Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses

CONSULTATION SCHEDULE

STIRCHLEY FRAMEWORK SUPPLEMENTARY PLANNING DOCUMENT (SPD)

January 2016

1

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, Noted and various parking/loading arrangements, and the idea of parks/green spaces and references made throughout None required signposting to footpaths will greatly enhance the area and community document experience.

Retail Noted and various references made throughout Work to encourage independent retailers as well as chain stores document; see None required Development Principles - Growth retail context & retail development

Connectivity Noted and various references made throughout public square should be available for markets (Stirchley community market is document; see already established but struggling for suitable venues), exhibitions and activities Development Principles – None required Community Facilities and open spaces– Promoting community initiatives and in Delivery

Central Stirchley Noted and various references made throughout None required improved access / parking is vital. pedestrian-friendly areas too document

ANON-JVSW- Vision Noted and various 8K75-S references made throughout but it must take on board the small shops and business that are already there. document; see None required Development Principles - Growth retail context & retail development

2

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Connectivity Noted and various references made throughout the policy must ensure there is a safe cycle route from river rea route to 5 to the document supporting this, canal at bourneville station and if monies will allow link it to the merritts brook see Walking & Cycling – None required greenway there by linking stirchley to bournville and northfield.by off road routes. “Routes should be attractive, safe and legible, …….”

ANON-JVSW- Vision Noted. However, although 8K7P-M there has been a small On the whole I agree with the aspirations, although I would want to ensure that upturn in investment from Stirchley does not become another 'carbon copy' suburb with the usual national independents the city chains scaring independents away from the high street. We have a real council has no powers to opportunity to encourage new independent businesses to find a home here stop national retailers None required without being competing with established names we can find in so many investing, and without at instances around Birmingham. A very careful balance needs to be struck to least some to draw make sure that Stirchley is unique and not merely trying to be a copy of other customers, Stirchley is surrounding suburbs. unlikely to see sufficient investment in the long term.

Development Principles Noted and various references made throughout Development should be sympathetic to the heritage of the area and not document, see None required synthetic. Development Principles / Design & Heritage

Retail Add reference to SPD to state that applications for Amend section on Please refer to my comments on the 'vision for Stirchley'. Also, would be great to live work units would be new housing see some affordable live/work spaces incorporated, to encourage new talent - supported in suitable development. think of them as little incubators! locations

Housing Noted and various references made to need for Amend Delivery New housing developments should retain sympathetic heritage design. Some good design and to promote section- Community investment needed to encourage residents with existing dwellings to be proud of heritage throughout Building them and make the most of the frontages would be great - Stirchley in Bloom, document see Development 3

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change perhaps? principles – Growth – New housing development. Add reference to support for local business and community initiatives

Connectivity

Investment in public spaces is crucial - parks need to be safer and better utilised. Noted and various Public space on the high street as a focal point is important - the high street is references made throughout None required such a corridor at the moment, it's easy for people to shuttle through but not stop document and pause for a moment!

Design & Heritage Noted and various references made throughout Retain heritage buildings and make it key to new developments to incorporate document, see heritage design in new builds. Development Principles / None required Design & Heritage

Ten Acres Noted; This plan aims to Entering Stirchley is a miserable affair at the moment - from the north or south of encourage change in this None required Pershore Road. Make it more welcoming! area

Southern Stirchley Noted; This plan aims to Entering Stirchley is a miserable affair at the moment - from the north or south of encourage change in this None required Pershore Road. Make it more welcoming! area

ANON-JVSW- Vision Noted. However, the plan 8K7H-C sets out policies to support I do have doubts over how will improve some of the very shoddy old Bric a brac independent shops and a shops and numorous take aways. Businesses won't want to invest with all that range of appropriate plus with the ongoing uncertainty over Tesco looming like a dark cloud. measures to attract None required investment in the centre e.g. further environmental enhancements, improved parking, Growth in Take- 4

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change aways (Use class A5) Controlled by Shopping and Local Centres SPD – see IntroductionThe retail composition of the area ( i.e. type of retail shops) is outside the control of planning legislation and policy.

Housing Noted. However, parking I am a tenant above one of the shops in the high street its ok but access to out provision as part of None required parking is sometimes blocked especially on Fridays/Saturday's when too any residential development supported by existing park on the high street - sode roads often also very packed - so if bringig in more would vary on a case by policies housing please provide sufficient parking too. case basis.

ANON-JVSW- Vision Noted and various 8K7M-H references made throughout The emphasis must be strongly on independent shops and businesses - this has document; see always been a place for independent businesses and turning it into a high st Development Principles - None required which looks like every other high st will not do the area any favours. The best Growth retail context & retail way to regenerate the area will be to harness the energy and enthusiasm of the development and Delivery existing entrepreneurs and community activists. section

Housing Noted and various references made throughout There is an acute need for larger family housing in Stirchley. It is extremely document: see difficult to find houses with more than 3 bedrooms (and a large number have Development Principles – Add a reference to only 2). The current trend of young professionals buying terraced properties is Growth New housing small numbers of welcome as it is injecting fresh vitality and entrepreneurship into the area. development seeks a range family houses and a However these people will move away when their families grow, with a resulting of sizes and tenures for desire for some 3 & 4 negative impact on schools and long term sustainable community. Any new larger developments. But bed properties. residential developments must take this into account. could be strengthened as 68% of the houses are small terraced houses.

5

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Sustainability Agreed; any development There is a potential conflict between creating wildlife corridors and encouraging involving these spaces would require an Ecological increased use of the green spaces for cycling/walking. One example of this None required, as Assessment prior to any would be improving the connection to the Rea from Bewdley Rd. This side of the damaging permission bring granted river is currently not well used and therefore a real haven for wildlife. If it developments would see; Development becomes a more widely used access point to the river, this wildlife could be not be allowed. harmed. So while I greatly desire to see more people use and enjoy the Rea Principles- Sustainability, valley, some areas must be retained as quiet, little used areas for the benefit of Nature Conservation and wildlife. Biodiversity.

Ten Acres The need to improve public realm and reduce "See previous comments re access to the river along Bewdley Rd. congestion where possible Amend Delivery is noted and various The traffic build up along this stretch is very unpleasant. Fumes build up due to section- Community references are made to this Building. Add new the tunneling effect of houses so close the street - the health risks in these throughout the document properties must be fairly substantial. The noise pollution is also significant. There bullet “involving the e.g.section on Ten Acres- community in is need to somehow manage the traffic so there are fewer tailbacks on this key outcomes particular stretch. initiatives and encouraging Add reference to support for community There is wonderful wildlife along this part of the Rea - real scope for a wildlife local business and leadership. conservation project here and creation of new habititats. Please involve the community initiatives 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) Noted. However, the plan 8K7Y-W I think Stirchley can only be improved by improving the high street, not only in sets out policies to support independent shops and a terms of its cleanliness, but also attracting a wider variety of shops. range of appropriate measures to attract At present, the majority of retail shops are either fast food takeaways or carpet None required and furniture shops, and this does not attract local residents at all. investment in the centre e.g. further environmental There should be no more superstores, and instead, these areas used for the enhancements, improved creation of parking areas for local residents and visitors to the village. parking. The proposed superstore should also help There should be no parking bays along the high street, replaced by the above to attract shoppers to visit 6

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change suggestion, apart from deliveries to retail shop fronts in the day. the other shops in the centre.Growth in Take- aways (Use class A5) Controlled by Shopping and Local Centres SPD – see Introduction. The retail composition of the area is outside the control of planning legislation and policy.

ANON-JVSW- Retail Noted the supermarket in 8K7B-6 question has a live planning I think it is a great pity that a large supermarket lies at the heart of this proposal. consent. The proposed The area is already served by a large Co-op whose business will probably superstore should also help diminish when Tesco opens. The citizens of Birmingham only have a certain to attract shoppers to visit amount of money to spend in a supermarket and this will just spread that the other shops in the amount more thinly than it is at present leading to lower profits for both centre. Should another supermarkets. Exponential growth in supermarkets does not lead to the same application come forward for growth in spending. Additionally if the council wishes to promote smaller the site it would be None required independent retailers a large retail outlet like Tesco will not help. Independent considered on its merits in retailers cannot compete on price and with both supermarkets also selling a the light of current policies. plethora of non-food items, it will just lead to empty shop units like at However it should be Longbridge. recognised that this document is written to promote and improve the whole of Stirchley not just one site.

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 Agreed None required jobs to boost spending power in the local area (and not just in large supermarkets).

7

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Housing

I am pleased that thought has been given to retaining the green areas within the Noted None required area and that the housing will need to be of a high quality.

Connectivity Noted however Stirchley will remain a linear centre with "I am concerned about the way roads are 'improved' within the City. I often basically the same road drive through Longbridge and I am very concerned about the number of traffic layout. The plan states that lights, fences and other road furniture which detracts from and spoils the area. the new road layouts along Another example would be the desperately poor road system in Selly Oak where Pershore Road should ugly fences and traffic lights have totally ruined a once bustling High Street. include traffic management, None Required What was once there has now gone forever as Sainsburys sucked the life out of and environmental Selly Oak. I would be very sad if the same mistakes are made in Stirchley which enhancement measures to is an old and historic area within Birmingham. minimise the impact of So yes, improve traffic flow but please ensure that this doesn't just mean a traffic and allow easy and ridiculous number of traffic lights at car level, lorry level and every other level safe access for pedestrians known to man." across roads.

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 Noted None Required attractive area because it has been allowed to remain essentially early 20th century in appearance,

ANON-JVSW- Vision The works undertaken on 8K7X-V Pershore Road have been Looks good, is this tied in with the work that has already happened along parts part of the Local of Pershore Road? A change to the junction where access from Ribblesdale to Sustainable Transport Fund None Required Pershore Rd has been blocked and the removal of a pedestrian refuge so you (LTSF) works that have could cross over to Dogpool Lane seem to go against what is being proposed been undertaken throughout here. the City.

