canal Trust, the mooring facility in Stirchley along the Worcs and B’ham canal

To encourage the development of the former Whitmarley (Ivy Road) and Kwik Save site (Pershore Road)

Southern Stirchley

The need to allow (change of use to A1) for the redevelopment of the Lifford Business Park as a retail site (given previous interest in the site) and/or to market the site as an extension to the Selly Oak Life Science Campus

BHLF-JVSW- Connectivity 8KXM-J TRANSPORT: traffic hazards in MARYVALE RD ,PERSORE RD TO BOURNVILLE STATION particularly due to parking both sides and commercial traffic use and risk to cyclists: suggest possibly use of one way systems in this road and adjacent roads also one way roads in side roads off pershore rd would help increase currently slow flow speed of traffic along pershore rd . There is a major problem with large commercial vehicles visiting commercial sites in charlotte rd conflicting with school traffic and safety and the residential housing environment. Cartland rd although mainly outside the plan area urgently needs measures to reduce traffic speeds possibly with use of speed indicators and othe5r measures

Community Facilities

RECREATION: there is an urgent need for better external play facilities for 48

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change teenagers who currently wrongly use young children,s play area , I suggest a site be designated for a MUGA, POSSIBLY IN HAZELWELL PARK

Central Stirchley

TESCO SITE in view of delay in development start date , Tesco,s should be asked to consider a revised smaller scheme with a smaller store ( bearing in mind state of retail store development situation nationally) with residential strip on east side facing towards river rea. There is urgent need for more new 3-4 bedroom family housing to supplement smaller terraced dwellings and allow expanding families to stay in the area

Environment Vision Agency "Page 4 includes the Vision for the area. We welcome the statement that you are looking to protect the ecological character of the area as there is significant biodiversity associated with the water environment at this location, however would recommend that given the extent of floodplain at this location flood risk is also mentioned. This will both constrain development and provide opportunities for betterment and wider risk reduction if considered strategically.

We note page 6 references how this plan will add further detail to the Birmingham Development Plan which is currently at examination stage. We particularly draw your attention to Policy TP6 which address flood risk and the water-based environment.

Plan 1 – please add labels to show the “River Rea” and “The Bourn”."

Development Principles

"The Bourn is culverted for approx 46m under a car park off Umberslade Road (SP 05359 81426). Any opportunity to open up the Bourn at this location should be taken to extend the wildlife corridor and make it a more attractive place to visit the adjacent Primary Shopping Centre.

The plan should explore any opportunity to remove the weir on River Rea at SP 05893 81806 as part of the North Stirchley (Ten Acres) development proposal.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Page 9 states that ‘redevelopment for ground floor residential will also be permitted subject to appropriate design’ – within the centre boundary, large areas are located within Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Environment Agency consider that ground floor residential development is not appropriate in these locations unless it can be demonstrate that a place of safe refuge above the flood level and safe access/egress can be provided.

Although flood risk does affect some of the potential opportunity sites identified within this plan, we welcome the clarification on page 10 that new housing will be encouraged, but only outside Flood Zones 2 and 3. This is in line with the sequential approach to allocating land for development pushed by the NPPF. Page 10 refers to ‘pocket parks’ outside 1219-1239’. This is welcomed and we would encourage the plan to be extend these to other areas - it would be good to see rain gardens such as at Ribblesdale Road, Nottingham implemented. More information on such techniques is available here http://www.susdrain.org/case- studies/case_studies/nottingham_greening_streets_retrofit_rain_garden_project. html

It would be useful to see these mapped as opportunities on Plan 2.

Under the Delivery heading, page 27 identifies how developer contributions may be sought to improve the amenity and flood risk of the Bourn and Rea. This section would benefit from referencing the Rea Catchment Partnership and the work that the Environment Agency and partners are doing to attract investment in future flood defence and environmental improvements. Information regarding the partnership and those organisations involved can be found here - http://www.reacatchmentpartnership.co.uk/

With the amount of re-development potential in the area we would be keen to instigate discussions with developers to discuss how their plans could support improvements for the wider Stirchley area and we would welcome the opportunity for the SPD to encourage and support this level of discussion"

Connectivity

"Page 11 encourages the use of the River Rea corridor amongst others for walking and cycling opportunities. We note that improvements to the Rea corridor are proposed such as signposting, access routes and new crossing 50

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change points. We support this proposal to bring more people into contact with the natural water environment and provide a multifunctional use for this blue corridor, but also welcome the note that ‘care will need to be taken that the ecological impacts of such changes are avoided or suitably mitigated’. The plan should highlight how any new crossings over the River Rea should be of clear span construction and designed above the design flood level. Flood defence consent will be required from the Environment Agency for any proposed works in, under, over or within 8m of the River Rea and Bourn, designated as ‘Main Rivers’.

