Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 17 December 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 8 2015/04902/PA

Former Birmingham Battery Site Land at Aston Webb Boulevard Selly Oak Birmingham

Reserved matters application following outline consent 2013/02178/PA for the layout, scale, appearance, landscaping, pedestrian and cycle access, and vehicular access within the site for the supermarket and other retail development, student accommodation and petrol filling station

Defer – Informal Approval 9 2015/05416/PA

Beechenhurst House 10 Serpentine Road Selly Park Birmingham B29 7HU

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

Approve - Conditions 10 2015/08675/PA

Former Avenue Members Club & Lodge Weoley Avenue Weoley Castle Birmingham B29 6PS

Retention of change of use of first floor from function room (Use Class D2) to 22 bed and breakfast rooms (Use Class C1)

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Conditions 11 2015/08218/PA

Land at Hudsons Drive Cotteridge Birmingham B30 3BE

Erection of 10 no. three bedroom terrace houses

Approve - Conditions 12 2015/09047/PA

19 St Marys Row Moseley Birmingham B13 8HW

Change of use of premises from a bank (Use Class A2) to a coffee shop (Use Classes A1/A3).

Approve - Conditions 13 2015/05292/PA

Land adjacent 14 Pritchatts Road Edgbaston Birmingham B15 2QT

Erection of 5 flats with associated parking, access and landscaping)

Approve - Temporary 14 2015/09096/PA

Stratford Road South of Solihull Lane Hall Green Birmingham B28

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 15 2015/09099/PA

Stratford Road - East Side 11 Metres North of Green Road Hall Green Birmingham B28

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/04902/PA Accepted: 07/07/2015 Application Type: Reserved Matters Development Target Date: 18/12/2015 Ward: Selly Oak

Former Birmingham Battery Site, Land at, Aston Webb Boulevard, Selly Oak, Birmingham

Reserved matters application following outline consent 2013/02178/PA for the layout, scale, appearance, landscaping, pedestrian and cycle access, and vehicular access within the site for the supermarket and other retail development, student accommodation and petrol filling station Applicant: Harvest 2 Selly Oak Ltd c/o Agent Agent: Turley The Charlotte Building, 17 Gresse Street, London, W1T 1QL Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Most Members will recall the Outline consent secured two years ago for the former Battery site (2013/02178/PA), which provides for the site’s de-contamination, re- development for a Life Sciences Campus on its northern half, and a mixed-use scheme on its southern half. This new application seeks Reserved Matters consent for the majority of the mixed-use scheme, principally consisting of the Supermarket, other Retail (Outline Consent allows for Classes A1 to A5), a Petrol Filling Station, and Student Accommodation. For this mixed-use scheme, the Outline consent secured Vehicular Access to the Site and the various uses and floorspaces, as summarised below. This Reserved Matters application seeks consent for Pedestrian and Cycle Access to the Site, along with Layout, Scale, Appearance, and Landscaping.

1.2. The Outline consent established maximum floorspaces for the various uses granted consent. This Reserved Matters submission complies with those maximum parameters, and proposes (Gross Internal):

Supermarket: 11,945 sqm Other Retail: 6,974 sqm * Petrol Filling Station: 101 sqm Student Accommodation: 15,000 sqm * This figure includes the two storey floorspace recently considered at Unit 1 (2015/04615/PA). Floorspace would rise from the 6,974 sqm should all of the other units have a mezzanine floors installed, but still remain within the total consented within the Outline application.

Page 1 of 20 1.3. The proposals have been amended during the course of the Application to secure various improvements and clarification, on many matters including hard and soft Landscaping especially at canalside, design and siting of the Student Accommodation, management and safety of the Student Accommodation, Supermarket undercroft parking, the Lapal Canal route, design of the Supermarket Delivery Yard. Further public participation and relevant consultations followed.

1.4. RETAIL PARADE

1.5. The ‘Retail Parade’ would run west-to-east for 150m, parallel to the site’s northern boundary, with a 44m long return in front of the large electrical Switching Station. It would be sub-divided into ten retail units of varying depths and widths. A detached café/restaurant would sit at the western end (Unit 11), set back a minimum of 16m from Aston Webb Boulevard and linked to the main parade by a covered arcade. At the parade’s eastern end, Units 8-10 would also be café/restaurant, with an 11m gap to the northern elevation of the Supermarket, forming the principal east-west pedestrian link to the Worcester & Birmingham (W&B) Canal. The parade is 10 and 11m tall to parapet top with flat roofs behind, while Unit 11 would be 6m tall and present a 31m long elevation to Selly Oak New Road. While there would be sufficient height for mezzanine floorspace, none is currently proposed (apart from Unit 1). The Outline consent floorspace allows for a much greater floorspace than currently shown, so the units could have mezzanines installed in the future without the need for further consent.

1.6. The retail units’ deliveries would be via a road running along the site’s northern boundary, turning south alongside the Switching Station (which would also use this road for its servicing). The retaining wall already in situ dividing the application site from the Life Sciences site would be topped with railings along the site edge.

1.7. The whole parade is set behind a 6m deep arcade, with the principal columns and the arcade soffit finished in white, powder-coated, pressed-metal cladding. The arcade would be set at different heights (5 or 7m tall), with the higher elements principally used to mark the entrance points into each unit. Signage is indicated both above and below the arcade, which will be subject to future advertisement applications. Lighting would be provided within the arcade, with details controlled by a condition attached to the Outline consent. Outdoor seating terraces are indicated under and close to parts of the arcade, where café/restaurant units are intended. The buildings are fronted in full height glazing shopfronts for the majority of the parade. Above the arcade, cladding materials are ceramic tiles and vertical timber. The rear (north) elevation of the retail parade would be clad in a metal panel system, except for the first 28m long return closest to Aston Webb Boulevard, to be clad in timber strips.

1.8. Two groups of twenty cycle bays each are shown at either end of the parade. 863 car parking spaces would be provided in the surface and Supermarket undercroft parking areas. Parking would be controlled by automatic number plate recognition, for maximum four hour stays.

1.9. SUPERMARKET

1.10. The Supermarket would face west across the parking area to the access roundabout on Aston Webb Boulevard. It would be sited a minimum of 12m from the boundary to the Battery Retail Park to the south, and with a 5m gap from its rear (east) elevation to the adjacent student block proposed. It would measure 135m wide by 84m deep, with the entrance element additional, on its front (west) elevation. It

Page 2 of 20 would measure 11m tall to top of parapet, with a low-pitched roof and plant behind the parapet. Undercroft soffit height would be 4.4m (3.5m indicated at Outline stage). The undercroft would be accessed by cars to both the southern and northern corners, with the first quarter of bays set out for disabled use and parents- with-child. The atrium would principally house escalators and trolley bays, the first floor would house the retail floorspace, with café-restaurant, and customer toilet. Opening hours have not been stated by the Applicant, but the Outline consent did not impose any restriction. Thirty bicycle spaces would be provided under cover in the frontage atrium, and six motorcycle bays in the undercroft.

1.11. The building would be clad principally in a variety of timber panelling (Atlantic Cedar) and glazing, with feature metal cladding painted white of a horizontal emphasis including a tall overhang/colonnade effect on the front elevation. The north elevation, fronting the east-west walkway to the canal, would be predominantly clad in a variety of timber cladding, with a ‘hit-and-miss’ arrangement fronting the undercroft parking.

1.12. PETROL FILLING STATION (PFS)

1.13. A PFS is proposed at the front (west) of the site, as per the Outline Consent. The building would be positioned 7m south of the site's access point, and measure 11m wide by 9m deep by 4m tall (flat-roofed). It would be farmed in white metal panels, with vertical timber and glazing infill elevations, the pump canopy and columns would be in white alone. The pumps' forecourt and canopy would be sited to the building's south, with the canopy covering an area 37m by 15m, sited 15m at its closest point to Harborne Lane. Ground levels change at this part of the site's western periphery, so the PFS would sit a little lower than the Harborne Lane highway, behind a heavily landscaped area.

1.14. STUDENT ACCOMMODATION

1.15. The Student Accommodation would consist of a large building facing the W&B Canal, as indicated at Outline stage. It would be provided in three elements of 18, 10 and 12 storeys respectively (maximum height 54m), sited within the siting and height Parameters established by the Outline Consent. It would provide 424 bedrooms, and be clad in brick.

1.16. In more detail: the building would measure 15m deep by 95m long, sited mostly approximately 7 – 8 m from the canal edge (whose towpath varies in width/route). The towpath also varies in height, due to the remnant of the former junction to the Lapal Canal. The building’s south-eastern corner would be 19m from Bristol Road, with the whole building at some 4m lower ground level than the street level of the Bristol Road canal bridge. A large entrance opening would face the canal, leading to a large foyer, with a reception desk and extensive seating areas. The Ground Floor would provide a ‘Common Area’, Office/Management area, post room, and a double-height frontage space with stairs leading to a First Floor Common Room, mini-cinema, another ‘Social Space’ room, meeting rooms and laundry room. Back on the remainder of the Ground Floor, there would be areas which lead out to the rear elevation facing the Supermarket: two refuse rooms, plant room, bicycle storage (112 spaces). There would be two sets of lifts and stairs.

1.17. Upper Levels would provide cluster flats of 4 or 5 bedrooms, sharing a common kitchen-living room, and individual studio flats (with kitchen-double bed-study, and ensuite). All cluster flat bedrooms would have an ensuite, and measure either 13.5

Page 3 of 20 or 14.8 sqm. The studio flats would measure between 21 and 30 sqm (including ensuite).

1.18. Externally, the 18 storey element would be at the building’s southern end, the 12 storey at the northern end, with the 10 storey between and of greater length than the other two elements. The two principal elevations (east and west) would present a strong grid pattern of brick punctuated by full-height window apertures, with perforated or louvred, recessed, metal ventilation panels alongside. Window panes would be set-back by 40cm from the brick elevation, ventilation panels by 20cm. A continuous, vertical ‘bookend’ of masonry uninterrupted by windows, would sit at either end of the two main elevations, spanning ground to parapet level. Each pair of floors would be separated from the others by a continuous, horizontal band of brick courses. The main entrance would be marked by the doors set back 2m from the principal elevation and a double-height aperture in the masonry, framed by a relatively thin concrete trim.

1.19. The three building elements would be separated visually by a recess of 5m width and 1m depth at Floors 2-7, and a full room’s-depth recess at Floors 8-9 on the East elevation. A slightly different window arrangement would be presented on the slimmer gable elevations (north and south), but within the same, overall fenestration- masonry grid pattern set over two storeys for each element. Three stainless steel flues (maximum 1.8m above parapet) would be sited on the southern tower. The stairs/lifts core, on the rear (west) elevation would present recessed masonry panels instead of windows, but of matching aperture size and order.

1.20. At the rear (west) of the building, there would be a 5m gap to the rear elevation of the Supermarket. Access to the Supermarket’s undercroft would be available from the back of the Student Block. This rear area between the two buildings would allow for servicing of the Student Accommodation (waste/recycling especially), access to the students’ cycle store, and for students to come-and-go to the Supermarket. Dropping-off/collection of students at the start/end of terms would also operate from this area, managed by the building’s operator (and controlled by Outline consent condition). Ten disabled parking spaces would be provided in the Undercroft adjacent to the Student Block, to serve the accessible studios.

1.21. Attention is paid to Accessibility: eleven, fully wheelchair-accessible studio flats are proposed, and access throughout the building particularly for visually-impaired people and wheelchair users. The building would be targeted to meet BREEAM standard ‘Very Good’.

1.22. SUPERMARKET DELIVERY YARD

1.23. Deliveries and internet shopping vehicles would access the Supermarket off the Bristol Road, as per the Outline consent, adjacent to a servicing access to the Battery Retail Park. Given the higher land at this point of Bristol Road, the Delivery Yard would enter the Supermarket at first-floor retail level, as also shown at Outline application stage, with the future Lapal Canal passing beneath. The most public faces of the yard would face Bristol Road and turn the corner to face north-east towards the Worcester & Birmingham Canal and the southern gable of the student block. The Delivery Yard walls are up to 7.5m tall from street level and consist of patterned timber louvres facing the internal metal wall, with a high-level, horizontal- emphasis ventilation gap, and climbing plants. Their position and height have been altered during the course of the application, from originally back-of-pavement, but now amended to a ‘wavy’ footprint with separation to the footpath of approximately

Page 4 of 20 0.8m. A roof has been provided in order to contain noise breakout towards the Student Accommodation.

1.24. WESTERN POWER SUB-STATION

1.25. The large sub-station itself was excluded from the boundary of the Outline Consent but the Applicant and Western Power are currently negotiating a land transfer of areas around the sub-station, for future utility provisions. As such, the details of some of the land within the current Reserved Matters application is unknown, i.e. whether new plant, access, etc., or new landscaping will be provided. The Local Planning Authority will continue to work with both parties to secure appropriate use and treatment of land, and the details will be the subject of future application(s) and/or conditions submission.

1.26. AREA EAST OF CANAL, AND CANAL BRIDGE

1.27. This triangle of land sits east of the canal, bordered by the Bristol Road, the railway line, the library, and further electrical plant compound. The Outline Consent provided for a new building (B.09) (with a choice/mix of use classes - Retail A2-5 and Assembly & Leisure D2), a new public plaza, and for a new winding hole (extra turning width) for narrowboats to enter/exit the future Lapal Canal. This area is excluded from the current Reserved Matters application, as no occupier has yet come forward and the Applicant does not wish to pursue detailed consent for a speculative building. Therefore, a separate application will come forward in due course. The Outline Consent also provided for a new pedestrian bridge over the Worcester & Birmingham Canal, to provide a very important and most direct link from the main body of the site, to Bournbrook. The Applicant has engaged the Canal & River Trust over an extended period to reach agreement on the fee, license, etc. for bridging rights, and positive progress has been made. Once formal agreement is achieved, detailed design of the bridge will commence and then a separate application will be made to achieve planning consent. Important associated matters of hard and soft landscaping, access, lighting, etc. will come forward with a future submission.

1.28. SAFEGUARDED CANAL ROUTE (LAPAL)

1.29. The Outline consent secured preliminary canal construction works and a safeguarded route, for a future re-provision of the Lapal Canal along the southern boundary of the site. This is shown and accounted for in the submitted plans. Delivery of the first phase of construction works and the safeguarded route is required by the Outline consent’s S.106 legal agreement.

1.30. At Outline stage, non-narrowboat users travelling east-west, i.e. pedestrians and cyclists were shown using a route through the undercroft. That movement, for all users, is now shown in more detail, sharing a wider towpath route, outdoors on the north bank of the future canal. This would pass beneath the Supermarket delivery yard for a length of 47m (60m indicated at Outline stage), with the soffit height at 3.5m (as per Outline stage). At the Police’s request, the route would be closed off from dusk-til-dawn.

1.31. SITE-WIDE LANDCSAPING

1.32. The majority of the site would be finished essentially level, as shown at Outline stage – there would be a barely perceptible drop across the site of approximately a metre, dropping from west to east. Otherwise, the vehicular access on Aston Webb

Page 5 of 20 Boulevard would rise up about 2m from the main body of the site, and levels would drop away at the site’s north-west corner.

1.33. The Applicants have submitted extensive plans and images to illustrate how they propose to landscape the site. Principal vegetated areas would lie at the site’s western front on Selly Oak New Road, along the Lapal Canal route, and in the north- east corner adjacent to the W&B Canal. Long stretches of hedging (eg box) is shown along the west front and Lapal route, with the former characterised by formal shrub and tree planting of species such as dogwoods, grasses, birch, cherry, alder, fastigiate oak. The Lapal area would have a more woodland character, with extensive areas planted with acer, birch, hazelnut, oak, holly, dog-rose, rowen, yew, and flowering shrubs. Along the Lapal route would be more emphasis on wildflowers/meadow. The car park would have planting areas at the end of each row of parking spaces, with trees such as acer, cherry blossom, birch, hornbeam either set in the ground or in planters. Four areas of planting are shown along the W&B Canal. All soft landscaping would be considered in conjunction with hardsurfacing, including seating,for which a wide variety of treatments are illustrated, depending on the exact part of the site concerned.

1.34. The Applicant states some 424 full and part-time jobs would be created (with a further 216 retained from the existing Sainsburys store nearby).

1.35. The application is accompanied by the following supporting documents, of which those in the first four lines below were updated during the course of the application: Planning and Consultation Statement Landscape Statement Design and Access Statement – Student Accommodation Design and Access Statement – Retail development Environmental Statement Update Transport Statement Car Park Management Plan Ecological Enhancement Strategy and Landscape and Habitat Management Plan Update Badger Survey Flood Risk Assessment Structural, Civil and Geotechnical Planning Report Sustainable Technologies, Lighting and CCTV Strategy

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site comprises 7.9 ha of land extending from the Harborne Lane roundabout in the west, to the Bristol Road in the east. It is cleared land and the majority is in the final stages of de-contamination, which began in June 2014. Some trees and other vegetation remain along the site’s south-western boundary, and along the W&B Canal. The rear flank and delivery yards of the Battery Retail Park form the site’s southern boundary. The northern boundary is formed by the large, new retaining wall, which marks the southern edge of the future Life Sciences Campus. The drop in levels from the application site to the Campus is approximately 6m. The Worcester & Birmingham (W&B) Canal and the cross-city railway line pass through the eastern part of the site.

2.2. Residential areas lie to the west particularly, along with Selly Oak Park, and allotments and other open space and the Bourn Brook are to the north-west. To the north beyond the Life Sciences Campus site are the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, the Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health Trust site, and University of Birmingham. Selly Oak (Bournbrook) Centre is to the east. Just to the east of the railway line and

Page 6 of 20 adjoining the site’s edge are two Grade II Listed Buildings: Selly Oak Library, and the large Electricity Sub Station at the rear of 659 Bristol Road. Western Power Distribution also has extensive electrical equipment (Switching Station, including pylons) surrounded by the north-eastern corner of the application site, with overhead power lines running across the application site across the canal towards Selly Oak train station. The station is opposite the site’s eastern edge, as is the future Sense site (for the Deaf-Blind).

2.3. The site is well-served by bus and train, with the many frequent bus services running on Bristol Road and Harborne Lane, and on Aston Webb Boulevard. University train station is some 550m to the north of the site, along the canal towpath.

2.4. For ground levels, the site is broadly equivalent to street level at the Bristol Road frontage although it slopes gently down west towards Harborne Lane. Bristol Road just outside the site, rises up above site level to the height of the Delivery Yard area.

The site is affected by a number of land/planning designations: Site of Local Importance for Nature Conservation (SLINC), covering approximately half of the site (central area, but now redundant due to site remediation); Wildlife Corridors, on the railway, canal, and line of the former Lapal Canal; ‘Linear open space walkways’, along the line of the former Lapal Canal, and across the site to link the W&B Canal and Bournbrook Walkway; Gas pipeline, western side of railway and canal; Flood Zones 2 and 3, in the north-western part of the site; The Birmingham (Tip rear of Birmingham Battery, Bristol Road, Selly Oak) Tree Preservation Order 601, 1992 (long-redundant at the application site due to major infrastructure works – construction of the Selly Oak New Road, then site remediation).

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. Extensive. Most relevant and recent includes:

3.2. 28/11/13, 2013/02178/PA, Outline planning application for mixed use development comprising of life sciences campus (Use Classes B1a, B1b, B1c), supermarket (Use Class A1), non-food retail units (Use Class A1), financial and professional units (Use Class A2), cafe and restaurant units (Use Class A3), drinking establishments (Use Class A4), hot food take-away (Use Class A5), leisure (Use Class D2), student accommodation (Sui Generis), petrol filling station (Sui Generis), a linear open space walkway 'greenway', vehicular Access to the site, car parking (including multi storey car parking), landscaping, retaining walls, and associated works including demolition of existing buildings. Matters Reserved: Scale, Layout, Appearance, Landscaping, pedestrian and cycle Access, and vehicular Access within the site. Approved

3.3. 17/9/15, Unit 1, 2015/04615/PA, Erection of a unit comprising 1,487sqm GIA to be used for food and ancillary non-food retail purposes ((Use Class A1), Committee resolved to approve subject to entering into a Legal Agreement (yet to be completed).

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 7 of 20 4.1. Transportation – No objections. Note the Access principles are as set out in the masterplan, access points are suitable (design and siting), there are sufficient cycle stores for the Student Accommodation, parking is in-line with BCC maximum guidelines. The car park management proposals are suitable - automatic number plate recognition giving 4 hour parking, and a strategy for start and end of student terms. Request a ramp is provided alongside pedestrian steps by the canal, so cycles can be wheeled up/down.

4.2. Centro – no response received.

4.3. Access Committee – no response received.

4.4. Fire Service – “no comment to make”.

4.5. West Midlands Ambulance Service – no response received.

4.6. Birmingham Airport – no response received.

4.7. Civil Aviation Authority – no response received.

4.8. Police - Detailed discussions held during course of application, to consider security issues in and around the Student Accommodation, Supermarket undercroft, and Lapal Canal undercroft. Some of these have been resolved by amended submissions, some remain to be addressed by existing and new conditions, particularly for the Supermarket undercroft.

4.9. Birmingham Civic Society – no response received.

4.10. Canal & River Trust – some insufficient information and concern, and some other comments:

4.11. Insufficient information and concern: Lapal Canal Enabling Works: not clear whether all of the Enabling Works set out in the Outline consent will be taking place. Does not appear to be any information about the sheet piles and the winding hole. Need to confirm minimum navigation width as 3m. Canalside landscaping: Question the towpath material. Request clarity on levels (including of Student Block), hard and soft landscaping, street furniture, etc.. Canalside activity: at Outline stage we requested activity and public use, not clear how the proposed ground floor rooms in the Student Accommodation would achieve that. Route between the rear of the Student Accommodation and the Supermarket would diminish value of canalside. The pedestrian link between the main retail area and the canal has been downgraded – extent of retail frontage reduced by half. The square near the Student Accommodation and close to the future canal bridge will have little activity and interaction from adjoining buildings, it seems to have little purpose. From Outline stage we expected stairs and lift from the Bristol Road, but now seem to rely on ramped access from the Sense site opposite – concern, as this is yet to be secured and is in control of other parties. The area east of the canal is for future application, it must be part of a holistic approach to the site.

4.12. Other comments: Structural integrity of the W&B Canal: site remediation works and new foundations could affect canal infrastructure, developer needs to work with CRT.

Page 8 of 20 W&B environment: waterways have rich biodiversity, impacts must be mitigated. The landscape design shows a barren corridor, we have suggestions on trees and flowers. Need lighting details. Drainage: site discharge is proposed to the canal, CRT must be consulted. We support the proposed use of canal water for heating and cooling proposed buildings, will require CRT advice and agreement.

4.13. Birmingham Public Health – no response received.

4.14. National Grid – High or Intermediate, and Low or Medium, gas pipelines and associated equipment are in the vicinity of the proposed works, various guidance issued (for the attention of the developer).

4.15. Western Power Distribution – no response received.

4.16. Network Rail - various advice and requests concerning the safety and integrity of the railway infrastructure and service, addressing access agreement, risk assessment and method statement, and various aspects of construction (for the attention of the developer). A drainage condition is also requested.

4.17. Regulatory Services – require condition(s) to address noise and vibration matters from the Delivery Yard and External Plant, with respect to the Student Accommodation.

4.18. Environment Agency - No objections, we have reviewed the Flood Risk Assessment, we consider the principles of the surface water drainage strategy outlined in the Drainage Management Plan within the FRA are acceptable. We note that the site is currently being remediated and that information on the final drainage layout plus impermeable areas and discharge rates will be submitted at the detailed design stage, in support of Condition 15.

4.19. Severn Trent Water – no response received.

4.20. BCC Ecologist – consider there is scope for scheme to include additional green infrastructure.

4.21. Local occupiers (611 private addresses) (including Queen Elizabeth Hospital, and Birmingham & Solihull Mental Health Trust), Councillors, MP, Residents’ Associations, and the city’s five universities notified. Four Site Notices and a Press Notice displayed.

4.22. 16 letters of objection received from a mix of local occupiers, residents' groups, and city-wide campaign groups, including ‘Campaign for Better Transport’, ‘Push Bikes’, Sense (Deafblind charity), Lapal Canal Trust, Selly Oak Branch Labour Party, with points summarised as follows:

• Student block is two or three times as high as other buildings, on high point in area, bulky, completely uninspired design, will dominate area and destroy character, completely unacceptable in suburban area. Council has allowed grim eyesores of student accommodation on the new road in Dickensian grey rather than the lovely red brick in keeping with the university, this is a once in a lifetime opportunity to bring some aesthetic quality to Selly Oak. No policy allows for such a tall building in a suburb. Should refuse or scale-back significantly, and improve design irrespective of height. The assumption that the student block should not face Bristol Road but

Page 9 of 20 rather be alongside the canal is perverse. Does demand exist for student accommodation? • Supermarket faces the by-pass with only rear access to the canal and no active frontage, cannot see any community pedestrian space, the promised plaza is not there/area is now unspecified with no permanent building proposed. Area was promised canalside development with shops and bars. Should open up the natural beauty of the canal and the lovely arches which are now visible. • The Sense site had to re-energise/extend the high street, to provide active frontage and generally to enhance the area, at additional cost, but would now be opposite the very unattractive service yard - blank, high fence taking up most of the Bristol road frontage, please encourage pedestrians by refusing this. Applicant previously suggested the wall be swept back from the Bristol Rd to widen the opening for a footbridge into the development. • Arrangements for access continue to be a disappointment, there is time for a radical re-think. Major existing custom uses bus routes and the foot access. From the Harborne Lane roundabout, foot access through a car park is highly discouraging, needs to be a marked walkway. Access from the Bristol Road is totally unacceptable - via the Sense site (which might not even go ahead) to provide disabled access along a narrow towpath and under an unlit bridge with poor sightlines is completely crass. Now there is to be no bridge to join Bournbrook to upper Selly Oak. Further, at University Station, access to the campus from the canal is via a flight of steps. • Disabled Access: No proposal shown for disabled access to Sainsbury’s or the retail plaza from the Bristol Rd side of the development. Reliance is instead on a ramp being installed for the Sense development - an unlit route, and will mix cyclists with deaf-blind users of the Sense building. • Pleased with cycle parking for the Student Accommodation and Supermarket, recommend further provision in middle of Retail Parade. Prefer not to have ‘cyclist dismount’ elements to certain routes, and prefer to see cycles segregated from cars and footways where possible. Canal bridge should be built for pedestrians and cyclists. • Has suitable student parking been considered? • Will destroy the original Lapal route, new route is more expensive to construct and less convenient for boaters, walkers and cyclists. Because it is a new route, the Lapal Canal Trust cannot obtain Heritage Lottery Funding. The link is narrow and appears to be snuffed out under a service yard. The concrete culvert should be craned in as part of the foundation, not as an expensive afterthought. Applicant assures us that 1.6m re-location of Student Block will not reduce area for the new Lapal-W&B canal junction. Moveable bridge is not best solution for the new junction. • Minimal landscaping provided. • Reneging of matters previously agreed. The proposal seems to be concerned exclusively with economics, it requires greater social and aesthetic considerations. The development has the potential of attracting and impressing the large number of national and international visitors coming through, please keep these points in mind, to avoid creating another slum, instead enhancing a potentially beautiful and commercially viable area.

4.23. A further Re-consultation exercise followed the submission of Amended Plans and further plans and supporting documents. Any further comments received will be reported to your Committee.

5. Policy Context

Page 10 of 20 6. Principal documents include: Unitary Development Plan (UDP), Draft Birmingham Development Plan (BDP), Wider Selly Oak Plan Supplementary Planning Document (SPD), Places for All Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG), Places for Living SPG, Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

7. Planning Considerations

7.1. The principal matters for consideration are the Reserved Matters of Layout, Scale, Appearance, and Landscaping, and Pedestrian and Cycle Access. A range of conditions attached to the Outline Consent address important matters of detail, including building materials, landscaping (aside from the principles as part of this Reserved Matters submission), boundary treatments, lighting.

7.2. LAYOUT AND ACCESS

7.3. Site Layout and Access is controlled by the Parameters set within the Outline Consent, and so this Reserved Matters submission follows those Parameters. Essentially, the Retail Terrace and Supermarket present public faces to the west of the site, with east-west pedestrian/cycle access either side of the Supermarket leading to the Student Accommodation, the Worcester & Birmingham Canal, and beyond to the train station, buses and Bournbrook and Selly Oak. North-south movement is along the Canal as existing, and along the site's western front, leading to the north to the future Life Sciences Campus, and the hospitals and University campus beyond.

7.4. Building footprints have in many places stayed well within the maximum Parameters, thereby providing more generous access routes and public realm. This is most notable and important in the east-west route leading between the main body of the site and the W&B Canal, i.e. along the north side of the Supermarket, and alongside the canal itself. I shall return to the quality of public realm proposed under the 'Landscaping' section later.

7.5. Three areas of pedestrian access are worthy of further consideration: • The Lapal Canal route; • Around the W&B Canal; • The east-west route between the Supermarket and Retail Terrace.

7.6. Lapal Canal route

7.7. Members may recall that one compromise necessary at Outline application stage in order to achieve the best overall site configuration was the placing of the Supermarket Delivery Yard over part of the Lapal route. The management of safety and matters such as graffiti have always been a concern of the various interested parties, and these have been carefully considered during the course of the application. In conjunction with the Police, the scheme has been amended, proposing that the undercroft canal route is best managed by preventing pedestrian access between dusk and dawn, with sliding gates. This would be controlled by condition. The Police understand that the route in the undercroft was approved at Outline stage and accept the access control gates as the best detailed solution, both for the short-term pedestrian-only route, and for the longer-term canal provision as well.

Page 11 of 20 7.8. Around the W&B Canal

7.9. New access to the Canal from the Bristol Road will be from the three points established by the Outline Consent: 1. from steps adjacent to the Supermarket Delivery Yard; 2. at grade from the Bristol Road pavement onto the plaza area opposite the Student Accommodation, and; 3. the route besides the library, under the railway and over the future Canal bridge.

7.10. North-South access will be as existing from the Canal towpath, including the ramp to be provided from the Sense site/Bristol Road down to Canal towpath. Some objectors are concerned at what they consider to be a lack of disabled access. I note that the Sense ramp will provide disabled access (via the canal towpath) at this south-eastern end of the site, close to the train station entrance, bus-stops and Bristol Road pedestrian crossing. Alternatively, the plaza site east of the W&B Canal is at-grade with the Bristol Road pavement, also very close to the train station entrance, bus-stops and Bristol Road pedestrian crossing. Once on to the plaza site, access to the main body of the Application site will be by crossing the W&B Canal, which the future canal bridge will provide. Given the length of the construction period for the Retail Terrace, Supermarket and Student Accommodation, the canal bridge can be designed, planning consent achieved and the bridge constructed in time for the first use of the site. As such, and contrary to some objections, I consider there to be very good public access proposed, to and from the Bristol Road and the W&B Canal.

7.11. East-West route between Supermarket and Retail Terrace

7.12. This area provides an important link between the main body of the application site, and the canal, Student Accommodation, and Selly Oak-Bournbrook centre beyond. It is framed by the north elevation of the Supermarket, and the return elevation of retail Unit 10 and the southern end of the large switching station and pylons compound. The Canal & River Trust considers the link has been downgraded, by the reduction of the retail frontage compared to the Outline consent’s indicative plans.

7.13. I note that Unit 10 would still provide a 28m length of elevation and deep canopy, with floor-to-ceiling curtain wall glazing containing two doors to provide access between the interior and the canopied seating terrace. It is intended to be a café/restaurant. As such, I consider it would make a positive contribution to the attractiveness of the link route. I also note that the width of the route (11m) is wider than the minimum parameter established at Outline stage. Once past this unit, walking east towards the canal, the rear service area and electricity compound would form the northern boundary of the route. However, I consider pedestrians at this point would already be looking ahead to the canal and future bridge, and the widening area where hard and soft landscaping would be provided. The quality of this public space will be crucial to the area’s success, the details remain to be determined by condition submission, and I consider these factors will mean that Canal & River Trust’s concerns will not be realised. My conclusion is also informed by the footfall anticipated at the site, from 424 new residents in the Student Accommodation, other new residential developments, and the number of shoppers that will be attracted through the route from the Bournbrook area (the existing Sainsburys has a high percentage student customer base).

7.14. Vehicular Access to the site was approved at Outline Stage. Transportation Strategy raise no objection to this Reserved Matters submission, noting suitable site layout and details, car parking, cycle storage, and car park management.