Ten Acres Noted however, the changes made to the road None Required Please look at the junction of Ribblesdale to Pershore Rd and look at the access layout in this area have 8

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change for surrounding roads - Cherington, Windrush, Rissington and Gristhorpe. the been made as part of the move to block access has made this junction dangerous and confusing, there is LTSF works undertaken a temporary sign saying 'no right turn' yet people do turn right from the after extensive public Warwards direction (blocking the access if you want to turn left), it makes no consultation by Birmingham sense to drive up Warwards to turn down St Stephens and the traffic is as bad City Council Transportation as ever on Pershore in terms of queues, it has made Warwards Lane a kind of Department in July/ August rat run and Ribblesdale a confusing conflict of interests with people making up 2013 their own use/arrangements. Please admit this has been a mistake and put back the access so that residents form Cherington, WIndrush, Rissington and https://www.birminghambeh Gristhorpe have sensible access to Pershore/Cartland. It is no an improvement eard.org.uk/development/lst for pedestrians since the refuge has been removed where you turn left out of fa441pershorerd Ribblesdale onto Pershore and cyclist are directed by new signs down Umberslade to the Rea valley cycle route so what is the point of that?

Network Rail, Central Stirchley The area will receive 15% of Town Planning CIL receipts captured within Team LNW Consideration should be given by the LPA to ensuring that CIL funds / developer the area which could be contributions are included as part of the planning consents process for funding spent on improvements to enhancements at Bournville Railway Station as a result of increased footfall from the station also; any large Add reference to third party commercial developments potentially impacting the station. scheme which could impact Bournville Station to on the station or its use may Connectivity and however attract a Section Public Realm in 106 contribution. The Delivery section potential for Park and Ride is noted in Development Principles / public transport and the delivery section of plan will be amended

ANON-JVSW- Vision 8K77-U Stirchley is crying out for investment and reuse of derelict land. It offers the Agreed None required opportunity to enhance the environment whilst also generating jobs and homes and improving the natural environment.

Development Principles Noted None required

9

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change I largely agree, but I think there are weaknesses and potentially missed opportunities.

Retail

"Generally acceptable, it recognises the continued importance of small shops Noted 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 Plans have not been None required escape the traffic for a few minutes. I think any development should ensure formalised for the public some breathing space for the public alongside this busy road. The tiny green area at the gyratory and the Tesco development. Given 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 logistics of managing the site of the old Webbs plant rental shop?" the traffic flow in the area Amend plan to reflect any direct connection to the requirement to green space on the gyratory provide a public would be very difficult to space between new achieve. However, there retail development are proposals for a new and British Oak public space adjacent to the British Oak and the Tesco store which will be further away from the main road.

Commercial, Industrial & Employment

These are worthy aspirations, but I have lived in Stirchley for over 10 years now Noted – see response

walking past empty flat land, ideal for redevelopment and all I have seen is below. further demolition of perfectly good housing - something which the country desperately needs.

Housing Noted, the plan identifies a number of sites for housing I think there is too little space devoted to good high density, low cost housing. If e.g.1650 Pershore Road. None required commercial land cannot be used because there is no demand for it then Should residential Stirchley is a good place to build some houses or flats because of the public applications come forward for commercial land they 10

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change transport and bicycle routes through it. would be considered on their merits in the light of current policies. Subject to this some commercial sites may be considered suitable for housing.

Connectivity

"There needs to be a bigger public open space straddling or adjacent to the See comments on Retail Pershore road in order to create a focal point in the centre of Stirchley. Ideally above. adjacent to the British Oak public house. The Cycle Route along the Stirchley is essentially two green corridors separated by a busy road, which is Rea already extends along visually and traffic congested. I don't think the current strategy identifies strongly Beilby Road and Dacer enough the need to provide links across the Pershore road between the River close to the Canal towpath. Rea route and the canal. Specifically a link from somewhere need Fordhouse The plan identifies a lane to the canal, and maybe a link along te River Bourn from Stirchley park to number of opportunities for None required Cartland road. This would help to separate pedestrians from the busy Pershore improved east west access/ road enhancing access to the green routes - via the shopping area." routes. However, a link along the Bourne would not be possible without acquiring land on the banks of the Bourne and bridging the canal a laudable but expensive exercise.

Community Facilities The allocation of facilities is Some revision needed The document talks about 'some' of the community facilites being relocated to outside the remit of this the new community centre. It does not specify which services and facilities are plan. However, given the apart from the being lost or located outside the area - wouldn't it be more transparent to state opening of the Stirchley indoor bowls centre this so a proper understanding can be gained by the public of what is not being Baths Community Centre which has been relocated? has preceded the adoption relocated to of the document it will need Billesley Common to be revised to reflect this. inserted and

11

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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 Noted, while the document as an excuse to allow anything to be done to properties in this area. Shop cannot reverse existing conversions into flats opposite Fitness First for instance remain uncompleted, developments it will be able None required but are occupied. Other shop conversions are aweful from a design point of view to influence future and so Bournville gets whilst Stirchley gets worse and worse. Despite the investment. 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 Noted. The plan promotes Better connection with the River Rea would be good as per my main point about better connections with the None required the canal and river routes being isolated from each other by the Pershore Road. River at Ten Acres.

Central Stirchley Noted. There is another new public space adjacent "A larger green central public space to get away from the traffic - by just 20 or 30 to the British Oak and the metres would be nice! Tesco store which will be Amend plan to reflect further away from the main requirement for public It is essential to keep public access from the high street across the Tesco site to road. the footbridge over the Rea as this is very heavily used by people coming off space between new buses and the train and also represents an old historic route as you point out in The current application for retail development the report. The area need more east-west connectivity for bikes and pedestrians, this site respects this and British Oak. you say this is needed, but do not propose how it will be achieved." historic link, as would any revised plans should they be submitted.

Southern Stirchley

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

Sustainability Appraisal

"Mind blowing and I don't think I really understood it, but nice to know someone Noted this is an omission in Add reference to the

12

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change is thinking about being sustainable. the text and can be rectified. railway line to However, the rail lines are Development I think the importance of the railway line to the east of the area as a further marked as wildlife corridors Principles – wildlife corridor should be referenced, as it again reinforces the need for east- on Plan 2 the Assets and Sustainability, Nature west links to link up this with the Rea and the canal - developing an east-west Aspirations map and the Conservation and corridor ans well as the north-south corridors of the railway lines the Rea and te three area maps. Biodiversity. canal."

BHLF-JVSW- Connectivity 8K7T-R While this is a bold plan the "I believe you should certainly examine the potential for using the environs of the Bourne does not appear to Bourne Brook (broadly speaking along the wildlife corridor marked on your plan) have a footway at any of for connecting the pathways/cycleways from the Rea Valley to the re-surfaced these locations and there is Worcester and Birmingham Canal towpath and the recently vastly improved no access where it passes Merritts Brook parkway. At the moment the 'missing link' is the area around the under the various roads in Cadbury site. the area. A link could be established using the disused rail bridge 77A across the canal to This proposal would require None required link Raddlebarn Road to Laburnham Road and on to Bournville Park. the acquisition of land along This could pass to the west of the two small pools between Elm Road and the the Bourne and would be/is canal using the former railway line route. likely to be prohibitively expensive .However there is There is also a pathway to the west of Oxford Street which could access the nothing in the plan that canal. All of this area was of course the former goods yards for the Cadbury would prevent these Factory when it had its own rail link. There is a lot of scope here for some schemes coming forward if imaginative thinking which could open up this area and bring long term benefits funding was available. 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 Noted None required 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.

13

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Historic Design and Heritage England Thank you for providing an opportunity to comment on the Draft Stirchley SPD. Noted None required 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.

ANON-JVSW- Vision Both Harborne and Kings 8KYP-P Heath for example are I agree to a certain extent. However, Stirchley has and always will be a road linear centres and have had None required corridor to the City Cente. There is no heart like other shopping centres. We are more consistent investment not Bournville. than Stirchley.

Development Principles Noted however with the "The above will be difficult to deliver. inclusion of the canal and river Rea routes the area Public spaces, we only have Stirchley Park and Hazelwell Park. Community None required facilities will come with the Stirchley baths when finished but even that won't be has a number of walkways able to provide a vibrant community meeting place, it is too small. as well as the park and recreation ground. Design and Heritage, keeping buildings in the fashion needs lots of money."

Retail Planning legislation cannot prevent the loss of Primary shopping area, at the moment the Co-op is the main shopping store. businesses it can only Other shops offer very little. This is not their fault it is the way things have attempt to provide a climate changed. You do not encourage vacant shops to be brought back into retail use. in which business can You demand, expecting some owner to invest in a non viable business. The only survive and grow by thing that keeps shops open is the small business relief. encouraging local None required investment and growth. The plan sets out policies and a range of appropriate measures to attract investment in the centre e.g. further environmental enhancements, improved 14

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change parking.

Commercial , Industrial and Employment While new development should ideally employ locals From experience once a project is undertaken, i.e. community centre. The the refurbishment of listed promise of local tradespersons being used is untrue. The company puts in the buildings (Stirchley Baths) None required tender then employs people from out of the area. This is down to the economics for example requires of the tender. Also ..The bupa road race employs security staff from miles away specialist experienced Wales!!Even though there is a promise of using locals!!!! contractors which may not be local

Housing While there are only brown field sites within the plan New housing must first use brown field sites. The developers must offer area suitable for housing. accommodation to locals first, not out of town people, buying up the houses for Planning legislation can profit. Although I would personally prefer first time buyers housing and less prescribe the balance of social housing. Housing developments need infrastructure, school places, housing and tenure it doctors, transport etc., is there the school places available? cannot prescribe occupancy None required by local people in urban areas or purchase by individuals. Under CIL and S106 regulations large developments can be expected to contribute to school provision.

Connectivity The Tesco development is due to start in 2016.The "If the Tesco development goes ahead, this will encourage people to shop at proposed superstore should Tesco. Pershore road, causing stress to pedestrians and drivers alike, I cannot also help to attract shoppers see anyone wanting to stay in Stirchley too long. to visit the other shops in None required the centre. 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. Agree –the plan does not propose cycle lanes on The only thing that is good, is the walk along the renewed canal path." Pershore road.