Page 13 further expands on the theme of public open space and green infrastructure, and we welcome reference to the climate change adaption, flood risk management and water quality improvements these areas can bring (paragraph 4). We agree that these benefits should be maximised, particularly with regards to the improvement of the overground sections of the Bourn and Rea to provide amenity and reduce flood risk, and the opportunities provided for habitat creation."

Design & Heritage

We support the proposals within Page 14 for waterside development, particularly with regards to ensuring that new development faces onto the watercourse.

Sustainability

"Page 15 discusses flood risk, water quality and SuDS solutions. We support the points identified as opportunities for flood risk reduction within this plan area.

We would welcome any further encouragement within the plan for the specific use of permeable paving in new developments in order to improve water quality within the Rea, alongside more emphasis on water re-use and climate resilience.

There may also be some scope, in specific locations, to implement rain gardens and other water retention features that could reduce the impact of surface water flooding, known to be an issue in the area. Consideration should be given to surface water flooding during highway re-configuration and whether future highway works could be designed to reduce flood risk and direct flows in a controlled and managed way. Areas of green open space should be protected, 51

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change with opportunities to enhance the ability of these areas to store water during extreme weather conditions being explored. The LLFA (Birmingham City Council) as the lead on surface water drainage should be able to advise further on these matters. The LLFA has produced a guide to design, adoption and maintenance of sustainable drainage systems which should be referenced in the SPD. This provides detailed guidance to support the implementation of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in future developments in Birmingham.

This section also describes how Flood Risk Assessments will be required to support applications in areas of surface water flooding. We recommend that this wording is revised to clarify how this is also needed in area of mapped floodplain (i.e. Opportunity Sites 2 and 4) as per NPPF paragraph 103 footnote 20. This section should therefore be revised to read as follows:

‘Flood Risk Assessments will be required when considering development proposals in areas of mapped floodplain and in areas susceptible to surface water flooding’.

The Environment Agency would then advise on issues relating to flood risk from the rivers, and your Lead Local Flood Authority should further advise on surface water flooding issues and any FRAs associated with this.

The support for creation of waterside spaces for enhancement of the wildlife corridors under the heading Nature Conservation and Biodiversity is supported by the Environment Agency. Within the Stirchley area there is opportunity to improve the ecological value of the River Rea and The Bourn and their corridors. The SPD should go further to push for improvements to the watercourses in line with EU Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives as defined by the Humber River basin Management Plan - not just retain what is there. This is in line with your emerging policy TP6.

There is a significant problem with non-native invasive species (in particular Japanese knotweed) in the area which is decimating the native riparian species. Large improvements in quality could be gained from getting on top of the knotweed problem in the area.

The SPD area spans three WFD water bodies. All are failing their WFD objectives being of Bad to Moderate ecological potential. Failures are due to 52

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change diffuse pollution and physical modification of the channel. Where ever possible, removing weirs that create barriers to dispersal, removing un-needed bank side revetment, improving the riparian habitat and improving in channel habitat will all help to improve the ecology of the water River Rea and The Bourn. There are numerous opportunities within the Stirchley area where this could be achieved such as around the confluence with the Bourn and River Rea and downstream towards Dogpool Lane where there are non-native species, failed bank revetment, a redundant weir and opportunities for wetland creation.