Page 12 of 20

7.15. SCALE AND APPEARANCE

7.16. As well as Layout and Access, design principles and then details have been developed very carefully with the Applicant and my Urban Designer.

7.17. Retail parade

7.18. The retail parade would form a large building facing south across the main car park and the front of the the Supermarket, with its western end sitting close to Selly Oak New Road. Its size has been broken-down principally by the tall, deep, pedestrian canopy extending along its full length. The canopy and its slender columns would be finished in white-coated metal cladding, and be well-lit. The building's other visual elements would principally consist of signage, other cladding materials and the shopfront fenestration. I consider it would provide an airy and attractive retail environment, both to look at from the public realm and to use as a pedestrian or shopper.

7.19. The rear elevations of the Parade face its service areas, and the large electricity Switching Station to the east. Accordingly, elevations proposed are plainer in detail and material. The future Life Sciences Campus lies to the north, but at significantly lower land level and separated by the 17m wide service area, and of uncertain building layout, height and fenestration. At Outline stage, the gable end of a campus building and the rear of a multi-storey car park were indicated opposite the rear of the Retail Parade. As such, the elevations are dressed principally for the current service arrangements.

7.20. Supermarket

7.21. The Supermarket would have a greater proportion of its external cladding in wood, giving a distinction to the approaches for the Retail Parade and Petrol Filling Station yet still providing modern and complementary architecture. It too would be a large building, but not out-of-scale with the size of the development site, nor with the retail park to the south. I consider its size would be effectively broken-down by the arrangement of timber and metal cladding materials, signage, the frontage atrium, and the store and cafe fenestration. The undercroft would be well-lit and well-used by shoppers. In combination with the Retail Terrace and site-wide hard and soft landscaping, I consider the Supermarket would create a clear and positive sense of place for the new development.

7.22. Apart from the Supermarket's principal elevation, its side and rear elevations are also important for the scheme's success. To the south side, the future Lapal Canal route would lie between the building and the site boundary. West of the canal undercroft, the Supermarket undercroft would be open to the Lapal route, providing a degree of visual connectivity and surveillance for the first part of the route. Thereafter, running east to the W&B Canal, the route would be subject to lighting and any CCTV deemed necessary, and closed from dusk-til-dawn. The rear elevations to the north and east would be closed in timber-louvres, to allow ventilation and some visual connectivity between the Undercroft and the public realm. I consider these treatments would be smart and acceptable.

7.23. Petrol Filling Station (PFS)

Page 13 of 20 7.24. This building would be discreet in size and height, with landscaping and levels also reducing its prominence. It would have a relatively simple yet attractive and crisp appearance, and so form an acceptable first building close to the site entrance.

7.25. Supermarket Delivery Yard

7.26. The positioning of the Delivery Yard on the Bristol Road frontage was established in the Outline consent. During the course of this Reserved Matters application, the height of the Yard's walls have increased, in order to provide a roof to contain noise from reaching the Student Accommodation. However, in response to public participation and officer comment, the walls have also been drawn away from the back-of-pavement, by some 0.8m. At their base, a planting bed is proposed behind a low brick wall, from where climbing plants would grow up the patterned timber louvres, while a horizontal ventilation aperture at height would also add some variety to the elevation. Plants suggested include evergreen climbers, lavender, birch, box, grasses, shrubs, The Applicant has considered maintenance of the planting here, addressing watering, tieing and pruning, compost, mulch and fertiliser. While the position and scale of the yard are still less than ideal, the former was accepted at Outline stage, and the latter is dictated by the size of the delivery trucks and the proximity to the Student Accommodation. Therefore, along with the slight set-back now introduced, elevational design is the principal matter to address at this Reserved Matters stage. I consider the Applicant has produced a well-designed solution, with the combination of patterned timber louvres, horizontal ventilation aperture and planting providing an interesting feature in the public realm.

7.27. Student Accommodation

7.28. The Outline application secured consent for a building of a maximum floorspace at this canal-side location, with its detailed form to be determined at this Reserved Matters stage. This Reserved Matters submission proposes a Student Accommodation building to the approved Outline floorspace.

7.29. The Applicants propose to provide the approved floorspace in a building of 18-10-12 storeys. The City’s Supplementary Planning Guidance ‘High Places’ is applicable. Principal points of ‘High Places’ include: (i) A building that is tall in relation to its surroundings and outside the city centre will not generally be favoured, it will only be appropriate in defined or exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, proposals will be considered on their merits. (ii) A tall building outside of the set locations (City Centre) will be acceptable if it marks an important public facility or institution, such as a place of worship, civic building or major educational institution, major hospital. (iii) Tall buildings must be of the highest architectural form, details and materials. The design of the top will be particularly important. Tall buildings must respond positively to the local context. The design, particularly at the bottom, should reinforce and evolve local characteristics. (iv) Well-located buildings can successfully contribute towards the overall form and legibility of the city. It is essential to establish that the proposed location for a tall building is acceptable before consideration is given to detailed design issues. Other points: (v) The design must not have an unacceptable impact in terms of shadowing and microclimate. (vi) Move about, on foot particularly. (vii) Must be sustainable. Building management.

Page 14 of 20 (viii) If they include residential accommodation, they should be in good places to live – privacy, security, views, amenity space (eg balconies), access (ix) Local public transport (x) Safety standards (xi) Well-designed lighting (xii) Antennae must be accommodated elegantly.

7.30. The guidance principally directs ‘tall buildings’ to the city centre. Outside the city centre, the policy states such buildings “will not generally be favoured”, they “will only be appropriate in defined or exceptional circumstances. Nevertheless, proposals will be considered on their merits.” This last point is key, as it notes a proposal of high quality may be permissible.

7.31. Although the Student Block would not mark a public facility or institution, it would in my opinion provide a good, strong landmark feature in the centre of Selly Oak, opposite the train station. The building would be visible from many viewpoints locally and from further afield and so, if of good enough overall form and detailing, would form a positive landmark. I will return to quality of architecture shortly. In the immediate area, the building would be particularly helpful as a landmark from the western side of the site, providing vertical emphasis behind the otherwise more horizontal form of the retail terrace and Supermarket. From this western side, it would inform passers-by and visitors that the Selly Oak - Bournbrook centre is just behind the Supermarket, and encourage people to come through the site on foot and bicycle to reach the canal, the station, the Sense site, and wider local centre.

7.32. The building would be large, but its limited depth relative to its length and height would give it a certain elegance from many viewpoints. How to also best express the consented floorspace with building height has been carefully considered, with different permutations of height and form. It was agreed between Officers and the Applicant that a building of three principal elements, of three different heights, would provide the best overall form - breaking up the massing to a degree yet still providing a coherent whole. This is achieved by two taller 'shoulders' of different heights (12 and 18 storeys) at either end of the building, with a lower central element (10 storeys). In combination, the two 5m wide, 1m deep vertical recesses (deepened on Floors 8-9 on the East elevation) very effectively break up and model the overall form and character of the building. I consider the overall form, as described above, is successful, and provides a good basis upon which to develop the detailed architecture. It was considered that brick cladding, rather than composite panel cladding and/or render, would best refer to the local vernacular of the nearby Victorian redbrick terraces, as well allow for elevational detailing.

7.33. Turning to detailed design: This has been developed very carefully by the Applicant, in close coordination with your officers. The overall organisation of fenestration and brick forms a strong, regular grid pattern, which is then appropriately broken down further by a hierarchy of individual window and ventilation apertures. The building’s base is marked by double-height columns on Floors 0 and 1, while the top two-floors on the 18 storey element have an additional ventilation aperture, purely as a subtle extra architectural detail (which ‘High Places’ seeks). The entrance is marked by a two double-height bays with glazed entrance doors set back. The two principal vertical recesses are also distinguished by the horizontal metal louvres set in front of the curtain wall glazing. Finally, the gable ends have a slight variation on the main fenestration-brick pattern, with an additional ventilation aperture to the windows. Overall, I consider the proposal would provide a highly successful balance of form and detailing, making a

Page 15 of 20 positive contribution to the immediate environment and as an interesting landmark for this part of south Birmingham.

7.34. Returning to the 'High Places' policy, I address the other criteria not discussed already or later in this report, that of Shadowing and Microclimate. The placing of the building adjacent to the Supermarket avoids shadowing of public realm to its rear. To its front, the towpath area would continue to receive direct sunlight for the first half of the day. It would then be in shadow for the afternoons, but this would happen whether the building were of any scale above three or so storeys, given its proximity to the canal. The quality of architecture, lighting and hard landscaping will, I consider, be the most important factors affecting quality of public realm. The land for future consideration east of the canal would receive more direct sunlight than the towpath and continue to receive good general daylight. I do not consider the microclimate would be so affected, due to the presence of a large building on only one side of the canal, i.e. no 'urban canyon' wind effect would be created. Lighting: this will be developed via a condition attached to the Outline Consent. Safety standards: the building has been/will be designed to comply with the Building Regulations, takes account of adjoining utility constraints, and with relevant building security measures (eg CCTV, lighting, staffing, locks, passes, etc.),

7.35. Student Amenity

7.36. Given the relatively short distance between the rear of the Student Building and the Supermarket (5m), 44 bedrooms would have fore-shortened outlook and reduced natural light, situated on the 1st, 2nd and 3rd floors. Rather than continuing the timber cladding treatment of the rest of the Supermarket, the Applicant proposes in the centre of the elevation an alternative finish - a form of white and green woodland imagery which would provide a lighter and more interesting outlook for occupiers' amenity. Given there were site-wide constraints which produced the best overall development layout at Outline stage, it has always been clear that the scheme would need to show some flexibility on certain, mostly more detailed, matters, and this is one of them. The numbers of rooms affected would be a limited proportion (10%) of the total student rooms, and a good attempt has been made to maximise the quality of outlook available. As such, I consider this matter to be a necessary and acceptable concession. I note that the bedrooms all exceed the SPG size guidelines by a considerable amount, and the extensive choice of common rooms/’social spaces’.

7.37. The proximity of the Supermarket Delivery Yard to the Student Accommodation has necessitated the Yard be provided with a roof, to contain delivery noise. The Applicants consider the physical structure of the Yard building would provide sufficient sound attenuation, so that there would be a satisfactory living environment for the resident students. Conditions for further work on this area are attached at the request of Regulatory Services.

7.38. The nearest corner (north-east) of the Student Block would be sited 9m from the overland wires between pylons to the north-west and south-east. The lines run obliquely away from the Student Block, so would be 26m away from the main entrance, and 52m from the south-east corner of the building. I am not aware of any health or practical impediment to the proposed distance separation, and I do not consider students’ outlook would be adversely affected.

7.39. Sustainability

Page 16 of 20 7.40. The Applicants state they generally seek to deliver a resource and energy-efficient development, with various measures/approaches, including: BREEAM standard ‘Very Good’, 15% improvement on Part L Building Regulations for carbon emissions, rainwater harvesting and water-efficient appliances, Green Travel Plan, electric vehicle charging, all timber to be Forest Stewardship Council certified, Combined Heat and Power. Further, for the Student Accommodation: ventilation heat-recovery system (using air from various rooms like kitchens, bathrooms, utility spaces to heat fresh incoming air), while each bedroom would have its own, independent window ventilation. Thermal solar gains would be limited by the shadows cast by the depth of recesses to windows, and glazing G-value. I note the proximity of the Student Accommodation to the University of Birmingham and the local centre, encouraging walking, cycling and use of public transport. Retail customers could also access the site well on foot, bike or by the excellent local public transport.

7.41. The Environmental Statement Update concludes that the effects of the Reserved Matters proposals, as addressed in this report and also in the Outline Consent, would be of no greater significance than the Outline Consent. I concur.

7.42. Setting of Listed Buildings

7.43. Selly Oak Library and the large Victorian sub-station are the two Listed Buildings closest to the application site, both are sited to the east of the Worcester & Birmingham Canal. In this Reserved Matters submission, the Student Block is the tallest and nearest building to these heritage assets. The library is approximately 64m due east of the northern end of the proposed Student Accommodation building, while the Victorian sub-station is approximately 77m to the north-east. English Heritage raised no objections to the Outline application, when Site Layout and Height Parameters were established. Therefore, the matter to consider at this Reserved Matters stage is the effect of the proposals’ appearance on the setting of the listed buildings. Briefly re-visiting commentary earlier in this report, I consider the Student Accommodation to be very well-designed in overall form and detail, with the use of brick responding to the local context, including of the listed buildings. The Student Accommodation would form a significant backdrop to the library especially, from certain viewpoints, but is not too close to the listed buildings, and the raised railway line forms a significant visual intervention between the listed buildings and the application site. As such, I consider the proposals would preserve the settings of the heritage assets.

7.44. LANDSCAPING / QUALITY OF PUBLIC REALM, AND ECOLOGY

7.45. The quality of public realm is not only determined by the size, configuration and landscaping of open spaces, but also by the surrounding land uses and building design, and boundary treatments. The Applicant has submitted extensive information on hard and soft landscaping and boundary treatments, as well as detailed building design. Broadly speaking, I consider the submissions to be of high quality, with the buildings already described earlier in this report as crisp, modern and of a good standard, and large areas of landscaping to provide attractive framing and context to the open spaces and building edges. In conjunction, ecological diversity and quality can be maximised, especially along the Lapal route, but also elsewhere across the site (being discussed with current ecological conditions submissions).

7.46. The public realm created along the W&B Canal is particularly important, in creating a high-quality urban environment. The Applicant proposes three planting areas, at either end of the Student Block, and adjacent to the future canal bridge. I consider

Page 17 of 20 the areas to be of sufficient size to provide real impact and sense of place, and the proposals are promising. A wide range of conditions were attached to the Outline Consent, including Hard/Soft Landscaping, Levels, Public Realm Strategy, Boundary treatment, Lighting and Wayfinding. Important work remains to be completed with the Applicant on these matters, and on the land east of the canal, but I am satisfied that Landscape as an overall Reserved Matter can be approved.

8. Conclusion

8.1. This application seeks detailed approval for the Reserved Matters, with these matters set out in accordance with the Parameters agreed at Outline stage. Therefore, the main components of site Layout and Access continue as per the Outline, providing the sense of place and relationship with the public realm of the forward-facing Supermarket and Retail Parade to Selly Oak New Road, and the Student Accommodation to the W&B Canal. Access through the site continues as approved previously, and connectivity with the surrounding areas will be radically improved by the site’s development. The Scale of the Supermarket and Retail Parade is commensurate with the scale of this large site, and both are of good, modern design and materials. The Student Accommodation is a large building, utilising the Outline consented floorspace, but is well-designed and would form a positive local landmark in my opinion. Landscaping is well-considered. As such, I consider the proposals would make a positive addition to the local environment, would constitute Sustainable Development, and would comply with local and national policy.

9. Recommendation

9.1. Approve, subject to conditions

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

2 Anti-graffiti surface treatment, Lapal route undercroft

3 Gates to Lapal route, to be closed dusk-til-dawn

4 Detailed scheme for maintenance of landscape planting to the Supermarket Delivery Yard walls

5 Amended plans to address fenestration on the western elevation of Unit 11

6 Shopfront signage/transfer management scheme

7 Noise report required

8 Noise validation report

Case Officer: Simon Turner

Page 18 of 20 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Outside Selly Oak Library, looking south towards site of student accommodation

Figure 2: At entrance to Selly Oak Station, looking west towards site of student accommodation

Page 19 of 20 Location Plan

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

Page 20 of 20

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/05416/PA Accepted: 07/07/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/12/2015 Ward: Selly Oak

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

Conversion of existing buildings and erection of annex blocks (three storeys plus basement) to create student accommodation with associated ancillary facilities, car parking and external works. Applicant: Five Oaks Green Ltd c/o Agent Agent: The Tyler-Parkes Partnership Ltd 66 Stratford Road, Shirley, Solihull, West Midlands, B90 3LP Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

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

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

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

1.4. The new block to the rear would be sited perpendicular to the existing building beyond a raised terrace. Significant changes in level within the site enable the creation of a lower ground floor level at this point. A further 35 no. studios are proposed across the 4 floors.

1.5. The studios (total 57) would be between 21.8sqm and 43.1sqm in size and would each contain kitchen, living room/study area, shower room and sleeping area. The significant variation in size results from the constraints of the conversion, with the

Page 1 of 21 majority of the new-build units being 30-32sqm. The applicant has confirmed that the rooms are designed for single occupancy only.

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

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

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

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

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

1.11. Site area: 0.54ha.

1.12. The submission identifies potential for 7 full-time and 3 part-time employees. The applicant has clarified that this would include an Operations Manager, Facilities Manager/Assistant, Concierge, Cleaners and Maintenance staff. The management office would be occupied and concierge in post during office hours Monday to Friday and on Saturday mornings. There would generally be 4 members of staff at core times. A 24 hour security contact would be provided out of hours.

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

Page 2 of 21 - The stable buildings are now to be largely retained in their original form. A side/rear extension to create 1st and 2nd floor accommodation has been removed (with a small side/rear extension still proposed). - Existing window openings have been retained wherever possible and the provision of new openings, including dormer windows, have been reduced. - Existing elements such as chimney stacks, dormer windows and other architectural features have been retained and incorporated into the proposals.

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

1.15. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

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

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

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

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

2.5. Location

3. Planning History

Application Site

3.1. 5th August 2011. Pre-application discussion for a proposed change of use to Class C1. Advised residential use acceptable in principle (proposed use class unclear),

Page 3 of 21 subject to impact on local residents/occupiers of accommodation, parking demand/highway safety and design/conservation area.

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

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

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

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

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

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Consultations

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

4.2. Regulatory Services – no objections.

4.3. Local Services – no comments or objections.

4.4. West Midlands Police – no objections.

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

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

Public Participation

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

Response on Original Proposal

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

Page 4 of 21 • Existing residential street (with strict covenants regarding use, size and density) - detached houses and currently no other multi-occupancy buildings.

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

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

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

• Introduction of commercialism will change character of Selly Park.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Impact on property values.

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

• Financial return for developer should not be a consideration.

Page 5 of 21 • Doubt about the sustainability of student accommodation. Danger of over-supply. Submitted Needs Assessment is based on sources with an interest in promoting student accommodation. The number of UK students attending university is stabilising (following decline as a result of tuition fees and wider economic concerns). More students now stay at home and number of international students is falling. Substantial numbers of accommodation spaces provided in recent years/coming forward.

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

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

• Huge number of existing property vacancies.

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

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

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

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

• Mature trees have already been taken down.

• Lack of local consultation by developer.

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

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

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

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

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

Page 6 of 21 • 4 storey block in garden inappropriately sited - overlooking gardens and existing facing windows, including nearby care home. Will dominate adjacent properties.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Design of new-build lacks ambition

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

• Makes a mockery of Conservation Area status.

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

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

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

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

• Usual student provision is en-suite bedrooms with shared kitchen/living room or shared houses. Current proposal goes further - more expensive and less communal. More likely to attract older residents, potentially with cars and partners, who stay

Page 7 of 21 beyond term-time. Studio apartments are unlikely to be single occupancy (very generous internal layouts) – could have 80-110 residents in total.

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

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

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

4.7. Objection received from Community Partnership for Selly Oak:

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

4.8. Objection received from Councillor McCarthy: • Location is wholly unsuitable for use. Is within Selly Park Conservation Area – character buildings of varying ages and styles. Proposal would destroy character of this building and impact on nearby buildings, including new development of family houses on adjacent site. • Within Article 4 Area restricting HMOs – does not cover this proposal but highlights not a suitable area. Would loom over/overlook existing nearby care home. • Building has been deliberately neglected. Should be restored as apartments. • Needs assessment is based on city-wide figures. Only local numbers are relevant. No projected increase in student numbers at University of Birmingham. Would impact on student schemes that already have consent and draw students from outside area. Already excess places in halls/shared houses. Purpose-built accommodation does

Page 8 of 21 not automatically address imbalance of HMOs. A scheme like this could fail and be revived as a hostel. • Nuisance – parking, noise, litter, refuse, anti-social behaviour and impact on water pressure/sewerage.

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

4.10. 25 responses received in support:

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Good for local business.

• Will create jobs and uplift area economically.

• Heritage Report demonstrates local history/knowledge.

Amended Submission

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

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

Page 9 of 21 5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

Principle of Student Accommodation

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

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

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

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

6.5. A Student Needs Assessment was submitted with the application, with supplementary information more recently provided, which focuses on local need (associated with the University of Birmingham only), following criticism of the original City-wide analysis. This examines student numbers (based on statistical evidence from UCAS and Higher Statistics Agency and Knight Frank’s 2015 report ‘Birmingham - Market Report on Student Accommodation’). It includes a break-down of numbers at each of the City’s Universities (Birmingham, Aston, Birmingham City, Newman and University College Birmingham) and, within this, provides specific numbers for full-time students, undergraduates, post-graduates and international students. The total number of full-time students at the University of Birmingham is shown as 25,985 – 18,140 undergraduates and 7,845 post graduates (including 7,715 international students).

Page 10 of 21

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

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

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

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

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

Transportation

Page 11 of 21 6.11. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF states that decisions should take account of whether: “The opportunities for sustainable transport modes have been taken up depending on the nature and location of the site, to reduce the need for major transport infrastructure; Safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people; and Improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limits the significant impacts of the development. Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

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

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

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

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

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

Conservation

6.17. Beechenhurst House is a substantial dwelling located within the Selly Park Conservation Area. The house was constructed in the 1860’s and was one of the earlier houses to be built in Selly Park. The building is unlisted. It has been the home of local dignitaries and contains alterations undertaken by Martin and Chamberlain and this therefore of some local historic interest. The building has undergone

Page 12 of 21 alteration, mostly in the 20th century and unsympathetically, however the building does still contain architectural features of merit and retains the historic stable yard and buildings. The site falls within Selly Park Conservation Area.

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

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

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

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

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

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

6.24. Objections were raised by your Conservation Officer in respect of the original submission. Whilst he had no objection to the proposed use or the principle some development within the grounds, he expressed concerns regarding the potential impact on the conservation area and the building itself. The original plans did not accurately reflect the building’s proportions/details, the proposals involved the unnecessary loss of surviving architectural details/historic stabling, and the proposed replacement stable block building was considered to be over-dominant/out of character. As such, the original submission was recommended for refusal.

Page 13 of 21 6.25. Historic England also objected to the original scheme, recommending refusal and re- design. It was considered that the proposal would cause serious harm to the Conservation Area. The scheme did not demonstrate an adequate conservation approach (loss of windows, roofscapes, entrances etc.) – existing openings should be re-used and historic features maintained/repaired. No objection was raised to the single storey entrance extension to the side (subject to maintenance of historic fabric behind), or to principle of new buildings in rear garden (although annex building considered too close to rear of existing). Objection to demolition of stable block – should be integrated into scheme and proposed replacement too dominant.

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

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

Scale, Layout and Design

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

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

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

6.31. In addition, the 3 storey annex block has been sited/designed to be sympathetic to the existing building and surrounding area. Properties within the locality are generally characterised as sitting within spacious plots and particular concerns have been raised with regards to development within the rear garden (contrary to the advice contained within ‘Mature Suburbs’ SPD). However, the property is not reflective of most others in the immediate vicinity in that it is of a larger scale, reflective of its former institutional use and I consider that the grounds are sufficiently large to enable the incorporation of the additional building as a perceived ‘extension’ to the existing,

Page 14 of 21 without significantly impacting on the substantial landscaped grounds that would be retained around it.

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

Impact on Adjacent Occupiers

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

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

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

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

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

6.38. Objections have also been received on the grounds of an adverse impact resulting from additional noise and external lighting. I acknowledge that the proposal would result in a significant increase in the number of people living at/visiting the site and that there are concerns about the perceived behaviour of ‘typical’ students. However, the proposal is for a residential use and, in the absence of any objections from your Environmental Protection Officer, I do not consider that the proposal could appropriately be resisted on the grounds of any undue disturbance that may result. A

Page 15 of 21 condition is recommended to require the submission of lighting details, in order to control appearance, orientation and luminance levels.

Living Conditions for Prospective Occupiers

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

Ecology

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

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

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

Trees/Landscaping

6.43. Your Tree Officer advises that there have been problems in the past with unauthorised tree removals at this site and that the requirement for a replacement oak tree in the south-east corner of the site is now reflected in this proposal. He has also confirmed that more recent considerations and actions on site have been in full consultation with the City Council. Some tree removal is required, including a large beech on the frontage (as a result of a fungal disease) and an ash (in order to

Page 16 of 21 accommodate the proposals). Replacement/additional tree planting is proposed, including a semi-mature beech. Your Tree Officer raises no objection, on balance, and recommends approval subject to safeguarding conditions.

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

7. Conclusion

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

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to a Section 106 legal agreement.

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

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

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

Page 17 of 21

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 Requires the prior submission of details of balconies

5 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

7 Requires the prior submission of earthworks details

8 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

9 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

10 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

11 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

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

13 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

14 Requires the prior submission of level details

15 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

16 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

Page 18 of 21

17 Arboricultural Method Statement - Submission Required

18 Requires tree pruning protection

19 No approval given to boundary treatments indicated

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

21 Requires tree removal outside the nesting season

22 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Alison Powell

Page 19 of 21 Photo(s)

Front (Serpentine Road) Elevation

Rear of Property

Page 20 of 21 Location Plan

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

Page 21 of 21

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08675/PA Accepted: 29/10/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Weoley

Former Avenue Members Club & Lodge, Weoley Avenue, Weoley Castle, Birmingham, B29 6PS

Retention of change of use of first floor from function room (Use Class D2) to 22 bed and breakfast rooms (Use Class C1) Applicant: Westbourne Leisure c/o Agent Agent: Mr William Ingram 21 St Dennis House, Manor Close, off Melville Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 9NE Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The application seeks to retrospectively change the use of the first floor of The Avenue Club from a function room and dance floor with associated facilities, toilets, and a kitchen to a 22 roomed bed and breakfast accommodation.

1.2. The ground floor of the club remains unchanged and provides a bar, snooker room, lounge, beer and bottle stores, a modest kitchen and toilet facilities.

1.3. The first floor has been altered to provide 22 en-suite bedrooms of various tenures. The rooms vary in size from 10sqm to 19sqm and all include en-suite shower rooms.

1.4. The site currently has 34 parking spaces and employs 5 full time and 3 part-time employees.

1.5. Information has been requested regarding management and operational procedures, employee numbers, room capacities and a noise impact assessment. This information has not been received.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises of the Avenue Club, located on Weoley Avenue. The premises is a 1970’s styled two storey flat roofed premises that comprises of the a bar, snooker room and lounge at ground floor level and a 22 bedroomed B&B at first floor level. Each room is equipped with an en-suite and provides a variety of room

Page 1 of 8 tenures to include doubles, twins, family and triple rooms. Parking is provided to the front and beneath the undercroft to the rear.

2.2. The surrounding area comprises of a mixture of uses with a parade of shops to the north east of the site, residential properties to the north and east, Alwold Road Recreation Ground is located to the west, and Lodge Hill Crematorium and Cemetery to the south. The west and south boundaries are defined by palisade fencing and there are mature trees and hedging to the north.

2.3. Weoley Avenue is located on a bus route with the nearest bus stops within 40m of the site.

2.4. A smoking shelter is currently being erected to the southern side of the premises adjacent to the cemetery. This structure forms the subject of an enforcement complaint 2015/1400/ENF.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. Relevant planning and enforcement history:

3.2. 24/01/2006 (2005/02444/PA) - Retrospective conversion of part of 1st floor to managers flat and associated external alterations – Approved subject to conditions to ensure the flat is only occupied in conjunction with Club.

3.3. 31/08/2007 (2007/04243/PA) - Retention of smoking area to the side of the existing building – Refused on the grounds of the noise and disturbance to adjacent residential amenities.

3.4. 2015/0628/ENF - Internal alterations at first floor level to create a bed and breakfast facility – Enforcement action held in abeyance pending the determination of this application.

3.5. 2015/1400/ENF - Erection of replacement smoking shelter to side – Under investigation.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Neighbours, local ward Councillors, MP, and residents associations notified and a Site Notice displayed. Three objections have been received, including comments from Councillor Freeman. Objections have been raised on the grounds of: • Increase in parking in the area, • Impact on highway safety, • Noise disturbance from the smoking shelter, • Noise disturbance in early mornings and late evenings, • Use of the accommodation.

4.2. Councillor Douglas Osborn has requested the application be reported to Planning Committee.

Page 2 of 8 4.3. Transportation – No objections subject to an appropriate condition to secure appropriate cycle storage within the site.

4.4. Regulatory services – No objections.

4.5. West Midlands Police – No response.

4.6. West Midlands Fire Service – No response.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham UDP (2005). • Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013). • Car Parking Guidelines (2012). • Places for Living (2001).

5.2. The following national policies are applicable: • NPPF- Delivering Sustainable Development (2012).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The main considerations in the determination of this application are; the principle of the use, the impact of the proposal on residential amenity, and the impact on highway safety and parking.

Principle of Development

6.2. Policy 8.20 of the Birmingham UDP provides the context for new hotels/guest houses. The key principles of Policy 8.20 are:

• The site is on a major traffic route and is served by public transport. • The section of the major traffic route is already predominately commercial in nature. • The site is on the fringe of an established centre, in a frontage which already contains mixed commercial/residential uses and it can be demonstrated that the proposal would not adversely affect the standard of residential amenity and the existing character of the area. • The property is not attached to any residential property. • The existing properties are too large for residential occupation as single family accommodation. • There is sufficient site area to accommodate car parking and provide physical separation from adjoining uses.

6.3. The site is not located on a major traffic route, however, the bed and breakfast is sited in a street which contains a mixture of commercial and residential uses and is served by public transport. The bed and breakfast (Use Class C1), has replaced the original function room and dance hall (Use Class D2) at first floor level, and is sited above The Avenue Club. The club has an established commercial use and as such, I do not consider that the change at first floor level to a bed and breakfast causes any further harm to the residential amenity of nearby occupiers. This is further supported by Regulatory Services who raise no objection to the change of use.

Page 3 of 8

6.4. Furthermore, the premises is not attached to any residential property and a clear physical separation and heavy evergreen screening is provided between the closest properties to the north of the site. The existing parking provision on site has been maintained and an existing bus route serves the location, along Weoley Avenue.

6.5. Whilst the proposal is not sited on a major traffic route, I consider that the proposal broadly complies with the locational principles contained within the policy.

Impact on residential amenity

6.6. The premises is detached and therefore any noise disturbance to neighbouring residents would be unlikely. Regulatory Services have not raised any objections in regards to the change of use. Whilst objections have been raised from neighbours in respect of the smoking shelter and noise disturbance outside the club, this element forms the subject of an existing enforcement case and will be investigated independently from this application. I do not consider noise nuisance is likely from the Bed and Breakfast use.

6.7. Although further objections have been raised in regards to the increase in parking within the adjacent residential streets, Transportation have raised no objections to the change of use and it is considered that the change will have no significant increase in traffic and parking implications from the original use of the premises.

6.8. New windows have been installed in the rear elevation at first floor level, however, these overlook the Alwold Road Recreation Ground and as such has no detrimental impact on any residential amenities would occur. I note the windows in the north elevation do not meet your Committee’s distance separation guidelines as outlined within ‘Places for Living’ (Supplementary Planning Guidance) in respect of the properties to the north. A distance of 10m is required between windowed elevations and neighbouring gardens and the development falls short of this requirement by 1.5m. However, these windows have been in situ since 2006 and are heavily screened from neighbouring gardens by mature evergreen trees within the recreation ground. Therefore, these windows have no further impact on the neighbours amenities to the north of the site than the existing situation.

6.9. Objections have been raised in regards to the occupancy of the rooms, however, the site visit confirmed that the property is being used as a bed and breakfast facility and the application has been assessed as such. Any future change from this would require permission and would be assessed on its own merits. I note that Permitted Development Rights would allow the proposed bed and breakfast to change use to non-residential institution such as a day nursery. I therefore consider it appropriate to attach a condition which would limit the use of the premises to a bed and breakfast to prevent higher/different traffic/parking generating uses taking place on- site without proper consideration.

Impact on traffic and parking

6.10. Transportation raised no objections to the proposal providing secure cycle storage is provided within the site. Therefore a condition is attached to the proposal to secure this provision.

Page 4 of 8 6.11. I concur with the view of Transportation that they do not consider that traffic and parking demand is significantly different to that of the original use of the premises. They acknowledge that the site is served by public transport and that there is unrestricted on-street parking along Weoley Avenue. Therefore, I am satisfied that the proposal would not have a detrimental impact on highway safety.