15

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change The plan calls for improvements to signage to promote the use of the Rea valley cycle route to take through traffic off the roads rather than cycle lanes.

Community Facilities

"A library that is full of old books with very limited hours. Noted however, planning One fitness centre! can only encourage a safe We should definitely improve the play areas for the kids. and attractive environment Entertainment, where????? that people want to visit (it None required Why would visitors come to Stirchley? By mistake on their way to cannot dictate who visits Cadbury/Mondelez (not Kraft) where or who sits where in

the public realm) 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? The Dogpool Hotel area was in the earlier plan and three Horseshoes Pub, trying desperately to rid their image of a trouble pub. is retained in this one. It is The architecture, I didn't realise was Victorian? appropriate for the plan to cover this area as it is in British Oak, privately owned, architecture good, but right dump inside. No visitor need of investment. would enjoy having a pint here. None required

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 Noted. The Friends meeting buy it back and renovate it in with the community centre. house is suitable for a variety of uses and has Public Library, nice architecture, but not fit for purpose. consent for conversion to Baths, now the new community centre, with little space and no adequate residential student parking. Also has something against disabled. Their access will be around the accommodation.

16

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change back, can't be seen going through the front doors!!!!!!!"

The former Baths provides a range of spaces for community use and has good parking. The disabled access is to the rear of the baths as the rear parking area gives level access to the building rather than the previously planned ramped access.

Sustainability The public transport offer for Stirchley is noted in the "Priority should be given to pedestrians and car drivers. There is excellent SPD transport within the area already. Parking and charging points Provide parking, this will allow shoppers to do their shopping in the proposed etc would be expected as shops. Why is everyone in the Council against drivers? If you provide a green part of any major retail charging point. Dont put it in a valuable parking space along the main Pershore development Road. Rather it be put on the Co-op car park. Or the new Tesco car park. and pay them for the priviledge. The maintenance of existing street trees is not a planning None required We did have lovely trees in Bond Street Stirchley, until the council chopped them issue down. Couldn't afford the maintenance. So who will pay for new trees??? The formation of front gardens within the curtilage of a dwellinghouse is in If we want Stirchley to be as green as Bournville. Maybe we could re-introduce some cases permitted front gardens to the shopping parades that have long since closed and become development (if certain houses. this would look nice and help the wildlife, bees etc.I am sure the home conditions are met) and owners would welcome front gardens." could make a positive impact in certain areas

Ten Acres The Dogpool Hotel area was in the earlier plan due None required to the potential for 17

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change "Good luck with all of the above. development at Ten Acres and therefore is retained in As I have mentioned before. Dogpool in my lifetime of living here has always this one as that potential still been Selly Park. The Stirchley residents will not thank you for calling Selly Park, exists. Stirchley!!!"

Central Stirchley The plan would support the I am a business owner and being hit with a stick gets nowhere. Apply the carrot. use of grants if these were Grants to modernise our shops and bring back into use. Planners must realise available. Stirchley does you cannot apply the same planning to Stirchley high street as Kings Heath and have some room for larger None required Northfield. Both of these areas have the room for expansion and having larger stores if some smaller stores come along encourage the shoppers. Business is hard. Stirchley does not premises were to be have the space for these grand plans. combined.

Southern Stirchley

I would say it is imperative the junction at both Lifford lane and Fordhouse Lane Noted and this is one of the should have traffic light control. Trying to slow the traffic is one thing, but it is areas highlighted for None required making Lifford lane a no go area at certain times of the day. Accidents could be change/investment. 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 Noted however there has Northfield will not happen. Bournville has its history with Cadbury's and the been some investment from Bournville village trust.Kings Norton too. small businesses in the last few years and Tesco have None required Selly Oak has its University. We need something else. The very biggest problem announced that they intend has been the lack of investment. Just when things start to pick up, the high to start works on their new street is turned into a no go area, with narrowed road space and a reduced store in 2016. 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 18

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change come to Stirchley. So unfortunately I think the plan cannot work."

ANON-JVSW- Vision Stirchley’s heart will be 8KYA-7 around the Community Hub Stirchley doesn't have a heart, so where do the planners envisage this will be? / Library and will develop Does all of this depend on Tesco fulfilling their promise to build a store here? from investment in the area None required triggered by the Tesco investment expected in 2016.

Development Principles The PSA is defined by and mapped in the Shopping We need confirmation which businesses and shops are considered to be in the and Local Centres SPD None required PSA? (2012), and is shown on the Assets and Aspirations and area maps.

Retail National planning policy allows for retail conversion "I am concerned we already have shops that because of failing business have of shops (subject to certain needed to turn them to residential. I do not see a problem with this. I am worried conditions),the SPD reflects the council will stop this happening in the future. this.

You do say redevelopment for ground floor residential will be permitted subject The design is considered by None required to appropriate design. Who decides what is appropriate?" the Local Planning Authority (the Council) in accordance with policies in other SPD’s and planning guidance e.g. Places for Living.

Commercial, Industrial and Employment The SPD encourages offices in the centre and on "Most of this I agree with. However, small scale office developments will be ok the edge of centre subjectto but what is appropriatelocations? detailed planning None required considerations e.g. to ensure adequate access and no adverse impact on

19

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change residential amenity. .

I think it is ideal to employ local tradespersons. BUT if the tradespersons aren't Local employment available then there is a need to go elsewhere. Although I would object to agreements can only foreign countries supplying tradespersons." increase the chances for local workers they cannot contravene employment law

Housing PSA see above, and housing would be provided "Agree with most of this but still where is the primary shopping area? None required by a mixture of all the Who will provide the affordable housing, council, trust's or private developers?" suppliers.

Connectivity Noted.The plan supports a station car park should Add reference to "We have enough pedestrian crossings in Stirchley high street. There are suitable land become Bournville Station to enough 'bus stops. available. Any large scheme Connectivity and which could impact on the Public Realm in Bournville station should have its own car park. It should also cater for disabled station or its use may Delivery section and provide a lift." however attract a Section 106 contribution

Community Facilities Noted but planning can only encourage a safe attractive I agree with the above, but seating has to be where people would like to sit. Not None required for drunks to sit and drink their cans as we do at the moment. We do need more environment which people litter bins, cigarette butt bins. want to visit.

Design and Heritage

The Friends meeting house, should be bought back from the Co-op who only Noted None required purchased it to spoil Tesco and their plans. It is needed to be incorporated into the baths project.

Sustainability The formation of front gardens within the curtilage Non required My suggestion would be to allow closed down shops where appropriate land is of a dwellinghouse is in

20

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change available to turn their frontages into front gardens. This would look lovely, and some cases permitted help the wildlife. It would go towards making Stirchley look pleasing to the eye. development (if certain Maybe too give away free water butts so residents can water their gardens with conditions are met) and rainwater. Saving our water supply. could make a positive impact in certain areas

Ten Acres Noted- the plan supports further improvements at this We need traffic lights at Dogpool. junction.

Central Stirchley Tesco plan to commence work in 2016 but other

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

Southern Stirchley Noted- the plan supports further improvements at this We need traffic lights at Lifford Lane. junction

Sustainability Appraisal The quantum of change that Stirchley needs cannot "I worry that this all depends on one major retailer coming to Stirchley. If Tesco come from a single investor don't go ahead then we must definitely invite other stores to come. / developer. The decline in None required Stirchley has come from an Smaller shops need shoppers. Not sure Stirchley shops or residents have the ongoing lack of investment will after so many years being ignored by the City council." from businesses for a variety of reasons. (

Council for Vision British "We welcome the statement on p4 about protecting and enhancing the Archaeology, Noted None required West Midlands special historic and ecological character of the area, with investment in its heritage and green assets"

Connectivity Noted however reference is None required The Walking and Cycling section should also mention the River Rea Heritage made to the heritage trail 21

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Trail under public open spaces

Design and Heritage Paragraph to be added to Realising "We welcome the recognition that the high quality built heritage is an asset of the Heritage assets. “In area and we welcome the statements about its retention and sympathetic reuse. developments

We suggest that reference should also be made to the City Council's Historic where preservation Landscape Characterisation. of archaeological remains cannot be We welcome recognition of the archaeological remains in the area and the achieved, requirements for archaeological desk based assessments and field evaluations, archaeological and we strongly recommend that, in accordance with the NPPF and the Agreed and change is excavation will be Council's own policies, an additional paragraph be added stating that where needed to reflect this policy. required in advance preservation of archaeological remains cannot be achieved, archaeological of development excavation will be required in advance of development followed by analysis and followed by analysis publication of the results. and publication of

In addition, it may be useful to indicate the line of the Roman road on Plan 2." the results.” And a Noted and the road line will note added to the be added previous para indicating the route of the Roman road

Southern Stirchley This southern part of Stirchley is also In the final paragraph, it should be noted that this area does include part of the agreed and a change is crossed by the line of the Roman road. Some of the development opportunities identified here needed route of a Roman are near the line of the road. Road (Icknield Street)added

Sustainability Appraisal Agreed and addition made None to SPD Key sustainability issue (e), Built and historic environment, should also mention to Sustainability Appraisal. archaeological remains.

ANON-JVSW- Vision Noted however without a 8KY3-S more mixed retail offer / None required I'm concerned about the reference to larger stores both in terms of what they are new investment Stirchley

22

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change and the traffic implications - Pershore Road already has too much traffic. will continue to decline 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 Noted stores and major retailers coming into the area. Stirchley isn't far from Kings Heath, Moseley or Cotteridge so should offer something different.