Improving the banks and bed of the river will be key to improving the river ecology and ensuring they meet the required objectives under the WFD. In light of this, we recommend that the following bulletpoints are added in to promote biodiversity enhancements and to ensure consistency with Policy TP6 Managing Flood Risk of the emerging Local Plan:

• culverted watercourses should be opened up where possible and existing open watercourses should not be culverted • opportunities should be taken to benefit rivers by reinstating natural river channels by removing weirs and bankside revetment • management of non-native species such as Japanese Knotweed"

Ten Acres

"When looking at specific sites it is noted that Opportunity Site 2 and 4 in the North Stirchley Area (page 20) are affected by floodplain. We welcome the proposals at St Andrews Healthcare which are to provide flood alleviation benefits, and we are currently working closely with this developer to bring about the most effective flood risk solutions for the adjacent community to the north of the plan area through the development of this site. We do however have serious concerns over Land to East of Ten Acres Mews which is shown wholly within the floodplain. Should this mapping be correct it is unlikely that adequate mitigation will be able to be designed into the redevelopment scheme and the development will increase floodrisk elsewhere as it will not be able to provide adequate compensation for the displacement of floodwaters. Reference should be made to your Strategic Flood Risk Assessment for further advice, but we recommend that this site is withdrawn

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change from the plan unless it can be demonstrated that development of this site is both safe and would not increase flood risk elsewhere.

We strongly support the principle of new development helping to reduce flood risk in the catchment and the St Andrews Healthcare case is a great example of this. It should also be noted though that large areas of Stirchley are shown to be at flood risk as a result of overtopping of the Bourn. A potential solution has been identified which would involve the storage of large volumes of water outside of the Stirchley SPD boundary. Details of this can be found here - http://www.reacatchmentpartnership.co.uk/extended-information/the-bourn. Consideration should be given to how new development can support the delivery of a flood defence scheme on the Bourn to benefit the wider Stirchley area."

BHLF-JVSW- Vision 8KXU-T "Forgive me when I say that it is a little hard to take seriously a document that purports to have as its objective ;

'The regeneration of Stirchley is a key aspiration for Birmingham City Council. With improvements in the public realm, community and leisure assets and transport connections; Stirchley will become a more attractive place to live and visit with a vibrant, sustainable future.'

Perhaps you should moderate your hyperbole a little and be humbled by what little effect the current SPD has contributed to the improvement of Stirchley since 1995; almost nothing at all. Even the building of the Tesco superstore, the reason why the current SPD was revised back in 2002, has not happened.

I would suggest that the document should focus a little more on what a supplementary planning document can likely effect rather trying to covey an impression that this document is the all-encompassing future blueprint for a new Stirchley.

As I have said the current SDP for all its wild optimism has had little effect in twenty years. The only appreciable improvement to Stirchley, albeit too late, was a limitation on the number of fast food outlets and that was as a result of separate supplementary planning document and not the SPD.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Let me begin with a few corrections.

1. The friends meeting house in neither a listed building nor on Hazelwell Lane, it is on Hazelwell Street.

2. Please change the document to call the enhance landscaped area on Pershore Road a 'micro park' rather than your name, a 'pocket' park. That is what we have always referred since we created it back in 2009(?)"

Retail

"Overall, the document should emphasis the dislocation between the high street and everything else that lies in Stirchley's hinterland.

It is the high street which needs our attention and which conveys the erroneous impression to visitors and investors that Stirchley is a run down and neglected suburb. The housing, the parks, the transport links and the employment are of good quality. It is the high street, so visible to everyone, that is in serious need of assistance.

Therefore the document needs to focus on how a planning document could improve the high street, from a planning perspective. This inevitably means understanding the reasons why the high street is in such dire condition and then attempting to offer solutions.

Your document has not made that differentiation and instead choses to convey an impression that everything is wrong in Stirchley to varying degrees and all needs your meddling intervention.

The document should primarily state that there is too much retail space in Stirchley and then it needs to be reduced. Your document has nothing to say on this. Your document should say that an aggravating factor is that so much of the retail build is of poor outdated quality and can most likely never be improved.

The document should state that because of the narrow pavements, the busy Pershore Road and the lack of parking the shopping experience leaves much to be desired.

Stirchley cannot economically support so large a retail offering. The result is that 55

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change much of it is neglected. Clearly parts of Stirchley needs to be zoned away from retail into either housing or office space or a single medium sized retailer. Not in a piecemeal fashion but by block. This re-zoning should focus on the west side of the Pershore Road. Generally the east side, the side of the School, are of a much higher build quality.