6.12. The proposal complies with the Car Parking Guidelines (2012) which suggests a maximum of 11 parking spaces to be provided for the first floor use. Given that the site has maintained 34 spaces within its curtilage I do not consider that the change of use has generated significant traffic and parking implications from the previous use.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The change of use has not resulted in harm to residential amenities, pedestrian and highway safety, and broadly accords with hotel/guesthouse policy. As such, I consider that the proposal would constitute sustainable development and there are no reasons to refuse the application.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

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

2 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

3 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

Case Officer: Catherine Golightly

Page 5 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1: The Avenue Club Front

Figure 2: Rear elevation of B&B

Page 6 of 8

Figure 3: Family Room

Figure 4: Triple Room

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

48

430

40

207 201 8 10 28 16

494 139.9m

435 35

138.1m

Posts 1

Posts 3

200 375

423 191

193

413

LB 187 11

TCB 363

OAD 15

186 351

El Sub Sta 27

173

Club

Allotment Gardens

161

142.3m

LODGE HILL

149

Boro Const & Ward Bdy

WEOLEY AVENUE

137

1

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

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08218/PA Accepted: 19/10/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 18/01/2016 Ward: Bournville

Land at Hudsons Drive, Cotteridge, Birmingham, B30 3BE

Erection of 10 no. three bedroom terrace houses Applicant: Caspian Asset Management c/o Agent Agent: BPN Architects 3 Mary Street, Birmingham, B3 1UD Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the erection of a terrace of ten three-storey dwellings with associated frontage car parking and rear gardens.

1.2. Site layout: The proposed terrace would be positioned parallel with the northeast boundary of the site, set back 5.3m from the back of pavement on Hudsons Drive. The frontage would comprise a driveway for each property with landscaped strips at intervals between the parking spaces. Private gardens of between 72.5sqm and 86sqm would be laid out to the rear of the terrace. Gates in the rear boundary fencing would allow access into an existing alleyway between the site and rear gardens at properties on Cotteridge Road. Initially eleven houses were proposed but the plans have been amended reducing the scheme to ten houses in response to officer concerns about the intensive nature of the development and resulting impact on residential amenity and parking arrangements.

1.3. Internal layout: Each dwelling would comprise a hallway, kitchen/diner, lounge, WC and cupboard on the ground floor; two bedrooms (14.7sqm and10sqm) and a bathroom on the first floor; and a third bedroom (14sqm) and cupboard on the second floor. Total floor space for each dwelling would be 90sqm.

1.4. Elevations: The terrace would have tiled gable roofs, split up visually by chimneys, and simply designed brick elevations. Fenestration would include a large kitchen window on the front elevation with a solid lower panel to hide the sink inside, and front and rear dormer windows serving the second floor bedroom. All windows would have a central transom giving the appearance of a sash window. The end elevations at Plots 1 and 10 would have a side-facing lounge window.

1.5. Site area: 0.14ha Density: 71dph Car parking: 100%

1.6. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement, Drainage Strategy, Contaminated Land investigation, and an Arboricultural Assessment.

Page 1 of 9 1.7. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site is currently used for car parking by local residents and businesses, although it is not formally marked out. It is rectangular in shape, level and open at the northeast and southeast boundaries. The southwest boundary is defined by a row of Lime trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Order (TPO). The northwest boundary adjoins the rear of properties on Pershore Road. Historically the site formed part of Cotteridge House and Moat, built c.1680, and was more recently occupied by a terrace of dwellings built around 1900 but cleared between 1969 and 1989, most likely in the early 1970s when a car park use was approved.

2.2. The surrounding area includes a mix of residential and commercial development. Hudson’s Drive leads into Falcon View, which comprises a terrace of 12 late 19th century dwellings, and Hudson’s View, a recent residential development managed by Optima and containing 22 houses and 18 flats. Directly opposite the application site is a small industrial estate, which backs onto the railway line. The industrial units are largely accessed on the railway line side of the building but an MOT garage is accessed opposite the east corner of the application site. The MOT garage currently uses the application site for informal overspill car parking for staff and customers.

2.3. Site location plan

3. Planning History

Application site 3.1. 12/09/1974 – 10770028 – Use of land as car park - Approved.

3.2. 14/12/2006 - 2006/05171/PA - Erection of 5 x 3 bed houses, 2 x 1 bed flats and 4 x 2 bed flats, widening of Hudsons Drive and formation of turning head, parking and access – Approved with conditions.

3.3. 10/06/2013 - 2013/03871/PA - Pre-application advice for residential development options of either: (1) a mix of houses and flats – total 22 units; (2) scheme of just flats – 43 units. Applicant advised that both schemes would be too intensive.

3.4. 06/08/2015 - 2015/05726/PA - Pre-application advice for the proposed residential development either: (1) 6 houses and 12 apartments or (2) 11 houses. Applicant advised that both schemes would be too intensive.

Hudson’s View 3.5. 29/05/2008 - 2007/06435/PA - Demolition of factory and construction of 22 houses, 18 apartments, bin store, parking areas and means of access and widening of part of Hudsons Drive – Approved with conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development: No objection subject to conditions requiring completion of S278/S38 agreement relating to the footway fronting the application site prior to commencement, provision of footway crossings with upstands for separation, and provision of pedestrian visibility splays at the accesses. The footway fronting the site is owned by the applicant and completion of the S278/S38 agreement is awaited. Loss of the car park is disappointing but as it is privately owned it could be

Page 2 of 9 removed as a parking facility at any time. 100% parking provision for 3-bedroom houses is low but it meets the SPD Car Parking Guidelines and the good public transport links are noted.

4.2. Regulatory Services: No objection subject to conditions requiring a noise insulation scheme, a contamination remediation scheme, contaminated land verification report and a vehicle charging point.

4.3. Local Lead Flood Authority: Within this development there are opportunities for inclusion of SuDS. Further information should be requested or conditions should be attached requiring a sustainable drainage scheme and an operation and maintenance plan.

4.4. Education: No objection.

4.5. Birmingham Public Health: No comments received.

4.6. Severn Trent Water: No comments received.

4.7. West Midlands Police: No objection.

4.8. West Midlands Fire Service: No objection.

4.9. Site and press notices posted, local MP, Councillors, Residents’ Associations and the occupiers of nearby properties notified of the application; the following responses received:

4.10. Cllr Timothy Huxtable: Supports the application and requests a decision before the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging begins. CIL is likely to render all private sector development economically unviable on this site and leave a derelict site prone to flytipping, unauthorised parking and ant-social behaviour, which will cost the public sector (City Council, Police, Fire & Rescue service, etc.) more in both time and money dealing with these issues than any CIL generated.

4.11. Individual letter of support from 1 local resident:

- the development would enhance the area.

4.12. Individual letters of objection from 5 local residents on the following grounds:

- Loss of well-used off-street parking spaces and exacerbation of an existing parking problem by increasing pressure for parking in the area. Inadequate spaces are proposed on the site and on-street parking on Hudson’s Drive would narrow the road. - Loss of business for local shops due to the lack of parking. - Loss of turning area for delivery lorries. - Spoiling of the view from the rear of properties on Cotteridge Road. - Overlooking of nearby properties. - Possible blocking of access to garages serving Cotteridge Road properties.

4.13. Letter of objection from Partridge Motors MOT garage stating there is not enough space for the number of dwellings proposed; the development would make the traffic situation difficult for businesses and residents; and having residents opposite would be inconvenient for the business.

Page 3 of 9 5. Policy Context

5.1. UDP 2005; Draft BDP; SPG Places for Living 2001; SPD Car Parking Guidelines 2012; TPO (2006); National Planning Policy Framework 2012; Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Principle/policy: The site is located within a mixed residential and commercial area. Use of the site as a car park approved in the 1970s was in connection with a factory but the factory has now been replaced by the residential development forming Hudson’s View. Parking which takes place on the site is now informal from other nearby uses, rather than from the factory as originally intended. Historically the site has been in residential use and the provision of new housing on this brownfield site accords with UDP policies 5.20 and 5.25C and with the NPPF and in principle the proposal is considered to be acceptable. At 71dph the density of the development exceeds the 50dph minimum recommended in UDP policy 5.38 for sites outside of the city centre and on transport corridors and, as such, it would make efficient use of land and, subject to detailed considerations discussed below, could be acceptable.

6.2. Layout and design: The position of the terrace parallel to the road would reinforce and contain the street and would balance, to some extent, the low level industrial units opposite. The proposed terrace would appear tall in comparison to the single storey industrial units however it would be in keeping with the properties on Pershore Road and dwellings in Falcon Way and Hudson’s View, which comprise two and three storey houses and a five storey block of apartments. The provision of parking spaces in front of the terrace is similar to the parking arrangement within Hudson’s View and there is space for some planting between parking spaces to soften the appearance of the development. The elevations are simply designed and offer a contemporary approach to a traditional terrace. Brick elevations and slate roof tiles are proposed together with aluminium window frames and a composite wood/aluminium door. With appropriate recessing of the windows and door and approval of the exact materials through the attached conditions there is no reason to object to the simplicity. The layout of the rear area as long narrow gardens is typical of terraces in the area and the provision of gates into the rear alleyway would allow for the use of wheelie bins.

6.3. Residential amenity: In respect of existing residents, all of the proposed rear gardens exceed 15m in length and there would be no undue overlooking of neighbouring gardens from the rear windows. Distance separation guideline sto the houses to the rear (south-west) are exceeded. For prospective occupiers of the proposed dwellings the accommodation meets the 90sqm per dwelling for three-bed, four-person houses recommended in the ‘Technical housing standards’ document and includes the required 2.5sqm of storage. Bedroom sizes also exceed the recommended size guidelines in this document. Although not yet adopted by the Council, these standards provide a useful guide to ensuring domestic space is adequate for the number of occupants. All of the proposed gardens meet the Places for Living size guideline of 70sqm. Taking all of this into account I am satisfied that the layout arrangements would have an acceptable impact on residential amenity.

6.4. I note that Regulatory Services recommends a number of conditions in order to protect residential amenity. I have attached those relating to the provision of a contaminated land assessment and validation report, and a noise insulation scheme. I am aware of the MOT garage opposite the application site, which operates from 7.30am Monday to Saturday, and the similar requirement placed on the

Page 4 of 9 development at Hudson’s View for a noise insulation scheme and agree this is necessary. I have not, however, attached a condition requiring a vehicle charging point; while this may be desirable it is not necessary to make the development acceptable.

6.5. Parking and highway safety: The site falls within Area 3 as defined in the Car Parking Guidelines SPD where a maximum of 2 parking spaces per dwelling is recommended. The 100% parking proposed, while low, is acceptable as it does not exceed the maximum standard. The site benefits from its location only 250m from Cotteridge local centre where there is excellent access to a range of shops and bus and rail services. Proposed driveways are long enough to accommodate a car and on-street parking is unrestricted. Transportation Development notes that parking currently taking place on the application site could be withdrawn at any time. According to the public participation responses many of these vehicles are taxis who should be able to wait elsewhere. The conditions recommended by Transportation Development are attached in order to ensure the pavement in front of the site is adopted and footway crossing are appropriately installed to ensure legal access to the site as well as pedestrian safety.

6.6. Trees and landscaping: A tree survey has been provided with the application and shows those trees along the southwest boundary of the site which are the subject of a TPO and the several other trees on the site. All but the TPO trees are proposed to be removed. Comments from the Tree Officer are awaited but the tree survey indicates that these are all category C and from my site observations I do not consider them to offer significant public amenity value. The proposed layout does not allow for replacement trees but I do not consider them to be necessary given the substantial group of protected trees at the rear of the site. The planting beds interspersed between parking spaces within the frontage are large enough to support suitable shrubs and a landscaping scheme should be secured by condition.

6.7. Archaeology: I note that the proposal occupies a site which was previously part of Cotteridge House and moat. An archaeological assessment has not been provided however the site has historically accommodated housing, it currently appears to consist of made ground and it is unlikely that the foundations of the proposed dwellings would be deep enough to disturb any archaeological features that remain. A condition is attached at the request of the Conservation Officer, requiring submission of a scheme for observation and recording during the construction period which is considered to be adequate, especially as no archaeological concerns were raised during determination of the approved scheme of housing in 2006.

7. Conclusion

7.1. This application is recommended for approval because it would make efficient use of a vacant site for housing. The proposal would constitute sustainable development as defined in the NPPF, having economic, social and environmental benefits, and should therefore be supported.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions

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

Page 5 of 9

2 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

3 Requires the prior submission of external doors, dormer window and window frame details

4 Requires the prior submission of level details

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

6 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

7 Requires the prior submission of investigation for archaeological observation and recording

8 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

9 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

10 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

12 Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement

13 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

14 Requires kerb upstands to be provided to separate the footway crossings

15 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Amy Stevenson

Page 6 of 9 Photo(s)

Photo 1: Application site viewed from Hudson’s View, looking towards Pershore Road

Photo 2: Application site looking northwest

Page 7 of 9

Photo 3: Trees at rear of site

Photo 4: North east corner of application site

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

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

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/09047/PA Accepted: 02/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 28/12/2015 Ward: Moseley and Kings Heath

19 St Marys Row, Moseley, Birmingham, B13 8HW

Change of use of premises from a bank (Use Class A2) to a coffee shop (Use Classes A1/A3). Applicant: Costa Ltd c/o Agent Agent: Savills 12 Windsor Place, Cardiff, CF10 3BY Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Planning permission is sought for the change of use of 19 St Mary’s Row, Moseley from a bank (Use Class A2) to a coffee shop (Use Classes A1/A3).

1.2. The submitted plans show the internal layout would provide seating for 36 covers, service counter, disabled toilet and back of house area on the ground floor. Seating for 29 covers, a customer toilet and an office/storage area would be provided on the first floor.

1.3. Opening hours are proposed to be 06:30 – 20:00 Monday to Saturday and 08:00 – 18:30 on Sundays. Ten full time employees are proposed to be employed as a result of the proposal.

1.4. No external alterations to the building, extraction/ventilation equipment or advertisements are proposed as part of this application.

1.5. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is located on the eastern side of St Mary’s Row within the Primary Shopping Area of Moseley Neighbourhood Centre. It is also located within the Moseley Conservation Area. 19 St Mary’s Row is an early 20th Century, two storey, flat roofed building. The front elevation has classical columns positioned between three tall arched windows. There are two entrance features at either side of the frontage, one of which has previously been filled in to accommodate an ATM that has now been removed.

2.2. To the front of the premises is a single carriage one-way road with a taxi rank. There is an access road immediately to the north of the property to a rear parking area.

Page 1 of 9 The site is surrounded by commercial premises on all sides of the site and St Mary’s Church yard adjoins the rear parking area. The properties to the north of the access road have residential uses at first floor.

2.3. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. Relevant site history includes:

3.2. 08/04/2011 - 2011/00472/PA - Installation of security camera and ATM security light to front and installation of 3 air condenser units to rear – Approve subject to conditions

3.3. 01/02/2013 - 2012/08147/PA - Remove existing steps to front elevation, extend existing doors to suit new opening, remove existing handrails, refurbish & reinstate stonework to pilasters & plinths and feather entrance threshold to suit external footway levels – Approve subject to conditions

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection. It is expected any additional traffic or parking demand resulting from this change will have a negligible impact at this busy local centre location. There are on & off street parking opportunities within the vicinity along with very good public transport links. In addition, it is anticipated that many customers would already be in this local centre rather than making specific trips to this use.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions controlling opening hours, preventing the installation of extraction and odour control equipment and limiting noise for plant and machinery

4.3. Severn Trent Water – No comments received

4.4. West Midlands Police – No objection

4.5. Birmingham Public Health – No comments received

4.6. Ward Members, MP, Residents’ Associations and neighbouring occupiers notified. Site notice and press notice displayed.

4.7. Letter of objection received from Councillor Trickett summarised as:

• There is an absolute concentration of non retail food outlets and Costa is both a takeaway and a café • The Moseley Plan highlights that the strength of the area is its independents, development of a new chain coffee outlet will put existing small enterprises at risk.

4.8. 16 letters of objection received from addresses in Moseley, Balsall Heath, Kings Heath, Stirchley and Liverpool, summarised as:

Page 2 of 9 • Moseley does not need any more coffee shops, there are enough already • Moseley is known for its independent businesses a national chain like Costa would not be in keeping with the independent nature of the location • A chain coffee shop may threaten the independent coffee shops and other independent businesses in Moseley • There is already a Costa close by on Kings Heath High Street and others within the city • Costa will not provide a unique service to add to the character of Moseley • The site is located alongside a taxi rank; people visiting the coffee shop will try to stop in the taxi rank, disrupting the taxi’s operations.

4.9. Three of the letters received also state that they have no objection to the principle of re-using the vacant building.

4.10. Letter of comment received from Cllr Spencer summarised as: • Will add to Moseley’s daytime offer but would be 7th coffee shop in Moseley and potential impact on existing A3 businesses should be taken into account • The Applicant states will be areas to store waste but there is no location indicated on the submitted plans. The most likely location is the access road at the side of the property, where current levels of trade waste already create litter, fly tipping and other anti-social behaviour. Expect Costa to submit a detailed plan for dealing with waste and recycling adequately • The Moseley and Kings Heath Litter Strategy requests that businesses contribute to keeping their frontage clean and be proactive in reducing litter.

4.11. Letter of comment received form the Moseley Society summarised as: • Would be the seventh coffee shop in Moseley, concern about impact on existing A3 businesses. Policy EA5 of the Moseley SPD and the Shopping and Local Centres SPD seek to resist an overconcentration of A3 uses • When will deliveries be timed and how frequently will they be? Hope that information will be sought and conditions applied to ensure that deliveries are not timed for rush hour when the slip road outside should not be blocked • The Applicant states will incorporate areas to store waste and recycling, however this is not indicated on the plans. The only possible location is the access road at the side where trade waste is already an issue. Hope that conditions can be applied to ensure waste and recycling is managed appropriately • Assume that much of the trade will be take-away drinks that will be consumed at a distance from the shop or on the village green. The litter bins in Moseley will therefore need to emptied more often. Therefore there should be a S106 agreement to enable increased street cleansing and the introduction of smart litter bins.

5. Policy Context

5.1. NPPF, Birmingham UDP (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Shopping and Local Centres SPD, Moseley SPD, Moseley Conservation Area

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The core principles of the NPPF state that planning should proactively drive and support sustainable economic development but this must be balanced with the need

Page 3 of 9 to always seek a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land (paragraph 17).

6.2. Paragraph 3.8 of the UDP recognises the need to protect and enhance what is good and in the city’s environment and improve what is less good. Paragraph 3.10 states that “Proposals which would have an adverse impact on the quality of the environment will not normally be allowed”. Furthermore, development in Conservation Areas should preserve the character and appearance of the area (UDP paragraph 3.27).

6.3. The key issues for consideration in this case are whether the principle of the proposed use(s) is acceptable in this location, the potential impact upon the amenity of existing neighbouring occupiers and impacts on parking and highway safety.

Principle of use

6.4. This application proposes a mixed A1/A3 use coffee shop. The supporting information submitted with the application makes the case for an A1/A3 mixed use based on the definitions within the Use Classes Order 1987 (as amended). The definition for Class A1 (Shop) includes use: (a) for the retail sale of goods other than hot food, (d) the sale of sandwiches and other cold food for consumption off the premises, (g) the display of goods for sale

Class A3 (Restaurants and cafes) is defined as: Use for the sale of food or drink for consumption on the premises

6.5. The supporting information also makes reference to the fact that numerous appeal decisions have established that where levels of seating and levels of eat-in sales take up a significant proportion of the use, a mixed A1/A3 use takes place. I am satisfied with the Applicant’s assertion that the proposed coffee shop would have a mixed A1 and A3 use because it would involve a proportion of the sales of cold sandwiches, confectionary and drinks for takeaway purposes, which would ordinarily fall within Use Class A1. There would also be a significant amount of seating whereby customers can consume food and drink on the premises, which would ordinarily fall within Use Class A3.

6.6. The policies in the Shopping and Local Centres SPD seek to maintain the main shopping function of Primary Shopping Areas (PSA) by encouraging Class A1 uses to locate within this area. Policy 1 requires 50% of all ground floor units in the PSA of Neighbourhood Centres to be retained in retail (Class A1 use). Survey data from November 2015 for Moseley’s PSA show that exactly 50% of ground floor units are currently in A1 use, but in any event, this application would not decrease the percentage of A1 uses.

6.7. Moseley SPD also encourages A1 uses at ground floor within the PSA and states, at Policy EA2, “development that brings non-Al units into A1 use will be particularly welcomed, to encourage and increase daytime economic activity”. While this would be ‘welcomed’, I note it is not required.

6.8. Paragraphs 8.6 and 8.7 of the Birmingham UDP set out general guidance as to where A3 uses can be acceptably located and seeks to ensure that they are located in commercial areas where any potential adverse impact on residents, on highway safety and on the vitality and viability of the shopping parade can be minimised. Further to this, Policy 5 of the Shopping and Local Centres SPD encourages

Page 4 of 9 applications for new A3, A4 and A5 uses in Local Centres, subject to avoiding an over concentration or clustering of these uses that would lead to an adverse impact on residential amenity (impact on residential amenity is discussed below).

6.9. Policy EA2 of the Moseley SPD states that uses within Classes A2-A5 are encouraged within the Primary Shopping Area at ground floor “…provided the balance of uses complies with the requirements of the Shopping and Local Centres SPD. Where proposals would take the level of A2-A5 uses above the 50% threshold, such change would be resisted”. A number of objections to this proposal consider that there are already too many cafe uses in Moseley Neighbourhood Centre. Survey data from November 2015 shows that within the PSA 14.29% of ground floor units are in A3 use. This would change to 15.48%, if the A1/A3 use were counted as A3. A2-A5 uses account for 42.86%, and this figure would not change, so remaining below the 50% threshold cited in the Moseley SPD.

6.10. I therefore consider the principle of A1/A3 use in this location is acceptable and would not undermine the vitality or viability of Moseley Neighbourhood Centre.

Residential Amenity

6.11. As stated above, Policy 5 of the Shopping and Local Centres SPD encourages applications for new A3, A4 and A5 uses within Neighbourhood Centres “…subject to avoiding an over concentration or clustering of these uses that would lead to an adverse impact on residential amenity”. The nearest residential properties are located at the first floor of nos.3-17 St Mary’s Row above a range of ground floor commercial uses. It is acknowledged that there are a number of A3, A4 and A5 uses both along this section of St Mary’s Row and within the wider Neighbourhood Centre. There would be a small cluster of four such units, including the application site with a hot food takeaway (Flakes) (A5 use) located on the other side of the access road at No. 17, a bar (the Bull’s Head) (A4 use) located next door at No.21 and a vacant bar/restautant (Deolali) (use class A4) located at No.23. However, I do not consider that the proposed A3 use would result in a clustering or over- concentration of A3, A4 and A5 uses in the Neighbourhood Centre that would have an adverse impact on residential amenity as there is no residential use physically adjoining the application premises. Regulatory Services have raised no objection to the proposal subject to conditions. I agree to limit opening hours, and plant noise. A condition is also recommended preventing the installation of extraction and odour control equipment without the prior approval of the Local Authority. However, because any such equipment would likely require planning consent anyway I consider this condition would be unnecessary.

Highway Safety and Parking

6.12. Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposal, noting that any additional traffic resulting from this proposal would have a negligible impact in this location. No parking is proposed be provided for the new use. However, there are on and off street parking facilities in the vicinity and very good public transport links.

6.13. One letter of objection to the proposal raises concerns that visitors to the coffee shop may park in the taxi rank outside of the premises. I note from my site visit that the taxi rank is clearly marked and whilst individuals may choose to park within the taxi rank this is beyond planning control and is not a reason to withhold planning consent.

Other issues

Page 5 of 9

6.14. The application site is located within the Moseley Conservation Area but the application premises is not statutorily or locally listed. Given there are no physical alterations proposed to the exterior as part of this application my Conservation Officer raises no objection to the proposal.

6.15. With regards to the concerns raised by Councillor Spencer and the Moseley Society regarding the management of trade waste, I recommend a condition is attached requiring the prior submission of details of refuse storage to ensure waste is dealt with satisfactorily. The Moseley Society also raised concerns that bins would need to be emptied more frequently and increased street cleansing would be needed, the Society request a Section 106 agreement to enable this to happen. However, this is not an appropriate matter for a S106 agreement, other Council/private services would address such matters.

6.16. Finally, a large number of objections received refer to the fact that the Applicant is Costa Ltd, a national chain of coffee shops, and that Moseley is known for its independent businesses, including independent coffee shops. However, the individual operator of a business is not a material planning consideration, only the land use can be taken into consideration. One of the local objectives of the Moseley SPD is to “Promote the centre as a focus for independent traders.” However, this is not a Policy, but seeks to positively encourage independent traders and does not preclude larger, chain businesses locating in Moseley. In response to these objections the Applicant has provided additional supporting information including appeal decisions issued in relation to a similar case in Bristol in 2012. The Inspector’s decision letter states “…it is not the role of the planning system to control competition and it cannot influence whether the end user is corporate or independent.” (Paragraph 11 of Appeal Decisions APP/Z0116/C/12/2168263, APP/Z0116/A/11/2163354, APP/Z0116/C/11/2167342).

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed change of use to A1/A3 would be acceptable in this location as it would have no adverse impact on the amenity of surrounding residents or the vitality and viability of Moseley Neighbourhood Centre. I therefore consider the proposal would constitute sustainable development and recommend that planning permission is granted subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions

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

2 Requires the prior submission of details of refuse storage

3 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

4 Limits the hours of use, 6.30 am - 11.30pm

5 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Page 6 of 9

Case Officer: Alexa Williams

Page 7 of 9 Photo(s)

Figure 1: 19 St Mary’s Row, Moseley

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

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

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/05292/PA Accepted: 07/10/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 02/12/2015 Ward: Edgbaston

Land adjacent 14 Pritchatts Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2QT

Erection of 5 flats with associated parking, access and landscaping Applicant: Grange Securities c/o Agent Agent: Mike Lapworth Burnhill, Lineholt Lane, Ombersley, Droitwich, Worcestershire, WR9 0JU Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the erection of a building to contain four apartments with an adjacent coach house type building accommodating one duplex apartment, giving a total of five apartments, with 10 parking spaces laid out within a landscaped frontage.

1.2. The site is currently vacant and the applicant has an extant permission (2013/00061/PA) for the erection of a three-storey eight-bedroom dwelling with attached double garage, approved on 28 February 2013. This application proposes the erection of a building virtually identical in design to the approved dwelling but with a separate two-storey coach house instead of the attached double garage.

1.3. The main building would measure a maximum of 17m in width and a maximum of 19m in depth. It would measure a maximum height of approximately 11.4m from ground level to roof ridge, and some 6m from ground level to eaves. The Arts and Crafts style building would have hipped roofs and hipped twin gables on the front and rear elevations. Tall chimneys would be incorporated at either end of the roof. Bay windows and dormers are proposed on both the front and rear elevations along with brick and rendered facades, plain tiled roofs and painted timber doors and windows.

1.4. The coach house would measure 7m in width, 14m in depth and 8.8m to the apex of the pitched roof. This also incorporates appropriate Arts and Crafts design features such as dormer windows and leaded lights.

1.5. The access approved under planning permission 2013/00061/PA would be maintained, directly off Pritchatts Road, and the wall, hedging and existing trees would all be retained. Ten parking spaces would be laid out in front of the building. A brick refuse store would be provided just inside the site adjacent to the first parking space.

Page 1 of 9 1.6. Site area: 0.2ha Density: 25dph Car Parking: 200%

1.7. The application is accompanied by a Planning Statement and a Character Analysis of buildings in the local area within the Edgbaston Conservation Area.

1.8. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The triangular shaped application site previously formed part of the garden area of the adjacent residential property – No. 14 Pritchatts Road, and the end of the rear gardens of Nos. 83, 85 and 87 Farquhar Road. These plots have been incorporated into the application site and timber close boarded fencing defines this new plot. Similar fencing also defines the boundary with No. 14 Pritchatts Road.

2.2. There are a number of mature trees located on the site, with a group along the Pritchatts Road frontage and a group at the rear of the site. The boundary of the site with Pritchatts Road is defined by a 2m high privet hedge.

2.3. The surrounding area is leafy, spacious and residential in character, with large, detached properties set back from the street behind landscaped frontages which often hide the buildings. Properties along this part of Pritchatts Road generally date from between 1910-1930, and the main architectural style is Arts and Crafts. Properties sit on larger plots on the south west side of Pritchatts Road and these are now owned by the University of Birmingham and used for student accommodation. Relatively more modestly sized properties exist on smaller plots on the north east side of Pritchatts Road. A surface level car park owned by the University of Birmingham is located directly opposite the application site. The application site is located within Edgbaston Conservation Area.

2.4. No. 14 Pritchatts Road, also under the ownership of the Applicant, has been extended at the rear, following approval of Planning Permission 2012/03588/PA.

2.5. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. 22.03.84 - E/C/24918/3 - Erection of dwellinghouse – Approved

3.2. 26.05.88 - E/C/24918/4 - Erection of a dwellinghouse – Approved

3.3. 13.01.94 - 1992/04174/PA - Erection of detached dwelling and vehicular access – Refused

3.4. 15.09.03 – 2003/01616/PA - Erection of a detached two storey dwelling – Refused (on grounds of scale, mass and design not being in keeping with Conservation Area)

3.5. 26.08.04 – 2004/01190/PA – Erection of a detached two-storey dwelling – Approved-conditions

3.6. 30.12.09 - 2009/01289/PA – Erection of 1 no. detached dwellinghouse and associated means of access – Approved-conditions

Page 2 of 9 3.7. 29.08.12 - 2012/04443/PA - Erection of a two storey dwellinghouse – Refused (on grounds of size, massing and appearance, loss of two Category B trees, would not preserve or enhance the character of Conservation Area)

3.8. 28.02.2013 - 2013/00061/PA - Erection of 1 no. dwellinghouse – Approved with conditions

14 Pritchatts Road 3.9. 25.06.12 - 2012/03588/PA - Erection of two storey and single storey rear extension, and installation of 2 no. dormer windows to rear and pitched roof to side – Approved- conditions

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development: No objection subject to conditions relating to the provision of the footway crossing and a pedestrian visibility splay. On-street parking is only permitted on the west side of Pritchatts Road and is typically very heavily parked. Regular buses and trains are available within reasonable walking distance of this site. The additional traffic and parking demand created by the proposal is expected to have a negligible impact on the highway network.

4.2. Regulatory Services: No objection subject to a condition requiring the provision of a vehicle charging point.

4.3. Severn Trent Water: Awaiting response.

4.4. West Midlands Police: No objection.

4.5. Site and press notices posted, local MP, Councillors, Residents’ Associations and the occupiers of nearby properties notified of the proposal; the following responses have been received:

• Cllrs Deirdre Alden and Fergus Robinson: Object. No precedent for flats in this location – big family houses are more typical. There is a shortage of large family houses in the City. Overlooking of neighbouring gardens. Proximity of site to a dangerous junction with Vincent Drive.

• Edgbaston Residents’ Association: Object. Pritchatts Road forms a boundary between the University of Birmingham and a more residential area. Proposed flats are likely to be occupied by wealthy foreign students with little ongoing concern for the local environment. Inadequate infrastructure and insufficient car parking already cause congestion and the site is too close to the mini roundabout at the Vincent Drive junction.

• Metchley Park Road Residents’ Association: Object. The site is in an area of high standard residential housing and flats would be out of keeping with that character. The area already suffers from traffic congestion.

• Individual letters from 4 local residents objecting on the following grounds:

- the density of the development is out of keeping with the area and would reduce the appeal and value of existing houses - parking and traffic generated would exacerbate an existing congestion problem

Page 3 of 9 - increased noise and air pollution

4.6 2 responses received to re-consultation:

• Cllr Deirdre Alden: Objection maintained. The principle of flats amongst large single-family dwellings is wrong and having fewer flats and parking spaces makes no difference.

• Edgbaston Residents’ Association: Objection maintained. The internal layout shown on the revised floor plans suggest that the flats could be desirable as more intense student accommodation.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: Birmingham UDP 2005, Birmingham Draft Development Plan 2013, Edgbaston Conservation Area Character Appraisal SPG, Birmingham Conservation Strategy SPG, Mature Suburbs SPD, Places for Living SPG.