Retail Noted, the SPD has various references to encouraging None required I'm not keen on major retailers and hope that there will be support for and supporting independent independent retailers. retailers

Commercial, Industrial and Employment Noted These seem fine

Connectivity With the planned reopening to There's no mention of the railway line opening behind Pineapple Road. Traffic is passenger services already a serious concern on Pershore Road and any proposals for investment of the freight line to and development should aim to support public transport, walking and cycling. the rear of Agreed. The use of this line Pineapple Road and for passenger travel is an the reopening of aspiration for Birmingham Hazelwell Station Connect the area would benefit from improved passenger rail services added to public transport

Sustainability Noted Agree strongly

23

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Canal & River Housing Noted and references to Trust many of these issues are We note that a site at 1650 Pershore Road has been identified as a site for new included in the SPD. housing development. We would require any development adjacent to or within Furthermore, all new the canal corridor to; not adversely affect the integrity of the waterway structure, developments will be quality of the water, result in unauthorised discharges and run off or subject to consideration of encroachment; detrimentally affect the landscape, heritage, ecological quality these issues during the None required and character of the waterways; prevent the waterways potential for being fully planning application unlocked or discourage the use of the waterway network. This is particularly process. 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 Noted canal under public space and connectivity. We would welcome the opportunity to

work with the Council to identify the priorities for enhancement. None required

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. The potential for use of the 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, canal for the movement of where it is appropriate to move freight by water this option should not be freight is already highlighted Minor relocation of disregarded." in the document.in potential relevant text. improvements

Community Facilities

The public open spaces section of the document lists the Worcester and Noted Most of these points Birmingham Canal as a wildlife corridor. The canal is multifunctional and a are listed in the document in None required wildlife corridor is just one its functions. The multi-functional roles, include: an various locations. 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;

24

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change sustainable modes of transport; and routes for telecommunications; supporting 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. This point is already Individual waterways and water spaces need to be viewed as an integral part of acknowledged in the a wider network, and not in isolation. Water should not be treated as just a document, and will be setting or backdrop for development but as a space and leisure and commercial considered further as part of resource in its own right. The ‘added value’ of the water space needs to be fully the planning application explored. Waterways themselves should be the starting point for consideration process, as and when of the development and use of the water and waterside land – look from the proposals come forward for water outwards, as well as from the land to the water. A waterway’s towing path development. 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 None required orientation of buildings optimise views of the water, generate natural surveillance of water space, and encourage and improve access to, along and from the Noted, any development water. New waterside development needs to be considered holistically with the adjacent to a waterway opportunities for water-based development, use and enhancement. Improve the would include the Canals & 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 Rivers Trust amongst the recognised that appropriate boundary treatment and access issues are often consultees and would there different for the towing path side and the offside. invite site specific responses. 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. Noted 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.

25

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Southern Stirchley Noted and the potential for the requirement for planning "We note the reference to the canal within the Southern Stirchley proposals. We obligations for canal Add to open consider the canals are attractive settings for development and are being utilised improvements is listed in spaces section in the as vehicles in place making and place shaping. Native species for new the Delivery section. Delivery chapter: developments are preferred in order to maintain the appearance and Although there is a general biodiversity. reference to planning  “The canal and contributions being sought river corridors to We note the references to the canal in the Southern Stirchley section of the from qualifying development maximise their document. Where appropriate and in accordance with the tests, planning to improve public open multifunctional obligations secured from the development or regeneration of sites on the space etc., specific benefits to all, waterside or otherwise benefiting from it should be reinvested and framed reference to the including positively to benefit the waterways infrastructure." multifunctional aspects of wildlife” the canal and river corridors would be helpful.

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 Noted and the name will be Name changed an ampersand “&” not the word “and”)." amended. accordingly

26

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Tyler Parkes Vision for: Police and nd Crime The PCCWM are disappointed that the Vision for the SPD makes no reference Add to the 2 para, Commissioner to the aim of creating a safe and inclusive environment. The need for planning Forward: 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 “…. create safe, (PCCWM) or community cohesion is a strong message repeated in the NPPF in both accessible and chapter 7 ‘Requiring Good Design’ and Chapter 8 ‘Promoting Healthy inclusive Communities’. It is therefore appropriate that the theme of community safety communities….” should be included within the Vision and it would be appropriate for it to be Noted and agree 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 Add to para 2 Vision: enterprises. “in a safe and The PCCWM formally requests that the following wording typed in ‘bold’ is inclusive added to the Vision on page 4, paragraph 2: ‘...sites will create new environment” employment, new housing and retail, all in a safe and inclusive environment ...’ Noted and agree .

insert new paragraph in Design and In addition, the PCCWM formally request that a new bullet point be added under Heritage assets

the section which sets out how the vision will be achieved as follows: ‘measures section: “ in addition will be sought to create and maintain environments that design out crime Noted and agreed- but measures will be and create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, these more detailed sought to create and the fear of crime, do not undermine quality of life or community changes should be made in and maintain cohesion.’ the design section environments that design out crime and create safe and accessible environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime …, 27

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Development Principles

The PCCWM are disappointed that the Development Principles for the SPD Noted. See changes makes no reference to the aim of creating a safe and inclusive environment. The recommended above. need for planning policies and proposals to seek to create safe and accessible Safety and inclusivity is at

environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do not undermine the core of all land use quality of life or community cohesion is a strong message repeated in the NPPF planning, from national in both chapter 7 ‘Requiring Good Design’ and Chapter 8 ‘Promoting Healthy through to local policies. It is Communities’. National Planning Practice Guidance also requires a number of specifically highlighted as specified issues to be considered these include: crime prevention; security an objective in the Vision measures; and safe, connected and efficient streets. It emphasises that chapter in the draft BDP, designing out crime and designing in community safety should be central to the and as such is key to the planning and delivery of new development. Council’s growth and regeneration agenda. There It is therefore appropriate that the theme of community safety should be is also more detailed included within the Development Principles and it would be appropriate for it to guidance in other SPD’s e.g be considered within all aspects of the SPD. It should be a key component of the Places for Living, Places for Council’s growth and regeneration agenda as it is a matter of considerable All. 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 Crime and the fear of crime PCCWM is keen to be involved in all development proposals at the design stage are material considerations with the aim of encouraging developers to build to ‘Secured by Design’ when considering planning standards and to ensure that issues of crime prevention and designing out crime applications. The views of

are taken into account at the earliest opportunity. the Police service are also sought on appropriate Over the past two decades, independent, academic assessments have applications. 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, 28

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

e in 1999 found 50% fewer burglaries and 25% fewer vehicle crimes and criminal damage reports;

in 65% burglary reduction;

-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 Noted and agreed but Insert new para at added to the Development Principles section as follows: Subsection Retail changes should be made in start of Building Context, paragraph 7 ‘High quality urban design will be essential to the building codes section Codes sub-section: integrate new development with the centre, including measures that design out crime. New developments will be expected to deliver safe New developments environments that design out crime and build to ‘Secured By Design’ will be expected to standards.’ deliver safe environments that The PCCWM welcomes the reference in subsection Retail Development in design out crime Stirchley Centre, paragraph 6, that new developments should maintain an active and are built to frontage. They also agree with the observation in paragraph 3 of subsection ‘Secured By Design’ New Housing Development, that an increase in the number of residential units at standards. first floor level on the High Street could add security by improving natural surveillance.

29

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Connectivity

The PCCWM support the objective in subsection Public Space and Connectivity,

to prioritise pedestrian movement, increasing the area available for public Noted. However, many of these comments relate to spaces, seating and cycle stands with improved facilities and safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Paragraph 3 suggests that improvements should also detailed design matters. accommodate attractive and convenient bus stopping facilities throughout the The views of the Police area. The location and constructionof both bus stops and cycle stands are two of service are sought on the many areas which the PCCWM would be keen to have input into. appropriate applications.

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 See above. 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 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 30

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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. See above. However, the The PCCWM believe it is important for them to be consulted on major operational details of a developments/schemes. All large-scale developments have a major impact on site’s development are a both transport and connectivity. From a connectivity point of view, if roads are matter for the contractor – closed for months (and sometimes years) during the build phase, it is important the emergency services for PCCWM to consider how emergency service vehicles will navigate their route should therefore contact through the city to reach the destination and subsequent person in need. them directly (or visa versa), to understand the impact of During large-scale developments, PCCWM can offer advice regarding the safe the development on the storage of plant machinery (e.g., JCBs, boom-arm JCBs, diggers etc). If the highway infrastructure etc. 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). See above 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 detailed proposals as and when they present themselves as planning Noted 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 31

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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 retro- fitted/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. However, the polices and supporting text, together The PCCWM requests a strategy to meet the objectives of the national planning with the amendments above Insert new para into policy Framework to ensure that issues of safety and any impacts on policing as (suggested by the PCCWM) Development a result of proposals are addressed in respect of transport, connectivity and cover the issues raised, and principles chapter; parking. The following wording is suggested for inclusion in the Puclic Space as such do not require and Connectivity subsection of the SPD: repetition in a specific  New, paragraph. rationalised, or The PCCWM will be consulted about all development proposals retrofitted/redeve including any transport, connectivity and management proposals to lopments of car ensure that opportunities to improve safety, both on the transport parks will be system itself and in the surrounding environment, are identified and The views of the Police encouraged to appropriate measures included to promote safe and accessible service are sought on achieve the environments where crime and disorder, and the fear of crime, do appropriate applications as ACPO ‘Park not undermine quality of life or community cohesion.’ a Statutory Consultee. Mark’ award /accreditation. New, rationalised, or retrofitted/redevelopments of car parks will be encouraged to achieve the ACPO ‘Park Mark’ award/accreditation .

Design and Heritage assets None required 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

32

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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 As changes in materials conservation areas with an incidence rate of 14.9% last year. have the potential to harm The PCCWM request that the SPD should: the significance of designated heritage assets,  Consider the particular circumstances of a heritage environment, site each proposal must, as context, and merits of the case. In particular whether repeat crime (such stated within the Historic as theft of materials from a building) is highly likely. England guidance on listed buildings, be looked at on a  Have regard to the potential damage to an historic asset that may result case by case basis and the from repeated theft of existing and subsequent like-for-like replacement potential impact on the materials. For example metal theft (roof, gutters and down pipes) from significance of the affected historic churches. And, asset understood. It is therefore not appropriate for  Consider the significance of that particular element of the building (to be such policies to be included re-instated in the event of theft) in terms of its contribution to the value of within an SPD and any that particular heritage asset. For example the lead roof on one building proposed changes should may not be as important to the historic asset as another due to its size, be dealt with through the aspect or prominence on the building. planning consent regimes.