The shops on the west side of the Pershore Road are the oldest and of the poorest quality and will never be attractive to modern retailing. They should be zoned away from retailing. This will give the owners a financial incentive to allow development into housing or modern offices. The owners could make money from such redevelopment whereas they will never make money from redeveloping them as individual shops. For example between Ivy Road and Mayfield Road that entire block should be zoned as housing.

Again by zoning a specific a block containing poor retail premises, say between Hazelwell Road and Ivy Road as suitable for development for a medium sized retailer one could create the conditions and planning certainty to attract businesses like Aldi or Lidl to Stirchley."

Connectivity

"The other problem is that the pavements are simply too narrow and unappealing to the walking shopper. Where there is redevelopment we need to push the frontage back away from the road to give the pedestrians more space. Again this is something that is not happening. For example the new retail premises that will be built between the British Oak and Hunts Road are being allowed to build again right up to the pavement. We should not be repeating the mistakes of the past. They should be required to push their frontage back, twenty feet at least to allow a more wider and appealing pedestrian walkway. That is what is so attractive about our ‘micro park’. It gives the pedestrian some safe attractive space away from the busy Pershore Road. We need to repeat this model where ever new developments take place along the Pershore Road.

We need to create, through the SPD, a public space at Mayfield Road with the Chapel as the centrepiece. Stirchley has little public space. Ten years ago we redeveloped the frontage outside the Constituency office. Welcomed as that was, it is still a relatively limited space. The area by the chapel is a perfect location for a large community based public space. With the right grants the 56

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change chapel could be restored as a building to serve the community."

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K7D-8 I agree and hope that the aspirations for the regeneration of Stirchley as shown in this latest version of the Stirchley Framework will be delivered as Stirchley has been ignored for many years and has waited long enough for something to be done. There are areas of real neglect that are run down and have gone from bad to worse over many years, land that could provide much needed housing and shopping areas, instead of vacant, vandalised land, empty rundown shops lining a main route through the area.

Development Principles

Stirchley residents/businesses have been waiting for much of what has been set out in this Framework for a very long timet I think it is fair to point out that much of what is included in the Framework has been put in previous versions over the years and very little has taken place.

Retail

Obviously much depends on whether the area around Hazelwell Lane where the large supermarket has planning permission already for goes ahead. If not, what will happen? There does not appear to be any contingency plans in place should the supermarket build not take place so the land will remain vacant.and it is therefore difficult to see what attraction there will be for other independent retailers/businesses etc to invest here.

Connectivity

Public space would be welcomed but much relies on the Tesco development so what happens if this does not happen? The objective to ease travel could be good but again will not happen unless the area can be regenerated and improved as many people do not find it very pleasant to walk or cycle through rundown shopping areas, vacant vandalised land often overgrown and used for fly-tipping.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Ten Acres

"The aspirations as shown in the Framework for Ten Acres would be welcome but the land west side of Pershore Road, between Ten Acres Mews and Warwards Lane was sold at auction in 2014 on behalf of Birmingham City Council with a misleading sale description. It is hoped that the aspiration for residential development, which is much needed, will be taken into serious consideration by BCC planners in any applications that may be submitted.

It has to be said that road improvements at Dogpool Lane/St Stephens Rd and Warwards Lane junctions with the Pershore Road have had very adverse effects on these three roads with heavy traffic now diverted onto these roads and queues of traffic trying to access Pershore Road from St Stephens Road. The junction at Dogpool Lane from Pershore Road is really an accident waiting to happen."

Central Stirchley

The only comment for this part is whether Tescos will arrive on site or not. Regeneration, which has been ongoing for a very long time will not happen if no supermarket is built. There does not appear to be any contingency plans in place to replace the supermarket and therefore it is hard to see any regeneration/improvement taking place which is such a pity as the regeneration of Stirchley Baths as a community hub has to be commended but unfortunately although the building is a pleasure to see, pass and enter - it is surrounded by "eyesores".

Stirchley Vision Neighbourhood Forum We agree that Stirchley needs to be made a more attractive place to live (this refers mainly to Pershore Road) and developments should be in accordance with best design. Enrichment of the public realm, refurbishing character buildings and promoting employment are all positive aims.

It is important to remember that retail establishments need to attract the patronage of visitors as well as locals.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change The aims are correct but there are doubts about the City’s ability to deliver.