The following national policies are applicable: National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012), Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard (2015)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Principle/policy: The principle of the residential development of this site has been established through the previous approval (2013/00061/PA) and fully accords with Paragraphs 5.7-5.40 of the Birmingham UDP and Section 6 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing. There is no policy objection to the current proposal to provide five apartments, as opposed to the single dwelling which has been already been approved. UDP policy 5.28 restricts the subdivison of single family dwellings in areas where large family homes are in high demand, however, the approved dwelling has not been built so there is no actual loss in this instance.

6.2. Impact of the design on the character of the area: The position and design of the main building are very similar to those approved under planning permission 2013/00061/PA and, as previously, it is considered the development would accord with the character of the area. The scale and mass are similar to other properties in the area and the Arts and Crafts style is appropriate given other development within the Conservation Area. The two-storey coach house is a new element compared with the approved plans however such structures are seen elsewhere within the Conservation Area and consequently it would not appear out of place. Design details, such as the large ground floor windows, would give the building the appearance of a coach house and it would appear appropriately subservient to the main building. The Conservation Officer has no objection to the proposal subject to conditions regarding materials, which are attached.

6.3. Trees and landscaping: The proposal has been amended during the application process reducing the number of apartments from six to five and removing two double garages which were proposed within the frontage. This was in response to officer concerns regarding the parking requirement and the consequent impact on the appearance of the site. The reduced number of parking spaces and omission of the garages allows for a more spacious, landscaped frontage. Mature trees to the

Page 4 of 9 front of the site would be retained, together with the existing hedging and these would help the development to blend into its surroundings. Conditions are attached to ensure that the trees are appropriately protected during construction.

6.4. Parking and highway safety: Proposed on-site parking spaces meet the maximum standards set in the Car Parking Guidelines SPD of two spaces per unit and the site has good access to public transport being 533m from the University railway station and accessible by bus. Notwithstanding the public participation responses received, Transportation Development raises no concerns regarding the proximity of the site to the Vincent Drive junction and the impact of the additional traffic generated on the highway network is not expected to be significant.

6.5. Residential amenity: The proposed apartments would provide generously-sized accommodation and the guidelines contained in the government’s ‘Technical housing standards – nationally described space standard’ document are exceeded. There are proposed habitable room windows facing the side boundaries of the site within 5m of both No. 14 Pritchatts Road and No. 85 Farquhar Road. Neighbours’ amenity could be adequately protected with a condition requiring these windows to be obscurely glazed and a suitably worded condition is attached.

6.6. Reaction to objections: Local concern regarding the possibility of student occupation at this development is noted. Multiple occupation is very unlikely given the high value of the proposed large flats in an affluent area, but even if C4 occupation were to occur, it is not considered the effects would be harmful.

7. Conclusion

7.1. This application is recommended for approval; the development would make efficient use of land for housing without compromising the character of the Conservation Area or adversely affecting highway safety. It is considered to constitute sustainable development as defined in the NPPF and, subject to the conditions attached, the proposal should be supported.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

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

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

3 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

4 Requires the prior submission of roof materials

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

6 Requires the prior submission of external doors/garage doors

7 Requires the prior submission of fixtures and fittings Details

Page 5 of 9 8 Requires the prior submission of hard and/or soft landscape details

9 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

10 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

11 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

12 Arboricultural Method Statement - Submission Required

13 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

14 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

15 Requires the footway crossing to be carried out to Council specification

16 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Amy Stevenson

Page 6 of 9 Photo(s)

Photo 1: View of site looking north

Photo 2: View of site looking south

Page 7 of 9

Photo 3: No. 14 Pritchatts Road

Photo 4: Internal view of site

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

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

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/09096/PA Accepted: 04/11/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 30/12/2015 Ward: Hall Green

Stratford Road, South of Solihull Lane, Hall Green, Birmingham, B28

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located outside 1512 Stratford Road to the south of Solihull Lane.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x 0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The unit would be digital matrix and stainless steel and would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m.

1.3. The proposed unit would be a new advertisement forming part of a contract within the City.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited within the footpath adjacent to no.1512 Stratford Road. The footpath in this location is to the front of a parade of 16 shops and measures approximately 16m wide. The totem would be positioned adjacent to the main highway between a nearby bus shelter and telephone box. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location.

2.2. The asset number is 260.

2.3. Site Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. No planning history

Page 1 of 5 4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development- No objections subject to conditions to restrict the interval between successive displays, to restrict the display of any special visual effects, to prohibit message sequencing, to prevent the emission of noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours; to include a default mechanism that would freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs; to prevent the display of interactive messages or advertisements; to include controls to monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly including a maximum luminance limit.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. According to paragraph 67 of the NPPF advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located within the existing footpath adjacent to no.1512 Stratford Road. An existing advert is located within the central reservation of Stratford Road which would be removed as part of the City contract. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would have no impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

6.5. Transportation Development have advised that the proposed advertisement would raise no issues in terms of visibility or safety requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal on the grounds of public safety, subject to conditions to restrict animated displays in the interests of highway safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advertisement is considered to be appropriate in terms of impact upon visual amenity and public safety.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary

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

2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

Page 2 of 5

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Sophie Long

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Outside 1512 Stratford Road

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

2 25

15 11 15

17 144.8m 7 23

25 3

31

1 33

59 57

1484 35

1486 37

1490 1

1492

43

1494 THE LOXLEYS 41

7 15

14 12

145.3m

1506

Shelter

LB 16 ESSs

1529 1535 4 1539 1518 Bank

1543

1520 12

TCB 6

1526 1555 El Sub Sta PEMBR 1528

2 3 1

1567

28b 1532 28a 145.6m

22

1579

28c STRATFORD ROAD

28

28d 30

16 1591 40

10

9 1 Rosslyn Sch

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

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/09099/PA Accepted: 04/11/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 30/12/2015 Ward: Hall Green

Stratford Road - East Side, 11 Metres North of Green Road, Hall Green, Birmingham, B28

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided digital advert to be located outside 1130 Stratford Road to the north of Green Road.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x 0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The unit would be digital matrix and stainless steel and would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m.

1.3. The proposed unit would be a new advertisement forming part of a contract within the City.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited within the footpath adjacent to no.1130 Stratford Road. The footpath in this location is to the front of Hall Green shopping parade and measures approximately 10m wide. The totem would be positioned adjacent to the main highway and to the north side of a small wooden planter. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location.

2.2. The asset number is 263.

2.3. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant history

Page 1 of 5 4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development- No objections subject to conditions to restrict the interval between successive displays, to restrict the display of any special visual effects, to prohibit message sequencing, to prevent the emission of noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours; to include a default mechanism that would freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs; to prevent the display of interactive messages or advertisements; to include controls to monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly including a maximum luminance limit.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. According to paragraph 67 of the NPPF advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.

6.2. AMENITY

6.3. The proposed advert would be located within the existing footpath adjacent to no.1130 Stratford Road. An existing advert is located on the adjacent pavement 74m south along Stratford Road which would be removed as part of the City contract. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would have no impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

6.5. Transportation Development have advised that the proposed advertisement would raise no issues in terms of visibility or safety requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal on the grounds of public safety, subject to conditions to restrict animated displays in the interests of highway safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advertisement is considered to be appropriate in terms of impact upon visual amenity and public safety.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary

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

2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

Page 2 of 5

4 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

5 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Sophie Long

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Outside 1130 Stratford Road

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

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

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 17 December 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Defer – Informal Approval 16 2015/06710/PA

Cincinnati Kingsbury Road Erdington Birmingham B24 0QU

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of residential development comprising 83 dwellings and 18 apartments with associated infrastructure works together with provision of 0.2 hectare landscaping on vacant land on Kingsbury Road frontage (Amendment - restrictive access from Edgemond Avenue for pedestrians and cyclist)

Defer – Informal Approval 17 2015/05549/PA

Platt Brook Way Sheldon Birmingham B26

Erection of 30 dwellings with associated parking

Approve - Conditions 18 2015/07096/PA

Land adjacent 22 Ipstones Avenue Stechford Birmingham B33 9DZ

Erection of 8 dwellings and associated parking

Approve - Temporary 19 2015/08787/PA

Fort Parkway (Verge) Inbound Close to 20 The Fort Industrial Park Erdington Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Temporary 20 2015/08844/PA

Heartlands Parkway (Verge 1) Nechells Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 21 2015/08885/PA

Heartlands Parkway (Verge 2) Nechells Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 22 2015/08889/PA

Small Heath Highway East of Golden Hillock Road Sparkbrook Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06710/PA Accepted: 22/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/12/2015 Ward: Tyburn

Cincinnati, Kingsbury Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 0QU

Demolition of existing buildings and construction of residential development comprising 83 dwellings and 18 apartments with associated infrastructure works together with provision of 0.2 hectare landscaping on vacant land on Kingsbury Road frontage (Amendment - restrictive access from Edgemond Avenue for pedestrians and cyclist) Applicant: Galliford Try Partnerships Central Leicester Road, Wolvey, Hinckley, Leicestershire, LE10 3JF Agent: BM3 Architecture Ltd 28 Pickford Street, Birmingham, B5 5QH, Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for the demolition of existing buildings and erection of 101 units (83 dwellings and 18 apartments) with associated parking and landscaping works. The proposal also includes a 0.2 hectare (0.5 acre) site to be landscaped to create a soft visual aspect on nearby Kingsbury Road.

1.2. The application site is 2.54 hectares and comprises of vacant industrial buildings together with a large hardstanding area. The proposal would also result in the demolition of a Category “B” Locally Listed office building within the site. The proposed layout plan shows the main access from Woodlands Farm Road and a pedestrian and cyclist access from Edgemond Avenue. The access arrangements from Woodlands Farm Road would enable new access roads to be provided within the development site, two new cul-de-sac are proposed – one adjacent to Edgemond Avenue and the other adjacent to the canal.

1.3. The proposed dwellings and apartments blocks would address the proposed road frontages and would be designed as perimeter blocks linking Woodlands Farm Road and Edgemond Avenue. The dwellings would generally be arranged in small runs of detached, semi-detached and terraces with larger three and four bedroom detached units at the ends of the runs or overlooking onto the canal frontage. The proposed dwellings would comprise a mix of two, two and half-storey and three-storey buildings. The proposal also includes 2no. three-storey and two-storey apartment blocks as corner gateway features from Woodlands Farm Road into the site. A total of 101 units are proposed and would comprise 52 for open market sale with the remainder 49 units affordable rented homes developed by RSL (Accord Housing Group). The proposed breakdown of accommodation mix as follows: • 6no. one-bed affordable apartments (45 sq. metres average size)

Page 1 of 20 • 12no. two-bed affordable apartments (57 sq. metres average size) • 35 no. two-bed dwellings of which are 17 affordable (70 sq. metres average size) • 23no. three-bed dwellings of which 8 are affordable (83 sq. metres average size) • 25no. four bed dwellings of which 6 are affordable (115 sq. metres average size)

1.4. Accommodation within the units varies, but generally comprises: • 4 bed units - large kitchen/dining room with separate living room, utility and WC at ground floor, with some units also having side garages. 4 no. bedrooms some with en-suite and living room at first floor and separate bathroom at first and second floor level. • 3 bed units – open plan kitchen/dining and/or family room, utility and WC at ground floor, with 3 no. bedrooms and bathroom above. • 2 bed units – living/dining room, kitchen and WC/utility at ground floor, with 2 no. bedrooms, bathroom and a/c store above. • 2 bed apartments – open plan kitchen and lounge, two bedrooms and bathroom. • 1 bed apartments – open plan kitchen and lounge, bedroom, bathroom.

All bedroom sizes comply with the guidelines in DCLG’s Technical Housing Standards Nationally Described Spacing Standards which requires minimum of 11.5 sq. metres for double bedrooms and 7.5 metres for single-bedrooms.

1.5 The design of the dwellings and apartments across the whole site would be built from a red brick or render elements above with a slate roof, with generous sized grey double glazed windows which would have reconstituted stone surrounds.

1.6 Private amenity area sizes are generally well in excess of the minimum recommended in ‘Places for Living’ (ranging from 70 sq. metres to 100 metres for family dwellings). Some of the smaller two-bed dwellings have more modest gardens (over 52 sq. metres), but all accord with ‘Places for Living’. The apartments have balcony areas (ranging from 4 sq. metres to 6 sq. metres) and some communal space to the front/ side/rear (330 sq. metres). This is below the recommended 30sqm per unit in ‘Places for Living’ (by approximately 22 sq. metres) but is considered acceptable as these are generally located at difficult corners because of the block’s position with the rear overlooking onto blank gable of a large storage unit adjoining the site and access road.

1.7 The existing vehicle access arrangements would remain from Woodlands Farm Road with amendments from Edgemond Avenue that would only provide pedestrian and cyclist access arrangements. The only form of vehicle access from Edgemond Avenue would be for emergency purposes with each access road designed for a refuse lorry able to access and turn within the development site. The majority of the dwellings would have either parking bays to the front or single garages/ parking to the side of the property. The total number of car parking spaces across the site would be 183 spaces. The dwellings would have between 200% (2 spaces) and 300% (3 spaces to include single garage) parking provision, which would depend of the size of the dwelling proposed. The three-storey apartment block would have a gated rear parking courtyard (6 units – plot 71-79), with 100% provision (6 space) plus 5 no. visitor spaces. A further three spaces would be provided to the front for three-storey apartments plots 68-70. The two-storey apartment block would provide 100% provision (4 spaces) plus two visitor spaces adjacent to the access road from

Page 2 of 20 Woodlands Farm Road. The design of the apartment building also incorporates refuse and cycle storage incorporated into the design of the building adjacent to the access gates and a grassed rear amenity area.

1.8 The dilapidated footbridge over the canal that provides access arrangements to secondary car park on Kingsbury Road would be removed on Health and Safety grounds. A substantial area (just under 0.5 acres) of landscaped public amenity area would be provided on the south-west on the Kingsbury Road frontage. Native planning and informal grassed areas would be provided with existing trees retained. There would be no public access to this landscaped area. The plans show one access from Kingsbury Road frontage would be retained for maintenance purposes of this landscaped area.

1.9 Site area: 2.51 Hectares. Density: 40 dwellings per hectare.

1.10 The following documents have been submitted in support of the proposal: • Design and Access/ Planning Statement that includes response received from community consultation event • Drainage Strategy • Ground Investigation Report • Arboricultural Survey Report and Method Statement • Flood Risk Assessment • Transport Assessment and Draft Travel Plan • Heritage Statement • Noise Assessment Report • Protected Species Survey for Water Vole and Black Redstart • Desk Study and Land Contamination Study • Phase 1 Ecological Appraisals and bat emergence/ activity surveys • Tree Survey Report/ Plan

1.11 The Financial Viability Assessment also concludes that the level of affordable housing (49%) proposed on site, the proposed development cannot afford to provide any financial contributions for public open space or education provision.

1.12 An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) screening opinion was issued by the Local Planning Authority on 18th December 2014 concluding that development proposed does not require an Environmental Impact Assessment.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site comprises 2.54 hectares site and was part of the former Cincinnati Machine Tools, which operated as a tool making site manufacturing lathes and bore machines. The site was purchased by Urban Splash following the closure/ relocation of the Company in 2007. The site is arranged in two parts, separated by the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal. The northern part of the site is occupied by a large three-storey office building, and a number of part two-storey and single-storey workshops and storage buildings together with a large area of hard standing that is used for parking and servicing purposes. The three-storey office building that fronts onto the canal is Category “B” locally listed building. All of the buildings have been vandalised and access restricted due to exposure of asbestos and health and safety reasons. The northern part of the site also includes a buffer of trees on the western boundary and an Oak tree to the rear of a adjoining property

Page 3 of 20 no. 86 Edgemond Avenue that are protected by Tree Preservation Orders (TPO). The ground levels on northern part of the site are relatively flat with a slight fall southwards heading towards the canal. The southern part of the site is separated by the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal and was previously used as a secondary staff car park and accessed via a pedestrian footway bridge. The footway bridge that only serves the application site is in dilapidated condition and was closed for health and safety reasons. The primary vehicular access to the main site is from Woodlands Farm Road with secondary access from Edgemont Avenue. The secondary staff car park is accessed from Kingsbury Road (A38).

2.2. The surrounding area is mixed residential and commercial in character. To the north is characterised by mix of house tenures that front onto Woodlands Farm Road, Edgemond Avenue and Hanson Bridge Road. There is storage unit adjoining the site to the west and a vacant industrial unit to the east. There is an existing chandlery/ boaters house facility to the south of the canal (towpath side). Birmingham and Fazeley Canal was constructed in the late eighteenth century. A housing estate is located on the opposite side of Kingsbury Road, which comprises a mix of local authority housing and ex-local authority housing together with Topcliffe Primary School. Beyond the site boundary, a Grade II listed building known as Tyburn Public House is situated approximately 500 metres from the site at the junction of Kingsbury Road and Chester Road.

Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and press notices displayed. Adjoining neighbours, Resident Association, Ward Councillors and MP consulted – Councillor Mick Brown requested to speak at Planning Committee. Councillor Gareth Moore requested that the application be determined by Planning Committee and objects on highway safety and over- intensity grounds.

18 letters of objections received from adjoining neighbours to original plans, who object on the following grounds: • Increased parking and traffic congestion. • No considerations have been given and access should be proposed from Kingsbury Road frontage over the canal as it would be much safer route and additional traffic can be managed appropriately. • Under provision of parking spaces (183 spaces) for the site as most households have two cars. • Access to the site needs to be from Woodlands Farm Road and along the canal boundary (Kingsbury Road) reflecting the use of wider roads by the traffic associated with the substantial business that currently operate at the site. • Adjoining roads have not been designed to take additional amount of traffic as the developer’s provision of parking spaces anticipates over 400 car movements a day on Woodlands Farm Road and Edgemond Avenue • Increase in noise and disturbance to the residents from the proposed development.

Page 4 of 20 • Edgemond Avenue would be a dangerous through-route between Woodlands Farm Road and Eachelhurst Road and difficulties in traffic flow would have greater impacts on road/ pedestrian safety. • Edgemond Avenue is an avenue and not dual carriageway and has not been built to accommodate the amount of traffic that needs to use it. • Not everyone on Edgemond Avenue has dropped kerbs or driveways for parking. • No objections to the housing but just the access from Edgemond Avenue. • Amount of social housing proposed at the site. If planning is approved, then there should be a reduction of social housing. • Total number of dwellings proposed should be reduced within the site. • Access issues from Edgemond Avenue as Elmfield Avenue that has several cul- de-suc. • Existing parking pressures that exists from the factory at end of Edgemond Avenue, which has several large vehicles/ lorries already accessing it • There is no infrastructure to support such a large project. • Three-storey flats that backs up to the rear of existing property on Woodlands Farm Road and objections on grounds of light/ shadowing/ outlook to the rear of the property and garden. Suggest moving the flat sections further away from the properties. • Privacy issues associated from the three-storey flats to the rear of Woodlands Farm Road. • Adjoining property on Woodlands Road is higher than the application site and the developers have not explained how they propose to protect the adjoining gardens when excavations works are carried out at the site. • Encroachment onto adjoining boundaries. • Pedestrian safety as children unable to play outside the properties safely on Edgemond Avenue with special regards to her son, who is autistic and does not have much road sense. • No traffic surveys were undertaken as it was not highlighted that one side of Edgemond Avenue do not have driveways with all cars park on the road • Planning permission was turned down on Eachelhurst Road due to traffic (No site address or planning application given). • There is limited width as two cars cannot travel on either side of Edgement Avenue. • Access to Edgemond Avenue from Cincinnati was used for emergency purposes and not a through route. • It would increase crime for residents living at the cul-de-sac • If the application goes through, there would traffic regulations installed in the form of double yellow lines all the way up Edgemond Avenue and expectation is to be compensated by the Council. • Decrease in property values and increase in insurance premium. • Objects to social housing directly at the bottom of my garden on grounds of as we all know what kind of families would be put in a four bedroom social house. • You have highlighted removal of trees of which some of them are in our back garden and we will not allow them to be removed. • It would lead to parking restrictions on Eachelhurst Road and Woodlands Farm Road. • On-street parking reduced on Edgemond Avenue would lead to front lawns and beds that contribute to reducing run off water and sustainability. • Site area is incorrect/ misleading as it does not cover the end circle of Edgemond Avenue, yet clearly depicts a "traffic island style" line within the

Page 5 of 20 Edgemond Avenue end circle. There is no such circle and one would not be compatible with the residents’ current parking. • Residents on Woodlands Farm Road note that there would only be one access and a further one is required from Kingsbury Road. • Pressure of services such as schools and parents would be unwilling to travel the distances resulting in impact on children’s education and safeguarding issues. Pressures on existing infrastructure such as Doctors, schools etc. • No objections to the proposal but there need to be traffic calming measures to slow down the “RAT RUN” traffic on Woodlands Farm Road. • Protection of sale value of canal side houses is unfair on existing residents on Edgemond Avenue. • Existing traffic issues associated on Eachelhurst Road during rush hours that tails back onto Hanson Bridge Road and the proposal would exacerbate traffic problems further. • Document “framework travel plan” Doc 179b refers to garages at the rear of Woodlands Farm Road. There are discrepancies as these properties have no right of access to the rear. • Developers get what they want despite inconvenience caused to residents • Adversely affecting quality of life for existing residents on Edgemond Avenue • Significant impact not just from construction traffic during the build but also residential traffic and associated service traffic on quiet residential roads • Mud left everywhere on the road from construction traffic. • Dust in homes having an adverse effect on health. • Dust caused from construction to washing, windows of properties, to cars etc. • Should further industrial land to the west of the application site become available would again add substantial local traffic flows on Edgemond Avenue as a potential cut through route. • Question on whether there would be direct access from Kingsbury Road and from the Castle Vale estate on the opposite side of Kingsbury Road • Question on whether research has been done on whether there would be impact on schools, Doctors and other services in the area. • Question on whether the percentage of social housing proposed is allocated to Birmingham born and bred or ex-armed forces or to those out of the area. • Questions why developers do not want a further meeting with residents. • Question on timescale on building process for the development? • Question on how will lorry deliveries be controlled to minimise disruption to residents? • Question – is there contamination on site and how will contaminated material be removed safely off-site? • Negative impact on safety in the area as Woodlands Farm Road is National Cycle Network route linking the canal system and cycle route through Pype Hayes Park, the Newhall Country Park to Sutton Coldfield.

21 letters of objection (one duplicate from same residents) were received from residents to the removal of vehicle access from Edgemond Avenue raising the following concerns

• No account has been taken of existing parking pressures and daily traffic flows on Woodlands Farm Road and Hansons Bridge Road. • A re-think is required for a new access from Kingsbury Road via a new bridge or new road starting in Edgemond Avenue

Page 6 of 20 • Increased amount of traffic/ gridlock from 101 units on Hansons Bridge Road, Woodlands Farm Road and Eachelhurst Road especially at peak times, which are over-used and congested arterial roads. • Increased noise and disturbance during construction and from future residents. • Inability to object by some residents, who are elderly and have no access to email. • Existing noise and disturbance associated with Lorries those delivery goods to the factories/ storage units on Woodlands Farm Road. • Increased amount of noise pollution within a peaceful area due to traffic volumes and visitors. • Pressures on existing infrastructure such as Doctors, schools etc. • Exacerbate parking and traffic flows already caused by the ambulance station, fire station and JLR on Chester Road. • Potential for Anti-social behaviour due to a lack of community facilities particularly if these homes are funded under the local council housing scheme and are for social housing • Pedestrian safety from increased volume of traffic particularly for elderly and children. • Access from Kingsbury Road would be beneficial during construction stage • Long term barriers would be removed and vehicle access to the proposed development permitted resulting in increased parking, traffic congestion and removal lawns/ planting beds that contributes to run-off water and flooding. • The site is relatively small in size compared to the proposed number of units proposed. • Protecting value for canal side properties • Existing access road to Castle Vale Estate needs to be re-aligned to accommodate new access road from Kingsbury Road for the proposed development. • Object as some residents consider that vehicle access is continued to be proposed from Edgemond Avenue. • Object to the emergency vehicle access from Edgemond Avenue. • Devalue housing prices within the surrounding roads. • Harm quality of peaceful living from volume of traffic • Agree with housing but disagree with access arrangements • In the event that the access road is blocked by emergency vehicles, the proposal only provides one access is wrong as there would be no other means of access to the site • Costs to the contractor are ruling the planning application and no-one is looking at the bigger picture for the current and future residents. • Question - Why should residents on Woodlands Farm Road take all the traffic and associated problems?

4.2. Severn Trent – No objections subject to drainage condition

4.3. Canal and River Trust – No objections subject to conditions to include landscaping, landscaping management plan and drainage. No objections were raised to the removal of footbridge, which is privately owned and not publicly accessible. It is requested that an informative is attached to ensure that the applicant/ developer contacts Canal and River Trust’s Works Engineering Team in order to ensure that any necessary consent are obtained and all works comply with the Trust’s “Code of Practice for Works affecting Canal & River Trust”.

Page 7 of 20 4.4. Leisure Services – As previously indicated in pre-application discussions we would not consider the 0.2 hectare proposed landscape area on the vacant land at Kingsbury Road frontage to be suitable as an on-site POS provision. This area would not be viable as open space due to its location and also as it will not be connected to the application site once the bridge is removed. In accordance with the UDP as this scheme is over 20 dwellings it would be subject to an off-site public open space and play area contribution, which based upon the proposed mix of units would be £236,200 which would be used for the provision, improvement or maintenance of the nearby Pype Hayes park within the Tyburn Ward .

4.5. Employment Access Team – No objections subject to a condition that local employment is considered.

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

4.7. West Midlands Police – No objections.

4.8. Education (CYPI) - Due to the size of the development (101 residential units), they have requested an education contribution of £335,118.88 to support the need for additional places in the locality across Nursery, Primary and Secondary phases.

4.9. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions to include land contamination, glazing and ventilation installed as recommended in Chapter 5 of the acoustic report prepared by HRS (Report number 120144 AC 2V1, and electric vehicle charging points.

4.10. BCC Ecology – No objections subject to conditions to include lighting and Ecological Enhancement Strategy based on recommendations contained within supporting reports.

4.11. Transportation Development – Initially requested additional information amendments with regards to additional details of proposed highways alterations to eastern end of Edgemond Avenue, improvements to various internal layout designs for shared surfaces, tracking plans for refuse vehicles, etc. The requested details were provided and further information requested to include highway alterations and removal of vehicle access eastern end of Edgemont Avenue with pedestrian and cyclist access to remain, updated traffic flow modals, details of design for Woodlands Farm Road access, existing sub-station on Woodlands Farm Road etc. Subsequently, Transportation Development have raised no objections subject to conditions to include drainage, siting/ design of means of access, parking areas laid out prior to use, pavement boundary details, pedestrian visibility splays, vehicle prevention measures and highway boundary treatment between the public highway and the Birmingham- Fazeley Canal and S.278 agreement to include creation of bellmouth access to Woodlands Farm Road, reinstatement of redundant footway crossing, provision of emergency access/ pedestrian and cycle link and signage to Edgemond Avenue etc.

4.12. Historic England – No objections as the Birmingham and Fazeley canal is not registered as a designated scheduled ancient monument on the national Historic England database.

4.13. Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions to include land contamination, verification report of completed works set out within remedial strategy and drainage strategy.

Page 8 of 20

4.14. West Midlands Fire Service – No objections.

5. Policy Context

5.1. NPPF (2012), Adopted UDP 2005, Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2013), Places for Living SPG (2001), Car parking Guidelines SPD (2012), Affordable Housing SPG (2001) , Public Open Space and New Residential Development SPD, DCLG Nationally Described Spacing Standards (2015), Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses (2006), TPO (1031), Grade “B” locally listed building

6. Planning Considerations

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

6.2. Planning Policy – National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute towards achieving sustainable development and that the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Paragraph 17 supports sustainable economic development to deliver new homes and encourages the use of brownfield land. Paragraph 19 states that significant weight is placed on economic growth within the planning system, with paragraph 50 highlighting that residential development should reflect local demand and create mixed and balanced communities.

6.3. On environmental concerns, the NPPF is unequivocal in its view that local planning authorities should focus on whether the development itself is an acceptable use of the land, and the impact of the proposed use as specified under paragraph 122, with paragraph 123 stating that developments should mitigate and reduce other adverse impacts on health and quality of life, including through the use of conditions.

6.4. The adopted UDP seeks in paragraphs 5.20-5.20A and 5.25 to provide appropriate environment and identify sites for allocation using a sequential approach with the re- use of previously developed land and buildings. One of the ways this will be achieved is through a variety of housing to meet the full range of needs throughout the City. A suitable housing density and mix (paragraph 5.40) and encourages a full range of housing types and sizes including affordable housing (35%).

6.5. Within the Draft Birmingham Development Plan policy TP27 states that the location of new housing should be accessible to jobs, shops and services by other modes of transport, be sympathetic to historic, cultural and natural assets and not conflict with other development policies in relation to employment land, green belt and open space. The Draft Plan also identifies that within the urban area there is capacity for some 45,000 homes including bringing vacant property into active uses and utilising industrial land that no longer performs its original function. Policy TP29 of the Draft BDP and Policy 5.38 of UDP identifies that densities of at least 50 dwellings per hectare will be expected in local centres and corridors well served by public transport with 40 dwellings per hectare elsewhere.

6.6. The application site is identified as a site for housing in the Strategic Housing Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (2014) produced in connection with the draft BDP. This document states that proposals for new housing should seek to deliver a range of dwellings to meet local needs and support the creation of mixed, balanced and sustainable neighbourhoods.

Page 9 of 20 6.7. Principle of use and density – The site has been actively marketed and remained vacant since 2007. The application sites has been idenfied for housing redevelopment for a number of years within the SHLAA and lies within an established residential area, close to transport corridors that have good public transport links and a number of neighbourhood, district and out of town centres with Ravenside retail park, Castle Vale and Erdington in close proximity to the site. Consequently, it is considered that the use of this site for residential development is acceptable in principle.

6.8. Concerns have been raised by adjoining neighbours to the high number of units proposed and suggest that it needs to be reduced on site. The total site area is 2.54 ha and the erection of 101 residential units as proposed represents an overall density of 40 dwellings per ha, which is relatively low. This would comply with the UDP and Draft BDP recommendations which require at least 40 dwellings per hectare. My Housing Regeneration and Development Officers have raised no objections as the number of units together with mix of affordable units that is appropriate for this location. The proposed scheme is considered to achieve a satisfactory density of houses, whilst providing rear garden space, shared amenity space and suitable separation space between properties.

6.9. Loss of industrial land – The application site was previously used for industrial purposes. The application site remains undesignated within the adopted UDP and draft Birmingham Development Plan. The ‘Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses’ SPD states that there is a presumption in favour of retaining land in employment use where appropriate to ensure an adequate supply is maintained for future job creation and securing inward investment to the City. However, under certain circumstances, a change to an alternative use may be appropriate such as where the site is a “non-conforming” use. The application site has been actively marketed for a number of years, which demonstrates the lack of demand in accordance with the Loss of Industrial Land SPD and the Draft BDP. The site is considered a poor location for employment use, poor quality accommodation and is constrained by its residential context and poor connections from the strategic highway network such as Kingsbury Road (A38). Planning and Growth Strategy have raised no objections to the proposals. I concur that the use of the site for industrial purposes would be considered a ‘non-conforming’ use and in principle would be suitable for residential purposes.

6.10. Demolition of Locally Listed Building – The three-storey office building within the curtilage of the site is a Locally Listed category “B” building that has no statutory protection as it is not a Designated Heritage Asset in terms of paragraph 132 to 134 of the NPPF. UDP policy 3.26 states that the demolition of buildings on the local list will be resisted and proposals for demolition of such buildings should ensure that the features of historic or architectural interest are preserved and that all new work and any new buildings are of at least of equivalent quality to the original building and make a similar contribution to its setting. When considering applications that affect directly or indirectly a Non-designated Heritage Asset, the NPPF advises in paragraph 135 that “a balanced judgement will be required having regards to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the Heritage Asset”. The office building is in poor condition, has been heavily vandalized and not fit for purpose since it was closed in 2007. The building is also not accessible due to contamination in the form of asbestos and health and safety concerns. The site constraints include the location, age of the buildings and site accesses from residential streets. The applicants have explored a number of options and have also actively marketed the site with no success for employment/ industrial uses. It is considered that a case of special circumstances has been adequately demonstrated

Page 10 of 20 by the applicants that the existing building is not worthy of retention. The harm to the site’s heritage values is outweighed by the public benefits to provide new housing that would also enhance the setting of the canal frontage. My Conservation Officer concurs with this view and accepts that the arguments put forward within the Heritage Statement and concludes and that the paragraphs 133 and 135 of the NPPF tests have been complied. Consequently, I consider that the proposal accords with the policies in the UDP, draft BDP and the NPPF in considering the impact of this development on such heritage assets. No objections have been raised by Historic England as this section of Birmingham and Fazeley canal is not registered as Scheduled Ancient Monument on the national Historic England records.