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 33

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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 The case mentioned is not area of roof is not visible from ground level. After a theft, the first priority must be straight forward as the to provide emergency cover whilst the permanent replacement is arranged. In works undertaken and some situations, a durable replacement such as terne-coated stainless steel, materials used in that case tiles or slates, rather than lead, might be the most prudent way to repair the were done so against the building”. advice of: Historic England, The Church Buildings By way of example, West Midlands Police received regular calls for service at Council, The Diocesan incidents at a church in Solihull. These have related to both crime and anti-social Advisory Committee , The behaviour committed on the site. Since May 2010 there were 10 crimes reported Local Planning Authority to West Midlands Police relating to the site. Four of these, from May 2010 to and is currently in breach of November 2011, directly related to the theft of metal from the site, with Planning and Faculty downpipes and guttering from a number of sections of the church. In October consent procedures, a 2012 an alternative, non-metal, solution (Glass Reinforced Plastic) was installed situation we would not wish on the church to replace previously stolen metal. Since that date there have to see within the City. been no reported incidents of theft from or damage to the building. The guidance produced by The PCCWM has recommended introduction of wording into Birmingham’s Historic England is very 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 34

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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 With the proposed additions to the document (above) in The PCCWM formally request that the principle of designing out crime and the relation to designing out need for developments to meet Secured by Design standards are reinforced and crime and creating safe and

referenced in each of the development opportunity area sections. They request secure environments, there that one of the key policy priorities should be to; ‘Ensure all proposals meet are adequate references to ‘Secured by Design’ standards.’ 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 Noted 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 Hazelwell Lane.

KEY DEVELOPMENT SITE Noted and it is one of the aspirations of the plan that Our client’s site is a key development opportunity and could provide a catalyst for further much needed investment and regeneration in Stirchley. development occurs on this site. We support the fact that the draft SPD recognises the importance of the site for 35

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

36

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change and unreasonable. Evidence has been provided that the site has The SPD’s promotion of employment led development is inconsistent with the been marketed as an Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses SPD and the National Planning employment site for Policy Framework (the Framework) as there is no reasonable prospect of industrial and warehousing development for traditional employment uses within classes B1, B2 and B8 uses, but has not attracted being delivered and the site should no longer be protected for such uses. any substantive interest. 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 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 37

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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. Agree that there may be See below flexibility for other uses if Having established that the site is no longer an employment site, given the the tests/criteria set out in evidence of marketing enclosed, consideration should be given to potential the Loss of Industrial Land alternative uses. Whilst these representations do not seek to address all to Alternative Uses SPD potential uses for the site, or at this stage seek to put forward any fixed or can be met. 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 The site is outside the See below increased levels of footfall, the attraction of new expenditure to the centre, and boundary of the centre. The the opportunity to provide new activity and vibrancy at the southern end of the principle of a large single high street. retail store on this site has been dismissed twice at For these reasons, there should still be the scope for an appropriate element of appeal. retail to be brought forward at the site, potentially as part of a mixed use 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

38

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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. If the tests/criteria in the Loss of Industrial Land to New housing would attract new residents who in turn would provide new Alternative Uses SPD can See below expenditure to support existing and potential future shops, services, and facilities be met residential for the benefit of the wider existing and future community. This will also help development of the site may create vibrancy and contribute to the revitalisation of the area, meeting the be acceptable. 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 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 Page 9-Noted minor the SPD which will remove the restriction to employment led development (for amendment made the reasons set out above) and ensure the necessary flexibility to allow for a

39

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change range of uses and potential regeneration options:

Stirchley SPD - Suggested Amendments Page 9- amend to remove reference to Page Current wording Suggested amendment Page 24 amendment made former Arvin Meritor 9 New industrial and commercial uses Amend to remove The former to give greater flexibility for works. and employment led mixed-use Arvin Meritor works off other appropriate uses. development will be encouraged, at Fordhouse Lane. these sites: - The former Arvin Meritor works off Page 24- amend to Fordhouse Lane. read. The site has - The former Lifford Curve Public potential for major House on Fordhouse Lane. regeneration. It is 24 This site has seen recent developer Amend to: The site has the suitable for Life interest and has the potential for a potential for regeneration Sciences uses major employment led/ mixed use including major mixed use development. development. (research and development) or an

employment led SUMMARY mixed use development. If it can

Revelan are committed to the delivery of development on this site and are keen be demonstrated that to work in partnership with the City Council to ensure that much needed there is no prospect regeneration is achieved at the earliest opportunity. The comments and of the site coming suggestions we have made above seek to ensure that the SPD objectives are forward for deliverable and stand the best chance of securing regeneration so that Stirchley employment uses ( in

becomes a vibrant and attractive centre and place to live, work, and visit. line with the requirements of the The site is a key development opportunity and has the potential to make a Loss of Industrial significant contribution towards meeting the objectives of the SPD. The Land to Alternative development of this site should not, therefore, be constrained by unnecessary or Uses SPD) other onerous policy restrictions that would frustrate the delivery of new investment appropriate uses will and other significant benefits for the local area. could include:

- residential, elderly care, and 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 -mixed uses including remove the requirement for any future development to be employment led as 40

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change this represents an unnecessary and prejudicial policy limitation on the site. The leisure. 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 Noted None required Yes, if investment can be obtained.

Retail

Once the Tesco's development is completed it should breathe new life into the Noted adjacent retail centre.

Growth Noted Investment required in these areas

Housing In some cases this is now Yes, in favour of your proposals. Would also suggest that empty retail premises permitted development in could be changes to residential. the GPDO 2015

Connectivity Noted None required These seem to be adequate.

Community Facilities

Pleased to see that Stirchley Baths is now going to be open as a Community Noted None required Centre. Also Stirchley Neighbourhood Forum is a great supporter and organiser of local events.

Design & Heritage Noted Great, if you can get property owners to comply!! Bourne Fabrics at 1401 41

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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 Noted None required trading well.

Ten Acres Noted and retail is not None required In general more suited to residential development and light industrial premises, advocated in this area as it is not suitable for retail outlets.

Central Stirchley Noted Tesco plan to start

This area will continue to stagnate until Tescos development is completed. Then development in 2016 owners of vacant premises will have more incentive to upgrade their properties.

Southern Stirchley Noted and a new planning consent has recently been The suggested residential development should be implemented. granted of residential None required development on this site (2015/05457/PA)

BHLF-JVSW- Vision 8KYV-V "Aspirations are all very well, but reality is altogether different! It'scalled progress. We can never return to 1930's style trading on the HighStreet. Those days are long gone, due to complex social and lifestylechanges. Noted None required We have to face the reality that huge numbers of shoppers use cars andtherefore need car parks. A car is needed if you purchase a weekly shopin a supermarket, where everything is available under one roof. Which isfar more convenient for the busy shopper.

Unless small businesses can offer something really unique they will failto attract

42

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change the casual visitor to the area. Small premises on the HighStreet need a completely new policy. No experienced businessmanwould 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 canconfirm that we noticed a steady decline in footfall over that time -culminating in the Tescos debacle - partly caused by delaying tacticsfrom the Co-op. The uncertainty surrounding this development hasdelayed any investment in this area of Stirchley."

ANON-JVSW- Vision Noted the SPD encourages 8KXK-G all investment including On the whole, the aspirations for Stirchley are good. However Stirchley is and independent shops and has always been a hive of independent business and activities, and of co- large national chains. The operation. Large national chains are not the answer for Stirchley, and should not proposed superstore should be relied upon for inward investment in the area. In partnership with a regional also help to attract shoppers brewery and a community loan scheme, Loaf attracted £330,000 of inward to visit the other shops in None required investment into one double-fronted property in the PSA. There are more creative the centre. The delivery and independent ways of revitalising the high street than knocking buildings section of the plan also together to make large units and ushering in lots of national chains. supports other measures to encourage business.

Retail The PSA is defined in the "The PSA excludes some important and historic business in the South Stirchley Shopping and Local Area including Wards Greengrocers and Stirchley Wines and Spirits - it should Centres SPD- adopted in be extended to the south to the junction of Ash Tree Rd. 2012 following public consultation, and can only Merging units to create large floor areas will attract national and multinational be modified via a revision to chains to the area and price many local SME's out of the market for these units this document. A review is and adversley affect the vitality and independent spirit of Stirchley PSA. There planned following the are lots of people that want to launch small businesses in Stirchley's vacant Adoption of the BDP properties (I speak to at least one person a week who wants to do something!), 43

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 Noted there has been some other issues. A focus on freeing up and smartening up void properties should be investment from small a much greater priority." businesses in the last few years. However whilst the SPD encourages investment in the centre it cannot directly address issues such as absent landlords.

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 Noted and references to services and moorings would provide affordable housing options locally. A mooring improvements are None required residential boating community would also contribute to the social and cultural life made in the SPD 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 Noted, the Millennium Cycle route offers a safe There are a lot of cyclists in Stirchley and who pass through daily. The new and easy alternative to the 20mph zone is an improvement to safety for cyclists but a cycle-priority zone Pershore Road further (similar to the Cowley Road in Oxford) would be a great step forward and investment in cycling contribute to traffic calming. We are also in desperate need for locking up infrastructure will come from facilities outside independent shops along the high street. the emerging Green Travel Districts as part of Birmingham Connected.

Community Facilities Kings Heath has a number of planters provided and Planters on the high street would be a welcome addition and should be maintained by their BID None required transferred after installation to a community group for ongoing management as group, a similar community they are likely to be maintained to a high standard by keen local gardeners. scheme could benefit 44

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

Heritage Noted and the merit of this The chapel on Mayfield Rd should be considered as a locally listed building and building is mentioned in the None required retained with any development on the Arvin Merritor site. document

Sustainability

"Parking is a major concern to independent retailers in Stirchley. Creation of several small 'shoppers car parks' along the 1km of PSA should be investigated. Noted and the text of the None required For example at Mayfield Road, Ivy Road (Whitmarley until housing SPD would support this 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 Noted See previous comments on car parking

Southern Stirchley Noted and an aspiration of None required Improved access to the canal and development along the canal should be a key the SPD priority for Southern Stirchley and would give the area a unique feel.