Retail

There are doubts whether the retail core is in the right place. Although logical (and in accordance with guidelines) it is sensible to have one core in the middle of the High Street it doesn’t accord with the current situation which is likely to result in more retail outlets being lsot form the areas outside the retail core (which have many such establishments) with no guarantee that they will be replaced by the bigger stores envisaged in the retail core.

There seems a lot of reliance on the Tesco development of the Hazelwell Lane site. What happens if that does not go ahead in accordance with current plans.

There is little or no reference to the current Coop store. If this were to become vacant what is envisaged for future development here?

Commercial Industrial & Employment

Although the policies seem to be sound there has to be doubts about whether they can be delivered in practice, given that the former Arvin Merritor site

remains a wasteland.

AS mix of employment opportunities, including SMEs and start-ups is clearly right for the area.

Housing

Locals would welcome further mixed residential housing as part of mixed-use schemes.

The question of encouraging infill is more difficult as this, in the past, has resulted in loss of light and amenity for neighbouring properties, along with parking and other issues.

Connectivity

In principle increased walking and cycling connectivity (particularly with the station and canal is to be welcomed) and increased use of the canal are to be 59

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change welcomed. Green corridors between the existing green spaces would also assist in this. The connections on the map don’t always make sense as they don’t always connect with bridges and access points.

It is not clear whether the works carried out to Pershore Road have overtaken the document, however, they have not been overly successful (especially for cyclists) and haven’t prioritised pedestrian movement.

It is not clear where it is thought that further public space can be created and how existing public space (for example outside the current District Office) is to be protected and cared for.

Community Facilities

Not clear how these proposals will preserve current community facilities and promote others (eg a post office)

Design and Heritage

We would welcome new developments that are integrated with the centre and maintain an active street frontage but in practice this has proven not to happen (eg Coop was designed to face the High Street and have windows and now has no windows on that side of the store (except small high level in the travel shop) and has been orientated through 90 degrees connecting more to the car park. Local people feel that having a car park on the street front would benefit other stores in the High Street more.

Identification of heritage assets is greatly overdue.

Sustainability

Promotion of public transport to ensure that Stirchley continues to be well served is welcomed, also walking and cycling.

The provision of street trees is less so given that the Council no longer has the resources to clear leaves and maintain them. The area is currently well served with green spaces.

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change Ten Acres

Plans for junction improvements, more open links to the Rea and further residential uses are to be welcomed.

Central Stirchley

In principle aspirations are fine.

There seems a lot of reliance on the Tesco development of the Hazelwell Lane site. What happens if that does not go ahead in accordance with current plans. There is little or no reference to the current Coop store. If this were to become vacant what is envisaged for future development here?

Southern Stirchley

It is not clear that the effect of the Council offices in Lifford House has been taken into account as this has led to custom for existing shops nearby and also parking provision at the two warehouses.

New links with Pershore Road (from Arvin Meritor site) are to be welcomed, less welcome is the possibility of linking Stirchley Trading Estate with Fordhouse Lane, even when junction improvements have taken place.

Selly Oak District Committee Comments 24/09/2015

Cllr Huxtable • Concerned that the document has taken so long to produce. He (also see expected it in Summer 2012.

above) • Various aspects need updating to reflect recent/current planning applications (e.g. Lifford Curve site, 1650 Pershore Road, St Andrews Healthcare site) and LSTF improvements. 61

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD Change • Minor error needs correcting – the Friends Meeting House is on Hazelwell St not Hazelwell Lane. • Concerned whether the proposals will ever be delivered- (especially the at Hazelwell Lane and the Arvin Meritor site) Cllr Barnett • Supports the document and job creation and wants to see jobs for local

people

Cllr McCarthy • Page 4 needs updating to reflect decision on BID • Supports current planning application for St Andrews Healthcare • There is a lot of local concern about current/recent proposals involving the continuation of Pershore Road scrap yard (Site 3). Supports redevelopment for residential use • Supports the redevelopment of site 4 east of Pershore Road • Recent improvements to junction of Pershore/St Stephens/Dogpool welcomed however residents would still like to see traffic signals if possible • The SPD is well put together document and is supported overall