6.11. Members are also advised that the applicants can submit a prior approval application for the demolition of this Locally Listed grade “B” building, the determination of which would only relate to the method of demolition and any proposed restoration of the site. Accordingly, loss of the current building in principle cannot be prevented on heritage grounds.

6.12. Design and impact on visual amenity – Paragraph 56 of NPPF attaches great importance to the design of the built environment as this is a key aspect of sustainable development. Paragraph 60 notes that policies and decisions should not impose architectural styles or tastes, should not stifle innovation or originality, but should reinforce local distinctiveness. Paragraphs 3.14D and 3.14E of the UDP identify that new housing development should be designed in accordance with good urban design principles.

6.13. Places for Living SPG supports the creation of safe places, with clear definition between public and private spaces, active frontages, convenient routes, balance the needs of cars and pedestrians and provide schemes which reflect local context.

6.14. The design of the development has been the subject of detailed negotiation prior to the submission of the application and further discussion and amendments have been carried out following submission of the application. The area surrounding the site comprises of mix of housing types and tenures. The designs draw upon characteristics of existing houses and other approved BMTHT schemes within the immediate area. The proposed buildings are generally contemporary in nature and incorporate a range of house styles and materials including brick, render and tiled roof. The internal road network provides a permeable layout that is generally based on perimeter block principles with outward looking buildings that would address each of the new street frontages. The location, size and shape of the site together with the number of units proposed imposes some constraints upon the potential layout of the development with regards to apartment blocks adjacent to Woodlands Farm Road frontage. Amended plans have been provided that have reduced the apartment block (1A) to two-storey in height and have resulted in 2no. one bed flats re-sited to the rear of the three-storey apartment block that would overlook and provide surveillance of the parking courtyard. The “L” shaped three-storey building (Accommodation type 2A) has been designed to be single aspect (with exception of 2no. one-bed flats) with a communal corridor that overlooks onto the car par park to the rear. The corner gateway apartments building and corner turning dwellings (House type 4A2) have all habitable rooms that are dual aspect to address blank gables to street frontages and provide good natural surveillance. The three-storey dwellings that run along the southern boundary would each have a first floor balcony that overlooks onto the canal. Bedroom sizes proposed would generally comply with guidelines stipulated in the Technical Housing Standards - Nationally Described Spacing Standards, with all dwellings having a good outlook on to new street

Page 11 of 20 frontages or Canal. My City Design Officers have raised no objections to the proposal.

6.15. The proposed layout follows the principles as laid out within paragraph 3.16 of the UDP and SPG “Places for Living” which promotes the creation of a safe residential environment and the proposal by redevelopment of vacant site would improve security and surveillance of the area. The removal of a redundant footbridge from former secondary car park over the canal would also improve security by limiting access on adjoining roads from Kingsbury Road frontage. West Midlands Police have raised no objections to the proposal.

6.16. The rear private amenity areas would be separated from frontage areas, creating distinction between public and private spaces. Front gardens are shown to include off-street parking but there is also space for landscaping. The private amenity areas of all dwellings would comply with the 52 sq. m (two bedroom) and 70 sq. m (family dwellings) guidelines as set out in “Places for Living” SPG. A condition would be attached removing permitted development rights for extensions and outbuildings to all plots preventing the loss of rear garden space.

6.17. The private amenity space for apartments would be only 2 square metres under the 30 sq. metres requirements. However, in this instance, such communal gardens are considered acceptable given that all of the apartments have balconies and are also considered as ‘starter’ units in order to deliver an appropriate layout in conjunction with the existing large open storage unit and rear of dwellings on Woodlands Farm Road. Furthermore, the application site has good link from adjoining roads to Pype Hayes Park to the north, which is approximately 535 metres from the site, linear informal open space on the opposite side of Kingsbury Road and Birmingham and Fazeley Canal to the south of the site, which is accessible from Hanson Bridge Road.

6.18. Impact on trees, ecology and landscaping – There are trees on the site which are protected by a Tree Preservation Order. However, none of these trees would be affected by the development as proposed. The proposed landscaping plans shows additional trees are proposed to include street trees and fruit trees within the rear gardens. My Tree Officer has raised no objections to the proposal. Canal and River Trust and Landscaping have raised no objection subject to conditions to include landscaping, earthworks, site levels, boundary treatment etc. that would ensure that the proposal makes a substantial contribution to the site and overall area in amenity and biodiversity terms.

6.19. The submitted ecology and biodiversity surveys identify the site has many opportunities for nesting and roosting birds and bats along the canal corridor. There would also be significant landscape areas within the application site, including tree planting and vegetation on the canal corridor. My Ecology Officer has raised no objections subject to ecology enhancement strategy and lighting conditions. I concur with this view.

6.20. There would be one further condition to ensure that the 0.2 hectares landscaped area fronting onto Kingsbury Road is provided and fully laid out prior to the occupation of the dwellings on site. This area would not be accessible but provide public amenity value on Kingsbury Road frontage.

6.21. Impact on residential amenity - I note concerns have been raised by neighbours in regards to noise and disturbance to include noise from future residential occupiers of the site. The proposal would provide just over 100 residential units on a former

Page 12 of 20 industrial site that has been vacant for a number of years. The permitted use is industrial with incidental offices and there are no restrictions or conditions to include hours and days of operations. Whilst it is appreciated that the adjoining residents have become accustomed to a vacant site, the previous industrial use would have generated significantly more noise than the proposed residential development. Regulatory Services have reviewed the noise report and raise no objection to the proposals subject to a condition to ensure recommendations contained within the report for glazing and ventilation. I concur with this view and consider that the proposal is unlikely to affect the amenity of residential occupiers within the immediate vicinity of the site.

6.22. Whilst I note the recommended condition from Regulatory Services in respect of electric vehicle charging points; I do not consider that this is justified in this case, bearing in mind that there is no policy requirement for such provision. Emerging planning policy however is likely to address this aspect in the future, in the context of Planning Management’s role in air quality.

6.23. Objections have been received from residents of Woodlands Farm Road, who’s properties back onto the proposed apartment building and dwellings on grounds of light, outlook and privacy. Amended plans have been provided that have reduced the apartment building (Accomodation type 1A) to two-storey in height with a sloping roof with eaves height 5.8 metres and ridge height 8.8 metres. The proposed apartment building would also be situated to the rear of the existing access road and part two-storey and part single-storey industrial building, which is approximately 9.4 metres in height and has continuous frontage that runs to the side and rear of No. 113-115 Woodlands Farm Road. A cross section plan has been provided that shows that there would be an improvement to light and outlook from the rear of properties on Woodlands Farm Road. A condition is recommended requiring that all windows (non-habitable - bathrooms) to the rear of the two-storey block to the rear of Woodlands Farm Road are obscurely glazed in order to safeguard privacy to the gardens of the adjoining residential dwellings.

6.24. Both the 4 and 5 Bed house types 4A, 4A1, 4A2 and 4B proposed on this site have bedrooms in the roof space. All dormer/ window within the gable end would be towards the front of the dwellings with no windows to the rear. Consequently, there would be no direct overlooking of neighbouring properties from roof level.

6.25. With regards to dwellings to the rear of properties no. 91a-113 Woodlands Farm Road, there would be 10 metres seperation distance provided from the rear of proposed dwellings and to the rear boundary of the adjoining dwellings. The separation distances between rear to rear faces of the existing dwellings on Woodlands Farm Road and the proposed dwellings ranges from approximately 35 metres to 45 metres, which would comply with the guidance contained in “Places for Living” SPG. Furthermore, there are trees and outbuildings along the boundary and rear gardens of the existing properties on Woodlands Farm Road.

6.26. With regards to internal site separation distances of proposed dwellings, all would meet SPG Places for Living Guidelines apart from Plot 98 (House type 2C). Plot 98 would contain a two-storey dwelling with garden depth that ranges from 9 metres to 10 metres with rear facing windows that overlook onto the rear third proportion of the of the garden of Plot 96, which I consider that this relationship to be acceptable.

6.27. Impact on Flooding: A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as part of supporting submission. The Environment Agency raise no objection subject to the imposition of land contamination and a drainage strategy conditions. Lead Local

Page 13 of 20 Flooding Authority have also recommended conditions which requires the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan in the absence of any drainage design or considerations. I concur with this view.

6.28. Impact on highway safety - Access and parking provision – The proposed access arrangement would take the form of a priority junction from Woodlands Farm Road, in the location of the established main Cincinnati access. The parking provision varies from 100% to 300% for all of the units across the site. There would be an appropriate level of secure cycle storage provided for all future residents of the apartment buildings and dwellings. In addition, there are alternative sustainable transport options that are available in close proximity to the site that includes frequent bus services to and from the City Centre along Eachelhurst Road, Chester Road and Kingsbury Road and a number of neighbourhood, district and out of town retail parks. The removal of the Kingsbury Rd footbridge would route pedestrians to Kingsbury Road via Hansons Bridge Road across the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal, where this ties in to established pedestrian crossing facilities on the A38.

6.29. Due to the layout of the proposed development, it is considered unlikely that any on- street parking demand generated by the development would overspill into existing residential streets (e.g. Woodlands Farm Rd, Edgemond Avenue etc.) given that there would be potential for on-street parking spaces within the site, with residential demand typically occurring within close proximity to dwellings, usually where there is a direct line of sight from the property. There are dedicated visitor parking bays on- street at the western edge of the site nearest to Edgemond Avenue and north- eastern edge adjacent to Woodlands Farm Road.

6.30. Removal of vehicle access from Edgemond Avenue – I note that a number of objections from neighbouring occupiers relate to the principle of providing vehicular access to the site from Edgemond Avenue, plus various issues associated to the suitability of vehicle access, road width, pedestrian safety, inconsiderate parking, increase of crime etc. Transportation Development also raised concerns that the proposed access arrangement and highway alterations to the eastern end of Edgemond Avenue did not provide a legible and workable arrangement with regards to the existing residential parking demand on Edgemond Avenue, taking into account the continuing need to accommodate practical access and manoeuvring capability for HGV servicing of the adjacent commercial units. Amendments have been provided to omit vehicular access from Edgemond Avenue, and it is now proposed that vehicular access to the proposed site would be solely from Woodlands Farm Road. Additionally, pedestrians, cyclists and emergency vehicles would be able to gain access from Edgemond Avenue. This aspect of the proposal would be beneficial in terms of improving permeability, as the proposed link to Edgemond Avenue would provide a significantly shorter pedestrian/ cycle route between Edgemond Avenue and the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal at Hansons Bridge, and public transport links on Kingsbury Road. On this basis, I consider that the amendment would address Transportation and residents’ concerns and it is unlikely that the access would lead to a rise of crime, or in any other way, cause the residents of Edgemond Avenue unacceptable problems or difficulties.

6.31. Existing access arrangement on Woodlands Farm Road – There is perceived impact on Woodlands Farm Road by residents who identify the width, capacity and car parking, unsafe current conditions, with an inability to accept additional traffic etc. Many have also asked why Woodlands Farm Road is the only form of access. Whilst I appreciate that the adjoining residents have become accustomed to a vacant site, the previous industrial / office use would have attracted significantly higher levels of

Page 14 of 20 traffic movements in terms of servicing and employee / visitor car trips than the proposed residential development, particularly at network peak traffic times. There is a choice of routes for drivers entering and leaving the site between Hansons Bridge Road and Woodlands Farm Road, with a likely split in traffic flows between these two roads, influenced by intended direction of travel or direction of arrival. The previous industrial use at its peak employed over 2,000 people to approximately 100 people when it closed in 2007. Notwithstanding this, it is noted that the development of this scale compared with previous industrial use would generate reduced traffic along the local highway network. Transportation Development also consider that Woodlands Farm Road and Hansons Bridge Road are of sufficient width and alignment to accommodation the traffic generated by the proposed residential scheme.

6.32. Alternative access from Kingsbury Road - I note that representations from the adjoining residents have suggested that alternative means of access from Kingsbury Road should be provided to the application site. Kingsbury Road (A38) is a Red Route, which is intended to ease congestion and accidents into and out of the city. There are also constraints on site that would include construction of a bridge over the canal, which would make the proposal unviable due to high costs and maintenance. In any event, it is likely that any new access from Kingsbury Road could lead to an attractive through route being created between Kingsbury Road and Eachelhurst Road at busier network traffic times, which could further increase traffic flows and parking pressures on surrounding roads to include Woodlands Farm Road and Hansons Bridge Road.

6.33. With regards to residents’ concerns about the impact of construction traffic, I consider that it is reasonable to attach a construction management condition requiring the applicant to control deposits of mud, HGV movements, carefully consider construction traffic routing, and repair any damage to the road network.

6.34. Planning Obligations - As the development proposes more than 15 dwellings the UDP and SPD guidance on affordable housing and public open space apply. There are potential benefits as the applicant have confirmed that 49% of units would be affordable rented tenure and being development as part of the grant funded Homes and Communities Agency Affordable Housing Programme 2015-18 for Accord Housing Association. This level is in excess of 35% required in the adopted UDP and the level of affordable housing is considered appropriate for the development.

6.35. The applicants have submitted a financial appraisal to show that as the development would provide accommodation for sale and private market rent that the scheme represents a longer term investment. A financial viability appraisal has been independently assessed and it is accepted that the development would only generate a very small profit from the sale of dwellings. No financial contribution towards public open space or education provision has been provided. Local Services have stated that a contribution of £236,200 towards provision, improvements and/ or maintenance of public open space (Pype Hayes Park) in the Tyburn Ward would normally be required in line with UDP policies. Education has requested that a contribution of £335,118.88 be provided towards nursery, primary and secondary provision within the area.

6.36. I am satisfied that by delivering 49% of the site for affordable rented housing, the scheme would fulfil a significant planning obligation by delivering a much needed mix of 1, 2, 3 and 4 bedroom properties for social and private housing on a site, which has been vacant for considerable number of years. Housing Strategy has stated that the suggested mix of housing proposed is welcomed as it includes

Page 15 of 20 affordable and family housing spread across the entire site. Consequently, I consider that the imposition of further obligations would make the scheme unviable, therefore the offer of 49% affordable rented housing is considered appropriate in this instance. It would be necessary to ensure that the 49% of units are affordable through an appropriate S.106 (Planning Obligations) agreement.

6.37. Employment - In order to secure wide ranging benefits form of development and regeneration, Employment Team have recommended that a condition be attached in order to secure jobs for local residents living in the area. I concur with this view.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application proposes an appropriate high quality residential development in a sustainable location and complies with the Council’s housing and urban design policies in the UDP, Draft BDP and the guidance contained within the NPPF. The proposed scheme is well-designed; scale, massing and appearance is considered acceptable and would accord with the general character and appearance of the surrounding area. The proposal is considered acceptable under highway safety and residential amenity terms.

7.2. I therefore consider that the application is acceptable subject to conditions and completion of a Section 106 agreement to secure 49% affordable housing units on site.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to a Section 106 Legal Agreement.

1. That consideration of Application No: 2015/06710/PA be deferred pending the completion of a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act to secure the following:-

i) 49% (49 units) of houses/ apartments on the site are for affordable rent.

ii) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement subject to a contribution of £1500.

2. In the absence of the completion of a suitable planning obligation to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 21st December 2015, planning permission be REFUSED for the following reasons:

i) In the absence of a suitable planning obligation to secure affordable housing on the site, the proposed development conflicts with policy 5.37 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005

3. That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, complete and seal the appropriate planning obligation under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act.

4. That in the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 21st December 2015, favourable consideration will be given to the application subject to the conditions listed below:

Page 16 of 20 1 Requires the scheme to be implemented in accordance with acoustic report.

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

3 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

4 Requires the prior submission of level details

5 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

6 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

7 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

8 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

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

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

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

12 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

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

14 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

16 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

17 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

18 Requires the prior approval of the siting/design of the access

19 Requires the prior submission of details of pavement boundary

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

21 Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement

22 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

23 Requires the prior submission of vehicle prevention measures and highway boundary treatment between the public highway and Birmingham and Fazeley Canal.

24 Removes PD rights for new windows

25 Removes PD rights for extensions

Page 17 of 20 26 Arboricultural Method Statement - Submission Required

27 Secures local employment

28 Requires the 0.2 hectare landscaped area to be fully laid out prior to occupation of any dwellings.

29 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Mohammed Akram

Page 18 of 20 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Application Site (view from Kingsbury Road

Figure 2: Internal View of the site

Page 19 of 20 Location Plan

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

Page 20 of 20

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/05549/PA Accepted: 12/10/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 11/01/2016 Ward: Sheldon

Platt Brook Way, Sheldon, Birmingham, B26

Erection of 30 dwellings with associated parking Applicant: Partner Construction Ltd c/o Agent Agent: rg+p Ltd 130 New Walk, Leicester, Leicestershire, LE1 7JA Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. Proposal for the erection of 30 residential units consisting of 6 x 1 bed flats, 12 x 2 bed houses and 12 x 3 bed houses. Each of the 1 bed flats and 2 bed houses would have 1 parking space (100%), whilst the 3 bed houses would have 2 parking spaces (200%) creating a total of 42 spaces (140%). The layout consists of a frontage to Platt Brook Way with a new access leading to a cul-de-sac arrangement behind. The flats would be contained within a single 2-storey block and the houses would also be 2-storey in height and either detached, semi-detached or terrace units. The appearance of the housing is a simple contemporary approach on a traditional housing design, with red facing brick, render and tile and dark grey fenestration. The proposal represents a density of 53 dwellings per hectare.

1.2. It has been indicated that all 30 units would be affordable housing (affordable rent and shared ownership) and the intended owner is Waterloo Housing with funding from the Homes and Community Agency.

1.3. The application has been accompanied by a Design and Access Statement, Ecology Report, Drainage Statement and viability assessment.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site measures 0.57ha in area, is approximately rectangular in shape and accessed off Platt Brook Way. To the north and west are new 2-storey BMHT housing along Platt Brook Way, the modern 2-storey Anne Marie Howes Rehabilitation Centre to the northeast and inter-war 2-storey housing to the southeast facing Brays Road. The site is relatively flat due to its previous use as a sports ground and there is raised bank bordering the southern boundary containing a small number of trees and hedging. The levels of the gardens and houses to the south (Brays Road) are some 1.5m higher than the flat part of the application site.

Page 1 of 8 2.2. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. This site:

3.2. 27/09/07 – 2007/01213/PA. Erection of Primary Care Centre, associated access and parking. Approved.

3.3. Adjoining site (Anne Marie Howes Rehabilitation Centre):

3.4. 01/02/07 – 2006/01752/PA. Erection of a 2-storey, 64-bed residential special care centre and day facility and associated works. Approved.

3.5. Adjoining site (BMHT, Platt Brook Way):

3.6. 07/03/13 – 2012/08228/PA. Erection of 100 no. two, three, four and five bedroom dwellings for affordable rent and market sale with associated external works, parking and landscaping. Approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection subject to conditions relating to visibility splays and boundary treatment.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to condition relating to electric vehicle charging points and contamination.

4.3. Lead Local Drainage Authority – No objection subject to drainage condition.

4.4. Leisure Services – Requires £85,000 compensation for the loss of the school playing field and £110,960 on the provision of public open space and play equipment.

4.5. Severn Trent Water – No objection subject to drainage condition.

4.6. West Midlands Fire Service – No objection.

4.7. Local residents, neighbouring premises, residents associations, Councillors and MP consulted with site and press notices posted.

4.8. Petition received containing 59 signatures from local residents objecting to the application on the following grounds: • Site would be better used as a car park for the rehabilitation centre, which has heightened the risk of road traffic accidents and address the inadequate parking for the new housing on Platt Brook Way. • There is no local play area for children and the closest on the opposite side of the busy Sheldon Heath Road. • Insufficient time to organise proper discussion with the community. • The consultation letter is misleading in that it only invites comments and the right to object is not made clear.

4.9. 18 representations also received from local residents making the following comments/objections:

Page 2 of 8 • Site should be used as a car park for the rehabilitation centre and a play park. • No safety measures to the highway. • Area is subject to anti-social behaviour and criminal activities and it is not appropriate to add further houses to this area. • Site is too small for the houses. • Inadequate information and unanswered questions. • Loss of privacy. • There is an existing parking problem and the proposal will increase traffic and parking. • Highway safety risk for local residents. • Noise and disturbance during construction. • Devalue property. • Houses are a different design to the new housing on Platt Brook Way.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Places for Living SPG, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, Affordable Housing SPG, Public Open Space and New Residential Development SPD, Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standard and the NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Loss of playing fields / principle of residential redevelopment

6.2. The application site forms part of the former Sheldon Heath Playing Fields, which was previously used by Sheldon Heath School but declared surplus to requirements in 1997. Other parts of the playing fields have been redeveloped for the rehabilitation centre and housing. The principle of the loss of this final remaining section of playing field has been previously established under 2007/01213/PA subject to a compensatory sum of £85,605 to be used towards sporting and recreational facilities. This consent was for a Primary Care Centre but was never implemented. As such no objection is raised in principle to the redevelopment of this former playing field.

6.3. The application site is located within an established residential location within close proximity to the The Radleys Neighbourhood Centre and public transport links. The adjoining site has recently been redeveloped for new housing under the BMHT and the redevelopment of the application site for new housing is seen as an appropriate alternative use for the site. As such no objection is raised in principle to the redevelopment of the site for new housing. The representations received suggesting the land should be used as a car park and play area are noted but these do not form part of the current proposal and the application site has not been allocated for these uses and could not support a reason for refusal. The closest public park with a play area and MUGA is located some 170m to the east, on the opposite side of Sheldon Heath Road.

6.4. Design / layout

6.5. The proposed layout would create an appropriate frontage to Platt Brook Way with splayed corner units to the new access road leading to a new cul-de sac which is characteristic of the adjoining BMHT scheme. The proposal has been amended from its original submission, which has seen a reduction in units from 32 to 30 and changes to the layout. The previous scheme had ‘exposed ends’ to the access

Page 3 of 8 roads adjacent to the rear gardens of existing houses on Platt Brook Way and the Rehabilitation Centre. The exposed end to the existing gardens on Platt Brook Way has been ‘closed up’ by incorporating the space into the private parking court of the block of flats. The exposed end to the rehabilitation centre still remains but has been altered to incorporate the parking to the houses behind the build line and create large front gardens. Whilst, in urban design terms this exposed end is not ideal, on balance it is considered that the amendments have secured a compromise that still creates a sense of enclosure to this part of the site.

6.6. The appearance of the proposed houses are not identical to the adjoining BMHT scheme but of a similar architectural language and would complement the contemporary character on Platt Brook Way.

6.7. Residential amenity

6.8. The proposal meets separation and setback distances in relation to existing houses and private amenity space respectively as well as garden sizes contained within ‘Places for Living’ SPG with the exception of plots 4 and 23, which measure 40sqm, rather than the 52sqm guideline. However these are considered acceptable under these circumstances as they contribute to an appropriate layout and convenient parking. Furthermore, the floorspaces for the 1 (47sqm), 2 (73-75 sqm) and 3 bed (84sqm) units are considered appropriate within the context of the ‘Technical Housing Standards’.

6.9. Highway safety / parking

6.10. The representations relating to existing parking problems on Platt Brook Way are noted and it appears to be that this is predominantly associated with staff / visitors at the Rehabilitation Centre. The proposal provides off-street parking provision, which is similar to that at the adjoining BMHT scheme, consisting of 1 parking space (100%) per 1 bed flat and 2 bed house and 2 parking spaces (200%) per 3 bed house. This is considered an appropriate provision for the development and it is also noted that there would be capacity for some on-street parking within the development, if required. Transportation Development raises no objection to the proposal subject to safeguarding conditions.

6.11. S106 obligations

6.12. The proposal exceeds relevant thresholds relating to affordable housing (35%) and public open space and children’s play facilities (£110,960). Furthermore, the financial contribution (£85,605) for the development of the site to a Primary Care Centre was never paid as the scheme was not implemented and is still required when the application site is developed. Whilst the scheme is being built-out as 100% affordable housing, the applicant is offering a minimum of 50% affordable housing in perpetuity, where policy requires a minimum of 35%, but has advised that the financial contributions would make the scheme unviable, and have supported this claim with a viability assessment. Whilst the loss of these off-site financial contribution are regrettable, the viability of the scheme for a Housing Association is fully recognised, as is the clear need for affordable properties in the locality. Within this context the proposal is considered to represent adequate compensation. This is a planning judgement regarding the overall package of the ‘planning gain’ being offered rather than an issue of viability. Your Housing Officer supports the application.

6.13. Other matters

Page 4 of 8

6.14. Whilst construction has the potential to create some noise and disturbance, this is relatively short-lived for a scheme of this size and within the lifetime of the development. Furthermore, the impact a development might have on property values is not a material consideration in the determination of a planning application.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal would result in an affordable housing scheme on a parcel of land which is suitable for redevelopment within a sustainable residential location. Its design would complement the adjoining BMHT scheme, safeguard neighbour amenity, provide adequate amenity for future occupiers and have no adverse impact on highway safety. The application is in accordance with relevant policy and guidance and subject to the completion of a S106 agreement to secure… planning permission should be granted.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the completion of a Section 106 Agreement.

8.2. I. That application 2015/04386/PA be deferred pending the completion of a suitable Section 106 Planning Obligation to require:

a) A minimum 50% on-site Affordable Housing (affordable rent) provision.

b) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee of £1,500 associated with the legal agreement. To be paid prior to the completion of the S106 Agreement.

II. In the event of the above Section 106 Agreement not being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 8th January 2016 planning permission be REFUSED for the following reason;

a) In the absence of the provision of on-site affordable housing the proposal conflicts with Paragraph 5.37 A-G of the Birmingham UDP 2005 and the National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

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

IV. In the event of the Section 106 Agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 8th January 2016, favourable consideration be given to Application Number 2015/05549/PA, subject to the conditions listed below;

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

4 Requires the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable

Page 5 of 8 Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan

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

6 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

7 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

8 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

9 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

10 Requires the prior submission of level details

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

12 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Peter Barton

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – New BMHT housing, opposite the application site, on Platt Brook Way

Figure 2 – Application site looking south towards housing on Brays Road

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

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

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07096/PA Accepted: 29/10/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Stechford and Yardley North

Land adjacent 22 Ipstones Avenue, Stechford, Birmingham, B33 9DZ

Erection of 8 dwellings and associated parking Applicant: Red Brick Smart Developments Ltd c/o Agent Agent: Archi-tecture Design Studio Ltd 17 Coleshill Road, Hodge Hill, Birmingham, B36 8DT Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1 Planning consent is sought for the erection of 8 no., 2 and a half storey, 5 bedroom dwelling houses upon approximately half of a site that previously housed a residential care home (the other site has already been developed with 12 no. dwellings of a similar nature).

1.2 The proposed dwellings would provide a living room, dining room, kitchen/diner and W/C at ground floor level with 3 no. bedrooms and a bathroom at first floor level and 2 no. further bedrooms, a bathroom and a separate en-suite bathroom at second floor level.

1.3 The design of the houses would be modern but referencing design features of interwar houses that are characteristic of the area. The proposed houses would be arranged in two blocks, one comprising of three no. dwellings facing onto the main section of Ipstones Avenue where it connects with Audley Road (on the site’s western boundary) whilst the other five no. dwelling units would face into a cul-de-sac section of Ipstones Avenue on the site’s southern boundary.

1.4 Each block would be symmetrical with steep gables acting as bookends at either end with the materials proposed to be a mixture of facing red brickwork and a light coloured render with a view to matching the recently constructed residential dwellings located on the other half of the former care home site fronting Audley Road.

1.5 Each dwelling would be allocated two no. off street car parking spaces (200%) which would be located to the fronts of each property, accessed from various points along Ipstones Avenue with landscaping strips proposed to define ownership of the frontages in between the car parking spaces.

1.6 All garden areas for the proposed dwellings either comply with or exceed 70 sqm and all bedroom sizes comply with or exceed the size thresholds contained within the Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards.

Page 1 of 8 1.7 The proposal represents a density of 50 dwellings per hectare.

1.8 Link to Documents

2 Site & Surroundings

2.1 The site comprises one half of a site that formerly contained a residential care home. This has now been demolished and the southern section of the site is clear whilst the northern section, which fronts onto Audley Road has recently been developed with 12 no. residential dwellings.

2.2 On Audley Road the predominant type of housing are 2 storeys, traditional inter war terrace housing arranged in blocks of 4 no. set within moderate sized plots. Most have converted front gardens to provide off street parking. 1970’s 2 storey terraces are located along Ipstones Avenue to the west and south of the site.

2.3 On street parking is available along Ipstones Avenue where there are no parking restrictions.

2.4 Site Location

3 Planning History

3.1 01/03/2011 – 2011/00649/PA – Demolition of residential care home – Approved.

3.2 06/12/2012 – 2012/06285/PA – Construction of 12 no., 4 bedroom residential dwellings on land fronting onto Audley Road – Approved.

4 Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 Transportation – Comments received as outlined below;

• Proposed new footway link between plots 3 and 4 needs to be widened. • Manual for Streets advises that cul-de-sacs over 25m in length require turning facilities and as such a turning head capable of allowing a refuse vehicle to access, turn and exit the cul-de-sac in a forward manner should be provided. • All of the proposed 8 dwellings propose 200% parking provision, which is considered acceptable. • A redundant bellmouth adjacent to plot 1 should be reinstated to full height footway.

4.2 Regulatory Services – No objection, subject to the provision of an electric vehicle charging point.

4.3 Severn Trent Water – No objection, subject to the imposition of a condition ensuring that drainage details are submitted, approved and implemented.

4.4 Local residents, MP, ward members and residents association were notified with 3 no. letters of objection received from local residents on the following points;

• Increase in noise and activity as a result of larger family homes being provided on the site, within an area that contains a high proportion of elderly residents,

Page 2 of 8 • Concern that the proposal would result in light deprivation to neighbouring residential properties. • The proposed properties are too large. • If the site access is from within the cul-de-sac this will make the access to our properties extremely difficult. • The construction work would result in the cul-de-sac becoming dirty with debris.

4.5 Councillor Carol Jones – Request for the application to be determined by Planning Committee due to concerns of the proposal being an over intensive use of the site and its impacts upon neighbouring properties.

5 Policy Context

5.1 NPPF (2012), Birmingham UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2012), Places for Living SPD, Car Parking Guidelines SPD, Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards (2015).

6 Planning Considerations

6.1 The NPPF requires local authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing. Applications for new housing should be considered in the context of the presumption in favour of sustainable development. (para 49). The NPPF requires good design and promotes healthy communities.

6.2 The UDP encourages the more efficient use of previously developed land but with respect for and response to the context. The environment chapter of the UDP requires proposals for new development to respect the character of the area in which they would be located and respond in a positive way.

6.3 Proposals which would have an adverse effect on the environment will not normally be allowed. UDP policy places a great emphasis upon good design and sets out a series of good urban design principles against which proposals are assessed.

6.4 Further reference to good design is made within the Housing chapter that states that proposals for new residential developments should be carefully designed so that they do not detract from the character of the surrounding area. To ensure this, all proposals are expected to be designed in accordance with supplementary planning guidance Places for Living.

6.5 Proposals that undermine and harm the positive characteristics of a mature suburb will be resisted. I therefore consider that the proposed residential development to be acceptable in principle in policy terms as the proposals would result in new housing provision on a previously developed site in an established residential area.

Visual Amenity

6.6 Within Ipstones Avenue the predominant type of housing are 2 storey, 1970’s dwellings with garages to the front elevation with pitched roofs arranged in blocks of 4 no. and 6 no. Most have front gardens along with driveways that provide off street parking and are therefore set back from the main carriageway.

Page 3 of 8 6.7 The layout of the proposed housing is considered acceptable as it follows the existing building line along Ipstones Avenue and mirrors the positioning of existing residential accommodation on the opposite side of the road.

6.8 Also, it is considered appropriate that the scale, massing and design of the proposed dwellings would mirror that of the recently constructed dwellings fronting onto Audley Road and would provide a continuation of modern dwellings around the corner of Audley Road and Ipstones Avenue and therefore a continuity of design within the street scene which is also a positive factor.