ANON-JVSW- Agrees with Vision and Development Principles Noted None required 8KXC-8

ANON-JVSW- Agrees with Vision and Development Principles Noted None required 8KX8-W

ANON-JVSW- Vision Noted. The SPD sets out 8KXE-A policies to encourage and "Yes, I do to a certain extent. Securing investment, increasing support development and employment/training opportunities, providing clear guidance for planning investment.it also indicates None required applications and maintaining a balance between homes, shops, commerce, the progress made e.g. industry and community facilities are all great things. Sadly, there is insufficient planning consents granted detail in the Stirchley Framework Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) to however it cannot ensure 45

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change see whether this very long awaited regeneration will happen. that all development 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 Noted. The Vison and other (more than 500 sq m) are only part of the solution. If Tesco does eventually sections of the SPD give open a store at Hazelwell Lane, Stirchley would benefit from another larger store support for independent at the other end of the Primary Shopping Area (PSA) near Lifford House. Starter retailers. 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.

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 The plan supports these Stirchley Framework was revised. The fact that the plans still revolve around the goals but the Hazelwell Hazelwell Lane site and the long-awaited Tesco store is troubling. Given their Lane site is only a small financial situation at present, it is time to look at alternative proposals for that part of Stirchley 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. The plan supports the reuse of derelict land/buildings None required Bringing derelict land/buildings back into use is long overdue and I hope that the however much of the Council is exploring all available sources of funding to do so. investment will need to come from the private sector.

The SPD will bring medium and long term benefits, but will not bring many short Noted term benefits. There is no quick fix for the years of neglect that Stirchley has suffered, at the expense of expensive city centre developments. Growth in A5 use is managed by the Shopping I believe that more than 10% of the PSA is hot food takeaways at present. This and Local Centres SPD but Planning Legislation cannot

46

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change needs to be redressed." force the change of a previously consented use.

Retail The proximity of the proposed Tesco to the "The retail area (PSA) seems sensible. I do wonder if it is wise to have the Co- existing Co-op is due to the operative and proposed Tesco supermarkets so close together. That will lead to fact that there is a footfall decreasing on the high street, unless there is a broader range of development site available specialist independent stores with unique selling points, such as the that is well integrated with tobacconists, Loaf, the Drum Shop and Bike Foundry or another national store the rest of the centre- in that on the old Lifford Curve site, for instance. location due to the closure of the BT depot several

years ago. 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 There are a number of None needed Community Centre. vacant small units in need of investment. 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 Noted 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." Noted

Commercial Industrial & Employment The SPD supports the continued use of None required "Stirchley has a mixture of commercial and industrial units on the high street and employment sites. in the surrounding area. It is vital that some support is provided for existing

47

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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. Noted. The SPD supports It is vital that new housing is efficient in its use of natural resources, such as provision of affordable water. Grey water reuse, renewable energy generation and optimal insulation homes and the aim to be should be used. The homes should be zero carbon by 2016. zero carbon in line with government policy 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. Agreed

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. Agreed

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 Noted facilities in the PSA. None required The detailed design of traffic 48

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change If possible, all cul de sacs should have walking and cycling through-routes. management schemes is outside the remit of the Traffic management measures need to be improved, such as, physical SPD. However the principle restrictions including the pedestrianisation of some streets, road narrowing, of traffic management speed limits, even a local congestion zone. improvements is supported by the SPD and various references are made throughout the document.

All new developments should include parking provision, including parking Noted and this is a city wide Reference added to facilities for bicycles. requirement where feasible building codes

New parking facilities should have permeable parking surfaces, to preserve Agreed absorbtion and to reduce the risk of flooding. This would require the Some off street parking should be provided. Local residents should have priority residents to pay for parking for off-street parking spaces (London has a permit system for visitors in as part of a Controlled residential streets). Parking Zone

The public should be allowed to use some of the parking space on the corner of This is private land Ashtree Road and Pershore Road.

At present, Tesco is allowing car parking on the corner of Hazelwell Lane and Noted 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 Noted 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 None required "Stirchley has the library, former baths development, primary school, district Noted

49

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 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 The Community Market will transport to reduce congestion. move into Stirchley Baths in 2016. 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. Agreed and this is reflected None required New developments should be sympathetic in design. They should be no more in the SPD than 3 storeys along the main road.

There should be every effort to make historic buildings accessible for everyone with careful modifications."

Sustainability

"Sustainable development in Stirchley will involve encouraging more people to Agreed live, work and spend their free time in the area. None required Active travel must be encouraged. Walking and cycling reduce vehicle usage, traffic congestion, air pollution and improve health. Encourage people to leave Agreed 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. Noted and some developments will require Cycle parking facilities, seating and signposting to toilet facilities should be Cycle spaces in new car parks. provided. Reference added to All parking facilities should have permeable surfaces. Noted building codes

There needs to be further investment in flood defences and consideration of Noted climate change upon the urban heat island effect. Noted and new dwellings

50

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Any homes that are built must be on brownfield sites. They must use resource will need to confirm to efficient methods, such as insulation,rain water harvesting and renewable current policy energy generation.

The green spaces in Stirchley must be protected and any improvements must not alter the biodiversity and character of the area. Noted

Sustainable development of derelict land, empty shops/workshops/offices/ The SPD has been out for commercial and industrial sites will bring much needed regeneration to Stirchley. consultation for this reason and the delivery section of If this SPD does not take the views of local people into account, then the re- the plan encourages development will not be sustainable. Stirchley's economy will only thrive if the community involvement in residents and workforce have sufficient input and involvement with the planning." the future regeneration of the area.

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 Noted None required 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 Noted however Tesco is proposed Tesco. My reservations are about the likelihood of Tesco being able to due to commence works in build and open their store with their current financial situation and the capacity 2016 that the local roads have for more delivery vehicles and local traffic. Noted. The plan states that The new Community Hub at the Baths site and a public square will both be the new road layouts along assets for Stirchley. Locating a public square surrounded by stationary and slow Pershore Road should moving traffic polluting the air seems counter-productive. The public square include traffic management, None required needs to be built with an improved road layout that ensures vehicular traffic on and environmental only 2 sides of this space. enhancement measures to minimise the impact of

51

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change traffic and allow easy and safe access for pedestrians across roads. There is another new public space adjacent to the British Oak and the Tesco store which will be further away from the main road.

The regeneration of empty shops, offices etc. may attract new business and that Noted however the retail could be good, if Stirchley decides upon its vision for the future. Without that section on page 8 of the vision, Stirchley's high street could be reduced to charity shops, pawn brokers plan supports the retention and cash-a-cheque shops. Central Stirchley is a mixture of independent shops, of a large number of the Co-op, social enterprises, repair shops, takeaways and restaurants, independent retailers and commercial/ industrial units and DIY stores at present. If larger units are created sates that these will be or built, other national companies might be attracted to Stirchley. However, it encouraged to grow the would be detrimental to Stirchley's character for too many big stores (no more give the centre a unique than 50%) to be opened." shopping offer

Southern Stirchley Noted and any development The plans for the empty shops and units at the southern end of Pershore Road of this site will be expected and the derelict land on Fordhouse Lane are for mixed development. There will to provide or make a be issues with the existing road layout and it will need to be re-designed to contribution to changes at None required enable traffic flow and to reduce the number of car crashes. It is a good idea to this junction and improve have a pedestrian walkway from Fordhouse Lane through to Pershore Road. pedestrian access to Careful consideration must be given to encouraging people to feel safe when Pershore Road walking through.

Sustainability Appraisal

The SPD will bring medium and long term benefits for Stirchley, but will not bring Noted None required 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

52

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change The creation of a local centre regeneration fund NotedThe delivery section Delivery section- To ‘encourage’ the redevelopment by Tesco of the Hazelwell Lane site of the plan also supports Working in To bring forward a shop front improvement grant other measures to Partnership add to 3rd To prevent any further hot food take away in Stirchley Village encourage business. Minor bullet point “ e.g. amendment recommended. bidding or funds if and when these Hot food take aways will be become available” controlled in line with the policy in the Shopping and Local Centres SPD

Housing The Article 4 is to be reviewed however this isa To extend the Article 4 direction with regard to HMOs to cover Stirchley separate policy and outside Village/SPD area the remit of the Stirchley SPD.

Connectivity Noted. This is a maintenance issue and To install protection measure along the grass area in Hazelwell Park adjacent to outside the remit of this both Hunts Road and Ripple Road, Stirchley to prevent illegal incursion SPD. These views will be (specifically by travellers) and damage to Hazelwell Park forwarded to colleagues in None required the Place Directorate for To improve as a gateway feature the traffic island at the junction of Pershore their consideration / action. Road./Hazelwell Street and Umberslade Road Agree. This is an aspiration of this SPD

Community Facilities Noted and agree in part. New bullet point To encourage the creation of micro parks and tree/flower planting along the The SPD promotes this  New green areas Pershore Road (especially if connected with development) greening of Stirchley and for example; micro the revision (right) promotes parks and To create a community orchard on the land owned by BCC (BPS) on the a community orchard as an community Stirchley gyratory island (access/egress from Hazelwell Street) aspirational principle orchards

Heritage The SPD would support Add new bullet point investment in this building. to southern Stirchley 53

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change The restoration of the Mayfield Road chapel (heritage project) The retention of heritage key outcomes “ assets is an aspiration of the SPD and there are  Where possible several references retain and restore throughout the document. heritage assets e.g. the Chapel on Mayfield road.