Equality Analysis

Birmingham City Council Analysis Report

EA Name Stirchley Supplimentary Planning Document Directorate Economy Service Area P&R Planning And Development Type Reviewed Policy EA Summary The regeneration of Stirchley is a strategic priority of Birmingham City Council as outlined in the UDP and emerging Core Strategy. It is recognized that Stirchley is not fulfilling its potential as a district centre offering the quality of shopping and urban realm for local residents that one would expect. It is intended that this guidance will be adopted as a Supplementary Planning Document within the Birmingham City's Local Development Framework following formal public consultation, and subsequent revision (if required). This SPD is a review of existing planning policy documents for the Stirchley area and will replace them upon adoption. Reference Number EA000268 Task Group Manager [email protected] Task Group Member Date Approved 2014-09-03 01:00:00 +0100 Senior Officer [email protected] Quality Control Officer [email protected]

Introduction

The report records the information that has been submitted for this equality analysis in the following format.

Overall Purpose

This section identifies the purpose of the Policy and which types of individual it affects. It also identifies which equality strands are affected by either a positive or negative differential impact.

Relevant Protected Characteristics

For each of the identified relevant protected characteristics there are three sections which will have been completed. Impact Consultation Additional Work

If the assessment has raised any issues to be addressed there will also be an action planning section.

The following pages record the answers to the assessment questions with optional comments included by the assessor to clarify or explain any of the answers given or relevant issues.

1 of 4 Report Produced: Wed Sep 03 10:05:37 +0000 2014 1 Activity Type

The activity has been identified as a Reviewed Policy.

2 Overall Purpose

2.1 What the Activity is for

What is the purpose of this Policy and expected outcomes? The purpose of this SPD is to: provide local detail to the policies contained within the UDP and Submission Birmingham Develpment Plan provide guidance for developers, landowners and residents. confirm the Councils overall aspirations for the regeneration of Stirchley; act as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications; ensure sites coming forward for development will contribute to the regeneration objectives for Stirchley The SPD will potentially have a positive impact on the lives of individuals, communities and groups by providing guidance on; - Enhancing the retail offer and providing a mix of uses, this will act as a catalyst for inward investment. - Environmental enhancement. - Providing and Improving existing local services and community facilities, for all. - Improving accessibility (particularly by walking, cycling, public transport and for those with mobility difficulties) and quality of the centre. Through improvements in accessibility and signposting.

For each strategy, please decide whether it is going to be significantly aided by the Function.

Public Service Excellence No Fairness Yes Prosperity Yes Democracy Yes

2.2 Individuals affected by the policy

Will the policy have an impact on service users/stakeholders? No Will the policy have an impact on employees? No Will the policy have an impact on wider community? Yes

2.3 Analysis on Initial Assessment

2 of 4 Report Produced: Wed Sep 03 10:05:37 +0000 2014 The final document will be produced in line with the consultation requirements of the City Councils Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) and its protocol for adoption. In line with the SCI the SPD will undergo a six week public consultation period which will ensure that that maximum opportunity will be provided for everyone within the area, to engage in the consultation process and have a voice in the future of Stirchley. The document will then be revised in line with statutory requirements prior to formal adoption by the Council.

3 of 4 Report Produced: Wed Sep 03 10:05:37 +0000 2014

3 Concluding Statement on Full Assessment

This SPD complements and adds detail to the policies outlined in the Examination Birmingham Development Plan, which has undergone full public consultation under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, and will be subject to an examination in public by an independent planning inspector. The outline of the proposed SPD was discussed at meetings with the local members and later with local residents / businesses at meetings of the Neighbourhood Forum. This consultation, which also included local stakeholders and officers of the Council, was undertaken during the early development stages of the document to identify the themes and scope of the final document and to highlight local issues. As part of the production of this document a Sustainability Appraisal was undertaken to highlight any issues including equality issues this exercise did not highlight any issues for consideration in the EA process. The consultation draft will be / was then presented to the local members, district officers and the O&S chair for Birmingham Economy and Transport prior to seeking approval for undertaking full public consultation. Moreover the document does not and cannot, by nature of its status as an SPD, proscribe or prescribe actions, allocate land for development or provide new policies. As an SPD the document can only interpret and add additional detail to established national and local policies, as such the document cannot introduce or promote any discriminatory actions or policies.

4 Review Date

01/04/16

5 Action Plan

There are no relevant issues, so no action plans are currently required.

4 of 4 Report Produced: Wed Sep 03 10:05:37 +0000 2014