6.9 A condition is recommended requiring the insertion of windows to the side elevation to plot 3 to maximise natural surveillance and security at this junction.

Amenity for Future Occupiers

6.10 The proposed residential accommodation would provide 5 no. bedrooms per unit (double and single bedrooms) along with 3 no. bathrooms (one of which is an en- suite) along with two reception rooms and a kitchen diner at ground floor level.

6.11 Internally the accommodation would provide spacious living accommodation with each of the 5 no. bedroom meeting or exceeding the minimum size threshold as stated within Technical Housing Standards – Nationally Described Space Standards (2015) which requires a minimum size of 11.5sq.m for a double bedroom and 7.5sq.m for a single bedroom.

6.12 In addition, the property as a whole exceeds the minimum size threshold for the type of property (5 no. bedroom, 8 person, 3 storey building) proposed and measures approximately 170sq.m against a minimum requirement of 134sq.m.

6.13 Externally, the rear garden areas would either comply with or exceed the required 70sq.m for family houses and I consider that all of these rear gardens would be of a useable shape and size and it is therefore considered that the proposed dwellings are acceptable in this regard.

Residential Amenity

6.14 The proposed dwellings are to be located within a predominantly residential area on the site of a former care home that has already been demolished and partially redeveloped for residential development.

6.15 The proposed dwellings, whilst providing three floors of living accommodation, are two and a half stories high, with the second floor located within the roof space. From the front elevations of these properties windows on all floors would overlook Ipstones Avenue, whilst at second floor to the rear of the proposed properties would be Velux style roof windows serving bathrooms and en-suites as well as storage space so as to limit overlooking to adjacent rear gardens of properties facing onto Audley Road.

6.16 The proposed dwellings would have a maximum height of 10.2m and would be situated at least 20m from existing residential dwellings along Ipstones Avenue and the cul-de-sac where 5 no. of the dwellings are proposed. Concerns have been raised by local residents regarding the scale of the proposed dwellings when compared to existing properties which measure approximately 7.7m high. However, it is considered that the distance of the proposed dwellings from existing properties (approximately 20m) , to the front elevation, is of a sufficient distance across the

Page 4 of 8 public realm (Ipstones Avenue), and would not adversely impact upon natural light and shadow provision or result in the potential for overlooking or loss of privacy.

6.17 To the rear of the proposed dwellings lie rear gardens measuring a depth of 10m which back onto existing rear gardens of the newly constructed properties facing onto Audley Road. This distance meets the minimum setback distances in ‘Places for Living’ on the basis that there are no windows to habitable rooms to the rear elevation of the second floor/roof space. A separation distance of 27.5m between 3 storey dwellings normally applies but in this case the properties in question are 2.5 storey in height and are approximately 25m away from the proposed dwellings rear elevations. As such, it is considered that this is a sufficient separation distance and would not adversely impact upon adjacent residential properties through overlooking, loss of privacy or light or the 45 degree code.

6.18 I am satisfied that the proposed building designs would enhance the street scene over the existing situation and would not adversely impact upon visual or residential amenity and is appropriate in this instance.

Highway Impacts

6.19 The proposed dwellings would each provide 2 no. off street parking spaces per dwelling which equates to a 200% parking provision using the Car Parking Standards SPD. In addition, Ipstones Avenue offers unrestricted on street parking which is not currently used to capacity as a number of existing dwellings already benefit from off street parking provision.

6.20 Concerns have been raised by local residents regarding the increase in activity along this section of Ipstones Avenue and it being at odds with the current uses. However, the application is sought for residential dwellings in a residential area, albeit on land that is currently vacant.

6.21 It should be noted that site’s previous use as a care home with its access arrangement off the cul-de-sac would have resulted both vehicular and pedestrian movements. It is considered that the proposed dwellings would have a similar or lesser impact than the previous care home use.

6.22 Transportation Development has been consulted on the proposal and has stated that part of Ipstones Avenue, the small cul-de-sac section that would serve 5 no. of the proposed dwellings, is not an adopted public highway and is within private ownership of Birmingham City Council Adult Services. Originally, this section of Ipstones Avenue would have provided access to the previously demolished care home, the land upon which was sold off.

6.23 Given its un-adopted status, Transportation Development requested the provision of a turning head within this section of cul-de-sac so that refuse vehicles and residents can turn around and leave this area in a forward manner, the outline of which has subsequently been submitted for determination and is recommended that the full design details are secured via planning condition should planning consent be approved.

6.24 The existing highway already has a public footway on the opposite of the road to the application site which would be retained, a situation Transportation Development is happy with. In addition to the works within the private section of Ipstones Avenue, works within the public highway would also be required to provide access to 3 no. dwellings, including the provision of footway crossings to driveways.

Page 5 of 8

6.25 As such, it is recommended that a condition is attached to any permission granted requiring that a S.278 agreement be entered into regarding this work. It is considered that the subject to the imposition of planning conditions that the proposal would not adversely impact upon highway safety in this instance and would instead improve the situation.

6.26 It is noted that Regulatory Services have suggested the provision for charging points for electric cars but it is considered that such a condition could not be justified and would not make the scheme otherwise acceptable in planning terms.

7. Conclusion

7.1 The proposed housing scheme is considered to be acceptable in regard to both national and local planning policy. Extended negotiation with the agent has resulted in an acceptable design that responds to local character without harming the free flow of traffic in the adjoining highways or neighbour amenity.

8. Recommendation

8.1 Approve subject to conditions.

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

2 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

3 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

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

5 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

6 Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement

7 Requires the prior submission of details of the turning head

8 Removes PD rights for new windows

9 Requires the prior submission of amended Plot 3 window/elevation details

10 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Mohammed Nasser

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Fig 1 – Corner of Application Site with Junction of Ipstones Avenue Cul-de-Sac.

Fig 2 – Application Site – Looking to Rear of Properties of Audley Road.

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

WEBBCROFT ROAD

76

72

62 38 50 26 14

139 127 115 157 153 103

112.2m

115.8m 114.9m

160 164 162 168 128 136

120 51 112

53

Bucklow Walk

19

15

17 43

45

21 41

Walk 23

Bucklow

25

27 Ruby Rhydderch Home

BASLOW

37

29 33 35 39

CLOSE

22

22

38 48

8 12

2 IPSTONESAVENUE

36

31

50 54

58

180

43 53

192

55 63

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

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08787/PA Accepted: 27/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 22/12/2015 Ward: Tyburn

Fort Parkway, (Verge) Inbound, Close to 20 The Fort Industrial Park, Erdington, Birmingham

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of 1no. internally illuminated freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the southern side of Fort Parkway, adjacent to unit number 20 The Fort Industrial Park.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x 0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The unit would contain a static digital screen that would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m2. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. Application site is located on an area of low level vegetation/landscaped area to the southern edge of the Fort Parkway between a footpath, area of trees and Unit 20 Fort Industrial Park to the south and the Jaguar Land Rover site to the north.

2.2. The surrounding area is wholly industrial/commercial in character.

2.3. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. No planning history.

Page 1 of 5 4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - No objection.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In accordance with paragraph 67 of the NPPF advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.

AMENITY

6.2 The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design and would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of the highway. The proposed advertisement unit would be located within existing low level foliage within an area of commercial and industrial businesses on the Fort Parkway. To the south of the proposal site lies a public footpath and trees/landscaped area, beyond which lies the Fort Industrial Park and to the north lies the main carriageway with central reservation and the main Jaguar Land Rover site. On balance, it is considered that the proposal would not result in an adverse concentration of advertisements within the surrounding area and would be acceptable in this location.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3 Transportation Development have advised that the proposal would not have any visibility implications, and would not obscure any traffic signals or signs. Consequently, it is considered the proposal is acceptable in terms of public safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advert is considered acceptable in terms of the impact upon the visual amenity of the area and public safety.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve temporary

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

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

Page 2 of 5 6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Keith Mellor

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

View east 1

View west 1

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

AY KW PAR RT FO

82.9m

82.9m

82.9m

The Fort

20 Industrial Park

2 3

2 4

2 7

2 8

2 9

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

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08844/PA Accepted: 29/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

Heartlands Parkway (Verge 1), Nechells, Birmingham

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a new freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the NW side of Heartlands Parkway, Verge 1 (outbound) on the A47 approaching the junction of Aston Church Road, Nechells.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x 0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be approximately 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The stainless steel unit would contain a static digital screen that would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m2. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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

1.4. The proposed advert unit would be approximately 135m from the proposed advert unit located on verge 2 of Heartlands Parkway (planning ref: 2015/08885/PA), elsewhere on this agenda.

1.5. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The advertisement unit would be located on the NW side of Heartlands Parkway, Verge 1 (outbound) on the A47 approaching the junction of Aston Church Road. The verge in this location is a raised grassed area containing some hedges, together with a pavement and mature trees set behind. Heartlands Parkway provides access between Birmingham City Centre and the east of the city.

Page 1 of 5 2.2. The dual-carriageway itself and its associated landscaped highway land are the dominant features in the character of the site. The surrounding area has a mixed character with commercial/industrial buildings to the west, including railway lines to the east.

2.3. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - No objections.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In accordance with paragraph 67 of the NPPF advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impact.

Amenity

6.2. The proposed advert would be located on the NW side of Heartlands Parkway, Verge 1 (outbound) on the A47 approaching the junction of Aston Church Road. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an adverse impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees near the site.

Public Safety

6.3. Transportation Development have advised that the verge is approximately 2.3m wide in this location and as such could accommodate the unit with a 0.5m set back from kerb edge without impacting upon the retained footway width or visibility requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal. As such, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact in terms of public safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advert is considered acceptable in terms of the impact upon the visual amenity of the area and public safety.

Page 2 of 5 8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve Temporary

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Design of power supply/damage made good

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

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Chantel Blair

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Application Site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Overflow

Overflow

Sluice

92.6m

River Rea Mill

FB

FB

93.0m

Grand Union Canal

MP 40

Signal Bridge

Towing Path

92.5m

CR

Boro Const and Ward Bdy

s

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

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08885/PA Accepted: 29/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

Heartlands Parkway (Verge 2), Nechells, Birmingham

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a new freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the NW side of Heartlands Parkway, Verge 2 (outbound) on the A47 approaching the junction of Aston Church Road, Nechells.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x 0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be approximately 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The stainless steel unit would contain a static digital screen that would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m2. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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

1.4. The proposed advert unit would be approximately 135m from the proposed advert unit located on verge 1 of Heartlands Parkway (planning ref: 2015/08844/PA), elsewhere on this agenda.

1.5. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The advertisement unit would be located on the NW side of Heartlands Parkway, Verge 2 (outbound) on the A47 approaching the junction of Aston Church Road. The verge in this location is a raised grassed area containing some hedges, together with a pavement and mature trees set behind. Heartlands Parkway provides access between Birmingham City Centre and the east of the city.

Page 1 of 5 2.2. The dual-carriageway itself and its associated landscaped highway land are the dominant features in the character of the site. The surrounding area has a mixed character with commercial/industrial buildings to the west, including railway lines to the east.

2.3. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - No objections.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In accordance with paragraph 67 of the NPPF advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impact.

Amenity

6.2. The proposed advert would be located on the NW side of Heartlands Parkway, Verge 2 (outbound) on the A47 approaching the junction of Aston Church Road. Although there is some existing highway signage within the vicinity of the site, the area remains largely uncluttered by existing advertisements. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an adverse impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees near the site.

Public Safety

6.3. Transportation Development have advised that the verge is approximately 2.3m wide in this location and as such could accommodate the unit with a 0.5m set back from kerb edge without impacting upon the retained footway width or visibility requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal. As such, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact in terms of public safety.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advert is considered acceptable in terms of the impact upon the visual amenity of the area and public safety.

Page 2 of 5

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve Temporary

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Design of power supply/damage made good

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

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Chantel Blair

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Application Site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

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

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08889/PA Accepted: 29/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Sparkbrook

Small Heath Highway, East of Golden Hillock Road, Sparkbrook, Birmingham

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a new freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the central reservation of Small Heath Highway (outbound) approaching Poets Corner Roundabout. The proposal seeks to relocate the existing advertising unit approximately 100m further south-east, where the central reservation widens.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x 0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be approximately 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The stainless steel unit would contain a static digital screen that would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m2. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The advertisement unit would be located on the central reservation of Small Heath Highway (outbound) approaching Poets Corner Roundabout. The central reservation in this location is a wide (approx. 5m) grassed area containing some mature trees and highway equipment. Small Heath Highway provides access between Birmingham City Centre and the east of the city.

2.2. The dual-carriageway itself and its associated landscaped highway land are the dominant features in the character of the site. The surrounding area has a mixed

Page 1 of 5 character with residential properties to the north and railway lines beyond which are commercial/industrial buildings to the south.

2.3. Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. No relevant planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - No objections, subject to safeguarding conditions to limit the use, the length of display and the intensity of illumination of advert and the design of power supply.

5. Policy Context

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

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In accordance with paragraph 67 of the NPPF advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impact.

Amenity

6.2. The proposed advert would be located on the central reservation of Small Heath Highway (outbound) approaching Poets Corner Roundabout. Although there is some existing highway equipment within the vicinity of the site, the area remains uncluttered by existing advertisements. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an adverse impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on trees near the site.

Public Safety

6.3. Transportation Development have advised that the proposed relocation of advertisement would raise no issues in terms of footway width or visibility requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal on the grounds of public safety, subject to safeguarding conditions to limit the use, the length of display and the intensity of illumination of advert and the design of power supply. Subject to the attached conditions, the proposal would not have a detrimental impact in terms of public safety or impact on the legibility of any traffic signs or signals.

7. Conclusion

Page 2 of 5 7.1. The proposed advert is considered acceptable in terms of the impact upon the visual amenity of the area and public safety.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve Temporary

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

4 Design of power supply/damage made good

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

6 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Chantel Blair

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Application Site

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

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

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 17 December 2015

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve – Conditions 23 2015/07790/PA

Former Hardy Spicer Sports Ground and land between Signal Hayes Road and Weaver Avenue Walmley Sutton Coldfield Birmingham B76 2QA

Variation of condition 1 (plans schedule) attached to reserved matters planning approval 2014/00399/PA to allow for substitution of house types and minor alterations to site layout.

Approve – Conditions 24 2015/06386/PA

142 Thimble Mill Lane Aston Birmingham B7 5HR

Removal of existing bank area and creation of additional car parking.

Approve – Temporary 25 2015/08663/PA

Walsall Road (NE side) opposite 344 Walsall Road Perry Barr Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem.

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07790/PA Accepted: 24/09/2015 Application Type: Variation of Condition Target Date: 24/12/2015 Ward: Sutton New Hall

Former Hardy Spicer Sports Ground and land between Signal Hayes Road and Weaver Avenue, Walmley, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B76 2QA

Variation of condition 1 (plans schedule) attached to reserved matters planning approval 2014/00399/PA to allow for substitution of house types and minor alterations to site layout. Applicant: Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd c/o agent Agent: Barton Willmore LLP Regent House, Princes Gate 4 Homer Road, Solihull, West Midlands, B91 3QQ Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application comprises a Section 73 application to vary Condition 1 (which lists the approved drawings) attached to reserved matters planning approval 2014/00399/PA (erection of 110 dwellings, YMCA/Community building, grass pitch and public open space) to facilitate the use of Taylor Wimpey house types. The proposed dwellings largely remain in the same location as that previously approved with minor amendments to the layout and landscaping. The proposals remain within the principles and parameters established at the outline stage. 15% of the dwellings provided on the site would be affordable as previously agreed.

1.2. All of the dwellings on the site are 2 or 2.5 storeys in accordance with building heights established at the outline stage and approved as part of the reserved matters application. All bedroom sizes, garden sizes and separation distances within the scheme and to existing dwellings are in accordance with guidelines in Places for Living SPG.

1.3. The main change to the proposed layout is on the southern boundary of the site around plots 42-44 which have been relocated slightly to the south-east to enable the front elevations to face directly onto the communal parking area to give more natural surveillance.

1.4. The proposed house types use a simple, repeating architectural approach throughout the development which follows the character of the wider area. Many of the dwellings would have gable porches and bay windows and the proposed materials would comprise a variety of brick and tile combinations which reflect the character of the area and provide consistency across the site.

Page 1 of 11

1.5. The landscaping proposals follow the previously agreed principles combining the retention of existing landscape features such as trees and hedges, new tree, shrub and hedge planting and hard landscaping. Boundary treatment would consist of close board fencing and brick walls. Only minor changes to the landscaping are proposed where there is a change to the layout.

1.6. No amendments are proposed to the YMCA/Community facility element of the development.

1.7. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site consists of the former Hardy Spicer Sports Ground (the Kier Site - 2.42ha), a second informal field (the Rubery Owen Site – 3.18ha) and a woodland area proposed to be retained.

2.2. Both sites have existing residential areas to the north and west of them. There is an existing park, Thimble End Park, to the east of the Rubery Owen site. To the south is Sutton Coldfield Rugby Club which consists of a cricket square, rugby pitches, Penns Lane Tennis Club and a main clubhouse in the middle of that site.

2.3. The application site is generally flat and bounded by hedges and there are some boundary trees. The fields are otherwise clear of tree cover.

Site Location and Street View

3. Planning History

3.1. 09/05/2011. 2009/04661/PA. Outline application for a youth/community facility, grass pitch, public open space and residential use. All matters reserved apart from means of access (to be via Squires Croft, Weaver Avenue and Signal Hayes Road). Approved subject to condition with Section 106 agreement securing 16 affordable housing units (a mix of intermediate rent and shared ownership), provision of 0.106ha public open space (Thimble End Park extension), an education contribution of £164,000, provision of a community facility (YMCA) with community access agreement, a highway contribution of £116,000 and ecological enhancements within the woodland area (Enhanced Wildlife Habitat area). Approved with conditions.

3.2. 17/04/2014. 2014/00399/PA. Reserved Matters application for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in accordance with Condition No. 2 attached to Outline planning approval 2009/04661/PA for a youth/community facility, grass pitch, public open space and residential use. Approved with conditions.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objections.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objections.

4.3. West Midlands Police – No objections.

Page 2 of 11

4.4. MP, Councillors, Residents Associations and nearby occupiers notified. Site and Press notices posted. 8 letters have been received objecting to the proposal on the following grounds; - Plot 6 behind 67 Terry Drive projects across back garden and will block natural light and view as house is so close to the boundary fence. - Walmley schools are already full. - Site is a home for wildlife. - More vehicles will mean more air pollution. - Journey to work will take longer due to more traffic in area and around ASDA Island. - Residents will be living on a building site. - Number of houses should be reduced. - More traffic will impact on existing residents. - Put extra demand on hospitals and GP’s. - Plot 75 will block out light to my property. - Traffic concerns regarding the entrance to the new housing estate and the build- up of traffic turning in and out of Signal Hayes Road. - Various ecology concerns about the site and the timing of development.

4.5. 3 letters have been received making the following comments;

- Position of sub-station near the junction of Weaver Avenue and the access road to the new development needs re-siting as children will cross here to access the play area at Thimble End Park. - Site plan indicates a 5 bedroom house at entrance to Weaver Avenue while the house type plans shows a 4 bedroom house. - There is a huge stretch of garden boundary fencing facing the community centre car park, no description of whether this is a wall or fence. Needs to be broken up visually. - Not apparent from the plans whether vehicle access to the housing development will be from Weaver Avenue. It is the understanding of residents that houses could only access from Squires Croft. - Clarification on boundary treatment required, specifically the break in the hedge line between the new development and Miniva Drive. - What materials are to be used for the YMCA and housing development. - Houses should be 2 and not 2.5 storeys.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Places for All (2001) SPG, Places for Living (2001) SPG, Car Parking Guidelines (2012) SPD, Mature Suburbs (2008) SPD, TPO 907, TPO 557, National Planning Policy Framework (2012).

6. Planning Considerations

Background

6.1 Outline planning permission (2009/04661/PA) was granted on 9th May 2011 for 110 dwelling houses, a youth/community facility (YMCA), a sports pitch, an extension to Thimble End Park and a habitat area with all matters reserved apart from means of access (to be via Squires Croft, Weaver Avenue and Signal Hayes Road). As part of

Page 3 of 11 the outline permission the applicants entered into a Section 106 Legal Agreement requiring the provision of 16 affordable housing units, provision of 0.106ha of public open space, provision of a community facility accessible to local residents, ecological enhancements to the woodland area, an education contribution of £164,000 and a highway improvement contribution of £116,500.

6.2. The outline planning approval contains a number of conditions which are relevant to the detailed layout, in particular; Condition 4 states that the number of dwellings shall not exceed 110 and Condition 5 states that no more than 36 houses are to exit onto Squires Croft, no more than 55 dwellings plus the YMCA building, are to access onto Weaver Avenue, no more than 4 dwellings to face onto Signal Hayes Road and no more than 15 dwellings to access from Signal Hayes Road. Condition 6 requires the development to be implemented in accordance with details submitted with the application, namely the access details, community facility indicative elevations and layout plans and the masterplan. Condition 13 notes that the community facility building shall have a gross internal floor space of approximately 2000sq.m and a maximum of 2250sq.m.

6.3. The reserved matters application (2014/00399/PA) for appearance, landscaping, layout and scale in accordance with Condition 2 attached to the Outline planning approval 2009/04661/PA, complied with the requirements of the approved master plan, principles agreed at the Outline stage and Conditions 4, 5, 6 and 13 attached to the Outline planning permission and was approved by your Committee on 17th April 2014.

6.4. Subsequent to the approval of the reserved matters application in April 2014, the site has been acquired by Taylor Wimpey and this application is solely for substitution of house types, minor alterations to the layout and associated alterations to the landscape scheme as a result of amendments to the layout.

Design, Layout and Landscaping

6.5. The reserved matters for appearance, scale, layout and landscaping (2014/00399/PA) were approved following extensive negotiations with officers and were fully supported by the City Design Team. This application has been submitted following pre-application discussion with officers and the applicants have followed advice given that the revised house types should replace those approved like for like, in terms of numbers of bedrooms and scale (2 storey dwellings to replace 2 storey and 2.5 storey dwellings to replace 2.5 storey). In some instances the layout has changed slightly to accommodate the revised house types and landscaping has been altered accordingly while still following agreed principles. 15% of the dwellings provided on the site would be affordable as previously agreed and these would be of the same specification and sited in the same areas of the site as previously approved.

6.6. The main change to the proposed layout is on the south-east boundary of the site around plots 42-44 which have been relocated slightly to the south-east to enable the front elevations to face directly onto the communal parking area to give more natural surveillance. This amendment is considered to be an improvement and fully supported by officers.

6.7. Specific issues have been raised by residents relating to landscaping include the gap in the landscaping adjacent to Plot 75 and Miniva Drive and breaking up of the boundary treatment along the southern boundary with the YMCA/Community facility car park. I can confirm the gap in the landscaping which was also included in the

Page 4 of 11 previously approved layout is because of a public sewer running through the site. The proposed boundary fencing along the boundary with the YMCA/Community facility car park would only be in areas where it adjoins private gardens and the fencing would be well screened by landscaping within the YMCA/Community facility site.

6.8. I consider the appearance of the revised house types is acceptable and the proposed dwellings would have bedroom and garden sizes which equate with the previously approved house types. The minor alterations to the site layout and landscaping are in accordance with previously agreed principles.

Residential Amenity

6.9. The previously approved layout complied with separation distance guidelines contained in Places for Living SPG and was not considered to have any adverse impact on the amenities of existing residential occupiers adjacent to the site. The proposed minor amendments to the proposed layout would also comply with guidelines in Places for Living.

6.10. I note the objection in relation to the proximity of the proposed dwelling on Plot 6 to the rear of the existing dwelling at 67 Terry Drive, I can confirm that the gable end of the proposed dwelling is in excess of 12.6m (minimum separation from existing rear elevations to new flank walls) from the rear of no.67 Terry Drive and the relationship would be no worse than that previously approved. There is also an objection on the grounds that the dwelling at Plot 75 would block out light to an existing property at Miniva Drive. I note that the proposed dwelling at Plot 75 is smaller than previously approved and located further away from the property in Miniva Drive.

6.11. I do not consider the proposed amendments to either the house types or the layout would have an adverse impact on the amenities of existing residents adjacent to the application site.

Highways

6.11. The proposed amendments do not alter the approved access arrangements established at the Outline stage where it was agreed that 36 dwellings would be accessed from Squires Croft, 55 from Weaver Avenue, 15 from Signal Hayes Road and 4 dwellings would be accessed individually from Signal Hayes Road.

6.12. Transportation development raise no objection to the proposed amendments. They have confirmed that the proposed sub-station on the junction of the new estate road and Weaver Avenue would not be in the visibility splay and they would not object to its siting on highway safety grounds.

Other issues

6.13. In terms of the issues raised by local residents which are not addressed above, the principle of the development for this number of houses and their scale has already been agreed. This included a thorough assessment of traffic impact, impact on wildlife and implications for schools and where required appropriate contributions have been secured through a Section 106 agreements.

6.14. The applicants have amended the plans so that the house type plans correspond with the site layout plans.

Page 5 of 11 6.15. A condition has been attached to the Outline planning approval requiring the applicant to submit a construction management plan prior to the commencement of development. This is to ensure minimum disruption to residents during construction.

7. Conclusion

7.1. I consider the amendments to the approved reserved matters are in accordance with the approved master plan and principles agreed and conditioned at the outline stage, in accordance with relevant national (NPPF) and local (UDP, Draft Birmingham Development Plan) planning policy, supplementary planning guidance (Places for Living, Places for All and Mature Suburbs) and are acceptable.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve Subject To Conditions.

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

2 Requires details of ecological enhancement measures

Case Officer: John Davies

Page 6 of 11 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Site from Signal Hayes Road to Weaver Avenue

Page 7 of 11

Figure 2 – Site from Squires Croft

Page 8 of 11

Figure 3 – Site from Weaver Avenue and site boundary with Thimble End Park

Page 9 of 11

Figure 4 – Site from Weaver Avenue

Page 10 of 11 Location Plan

Holy Cross and GLENTWORTH H

St Francis RC Church 11 15 2

1a 17 2 27 SIGNAL HAYES ROAD

3 19

6 29 2

WELTON CLOSE

12

48

21 5 50

9

11

27 3

15 16

14 16 35

14a

16a

33

1

19 52

2 Posts

8 17

WOODBERRY DRIVE

27

11

236 a

a

20

18 7 20

6 9

11

22

24 114.7m

15 1 43

41

64

30 7 45 14 8

LITTLETON CLOSE 3

7 12

1

WILLOWS 14

3

1 11

11 5 8 El

15 Sub SIGNAL HAYES ROAD

15 4

24 6 Burra

17

Sta 3 5 2

30

12

29 65

11 8

5 9 MINIVA DRIVE The Poplars

69 48

SQUIRREL HOLLOW

12 11

38 19

15

25

TERRY DRIVE SQUIRES CROFT

10

41

22 18 21

2 41 El Sub Sta

46

CATER DRIVE 27 22

29

35 26

33

11

15

53

1 30

61 53

48 32

41

10

60

20

67 11

WEAVER AVENUE 2

Drain 12 14

Drain

L Twrs

9 20 25

COVER CROFT

8

6 2

Sports Ground 27

5

3 1

WITHAM CLOSE 6 26 6

12 4

33 5

Playing Field 14 32

36 7

32

39 26

22

Drain

20

Club House 67 11 SWALE ROAD

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

Page 11 of 11

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06386/PA Accepted: 30/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 30/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

142 Thimble Mill Lane, Aston, Birmingham, B7 5HR

Removal of existing bank area and creation of additional car parking. Applicant: Amey 142 Thimble Mill Lane, Aston, Birmingham, B7 5HR Agent: Evolve2consult Princes House, Princes Square, Harrogate, HG1 1LW Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The application submitted is for the removal of an existing bank area and the creation of additional staff car parking and a compound space for the parking of gritters.

1.2. The site currently holds an off street parking provision of 182 existing parking spaces; the applicant is proposing 280 in total, which is an increase of 98 spaces.

1.3. The applicant states that the current layout and facilities are not suitable for ongoing operations, principally due to change in the nature of the operation from a capital investment phase to longer term maintenance. The changes in operations include both human resource changes and changes to the type of plant and equipment required to be accommodated and serviced on site.

1.4. The additional spaces would overcome the current problem of parking spilling out on and around the access road and also on Thimble Mill Lane.

1.5. The wider project aims to deliver improvements to the way the existing Amey site at Thimble Mill Lane operates and to make provision for additional staff members relocated from other sites. As well as achieving a new spatial arrangement and improvements to pedestrian and vehicular flow to aids existing operations, the proposals aim to take advantage of opportunities to establish a stronger corporate identity and to assist in business development.

1.6. A preliminary ecological appraisal has been submitted as a supporting document.

1.7. Link to Documents

Page 1 of 6 2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The Thimble Mill Lane site is the base for the Amey highways operation serving Birmingham on behalf of Birmingham City Council. The site includes various components including office accommodation, welfare facilities, plant and equipment storage (internal and external), highways operations vehicle parking and facilities and staff/visitor car parking.

2.2. Influenced by its topography, the site is arranged over two levels. The larger lower level (street level) accommodates the main functions of offices/administration, welfare, internal and external plant and equipment storage, grit storage, operations vehicle storage and facilities and staff/visitor car parking. The upper level to the east, at the boundary with the rail line, accommodate external storage and a large undeveloped area of vegetation.

2.3. The site is laid out/fenced to provide perimeter security and also to delineate higher risk working areas from lower risk administration and ancillary functions.

2.4. The surrounding area is primarily industrial uses. Hockley Brook adjoins the site to the east.

2.5. The application site is within flood zones 2 and 3.

2.6. Site Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 22/09/2015 - 2015/04041/PA - Retention of single storey temporary office accommodation and associated works – Approved temporary for 1 year.

3.2. 01/12/2014 - 2014/08288/PA - Pre application advice for extension to existing buildings – Pre-application discussion finalised.

3.3. 24/06/2004 - 2004/02382/PA - Erection of a salt storage dome – Approved subject to conditions.

3.4. 04/10/2001 - 2001/04277/PA - Certificate of lawfulness for existing use of 11 parts of depot site for waste transfer station purposes, as shown on submitted plan dated 10.5.96 – Approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Press and site notices displayed, surrounding occupiers, residents associations and local members notified – One letter of support has been received.

4.2. Transportation Development – No objection subject to a condition relating to all parking bays to be to guidelines.

4.3. Regulatory Services – No objection.

4.4. Ecologist – No objection subject to a condition relating to a scheme for ecological/biodiversity/enhancement measures.

4.5. Environment Agency – No objections.

Page 2 of 6 4.6. West Midlands Police – Make recommendations regarding CCTV, physical measures and operating procedures and lighting scheme.

4.7. Network Rail – No objection.

4.8. Severn Trent – No comments received.

4.9. Lead Local Flood Authority – Recommend a condition which requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), SPD: Car Parking Guidelines, SPG: Places for All (2001), NPPF (2012) and the Draft Birmingham Development Plan.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Policy Paragraph 3.8 of the UDP requires that proposals should protect and enhance what is good in the City’s environment and improve what is less good. Paragraph 3.14D outlines a number of good urban design principles against which new development will be assessed. In particular this includes the impact a proposal would have on the local character of an area, including topography, building lines, scale, massing, views, open spaces, landscape, boundary treatments and neighbouring uses.

6.2. Visual amenity The proposed development is well within the application site boundary, it is therefore considered the changes are minimal in terms of impact on the locality and is unlikely to adversely affect the visual amenities of the surrounding area.

6.3. Residential amenity Regulatory Services raise no objection to the proposed development. I concur with this view. As there are no residential dwellings within the immediate area there are no residential amenity issues associated with this development.

6.4. Highway safety Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposed development subject to a condition relating to all parking bays to be to guidelines. I concur with this view. It is considered the additional spaces would overcome the current problem of parking spilling out on and around the access road and on Thimble Mill Lane.

6.5. Ecology The City Ecologist raises no objection subject to a condition relating to a scheme for ecological biodiversity enhancement measures. I concur with this view. This would also ensure enhanced landscaping would be secured on this part of the site.

6.6. Flooding The site is within flood zones 2 and 3 and the Environment Agency have no objections to make regarding the proposed development.

6.7. Other matters West Midlands Police make recommendations regarding CCTV and a lighting scheme. I concur with this view and can ensure the provision of both by way of conditions.