Sustainability The SPD supports biodiversity improvements. To undertake a biodiversity project along the River Rea, including the creation of Comments to be passed on None required a wetlands meadow on the western bank of the River Rea between the River to Place Directorate for their Bourn and Dogpool Lane consideration/action

Central Stirchley

The need for a Park & Ride along Mary Vale Road, Stirchley to serve Bournville Noted- a park and ride Railway Station facility is an aspiration of the SPD To upgrade, working with the Rivers and Canal Trust, the mooring facility in None required Stirchley along the Worcs and B’ham canal Noted. This is an aspiration of the SPD To encourage the development of the former Whitmarley (Ivy Road) and Kwik Save site (Pershore Road) Noted both sites are referred to in the SPD

Southern Stirchley See earlier comments on No further change The need to allow (change of use to A1) for the redevelopment of the Lifford response to Turley for required Business Park as a retail site (given previous interest in the site) and/or to Revelan. market the site as an extension to the Selly Oak Life Science Campus

BHLF-JVSW- Connectivity Amend section on 8KXM-J Noted amend to give junction and highway TRANSPORT: traffic hazards in MARYVALE RD ,PERSORE RD TO support in principle for improvements page BOURNVILLE STATION particularly due to parking both sides and commercial further measures to improve 12 to state “further traffic use and risk to cyclists: suggest possibly use of one way systems in this safety. traffic management road and adjacent roads also one way roads in side roads off pershore rd would measures on side 54

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change help increase currently slow flow speed of traffic along pershore rd . There is a roads and other major problem with large commercial vehicles visiting commercial sites in measuresto charlotte rd conflicting with school traffic and safety and the residential housing improvesafety and environment. Cartland rd although mainly outside the plan area urgently needs minimiseconflicts with measures to reduce traffic speeds possibly with use of speed indicators and commercial vehicles othe5r measures will be supported.

Community Facilities /accessible Noted a site cannot be recreation facilities RECREATION: there is an urgent need for better external play facilities for allocated in an SPD. for a range of ages teenagers who currently wrongly use young children,s play area , I suggest a However minor amendment added to site be designated for a MUGA, POSSIBLY IN HAZELWELL PARK suggested improvements in public open spaces

Central Stirchley Noted Tesco are expected TESCO SITE in view of delay in development start date , Tesco,s should be to commence works in asked to consider a revised smaller scheme with a smaller store ( bearing in 2016. Should a different / None required mind state of retail store development situation nationally) with residential strip revised application come on east side facing towards river rea. There is urgent need for more new 3-4 forward for this site it would bedroom family housing to supplement smaller terraced dwellings and allow be judged on its own merits expanding families to stay in the area

55

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Environment Vision Add reference to Agency Noted and agree. However, flood risk into the "Page 4 includes the Vision for the area. We welcome the statement that you are ‘New housing looking to protect the ecological character of the area as there is significant the SPD is intended to add local detail to the more development’ section biodiversity associated with the water environment at this location, however in the ‘Development would recommend that given the extent of floodplain at this location flood risk is strategic policies contained within the higher order plans principles’ chapter. also mentioned. This will both constrain development and provide opportunities And add the principle for betterment and wider risk reduction if considered strategically. – the UDP and the draft BDP. Reference to flood of flood alleviation in risk will be therefore be green assets to vision We note page 6 references how this plan will add further detail to the section. Birmingham Development Plan which is currently at examination stage. We incorporated into relevant particularly draw your attention to Policy TP6 which address flood risk and the sections of this document. water-based environment.

Plan 1 – please add labels to show the “River Rea” and “The Bourn”." Add names to rivers on map.

Development Principles Add new bullet to "The Bourn is culverted for approx 46m under a car park off Umberslade Road Noted and agree ‘Managing flood risk (SP 05359 81426). Any opportunity to open up the Bourn at this location should and improving water be taken to extend the wildlife corridor and make it a more attractive place to quality’ section; visit the adjacent Primary Shopping Centre.  Opportunities to re-naturalise the Bourn will be supported in principle, to extend the

wildlife corridor

and make it a more attractive

place to visit the adjacent Primary Shopping Centre. The removal of the weir on the

56

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change The plan should explore any opportunity to remove the weir on River Rea at SP Noted River Rea will be 05893 81806 as part of the North Stirchley (Ten Acres) development proposal. similarly supported. Page 9 states that ‘redevelopment for ground floor residential will also be permitted subject to appropriate design’ – within the centre boundary, large Noted that some areas at areas are located within Flood Zone 2 and 3. The Environment Agency consider the northern end of the that ground floor residential development is not appropriate in these locations centre are within flood zone unless it can be demonstrate that a place of safe refuge above the flood level 2 and 3 – see and safe access/egress can be provided. recommended change above. 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 Add’ Rea Catchment in future flood defence and environmental improvements. Information regarding Partnership to list.’ the partnership and those organisations involved can be found here - http://www.reacatchmentpartnership.co.uk/ This point is already covered in the Partnership With the amount of re-development potential in the area we would be keen to working section, and will instigate discussions with developers to discuss how their plans could support feature during the pre- improvements for the wider Stirchley area and we would welcome the application, or planning opportunity for the SPD to encourage and support this level of discussion" application processes.

Connectivity

57

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change "Page 11 encourages the use of the River Rea corridor amongst others for Noted- The design of new walking and cycling opportunities. We note that improvements to the Rea crossings is a detailed corridor are proposed such as signposting, access routes and new crossing matter that would be points. We support this proposal to bring more people into contact with the considered at planning natural water environment and provide a multifunctional use for this blue application stage in corridor, but also welcome the note that ‘care will need to be taken that the consultation with Canals & ecological impacts of such changes are avoided or suitably mitigated’. The plan Rivers Trust & EA 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 Noted 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. Add reference to We would welcome any further encouragement within the plan for the specific permeable paving use of permeable paving in new developments in order to improve water quality into the ‘Building 58

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change within the Rea, alongside more emphasis on water re-use and climate resilience. Noted and agree codes’ section.

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, with opportunities to enhance the ability of these areas to store water during extreme weather conditions being explored. The LLFA (Birmingham City Noted and Agreed. 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 Add new bullet point maintenance of sustainable drainage systems which should be referenced in the regarding the SMURF SPD. This provides detailed guidance to support the implementation of SPD into the section sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) in future developments in Birmingham. headed ‘Managing flood risk and This section also describes how Flood Risk Assessments will be required to improving water support applications in areas of surface water flooding. We recommend that this quality.’ 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 Amend wording section should therefore be revised to read as follows: accordingly.

‘Flood Risk Assessments will be required when considering development Noted and agreed 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. Noted and agreed. Add reference to the The SPD should go further to push for improvements to the watercourses in line HRMP. 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. 59

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change There is a significant problem with non-native invasive species (in particular Noted however this is a Japanese knotweed) in the area which is decimating the native riparian species. management issue that is Large improvements in quality could be gained from getting on top of the outside the scope of this knotweed problem in the area. plan

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

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 Noted and agree numerous opportunities within the Stirchley area where this could be achieved amendment. However, ‘Opportunities to re- naturalise the Bourn such as around the confluence with the Bourn and River Rea and downstream detailed design matters are towards Dogpool Lane where there are non-native species, failed bank more appropriately dealt and River Rea will revetment, a redundant weir and opportunities for wetland creation. with at a planning be supported in application stage. principle, in order to Improving the banks and bed of the river will be key to improving the river improve the water ecology and ensuring they meet the required objectives under the WFD. In light quality of the local of this, we recommend that the following bulletpoints are added in to promote watercourses. 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

60

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change the plan area through the development of this site.

We do however have serious concerns over Land to East of Ten Acres Mews The SPD page 20 which is shown wholly within the floodplain. Should this mapping be correct it is recognises that unlikely that adequate mitigation will be able to be designed into the development east of Add – other redevelopment scheme and the development will increase floodrisk elsewhere Pershore Road is in the appropriate uses as it will not be able to provide adequate compensation for the displacement of flood plain and development would be small scale floodwaters. Reference should be made to your Strategic Flood Risk would be problematic and community, Assessment for further advice, but we recommend that this site is withdrawn subject to appropriate flood educational from the plan unless it can be demonstrated that development of this site is both alleviation measures along safe and would not increase flood risk elsewhere. the Rea and Bourne as a result of other We strongly support the principle of new development helping to reduce flood developments/ measures. risk in the catchment and the St Andrews Healthcare case is a great example of Amend and Add reference this. It should also be noted though that large areas of Stirchley are shown to be to other uses being at flood risk as a result of overtopping of the Bourn. A potential solution has appropriate. 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 61

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change 1995; almost nothing at all. Even the building of the Tesco superstore, the Comments noted 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.

Let me begin with a few corrections. Noted. The Friends Meeting Change as House is locally listed but it appropriate 1. The friends meeting house in neither a listed building nor on Hazelwell Lane, is on Hazelwell St it is on Hazelwell Street. Noted, the term micro park 2. Please change the document to call the enhance landscaped area on is more widely used in this Change Pershore Road a 'micro park' rather than your name, a 'pocket' park. That is context. 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. Comments noted however It is the high street which needs our attention and which conveys the erroneous the document does not impression to visitors and investors that Stirchley is a run down and neglected state that Stirchley is a ‘run suburb. The housing, the parks, the transport links and the employment are of down and neglected’ suburb good quality. It is the high street, so visible to everyone, that is in serious need of it highlights investment in assistance. the area notes the large number of independent Therefore the document needs to focus on how a planning document could traders but does point out improve the high street, from a planning perspective. This inevitably means that further and wide understanding the reasons why the high street is in such dire condition and then ranging investment is attempting to offer solutions. needed to improve the local Your document has not made that differentiation and instead choses to convey offer. The extent of the 62

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change an impression that everything is wrong in Stirchley to varying degrees and all centre and the primary needs your meddling intervention. shopping area were defined in the Shopping and Local The document should primarily state that there is too much retail space in Centres SPD 2012. The Stirchley and then it needs to be reduced. Your document has nothing to say on Stirchley SPD encourages this. Your document should say that an aggravating factor is that so much of the new retail development to retail build is of poor outdated quality and can most likely never be improved. locate in the Primary shopping area. As a The document should state that because of the narrow pavements, the busy consequence of these Pershore Road and the lack of parking the shopping experience leaves much to policies some vacant retail be desired. units outside the centre Stirchley cannot economically support so large a retail offering. The result is that have changed their use much of it is neglected. Clearly parts of Stirchley needs to be zoned away from back to residential. retail into either housing or office space or a single medium sized retailer. Not in While the SPD aims to bring a piecemeal fashion but by block. This re-zoning should focus on the west side about change it cannot of the Pershore Road. Generally the east side, the side of the School, are of a designate or ‘zone’ areas much higher build quality. for another use. The reason The shops on the west side of the Pershore Road are the oldest and of the that Stirchley cannot poorest quality and will never be attractive to modern retailing. They should be support ‘so large a retail zoned away from retailing. This will give the owners a financial incentive to allow offering’ is due partly to the development into housing or modern offices. The owners could make money size of units on offer. The from such redevelopment whereas they will never make money from SPD advocated some redeveloping them as individual shops. For example between Ivy Road and consolidation for this Mayfield Road that entire block should be zoned as housing. reason. There have been some improvements to the Again by zoning a specific a block containing poor retail premises, say between retail offer recently and Hazelwell Road and Ivy Road as suitable for development for a medium sized further investment in the retailer one could create the conditions and planning certainty to attract area will promote further businesses like Aldi or Lidl to Stirchley." change.

Connectivity

"The other problem is that the pavements are simply too narrow and Noted the SPD encourages None required unappealing to the walking shopper. Where there is redevelopment we need to a better pedestrian push the frontage back away from the road to give the pedestrians more space. environment throughout the Again this is something that is not happening. For example the new retail area for which all

63

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change premises that will be built between the British Oak and Hunts Road are being opportunities would be allowed to build again right up to the pavement. We should not be repeating the considered. 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 Agreed and the policies Chapel as the centrepiece. Stirchley has little public space. Ten years ago we within the SPD would redeveloped the frontage outside the Constituency office. Welcomed as that support this but an SPD was, it is still a relatively limited space. The area by the chapel is a perfect cannot allocate land. location for a large community based public space. With the right grants the 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 Noted None required and shopping areas, instead of vacant, vandalised land, empty rundown shops lining a main route through the area.

Development Principles Noted however private investment in the area is Stirchley residents/businesses have been waiting for much of what has been set needed to bring about None required out in this Framework for a very long timet I think it is fair to point out that much change and up to date of what is included in the Framework has been put in previous versions over the Frameworks give clear years and very little has taken place. guidance to developers.

Retail Noted however the developer has intentions of Obviously much depends on whether the area around Hazelwell Lane where the starting work in 2016. If None required large supermarket has planning permission already for goes ahead. If not, what however the scheme does will happen? There does not appear to be any contingency plans in place should not go ahead the SPD

64

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change the supermarket build not take place so the land will remain vacant.and it is supports retail led mixed therefore difficult to see what attraction there will be for other independent use scheme by another retailers/businesses etc to invest here. developer.

Connectivity

Public space would be welcomed but much relies on the Tesco development so Agreed further private what happens if this does not happen? The objective to ease travel could be investment is needed in the good but again will not happen unless the area can be regenerated and area and should be None needed improved as many people do not find it very pleasant to walk or cycle through attracted by the recent (and rundown shopping areas, vacant vandalised land often overgrown and used for proposed) public and fly-tipping. private investment.

Ten Acres Planning applications for "The aspirations as shown in the Framework for Ten Acres would be welcome residential development of but the land west side of Pershore Road, between Ten Acres Mews and this site will be looked on Warwards Lane was sold at auction in 2014 on behalf of Birmingham City favourably. The council will Council with a misleading sale description. It is hoped that the aspiration for encourage such residential development, which is much needed, will be taken into serious development in its consideration by BCC planners in any applications that may be submitted. discussions with the None needed owners. 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 Noted – comments passed junction at Dogpool Lane from Pershore Road is really an accident waiting to to Transportation. happen."

Central Stirchley Noted however Tesco plan to commence work in 2016 The only comment for this part is whether Tescos will arrive on site or not. and this investment should Regeneration, which has been ongoing for a very long time will not happen if no attract further investors to supermarket is built. There does not appear to be any contingency plans in Stirchley. If however the None needed. place to replace the supermarket and therefore it is hard to see any scheme does not go ahead regeneration/improvement taking place which is such a pity as the regeneration the SPD and other council of Stirchley Baths as a community hub has to be commended but unfortunately policy supports retail led although the building is a pleasure to see, pass and enter - it is surrounded by mixed use scheme on this 65

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change "eyesores". site by another developer.

Stirchley Vision Neighbourhood Noted and agreed. However Forum We agree that Stirchley needs to be made a more attractive place to live (this it should be noted that the refers mainly to Pershore Road) and developments should be in accordance SPD is not a delivery with best design. Enrichment of the public realm, refurbishing character buildings document for City Council and promoting employment are all positive aims. investment it is a planning None needed policy tool to encourage It is important to remember that retail establishments need to attract the investment in the area patronage of visitors as well as locals. including local businesses and other investors. 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 The Primary Shopping Area (and in accordance with guidelines) it is sensible to have one core in the middle is defined by the Shopping of the High Street it doesn’t accord with the current situation which is likely to And Local Centres SPD and result in more retail outlets being lost form the areas outside the retail core was subject to public (which have many such establishments) with no guarantee that they will be consultation in 2011 replaced by the bigger stores envisaged in the retail core. Tesco have said that they There seems a lot of reliance on the Tesco development of the Hazelwell Lane will go ahead in 2016. site. What happens if that does not go ahead in accordance with current plans. However if the scheme does not go ahead the SPD There is little or no reference to the current Coop store. If this were to become and other policy support a vacant what is envisaged for future development here? retail led mixed use scheme by another developer. The Co-op has been fully consulted and remains a major retailer within the area. However any future development would be considered in line with planning policies in NPPF, the BDP and other

66

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change SPD’s/guidance.

Commercial Industrial & Employment

Although the policies seem to be sound there has to be doubts about whether Noted however, investment they can be delivered in practice, given that the former Arvin Merritor site in employment area is a None required remains a wasteland. widely supported aspiration of the SPD. 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 Noted, each application for schemes.The question of encouraging infill is more difficult as this, in the past, infill will be assessed on its has resulted in loss of light and amenity for neighbouring properties, along with own merits and in line with parking and other issues. other policy e.g Places for Living SPD.

Connectivity

In principle increased walking and cycling connectivity (particularly with the Agreed and new access station and canal is to be welcomed) and increased use of the canal are to be points / bridges would be welcomed. Green corridors between the existing green spaces would also assist required as outlined in the in this. The connections on the map don’t always make sense as they don’t SPD. always connect with bridges and access points. Noted. LSTF funded works It is not clear whether the works carried out to Pershore Road have overtaken have been carried out the document, however, they have not been overly successful (especially for however further works to cyclists) and haven’t prioritised pedestrian movement. Pershore Road will be encouraged. None required Plan 2 of the SPD shows a It is not clear where it is thought that further public space can be created and new public space and the how existing public space (for example outside the current District Office) is to text describes other new be protected and cared for. spaces and seeks to protect existing spaces.

67

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change Community Facilities Noted. The plan encourages investment in Not clear how these proposals will preserve current community facilities and new and retention of promote others (eg a post office) existing community facilities. However it is a land use planning document and it cannot ensure that all facilities are retained in perpetuity.

Design and Heritage

We would welcome new developments that are integrated with the centre and Agreed and new maintain an active street frontage but in practice this has proven not to happen development on the ‘High (eg Coop was designed to face the High Street and have windows and now has street’ would be required to no windows on that side of the store (except small high level in the travel shop) have an active frontage. 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. Noted

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 Noted given that the Council no longer has the resources to clear leaves and maintain them. The area is currently well served with green spaces.

Ten Acres

Plans for junction improvements, more open links to the Rea and further Agreed residential uses are to be welcomed.

Central Stirchley The Primary Shopping Area None required In principle aspirations are fine.There are doubts whether the retail core is in the is defined by the Shopping right place. Although logical (and in accordance with guidelines) it is sensible to And Local Centres SPD and 68

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change have one core in the middle of the High Street it doesn’t accord with the current was subject to public situation which is likely to result in more retail outlets being lost form the areas consultation in 2011 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 See also response to retail core. above.

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 Noted 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 expected During the preparation of (also see it in Summer 2012. this document various above) factors have combined to delay its completion, from a

planning appeal to a CPO Inquiry on the Tesco scheme to discussions on other prime sites and more recently by revisions to the Birmingham Development The Lifford Curve site Plan will be removed from the SPD as it is under  Various aspects need updating to reflect recent/current planning development. Minor applications (e.g. Lifford Curve site, 1650 Pershore Road, St Andrews update on 1650 Noted and some parts Healthcare site) and LSTF improvements. Pershore Road- page

69

Draft Stirchley Framework SPD: Main Issues Raised by Consultation Responses Response ID Reasons LPA Response SPD change changed. 24. Add referenceon  Minor error needs correcting – the Friends Meeting House is on page 24 to recent Hazelwell St not Hazelwell Lane. Noted and corrected LSTF scheme and refer to scope for Noted- see responses on  Concerned whether the proposals will ever be delivered- (especially the furtherimprovements. this issue above at Hazelwell Lane and the Arvin Meritor site) Cllr Barnett  Supports the document and job creation and wants to see jobs for local Noted people

Cllr McCarthy  Page 4 needs updating to reflect decision on BID Agreed Amended  Supports current planning application for St Andrews Healthcare  There is a lot of local concern about current/recent proposals involving (Site 3)Noted and residential investment will the continuation of Pershore Road scrap yard (Site 3). Supports redevelopment for residential use be supported.  Supports the redevelopment of site 4 east of Pershore Road Noted and the SPD None required  Recent improvements to junction of Pershore/St Stephens/Dogpool supports further welcomed however residents would still like to see traffic signals if improvements at this possible junction  The SPD is well put together document and is supported overall

70