Page 3 of 6 7. Conclusion

7.1. It is considered that the proposal represents an acceptable form of development and is considered acceptable under UDP Policy 3.8 and 3.14D, as well as Places for All (2001), which have been adopted as Supplementary Planning Guidance. The proposal is therefore recommended for the approval of planning permission subject to conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That planning permission is granted.

1 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

2 All parking bays to be to guidelines

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

4 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

5 Requires the prior submission of earthworks details

6 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

7 Requires the prior submission of a landscape management plan

8 Requires the prior submission of level details

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

10 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

11 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

12 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Stephanie Salmon

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Development area

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

Scale 1:2500

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

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08663/PA Accepted: 23/10/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 18/12/2015 Ward: Perry Barr

Walsall Road (NE side), opposite 344 Walsall Road, Perry Barr, Birmingham

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

Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the installation of a freestanding double sided static digital advertisement unit to be located on the central reservation of Walsall Road, close to the junction with Church Road. The advert would replace and relocate an existing advertisement unit located to the north west on the footway.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.2m (w) x 0.3m (d). The advertisement area would be 1.8m (h) x 1.1 (w). The stainless steel unit would contain a static digital screen that would be internally illuminated at 300cd/m2. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The advertisement would be located on the central reservation of Walsall Road, close to the junction with Church Road, which is a grassed area.

2.2 The dual-carriageway and the associated landscaped highway land are the dominant features in the character of the site. The surrounding area contains residential buildings. There is existing highway signage in the vicinity of the site.

2.3 Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. No planning history.

Page 1 of 5 4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - No objection subject to conditions to restrict the interval between successive displays, to restrict the display of any special visual effects, to prohibit message sequencing, to prevent the emission of noise, sound, smoke, smell or odours; to include a default mechanism that would freeze the sign in one position if a malfunction occurs; to prevent the display of interactive messages or advertisements; to include controls to monitor ambient light conditions and adjust sign brightness accordingly including a maximum luminance limit. A Grampian condition has also been requested for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework, Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2031).

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In accordance with paragraph 67 of the NPPF advertisements should be subject to control only in the interests of amenity and public safety, taking account of cumulative impacts.

AMENITY

6.2 The proposed advert would be located on the central reservation of Walsall Road, close to the junction with Church Road. The proposed advert would be a replacement for an existing advert in this area and would not add to the degree of clutter. The proposed advertisement would be modestly proportioned with a slender contemporary design. It would not appear as a dominant feature on this section of highway land. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an adverse impact upon visual amenity. The proposed advert would not impact on any trees.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3 Transportation Development have advised that the proposed replacement advertisement would raise no issues in terms of footway width or visibility requirements and no objections are raised to the proposal on the grounds of public safety, subject to conditions to restrict animated displays in the interests of highway safety. However, the requested condition for the relevant highway agreements to be in place prior to the unit being installed would not be reasonable and will not be applied.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advert is considered acceptable in terms of the impact upon the visual amenity of the area and public safety.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

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

Page 2 of 5 2 Limits the use of the advert

3 Limits the length of the display of advert

4 Limits the intensity of the approved illumination

5 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Stephanie Salmon

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Existing sign & new location

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

389

107.5m

El Sub Sta

2 WALSALL ROAD

362 352

49

105.8m 41 344

33 336

DEWSBURY GROVE 334

34 Subway

25 330

26 104.0m 15 324

11 18

7 9

11

15

8 310 4

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

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 17 December 2015

I submit for your consideration the attached reports for the City Centre team.

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 26 2015/06887/PA

Ladbrooke House 28 Bordesley Street Digbeth City Centre Birmingham B5 5PN

Erection of a three storey (plus basement) extensions to the side & rear to provide additional bedrooms (resulting in 91 bedrooms overall) and additional ancillary leisure facilities associated with the previously approved hotel and associated development.

Defer – Informal Approval 27 2015/07814/PA

Land at 25 Legge Lane Jewellery Quarter City Centre Birmingham B1 3LD

Part restoration and part demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings to provide 100 one and two bed apartments with associated infrastructure and landscaping.

Defer – Informal Approval 28 2015/08003/PA

3-5 Legge Lane Hockley Birmingham B1 3LD

Part demolition of existing factory and erection of 22 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Conditions 29 2015/08004/PA

3-5 Legge Lane Hockley Birmingham B1 3LD

Part demolition of existing factory and erection of 22 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/06887/PA Accepted: 22/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/12/2015 Ward: Nechells

Ladbrooke House, 28 Bordesley Street, Digbeth, City Centre, Birmingham, B5 5PN

Erection of a three storey (plus basement) extensions to the side & rear to provide additional bedrooms (resulting in 91 bedrooms overall) and additional ancillary leisure facilities associated with the previously approved hotel and associated development. Applicant: Serena Hotel Ltd 28-35 Bordesley Street, Birmingham, B5 5BL, Agent: Leach Rhodes Walker Architects 12 Devonshire Street, London, W1G 7AB Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application proposes the erection of a three storey plus basement side and rear extension to the locally listed Ladbrooke House to provide an additional 40 bedrooms to previously approved hotel resulting in a total of 91 bedrooms.

Rear Extension

1.2. The three storey plus basement rear extension would join onto the rear of the existing building via a glazed link and extend towards the railway viaduct to the south. The height of the extension would be consistent with the existing building.

1.3. At basement level it is proposed to develop the rear of the site to host the leisure centre which would include a swimming pool, gymnasium, spa and changing rooms. Ground floor level would host the covered parking spaces, office area and one of the hotel entrances. 15 bedrooms are proposed across the first and second floors.

Side Extension

1.4. A three storey side extension continuing the building line at the back of pavement along Bordesley Street and returning on Oxford Street would provide back of house staff facilities at basement level, hotel bar, kitchen and 6 hotel rooms at ground floor level with further bedrooms on the first and second floors.

Existing Building

1.5. At basement level the area would be used as a banqueting suite. The ground floor provides communal space to including the hotel entrance hall, lounge area, bar,

Page 1 of 12 restaurant and restrooms. 10 bedrooms would be located on the first floor and 11 on the second floor.

1.6. This application follows two previous approvals; one of which was for a 39 bedroom hotel with a basement banqueting hall which has been partially implemented, and the other for a 51 bedroom hotel with additional ancillary leisure facilities. The main difference from the proposed and approved schemes is that the side extension would extend further on Oxford Street. The rear extension replicates the previously approved footprint.

1.7. The existing building measures a total of 1,586sqm (excluding the partially built extension) and the proposed extensions would increase this to a total of 5138sqm (GIA).

1.8. The proposed banqueting hall would continue to have a separate entrance from street level with a total floor space of 413 sqm which is in line with the previous consent. As with previous consents it is envisaged that the hall would accommodate up to 350 people and would operate between midday and midnight.

1.9. The proposed extensions have two distinct approaches. The extension to the side of the existing building fronting Bordesley Street and Oxford Street would continue the approach of the existing building with stone detailing and large windows. Details such as proportions and specification of windows would be carried through. The extension would be three storeys (plus basement) in height and flat roofed, to match the existing building. The new hotel entrance, a simple glazed detail, would be the only exception to this approach on the frontages.

1.10. The rear extension would take a modern approach with a render around large chamfered window openings around a single glazed pane of glass. The rear elevation of the existing building would be painted white to help integrate the old and new whilst retaining the original brickwork texture.

1.11. The existing windows provide interest to the building, with differing approaches to each floor. The agent has confirmed that the intention is to retain the existing windows and new windows on the frontages would be designed to match these retained and refurbished windows.

1.12. As with the previous proposals, on-site parking would be provided with the proposed layout showing 21 spaces, of which four would be for disabled drivers. 12 cycle spaces are also proposed. The car park would be accessed from Oxford Street through gates underneath the new building.

1.13. It is envisaged that the proposals would generate in the region of 16 jobs.

1.14. Full plans, visualisations, a Design and Access Statement, an updated Flood Risk Assessment, Drainage Statement and a Planning Statement have been submitted in support of this application.

1.15. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site currently comprises of a three storey (plus basement) building, a hard surfaced open car park and a free standing single storey workshop type building to the rear. Ladbrooke House is a locally listed (Grade B) building that has

Page 2 of 12 been vacant for a couple of years. The building fronts Bordesley Street and is situated at the back of pavement. A side extension which is currently under construction in relation to planning approval 2012/03104/PA with full scaffold on the entire elevation fronting Bordesley Street. The extension matches the height of the existing locally listed building.

2.2. The wider area is in a mixture of uses with a car repair business next door adjacent to the corner of Meriden Street. The railway viaduct to the rear of the property is also locally listed, as is the building on the opposite side of Bordesley Street which is currently largely vacant and forms part of the wider ‘Typhoo Wharf’ redevelopment proposals. The former Spotted Dog public house is situated on the corner of Bordesley Street and Meriden Street and is currently in use as a late night drinking establishment which includes live music/DJs (‘Suki10c). There is a hostel directly adjacent to this club. The hostel, which is the closest existing residential use, is some 40m to the west of the site. The largely residential-consented site at Typhoo Wharf is on the opposite side of Bordesley Street some 15m to the north.

2.3. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. Current application - 2015/09674/PA. Application to determine the details for Condition Nos. 2 (sample brickwork/stonework), 3 (drainage), 6 (amended car park layout), 7 (noise insulation), 8 (Travelwise) and 10 (pedestrian visibility splays) in connection with 2012/03104/PA.

3.2. 21/08/2014 - 2014/03647/PA. Erection of a three storey (plus basement) extensions to the side & rear to provide additional bedrooms (resulting in 51 bedrooms overall) and additional ancillary leisure facilities associated with the previously approved hotel and associated development. Approved subject to conditions.

3.3. 06/07/2012 – 2012/03106/PA. Conservation Area Consent Granted - Conservation Area Consent for demolition of the detached building to the rear. Approved subject to conditions.

3.4. 17/08/2012 - 2012/03104/PA. Change of use from offices (B1a) to banqueting hall (Sui Generis) at basement level and a 39 bedroom hotel (C1) at ground, first & second floor levels and erection of two storey (and basement) extension to side and associated development. Approved subject to conditions.

Typhoo Wharf

3.5. 05/12/2012 – 2012/03293/PA and 2012/03227/PA. Applications to renew permission and Conservation Area Consent for conversion and new build to form mixed use development of residential (Use Class C3) (353 flats including 231 one-bed and 122 two-bed), commercial (Use Classes A1-A5) (522 sqm) and gym (Use Class D2) (260 sq.m gross) with 188 parking spaces (Typhoo Wharf). Approved subject to conditions. Now expired 05/12/2015.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions in relation to vehicle parking marked out, parking and circulation areas to be kept free, gradient of the car park ramps to be no greater than 1 in 12 and for pedestrian access ramp 1 in

Page 3 of 12 20, Traffic Marshals at the entrance to manage car park when banqueting hall in use and affiliation to Travelwise.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objections subject to conditions in relation to extraction and odour control, noise insulation, restriction on hours of use (banqueting), ground contamination/remediation, refuse storage, noise levels for plant machinery, provision of vehicle charging points, commercial vehicles operated by occupiers of commercial development shall comply with particular emission standards, requires low emission vehicle parking charging strategy and Travel Plan.

4.3. Environment Agency – No objections subject to conditions in relation to accordance with the approved Flood Risk Assessment including the following mitigation measures:

• Identification and provision of safe route(s) into and out of the site to an appropriate safe haven. • Ground floor finished floor levels are set at least 600mm above the 1 in 100 year plus climate change flood level as detailed in section 2.13 of the FRA. • Flood resilient techniques and water proofing should be included within the redevelopment of the basement. • No overnight accommodation is to be provided within the basement of the building.

4.4. West Midlands Fire Service – No objections.

4.5. West Midlands Police Service – Recommend CCTV and controlled access is installed and any lighting should follow guidelines set out in Lighting Against Crime.

4.6. Neighbours, Councillors, Resident Associations and MP consulted. Site and Press notices posted.

4.7. One response was received from Digbeth Resident Association reminding the applicant that the alternative music venue located on the corner of Bordesley Street and Meriden Street (Suki10c) has been established now for a number of years. The owners have invested heavily in soundproofing the venue to ensure that it causes as little nuisance as possible to local residents. The owners of the hotel must be aware of this at the present time and not petition for the venue to be closed if noise issues arise.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; Submission Document of Birmingham Development Plan; Digbeth, Deritend and Bordesley High Streets Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Supplementary Planning Policies 2009; National Planning Policy Framework 2012. Ladbrooke House is locally listed (grade B) and is within the Digbeth, Deritend and Bordesley High Streets Conservation Area.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The National Planning Policy Framework, at Policy 23 promotes competitive town centres and highlights tourism as a suitable use within such areas. Chapter 4 encourages uses to be located where they reduce the need for travel and facilitate the use of sustainable modes of transport.

Page 4 of 12 6.2. Chapter 7 requires good design and notes, at Policy 61, that the appearance of individual buildings is an important factor for achieving an integrated built environment.

6.3. Paragraph 3.14 of the Unitary Development Plan places further emphasis on achieving a high standard of design. Paragraph 4.48 recognises the importance of tourism to the city’s economy and encourages investment in hotels. Paragraph 8.19 states that in order to meet the needs of tourism and business visitors, major new hotels will be supported subject to local planning, amenity and highway considerations. Finally, paragraph 15.54B requires new development in Digbeth to respect the character or areas of architectural and/or historical interest.

6.4. Policy SP22 of the submission document Birmingham Development Plan encourages the provision of hotel facilities for all types of visitors to the city centre. Policy CC8 identifies the city core’s role in strengthening of 24-hour city functions.

6.5. Key material considerations are the principle of the proposed uses, the design of the proposals, conservation, noise/amenity, flood risk, ecology and highway matters.

PRINCIPLE

6.6. The application site is situated within relatively close proximity to the city core in an area accommodating a range of uses. The Big City Plan envisages continued change in this part of the city, including the creation of Typhoo Wharf and, more broadly, continuing to achieve a balance of uses and a vibrant urban community.

6.7. The recently published Curzon Masterplan highlights the proximity of the site to the new High Speed 2 station and envisages improvements to the public realm. The plan also envisages the redevelopment of neighbouring development blocks and the vacant part of the application site in order to create a new route fronted by active uses connecting to the Custard Factory.

6.8. The hotel element of the proposal would support tourism and would add to the range of uses in this area. The banqueting use would provide a facility open for use by the wider community and would add to the range of active uses within the broader area. The proposals would also secure the continued occupation of a locally listed building.

6.9. I therefore consider that the principle of the proposed uses is acceptable.

CONSERVATION

6.10. The proposed extensions are designed to be sympathetic in scale and design to the existing locally listed building which is to be retained in its entirety, with a more modern approach to the rear elevations. The proposal would continue the back of pavement siting as set by the existing building and is typical of this area. The side extension would turn the corner onto Oxford Street with vehicular access provided through gated access with the building overhanging and this differs from previously approved schemes. I consider the extended footprint helps complete the street frontage and provides more frontage onto Oxford Street which is welcomed. This is consistent with the aspirations of the Curzon Masterplan.

6.11. My Conservation Officer states that the key to the success of the scheme depends on the quality of the materials and the finer details of the elevations. I consider it necessary to safeguard the materials by condition. I therefore raise no conservation-

Page 5 of 12 based objections and consider that the proposals would enhance the character of the Conservation Area and the setting of existing heritage assets including Ladbroke House.

DESIGN

6.12. The frontage of the proposed extension would replicate the design of the existing building with matching windows, the use of brick and stone in elevation and the use of a parapet detail. The further extended scheme would provide a more complete street scene in comparison with the previously approved more modest extension. The modern approach to the rear elevations is acceptable.

6.13. Policy 60 of the NPPF states “Planning…decisions should not attempt to impose architectural styles or particular tastes…it is, however, proper to seek to promote or reinforce local distinctiveness”. I consider that the traditional architectural approach to the frontage would reinforce the character of the Conservation Area whilst the modern styling to the rear would add to the local distinctiveness of the vicinity, including when viewed from the railway viaduct to the south.

6.14. The applicant has confirmed that the existing windows in Ladbrooke House would be retained and refurbished. The proposed materials for the new buildings fronting Bordesley Street and Oxford Street would match those of Ladbrooke House.

6.15. I therefore raise no design-based objections to the proposal subject to the imposition of a condition requiring the prior approval of materials to ensure an appropriate match with the existing building is achieved.

AMENITY

6.16. Regulatory Service raises no objection subject to various safeguarding conditions. I concur that conditions requiring details of extraction, controlling noise levels of plant and machinery, contaminated land study and a vehicle charging point.

6.17. I note the requests for additional measures such as controlling the emissions levels of vehicles visiting the site, details of charging levels, designated parking spaces for low emission vehicles and requiring submission of a Travel Plan. I do not consider that these are necessary in order to make the development acceptable, and I question their enforceability. I consider that the provision of a vehicle charging point is sufficient to mitigate any air quality implications of the proposals.

6.18. As per previous consents, I also recommend a condition restricting the operating hours of the banqueting use to those proposed (until midnight daily). The closest established residential use is a hostel some 40m to the west, although Typhoo Wharf on the opposite side of the road benefits from consent for residential redevelopment. Given the presence of existing licensed premises within the area that are operational for extensive hours (e.g. the Suki10c club on the corner of Bordesley Street and Meriden Street) I do not consider that the banqueting use within the basement area would cause a material change to the noise environment.

6.19. I note the Suki10c club situated at the corner of Meriden Street and Bordesley Street. However, I note that the club is directly adjacent to a hostel, whereas Ladbrooke House is some 40m away. I am therefore satisfied that the proposal would not introduce a use that is any more sensitive than the existing hostel and

Page 6 of 12 consider that the application property is appropriately sited in relation to this business.

6.20. I therefore raise no objection on amenity grounds subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions as detailed above.

HIGHWAY MATTERS

6.21. I note the presence of an on-site car park providing a total of 20 spaces. In addition there are opportunities for both on and off street parking within close proximity including a surface car park immediately adjacent. Transportation Development raises no objection and I concur with this conclusion. The application property is well served with parking facilities and would not present traffic safety or free flow issues. The site is also within close proximity to public transport routes such as Digbeth and Moor Street railway station and will be within easy walking distance of the new High Speed 2 station at Curzon Street and the future Metro tram extension.

6.22. I therefore raise no objection on highway grounds subject to the imposition of the safeguarding conditions imposed on the previous consent.

FLOOD RISK

6.23. An updated Flood Risk Assessment accompanies this application which concludes that the risk of the development flooding is minimal and no mitigation is required. The Environment Agency raises no objection and recommends flood resilience measures be secured through the imposition of planning conditions. I therefore raise no objections on flood risk grounds subject to conditions.

ECOLOGY

6.24. The City’s Ecologist recommends a condition requiring an Ecological Survey for bats and birds. I concur with this recommendation and an appropriate condition is attached.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

6.25. In response to the comments received through the public participation process, hotel residents are short term and would not expect the same level of amenity of residents in the vicinity. For the reasons outlined in paragraph 6.19 I consider the noise environment is compatible with the proposed hotel use.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed uses are acceptable in principle and would add to the mix of uses within the vicinity. The design and scale of the proposed extensions are acceptable and would contribute positively to the character of the Conservation Area and the locally listed Ladbrooke House. Furthermore the extensions represent an improvement over the more modest schemes previously approved. I therefore recommend that this application be approved subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions:

Page 7 of 12 1 Requires the prior submission of sample brickwork, render and stonework

2 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

3 Requires the prior submission of level details

4 Requires the prior submission of bin store details

5 Requires the prior approval of a window schedule

6 Requires the provision of a vehicle charging point

7 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

8 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

9 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details (including gates)

10 Requires the prior submission of an additional ecological survey

11 Limits the hours of use for the proposed banqueting use to between 10:00 and 00:00 (midnight) daily

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

13 Requires the applicants to join Travelwise

14 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

15 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

16 Requires the reinstatement of redundant footway crossings and the construction of new ones to City Council specification

17 Requires pedestrian visibility splays to be provided

18 Restricts Use of Basement

19 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

20 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

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

22 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

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

24 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Page 8 of 12 Case Officer: Joanne McCallion

Page 9 of 12 Photo(s)

Figure 1 View from corner of Bordesley Street and Meriden Street

Figure 2 View from corner of Bordesley Street and Oxford Street

Page 10 of 12

Figure 3 View from Oxford Street

Page 11 of 12 Location Plan

11 ouse

Factory

105.2m

110.3m

8 Warehouse 8a

9 109.1m 1 10

108

52

109 18

57 Works

58

105.5m 21

PH

84

BORDESLEY STREET 90 Works

Ladbrooke 5 House

S Gantry 103.0m

Garage

90 89 Warehouse

El Sub Sta

Tank

Works

OXFORD STREET

PH

38 to 43 to 38 36

MERIDEN STREET SL

99 100

Works Big Break (club)

Warehouse

COVENTRY STREET Works 26

TRENT STREET

56 22 104.5m

Works

Old Wharf (PH EET

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

Page 12 of 12

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/07814/PA Accepted: 24/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 23/02/2016 Ward: Ladywood

Land at 25 Legge Lane, Jewellery Quarter, City Centre, Birmingham, B1 3LD

Part restoration and part demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings to provide 100 one and two bed apartments with associated infrastructure and landscaping. Applicant: Legge Lane Birmingham Limited (Citizen Living) Audley House, 12 Margaret Street, London, W1W 8RH Agent: D5 Architects LLP 71-77 Coventry Street, Digbeth, Birmingham, B5 5NH Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1 The application relates to a derelict former industrial site in the Jewellery Quarter previously occupied by a number of manufacturing businesses including the Wellington Works brass foundry. It was last used in the 1970’s and has been in a rundown state for many years. A number of derelict buildings on the site were demolished in 2013 and the site cleared apart from two unlisted structures which remain from the former Wellington Works. One is a three storey brick structure fronting Legge Lane (Building 1) and the other is a former two storey workshop building located in the centre of the site (Building 2).

1.2 The application proposes to demolish Building 2 but Building 1 would be retained and incorporated into the development proposals. These propose to redevelop the site with 100 apartments which would be accommodated in 5 linked buildings Blocks A-E as well as within retained Building 1. Here the façade to Legge Lane would be restored but due to its poor condition the floors and roof would be entirely replaced and the rear elevation rebuilt. The restoration works to the façade would include replacing the 1st floor windows to match the original 2nd floor windows, re-providing windows in some of ground floor openings and reinstating the carriage way entrances through the building.

1.3 The existing building only occupies the central section of the site frontage to Legge Lane and new buildings are proposed to either side to reinstate a continuous frontage. Block A would infill the gap between the former St Pauls School which abuts the western boundary of the site and Building 1. The proposed building would be three storeys high with accommodation in the roof space fronting Legge Lane and four storeys high to the rear facing into an internal courtyard. The Block has been designed to have the appearance of three buildings which would be built from slightly differing red brick, different eaves and ridge heights to accentuate the difference between each section. The roofing would be of graphite zinc cladding.

Page 1 of 19

1.4 On the other side of retained Building 1 - Block D is proposed which would occupy the remainder of the Legge Lane frontage and then turn the corner to front the upper part of the Camden Drive which forms the eastern boundary of the site. It is proposed that the block is subdivided into three sections each 3-storey high that would step down the very steep Camden Drive frontage. At the top northern end the block has been designed with a curve to address both the Legge Lane and Camden Drive frontage. This building would be constructed from blue bricks on the ground floor with a red brick on the upper floors. It is proposed that the remainder of Block D fronting Camden Drive would be set back from the existing pavement line by about 2 metres in order to improve separation distances between buildings across the highway as Camden Drive is only 3.5 metres wide at this point. The remainder of Block D fronting Camden Drive has been designed so that the main outlook for residents would be into an internal courtyard with secondary accommodation (kitchen & bathrooms) facing Camden Drive. The façade design includes recessed bands of contrasting brickwork and there would be a central pedestrian entrance with a brass coloured frame to reference the site’s former manufacturing use.

1.5 A further building, Block E would be erected on the other site frontage to the lower section of Camden Drive on the southern boundary of the site. As with upper Camden Drive, the building would be set back from the highway edge by up to 3.5 metres to improve separation distances with the approved residential development opposite the site. The block would then follow the building line established on the on the neighbouring site by the new building proposed as part of the St Pauls School/Sloane House residential redevelopment. Block E would be subdivided into sections and have differing storey heights and floor levels, to respond to the site’s varying ground levels. Slightly different red coloured bricks are proposed for each block and two pedestrian entrances are proposed to the street frontages to be enclosed with gates.

1.6 Two further buildings Blocks B and C are proposed within the site to the rear of the frontage blocks. Block B would be located in the centre of the site, partly in the location of the existing Building 2, which is to be demolished. Currently there is a two storey difference in levels (about 7.5 metres) across the site marked by a retaining wall. It is proposed to make use of this levels difference in the design of Block B so that it would be 3-storey high on its north side facing towards Block A and 5 storeys high on its south side facing Block E. The block has also been designed to appear as two buildings with the use of slightly different heights and materials.

1.7 The final Block C has been designed as a wing running north to south down the site to the rear of Building 1 and would form one side of a new stepped courtyard between buildings Blocks. The connection to Building 1 is based on the historic footprint of one of the rear shopping wings which is still partly visible following demolition. The building would be 3-storeys high and step down the site, to follow existing ground levels.

1.8 Three courtyards are proposed between the proposed blocks to provide amenity space for residents which would be approximately 10 metres wide. It is proposed that each would be predominantly hard landscaped but with a few shrubs and small specimen trees to soften the spaces, whilst still reflecting the industrial characteristics of the Jewellery Quarter. The courtyard between Blocks C and D would descend down the site as a series of stepped terraces due to the steep fall across the site. On the Camden Drive frontages the widened area between the existing highway edge and new buildings would be surfaced with blue brick pavers.

Page 2 of 19 Most of the roofs of the new Blocks would be flat behind parapet walls and 50% would be covered with a green/brown roof.

1.10 Overall the development would provide 67 one bed apartments with sizes ranging between 42 and 59 square metres and 33 two bed apartments with floor areas of between 63 and 75 square metres. The site has an area of 0.3ha giving a density of 333 dwellings per hectare. The development would provide 104 covered cycle spaces but no on-site parking.

1.11 In support of the proposal to demolish Building 2 the applicants have submitted a Heritage Impact Assessment and Structural Survey which concludes that its heritage value is low as it has been significantly altered to the rear, has no original features and as it has lost its slate roof. The internal floors have also been reduced to charred skeleton following extensive fire damage and therefore they contend it is not viable to retain.

1.12 The application has been supported with a Planning, Design and Access Statement, Transport Assessment and Draft Travel Plan, Ecological Assessment, Bat report, Drainage Strategy, Site Investigation, Noise Assessment, Viability Appraisal, Heritage Impact Assessment and Structural Report

1.13 Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1 The application relates to a 0.3ha site within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area which has frontages to Legge Lane to the north and Camden Drive to the south and east. The west boundary adjoins the former St Paul’s School building which fronts Legge Lane and its associated plot which fronts Camden Grove. Most of the site is currently vacant and contains rubble and concrete hardstandings associated with buildings that formerly occupied the site and were demolished in 2013.

2.2 Two existing vacant structures however remain on the site. These comprise Building 1 which occupies the central section of the Legge Lane frontage and is a 3- storey brick structure with a stepped form as it descends towards the junction with Camden Drive. The building is derelict, has suffered extensive fire damage and the windows and doors have been boarded up at ground level. The second structure, Building 2, is located towards the centre of the site and is a 2-storey structure with pitched roof, which is also derelict and has suffered from extensive fire damage leaving only the perimeter brick walls and roof structure.

2.3 At the rear of Building 2 is a two storey high brick retaining wall which roughly splits the site into 2 halves with the upper section on Legge Lane being approximately 7.5 metres above the lower section fronting Camden Drive. Camden Drive itself is a narrow steeply sloping access road just 3.5 metres wide. The site boundaries are enclosed with hoardings.

2.4 In the immediate vicinity of the site are a number of listed buildings including 3-5 Legge Lane, 6 Legge Lane and 18 Legge Lane which are listed grade 2 and No’s 9, 10, 11 Legge Lane which are listed Grade 2*. Also listed Grade is nearby No’s 1- 7 Sloane Street which has several workshop buildings fronting the lower section of Camden Drive. The former St Paul’s School which abuts the west boundary is not listed and is in a poor state of repair but was granted planning permission in 2012,

Page 3 of 19 in conjunction with Sloane House for a development of 102 new residential units which included its refurbishment and conversion.

2.5 Several of these nearby listed buildings are vacant, but others are in use for residential and commercial purposes. On the opposite side of Camden Drive is a vacant site and temporary car park which also has planning permission for residential redevelopment.

2.6 Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1 The site

3.2 3/3/11 - 2010/05436/PA - Conservation area consent granted for works to demolish or make safe the existing buildings on the site

3.3 Adjacent Sites

3.4 5/10/12 - 2012/00952/PA – Planning permission granted for 102 one, two and three bedroom properties including refurbishment and conversion of existing buildings including St Pauls School on land at Camden St/Sloane St/Camden Drive/Legge Lane.

3.5 12/6/13 - 2013/01795/PA - Application for planning permission to extend the time limit for the implementation of extant planning permission 2010/02208/PA for the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment to provide 78 apartments, car parking and access on land at 29 Legge Lane

3.6 Current application - 2015/08003/PA - Part demolition of existing factory and erection of 26 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building at 3-5 Legge Lane. Reported elsewhere on this agenda

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1 Transportation – No objection subject to conditions to require package of highway measures to include removal of redundant footway crossings, provision of access points for servicing and potential lighting of Upper and Lower Camden Drive, submission of a residential Travel Plan, cycle parking, details of pavement boundary and provision of construction management plan. Note that the development would be car free but have no objection to the zero car parking provision given the area is protected by on-street parking controls and has multi storey public car parks on Vyse Street and Newhall Street nearby.

4.2 Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions to require site investigation/remediation and that glazing and ventilation to habitable areas is installed as specified in the submitted noise report.

4.3 Lead Drainage Authority – Request further information as consider the information provided does not meet the requirements for Sustainable Drainage. Additional details have been provided and any further comments will be reported at committee.

Page 4 of 19 4.4 Local Services - Note the developer's assertion that this scheme would not be economically viable with off- site contributions. However comment that in accordance with UDP policy for developments of over 20 dwellings an off -site POS contribution should be made. This is calculated to be £108,000 that would be spent on the provision, improvement and /or maintenance of POS at Edgbaston Reservoir within the Ladywood Ward

4.5 Ecologist – No objection subject to conditions being imposed to require provision of Bird/bat boxes), a scheme for the provision of Biodiversity/ Brown roofs on the flat roofs of the development and further ecological surveys if works to renovate the existing building and construct the new builds has not commenced prior to end of March 2016.

4.6 Victorian Society – Object to the application due to the loss of Building 2. They comment that the site has previously been largely cleared of historic buildings, which they regret, but there are two survivals from the former Wellington Works, a brass foundry which was established on the site by William Walker in 1860. Both surviving buildings are unlisted, but both contribute strongly to the Victorian industrial character of this part of the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area. They consider the proposed demolition and total loss of Building 2 to be unacceptable and would like to see the building refurbished and retained.

4.7 Historic England - Have advised that they do not wish to comment in detail, but offer the following general observations:- • The site is the derelict brassworks of Walker and Woodward (Wellington Works) and a prominent site within the Jewellery Quarter. Although unlisted the buildings are of heritage value and are protected through the Conservation Area designation • The scheme as far as it relates to Building No. 1 is broadly acceptable however they consider the loss of the large chimney adjoining Building 1 is not justifiable and the new building could support it. • Consider the loss of Building 2 would diminish the heritage value of the site and the contribution it makes to the significance of the Conservation Area particularly as the site has already been largely cleared. Consider that the southern elevation of Building No. 2 could be retained or largely retained. • While the site is currently unsightly and development would be welcome the onus is on all parties to achieve a good quality scheme that would enhance or better reveal the significance of the Conservation Area. They therefore urge that these issues be addressed.

4.8 Conservation and Heritage Panel – Considered the proposals at their meeting on 14 September 2015 and made the following comments:- • Supported the reuse of this site, which has been derelict for some time but had, some concerns regarding the proposed scheme. • There was a desire amongst the panel to see the retention of building 2 that would be lost as part of the scheme but noted this may require an increase in the number of stories on the street frontage buildings in order to make a viable scheme. • Were mindful of the impact additional height could have upon the existing streetscape and potentially create an over intensive scheme and felt these matters that would need careful consideration. • Expressed a desire that Camden Drive to be preserved in its current plan form as a townscape feature of the Jewellery Quarter.

Page 5 of 19 4.9 Local residents, businesses, ward councillors, residents associations notified of the application, press and site notices displayed. 3 letters received. One letter supports the application and comments that it is great to see an application with zero car parking provision but with really high quality cycle parking provision. Considers that the Transport Statement rightly acknowledges the low car ownership rate for the Quarter and comments that developments like this are what the area needs to make the most of its younger population, who are happy to walk to the city centre and to the local shops

4.10 The 2 other letters received include the following objections:- • Reduction of light and privacy to 8a Legge Lane which lies on the opposite side of Legge Lane due to the limited distance between buildings as the road is only 5.8 metres wide and our bedroom and living room face onto Legge Lane. • No objection to the development being built but object to being totally enclosed with no light or privacy. • There is no parking or provision for potential disabled residents in the development and the emphasis is on cycle provision which is not suitable for everyone • The nearby off street pay car park has now been sold for development. • Concerned there is no provision for public realm and access to proposed courtyards is limited. • The quality of the design doesn't do justice to this prominent site (e.g. there could be balconies/terraces overlooking the cityscape) • The proposed widening of Camden Drive is unacceptable as its narrowness forms part of the unique JQ "grain" • No reference is made to ameliorating the disturbance to existing residents during building operations • Broadly support the development of this site, but the developer needs to go back to the drawing board

4.11 Jewellery Quarter Development Trust - Support the principle of use and regeneration of a longstanding derelict site, however consider key opportunities have been missed through the current design and we have concerns over zero car parking provision. They has reviewed the amended documents and think the design of the scheme has improved but we have a number of areas of objection that we would like to see further work done. These are the lack of parking for a scheme this size, the roofscape needs to be improved, a number of elevations are dull and unbefitting of the JQ and need to be animated and the block planning destroys the original character of Camden Drive and the ‘back of footpath’ rule should be adhered to. There more detailed comments are - • Ratio of 1-bed to 2-bed is not ideal, some larger units would be preferred but as this is a difficult site in a dire state the pragmatic view is that the proposed mix is acceptable. • Strongly disagree with BCC viewpoint of omitting rooftop apartments with amenity space, as consider this results in boring, grey, flat roofs. The Quarter’s varied roofscape forms an important element in the views into and through the area. • Consider that flat roofs are not the answer and would encourage additional storeys recessed with a design to accentuate the vertical and would also like to see roof gardens/terraces/amenity space as this will create the interest and ‘advertise’ the JQ when viewed from the NIA and Library of Birmingham. • Have grave concerns over the lack of parking space. Consider the local multi- storey car parks are too far away so a scheme the size of this will create problems with on-street parking.

Page 6 of 19 • Would like to see Legge Lane/Camden Drive corner building (Block D1) higher and/or of a more striking design which creates a feature building when viewed from Graham Street to the east of the site. The design should be of high quality so as to complement the Listed Building opposite. • Consider it is a mistake to have no other uses in the development especially as the Neighbourhood Plan is to identify Legge Lane as a future ‘secondary street’ with high footfall. Would like to see a commercial/retail/leisure/café use within Block D1 • Are disappointed to see grey cladding proposed for Block B, suggest a cue is taken form the gold cladding to the entrances. The insets on Block E1 could be also be gold recesses rather than brick. • Consider upper Camden Drive has an extremely poor elevation treatment for Block D2 & D3. The windows are very small and do not comply with the larger format and rhythm found in the JQ. Larger windows in these elevations would also provide better amenity for the residents, especially as many of the rooms beyond have dual aspect. • Would like to see a commitment to different brick bonds rather than a half-lap stretcher, which will make the scheme monotonous. • Strongly disagree with setting back the building line from the back of footpath on upper Camden Drive to improve the façade-to-façade distance across Camden Drive to 5m. Camden Drive is a character street and the building line should reflect this with buildings built to back of pavement as required by the Design Guide. • The treatments to the ‘gable’ ends of blocks B & E1 will be important as they may be visible from Camden St. They should be provide interest and not be just blank walls. • The building adjacent to St Paul’s School is very important and its relationship with the school has to be though about carefully – the view from Dayus Square is very important.

4.12 Some of the comments above were made before the submission of the amended plans which have increased separation distances, made minor changes to the elevations, removed some of the external terraces and amended the layout to provide an additional 1 bed unit. A re-consultation has been undertaken and any further comments received will be reported at Committee.

5. Policy Context

5.1 Birmingham Unitary Development Plan, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan, Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Design Guide, Car Parking Guidelines SPD; Places for Living SPG and National Planning Policy Framework

6. Planning Considerations

6.1 Policy

6.2 The NPPF supports sustainable economic development to deliver the homes and businesses to create the thriving local places the country needs. It encourages the use of brownfield land and promotes new housing particularly in locations well served by public transport. The adopted Birmingham UDP (2005) also contains policies to support city living and paragraph 15.68 supports the provision of an urban village in the Jewellery Quarter encouraging opportunities for mixed use development including new homes. Paragraph 3.20 also states that redundant historic buildings offer a

Page 7 of 19 range of opportunities for conversion to new uses and can be an important focus for wider urban regeneration schemes.

6.3 The Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan encourages the development of significant vacant sites and buildings within the Conservation Area. It requires the development to be sympathetic and to preserve or enhance the character of the area. The plan identifies a number of sites where there are opportunities for beneficial new development. These include Legge Lane and the document states that the south side is in a particularly bad condition and the buildings should be a priority for repair and finding new uses such as workshops, offices and residential. The site is within the Industrial Fringe area of the Jewellery Quarter where there are no restrictions in terms of new residential development. Therefore in land use policy terms there is no objection to residential development on the site subject to all other material considerations being considered.

6.4 It is noted that the Jewellery Quarter Development Trust have commended that they consider that it is a mistake to have no other uses and would like to see would like to see a commercial/retail/leisure/café use within Block D. The site has however been disused for many years due to the difficulties in providing a viable development. Therefore whilst a mixed use scheme would offer benefits to the area the inclusion of a commercial use would affect the viability and deliverability of the development and cannot be afforded. It is also considered not considered essential in delivering an appropriate form of development on the site.

6.5 Loss of Building 2

6.6 Policy 3.27 of the UDP states that consent to demolish a building in a Conservation Area will only be granted where its removal or replacement would benefit the character or appearance of the area. The Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan also states that the Council will not normally permit the demolition of buildings in the Conservation Area.

6.7 Although the two retained buildings on the site are not listed they fall within the NPPF definition of ‘Heritage Assets’, which includes conservation areas. Paragraph 129 refers to a need to assess the significance of a proposal on any heritage asset, with paragraph 131 stating that Local Planning Authorities should take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing heritage assets and the positive contribution that new development would make to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 132 places ‘great weight’ on the impact of development on a heritage asset’s significance and 133 refers to developments causing substantial harm to a heritage asset, outlining key points that the applicant should be able to demonstrate in order to justify this harm.

6.8. It will be seen from the consultee comments received that objections/concerns have been received from Historic England, the Victorian Society and Conservation and Heritage Panel regarding the loss of Building 2. Some of the concerns stem from the fact that conservation area consent was granted in 2011 for a number of buildings to be removed from the site on the basis that two buildings were to be retained. It was concluded at the times that whilst all the buildings were in an extremely poor condition, derelict and subject to progressive deterioration, the two retained buildings were the more architecturally significant due to their character and importance to the street scene and should be kept. It was however recognised that that the retained buildings would require supporting structures works to make them safe.

Page 8 of 19 6.9 In support of the demolition of Building 2 the applicants comment that they have worked very hard to develop a scheme that addresses council policy, its historic location and creates a viable development. They have reviewed multiple options to arrive at the proposal which they believe is the best solution for the site in addressing these criteria. In order to progress a viable development, including the retention of the more valuable Building 1, it is necessary to develop the remainder of the site and therefore the demolition of Building 2 is required. Although proposed Block B is located roughly in the same position on plan as Building 2, it is at a different level. Block B is also a larger building and they do not believe that any attempt to integrate the south facade of Building 2 into Block B would have any architectural, aesthetic or conservation merit.

6.10 The applicants have also submitted a current structural survey, Heritage Impact Assessment and viability report in support of the demolition. The Heritage report concludes that the Building 2 does not make a positive contribution to the significance of the Conservation Area and its loss would not constitute ‘substantial harm’. It considers the proposal meets the requirements of NPPF paragraph 134 by the positive public benefits of securing this development, including the conservation of the Building 1 which would not otherwise happen due to issues of viability whilst making the site safer, more secure and facilitating the redevelopment of the site.

6.10 The Conservation Officer has considered the submitted information and considers it provides a good evaluation of the significance of the two surviving buildings. Building 1 is considered to be of medium significance as it has a townscape quality but even this is limited by its condition. Building 2 is a more typical building of the Quarter which has survived better, however, its poor condition and rear location results in it being of low significance. In terms of the value of the buildings to the Conservation Area the Conservation Officer accepts that Building 1 has a limited contribution due to its poor condition and 20th century alterations. Building 2 is considered to have some positive contribution by virtue of the importance of building plan form. However the Conservation Officer concludes that the weight given to Building 2 remains very low, particularly considering the viability case presented and the difficulties in redeveloping the site which is contaminated, on a steep gradient and forming part of a dense urban environment. He also notes that the structural report provided recommends the demolition of both buildings but agrees with the heritage consultant that the principal structure of Building 1 should be retained and that Building 2 be demolished in order to secure a viable and suitable redevelopment.

6.11 Historic England also raises concerns regarding the loss of the chimney adjoining Building 1. Although it was proposed for retention it was felt that it appeared incongruous on the side of the larger Block A and was of limited value as the engine it served was housed in a building which has since been demolished. In addition retaining a free standing chimney stack with no purpose is not considered to add value to the proposed development and therefore it is proposed for demolition. The Conservation Officer raises no objection to the loss of the chimney and therefore no objection is raised to the proposed demolition

6.12 Layout

6.13 Planning policies for the Jewellery Quarter identify its unique historic environment and that permission for new development will normally only be granted where it respects the scale, form and density of the historic pattern of development, where it protects views and roofscapes and where it preserves or enhances the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Page 9 of 19 6.14 The layout for the site proposes a mix of 3, 4 and 5 storey blocks which would be in the form of perimeter blocks but with shopping style wings to the rear to reflect the historic pattern of development in the Jewellery Quarter and the form of buildings that previously occupied the site. On Legge Lane it is proposed to follow the line of the retained building and located the new blocks to the back edge of the footway however on Camden Drive it is proposed to set the buildings back from the pavement edge by between 2-4 metres. This is proposed to increase the separation distance between the proposed buildings on either side of this narrow road.

6.15 There are objections including from the Jewellery Quarter Development Trust and Conservation and Heritage Panel with the proposal to set back the building line from the back of footpath on upper Camden Drive. The objectors consider this is a character street in the Conservation Area and that its narrowness forms part of the unique JQ grain. They feel the proposed development should reflect this with the new buildings built to back of pavement as required by the Design Guide. Whilst officers accept that the narrow width of Camden Drive is part of the character of the Conservation Area this needs to be balanced against the need to ensure that residents of the new development are provided with acceptable standards of amenity, light and outlook. When Camden Drive was development in the 1850’s it served industrial buildings in the area whereas it is now proposed that residential development would occupy either side of the street.

6.16 On the opposite side of Camden Drive planning permission has been granted for a 4 development of 78 apartments and associated parking in a semi basement area. The development locates a 4/5 storey building to the back edge of Camden Drive and uses the street as the means of access to the car park. The apartments approved fronting Camden Drive are single aspect and therefore the only outlook for residents would be onto this road and across the application site. As Camden Drive is approximately 3.5 metres wide officers were concerned that if further 4/5 storey high buildings were located on to the back edge of the footway on Camden Drive the impact of buildings so close to each other would be overbearing and mean that residents would suffer from a poor outlook, lack of light and privacy.

6.17 In order to address these concerns the application proposes a predominantly 3 storey development fronting Camden Drive which is set back to increase the off- set distances between buildings to between 5.1 and 6.1 metres. This would still mean that Camden Drive is a narrow street compared to the 9.8 distance between buildings on Legge Lane but provide more suitable conditions for residential development. Pinch points would be retained at the top and bottom of Camden Drive and the erection of buildings either side would give the street a sense of closure which is currently only provided by the hoardings. In addition the proposed building on the upper section of Camden Drive has been designed so that the apartments have their main aspect in to the site courtyard with only secondary windows onto the street.

6.18 The Conservation Officer comments that the close proportions of Camden Drive are unusual even for the Jewellery Quarter in terms of its tightness. Any form of modern development will find this a constraint that will potentially ward off development. The widening of the street, therefore, whilst an unorthodox move, would help unlock the potential of this site and allow for adjacent development to take place. Careful consideration will need to be had as to the redesign of the street and how the original alignment should be respected in the nature and application of materials. Therefore although the concerns of the objectors are acknowledged it is considered that the proposed layout is acceptable and conditions are recommended to require further details of the works to the adjacent to Camden Drive.

Page 10 of 19 6.19 Design/Conservation

6.20 The proposed plan form of buildings is considered to reflect the complex nature of the historic evolution of the site. The proposed series of courtyards would deal with the very steep topography whilst still ensuring that an intimate arrangement of buildings is achieved. The scale of development on the site has been subject to considerable discussion and whilst one of the Blocks would be 5 storeys exceeding the four-storey limit recommended in the design guidance for the Conservation Area, this is appropriate in this location due to the need to address the steep topography. Most of the development is a combination of three and four-storey development which is reflects the heights of existing buildings nearby and generally replicates historic building heights. The JQ Development Trust have commented that they would like to see Legge Lane/Camden Drive corner Block D1 higher and/or of a more striking design which creates a feature building. The building proposed is 3 storeys high which would be higher than the buildings that previously occupied this corner. Its 3 storey height has been chosen to reflect the height of the retained buildings and those proposed on Camden Drive. Its design includes a curve to the corner and has since been amended to include a solider course above windows, stone cill below windows, blue brick plinth and contrasting brick freeze to add more interest. Any increase in height is considered to unduly compete with the listed Ashton and Moore building on the north side of Legge Lane.

6.21 The buildings have been the subject of a number of elevational redesigns to improve their appearance and add additional detailing. Overall the design would be appropriate for the site and neighbouring buildings and to acknowledge the characteristics of the ‘industrial fringe’ of the Jewellery Quarter Conservation area. It is considered the scheme handles the topography of the site well and fits into the wider Jewellery Quarter townscape, bearing in mind the visibility of the scheme and that its roofscape would be seen from distant and close views. Although the JQ Development Trust considers that the development does not provide a sufficiently varied roofscape and wish to encourage additional recessed storeys, roof gardens and terraces it is considered that the site sections show that the roof line would create the interest when viewed from the wider area. The roofs would be of a mixture of heights, including a pitched roof on the Legge Lane frontage and 50% of the flat roofs would incorporate a green/brown roof.

6.22 The retention and repair of building 1 is also welcomed and would enhance the appearance of the Conservation Area. Although the rear elevation would need to be totally rebuilt it would be given a new roof and the original first floor window openings would be reinstated thereby addressing the damaging impact of the early 20th century alterations

6.23 Impact on neighbouring development/listed buildings

6.24 The application site is located within a tight urban area with existing buildings on the opposite side of Legge Lane, lower Camden Drive and adjacent to the west boundary to the site. A number of these buildings are listed. Planning permission has also been granted for a 4/5 storey development on Camden Drive and for a 3 storey development on Camden Grove to the rear of St Pauls School. Having regard to existing and proposed developments it is considered the development would fit in well with its surroundings and would not have an adverse impact on nearby listed buildings.

6.25 Objections have been received from the occupiers of 8A Legge Lane that there would be a reduction in light and privacy to their property due to the limited distance

Page 11 of 19 between buildings on Legge Lane. The distance between the front of the objector’s property and the proposed development would be 9.75 metres which is typical of front to front distances across streets in the Jewellery Quarter. In addition photos from 1990 have been submitted with the heritage statement showing that there was previously a three storey building with a pitched roof similar to that currently proposed on the opposite side of Legge Lane attached to St Pauls School.

6.26 Generally the front to distances between the proposed and existing properties and those approved on neighbouring sites are below the separation distances recommended in Places for Living. The distances range from 9.5 - 9.8 metres on Legge Lane and between 5.1 and 8.1 metres on Camden Drive. Although these are distances are low they reflect the character and tight urban grain of the Jewellery Quarter and are considered acceptable. The application has been amended since originally submitted to remove windows in the side elevation of Block B but to add recessed brickwork in panels to add interest. Although the JQ Development Trust have commented that the end gable should not be blank it is considered that the windows originally proposed in the end of the building would have resulted in overlooking of the private courtyard proposed to the rear of the St Paul’s School.

6.27 Amenity

6.28. The introduction of the Nationally Described Space Standards in March 2015 has superseded the internal space guidelines set out in Places for Living. Whilst these standards are not referenced within local policy they establish a useful guide for establishing whether an acceptable internal environment is being created. For 1 bed units a floor area of 50-58 square metres is recommended and for 2 bed units 61-79 square metres. The proposed two bed accommodation accords with these standards with floor areas of between 63 and 75 square metres and although a number of the one bed units are below 50 square metres satisfactory furniture layouts have been provided. A number of units within the development also incorporate balconies and three shared private courtyards would be provided for residents.

6.29. In respect of outlook and light the proposed apartments are mainly single aspect with views onto either Camden Drive or Legge Lane or into the proposed private courtyards. The application has been amended since originally submitted to increase the distance between the internal courtyard blocks to a minimum of 10 metres which is considered to be acceptable and reflect the grain and character of the Jewellery Quarter, where typical standards are not always appropriate. Regulatory Services raise no objection subject to safeguarding conditions to provide a suitable environment with regards to noise and contamination which are recommended.

6.30 Highway Matters

6.31. The scheme would provide no on-site parking spaces but does accommodate 104 cycle spaces. Transportation Development raises no objection subject to conditions. They comment that they have no objection to the zero car parking provision given the area is protected by on-street parking controls and has multi storey public car parks on Vyse Street and Newhall Street some 500 metres away. They note the development is set back some 2 metres from the carriageway on Camden Drive and that it might be possible for drivers to try and park on this area so some form of boundary treatment is required to prevent this. As zero car parking is proposed they consider there will be a limited traffic impact from the development.

6.32 I concur with this conclusion as the site is in an accessible city centre location. The site levels mean that it would be difficult to achieve on-site parking which could only

Page 12 of 19 be accommodated within lower courtyard to the detriment of the scheme and the outlook from the proposed apartments. Planning permission has been granted elsewhere in the Jewellery Quarter for car free developments where the addition of on-site parking would be detrimental to the scheme and the Conservation Area. There are permit holder spaces within Legge Lane adjacent to the application site that provide additional parking capacity together with pay and display parking elsewhere in the vicinity. In addition there is an existing car club operating in the Jewellery Quarter and it is considered that this could be expanded to provide additional cars as set out further below.

6.33 Section 106/Financial Viability

6.34. The Financial Appraisal submitted with this application concludes that the scheme would not be financially viable in the event that there was a requirement to provide affordable housing, public open space or other off site financial contributions due to the high costs of developing the site and retaining Building 1. This appraisal was subject to independent assessment that concluded that the development could sustain a financial contribution of £100,000 which the applicant has accepted. I consider this conclusion reasonable and recommend that the majority of this sum be used for expansion and ongoing provision of a car club facility so that there are cars available locally if needed by occupants of the development. It is proposed that the remainder be used for improvements to the public highway on Camden Drive and/or Legge Lane. I consider this to be in accordance with CIL legislation.

6.35. Local Services’ request for £108,000 is noted, however I consider a further contribution cannot be make without having an adverse impact on the viability of the scheme. The priority is considered to be to use the £100,000 offered for the car club and highway improvements on land adjoining the site rather than off site open space or affordable housing.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application proposals would help secure the redevelopment and subsequent occupation of this vacant building. This is in the best interests of the preservation of this heritage asset. The scheme would provide an acceptable living environment and would not materially impact upon the highway network. I therefore recommend approval subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1 That consideration of planning application 2015/07814/PA be deferred pending the completion of a suitable Section 106 legal agreement to secure the following:

a) A financial contribution of £80,000 (index linked from the date of resolution) towards the expansion and on-going provision of a car club for use by residents of the site

b) A financial contribution of £20,000 (index linked from the date of resolution) towards the improvement of the public realm on Camden Drive and/or Legge Lane.

c) The payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement of 3.5% of the financial contribution sum, subject to a maximum of £10,000.

Page 13 of 19 8.2 In the absence of the suitable planning obligation agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 21st December 2015 then planning permission be refused for the following reason:

1. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure car club funding, the proposal conflicts with 6.20A of the adopted Unitary Development Plan 2005 and TP37 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

2. In the absence of a legal agreement to secure improvements to the public realm on Camden Drive/Legge Lane the proposal conflicts with Policies 3.53, 3.53 A and B, 5.20B and 5.20C and the public open space in new residential development SPG.

8.3 That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the planning obligation.

8.4 That in the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before by 21st December 2015, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below.

1 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

2 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

3 Requires the demolition to be undertaken in conjuction with the approved redevelopment

4 Requires the prior submission of a demolition method statement

5 Requires the prior submission of sample brickwork panels

6 Requires the prior submission of roof materials

7 Requires the prior submission of window and roof light details

8 Requires the prior submission of external doors

9 Requires the prior submission of details of balconies

10 Requires the prior submission of new walls, retaining structures, railings & gates & gate posts/piers details

11 Requires the prior submission of Ramps and Step details

12 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

14 Requires implementation of sound reduction measures.

15 Requires the prior submission of details of bird/bat boxes

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

Page 14 of 19

17 Requires the prior submission of an additional ecological survey

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

19 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

20 Requires the prior submission of level details

21 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

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

23 Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement

24 Requires the prior submission of a residential travel plan

25 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

26 Requires the prior submission of details of pavement boundary

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

28 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Lesley Sheldrake

Page 15 of 19 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Photo across site showing rear of building 1

Figure 2: View of Building 2 and site levels Page 16 of 19

Figure 3: View along Legge Lane frontage

Figure 4: View showing width of Legge Lane and chimney proposed for demolition

Page 17 of 19

Figure 5: View of Lower Camden Drive

Page 18 of 19 Location Plan

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

Page 19 of 19

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08003/PA Accepted: 13/10/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 12/01/2016 Ward: Ladywood

3-5 Legge Lane, Hockley, Birmingham, B1 3LD

Part demolition of existing factory and erection of 22 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building Applicant: Kendrick Homes Westhill House, Hagley Road, Stourbridge, West Midlands, DY8 1RD Agent:

Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. This application for full planning permission proposes demolition, alteration and extension works to this Grade II listed building associated with its conversion to 22 no. apartments and 4 no. B1(a) Use Class commercial units.

1.2. This application proposes the total demolition of a 1970’s/80’s later part of the building and associated rear structures. The 1890’s part of the building on the Legge Lane frontage with a terracotta façade would be retained together with a historic L- Shaped wing to the rear. Internal alterations to the retained building include removal of internal dividing walls to form the commercial units on the frontage at ground and first floor levels; the insertion of new subdivisions to form residential units at second floor level and within the retained wing; and the relocation of staircases to correspond with the new layout.

1.3. The new build extension would consist of a three storey building extending from the Legge Lane frontage along the site’s western, northern and eastern boundaries creating two internal courtyards (one providing vehicular parking, the other pedestrianized). The frontage building would be partly cantilevered to allow vehicular access to the larger courtyard.

1.4. The residential part of the development would consist of 4 no. one studio, 2 no. one bedroom and 16 no. two bedroom apartments (6 of which would have a second bedroom in a studio-type arrangement that could form a study as an alternative). One of the two bedroom units is a duplex.

1.5. A total of 9 on-site parking spaces would be provided. (41%)

1.6. Since its submission the scheme has been amended to reduce the number of units (from 27), improve the residential environment around Plot 6 and remove areas of overlooking including balconies.

Page 1 of 10

1.7. Detailed plans; a Design and Access Statement; Noise Assessment; Planning Statement; Financial Appraisal, Structural Statement and Heritage Statement have been submitted in support of this application.

1.8. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application property comprises of a Grade II Listed former pen/pen holder/pencil case manufactory. The site is within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area and is 100% covered by the existing building. The existing building comprises of a late 19th century former manufactory (as described in the list description) along with modern additions to the side and rear. The building is a commercial three storeys tall, with elements of the infill extensions behind being lower. The building is generally in a good state of repair, however it is currently vacant. The adjacent building (6 Legge Lane) is in a very poor derelict condition, as are the retained buildings on the opposite side of Legge Lane to the south.

2.2. The adjacent site to the east is in use by a badge manufacturers set behind an electricity substation with frontage parking. There is a public pay and display car park obliquely opposite the site to the southeast.

2.3. The site is surrounded by listed buildings including the whole of the Albion Street frontage of this development block, the Argent Centre on the corner of Legge Lane and Frederick Street and 6 and 9-11 Legge Lane. There are many listed buildings in the wider area, consistent with this part of the city’s designation as a Conservation Area.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 30.03.2006 – 2005/03318/PA & 2005/03319/PA – Planning Approval and Listed Building Consent Granted – Partial demolition, refurbishment of listed building and erection of extension to provide 10 commercial units and 11 residential units, access and car parking

3.2. 11.09.2008 – 2008/03450/PA & 2008/03451/PA – Planning Approval and Listed Building Consent Granted – Partial demolition, refurbishment of listed building and erection of extension to provide 14 residential units, 1 live/work unit and 9 commercial unit

3.3. 26.05.2011 – 2011/01188/PA & 2011/01189/PA – Planning Approval and New Listed Building Consent Granted – Application for planning permission to extend time for the implementation of extant planning approval 2008/03451/PA

3.4. 02.06.2015 – 2015/02680/PA & 2015/02822/PA – Planning and listed building applications withdrawn – Part demolition of existing factory and erection of 20 apartments and 4 commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building

3.5. Current application – 2015/08004/PA – Listed Building Consent for part demolition of existing factory and erection of 22 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building

Page 2 of 10

Site Opposite (to the south)

3.6. Current application – 2015/07814/PA - Part restoration and part demolition of existing buildings and erection of new buildings to provide 99 one and two bed apartments with associated infrastructure and landscaping

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – Raises no objection subject to conditions requiring completion of an appropriate highways agreement and securing the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation of the development.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection subject to conditions requiring a further contaminated land investigation and remediation where necessary, restricting maximum noise levels for plant and machinery, a scheme of noise insulation between residential and commercial parts of the building, removing permitted development rights for the A2 commercial units, requiring windows to be installed in accordance with the supporting reports, restriction of commercial vehicles visiting the site to low emission only, provision of details of an electric vehicle charging policy for the parking area, and provision of a Travel Plan.

4.3. BCC Lead Local Flood Authority – Requests further information in relation to the exploration of sustainable drainage measures. Alternatively conditions requiring further drainage details are recommended.

4.4. Leisure Services – No objection but request a Section 106 contribution of £30,400 towards the provision of off-site public open space.

4.5. Children, Young People and Families – Have no comments to make on this application.

4.6. Council for British Archaeology – The application lacks detail and will set precedents for future conservation of other buildings in the area. The scheme misses the opportunity to respond to the 1895 façade with terracotta detailing and should the LPA be minded to grant consent the CBA recommends recording of the building to Historic England Level 3.

4.7. West Midlands Fire Authority – No objection subject to the installation of sprinklers.

4.8. Site and Press Notices Displayed. Ward Members, Residents’ Associations, the MP and local occupiers consulted, no representations received.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; the submission draft Development Plan; Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan (JQCAAMP) (2002) SPG; Jewellery Quarter Design Guide (2005) SPG; Regeneration Through Conservation SPG (1999); National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6. Planning Considerations

POLICY / PRINCIPLE

Page 3 of 10 6.1. The NPPF makes specific reference to ‘Heritage Assets’, which includes conservation areas and listed buildings. Paragraph 129 refers to a need to assess the significance of a proposal on any heritage asset, with paragraph 131 stating that Local Planning Authorities should take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing heritage assets and the positive contribution that the new development would make to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 132 places ‘great weight’ on the impact of development on a heritage asset’s significance and 133 refers to developments causing substantial harm to a heritage asset, outlining key points that the applicant should be able to demonstrate in order to justify this harm.

6.2. Within the adopted UDP policy 3.27 states that development which fails to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area will be resisted and any new development should respect the character of the existing architecture, in scale, grouping and materials and should generally reflect the character and appearance of the area. Policy 3.25 refers to the setting of listed buildings and states that appropriate control will be exercised over the design of new development in their vicinity. Policy 3.10 notes that proposals which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment will not normally be allowed and policy 3.8 refers to the City’s environmental strategy which is based on protecting and enhancing what is good and improving what is less good in the City’s environment, along with recognising the key relationship between environmental quality and levels of economic activity. Policy 3.14D concerns design and provides a set of assessment principles, including impact on local character, views, skyline, scale, massing and neighbouring uses.

6.3. The JQCAAMP identifies the site as within the ‘Industrial Middle’ where new residential uses are not normally permitted in the interests of safeguarding the existing industrial premises that make a positive contribution to the character of the area.

6.4. The principle of the proposed refurbishment of this vacant listed building with the aim of securing its future use as a mixture of commercial and residential apartments is consistent with the preservation of this heritage asset and is therefore supported. Past consents have included a proportion of residential units. The site is on the southern fringe of the ‘Industrial Middle’ as set out in the JQCAAMP, however new residential units have previously been granted planning permission on this site. The proposals represent a viable and appropriate use of this site, which when combined with the large-scale residential redevelopments permitted in close proximity to the south, would go some way towards repairing the character of this part of the Quarter. Therefore, due to the dilapidated condition of this part of the Jewellery Quarter and the poor condition of this listed building, I raise no objection to the proposed mixed use development incorporating 4 no. commercial units to the frontage with the remainder in residential use in this instance.

DESIGN / CONSERVATION

6.5. The detailed considerations regarding the impact upon the fabric and setting of the listed building are considered in application 2015/08004/PA. The proposed new build element is three storeys tall with a flat roof and has simple detailing including large windows and a modern style cartway entrance. The use of brick as the principal facing material is appropriate and an improvement on the mirrored glass on the modern building to be redeveloped, which is incongruous and detracts from the character of the conservation area. The formation of perimeter development with two courtyards is an appropriate response to the character of the Jewellery Quarter. The scale of the new build extensions is acceptable and has a satisfactory relationship

Page 4 of 10 with the listed buildings to both sides and the rear. The retention of the rear elements as negotiated with Historic England will result in more historic fabric retained than previous consents on this site.

6.6. I consider that the proposals would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and preserve the character of this listed building.

6.7. The comments made by the Council for British Archaeology are noted; however I conclude that the proposed development would enhance the character and appearance of the Conservation Area. I do not consider historical recording is necessary as those elements proposed to be demolished are largely modern fabric of no historic significance. My Conservation Officer concurs with this conclusion and I note that this was not a requirement of past consents.

AMENITY

6.8. The introduction of the Nationally Described Space Standards in March 2015 has superseded the internal space guidelines set out in Places for Living. Whilst these standards are not referenced within local policy they establish a useful guide for establishing whether an acceptable internal environment is being created.

6.9. All but one of the proposed apartments is in accordance with these standards with studio flats measuring 42.7 sq.m, one bedroom apartments of 44.1 sq.m and 50.3 sq.m and two bedroom units between 61.1 sq.m and 87.5 sq.m. The one exception is Plot 21 which is a studio apartment measuring 34.1 sq.m (the national requirement is 39 sq.m). However this unit is located within the retained historic rear wing and could not be readily extended without harming historic fabric. On balance, and taking into account the significant amendments made to the scheme since submission, I consider that this exception is acceptable.

6.10. The rear pedestrianized courtyard would provide a shared facility for future residents.

6.11. In respect of outlook and light the proposed development has habitable aspects internally and to the Legge Lane frontage only. The building frontage on the opposite side of Legge Lane is between 9.5m and 10.5m away and is currently in a state of dereliction although residential development is currently proposed on this site with three storeys of accommodation proposed within the restored frontage building. Within the courtyards, (active) building frontage to building frontage measures between 8.2m and 10.4m. The balconies within the rearmost apartments are in close proximity and Plots 5, 13 and 25 incorporate rear facing windows 8.2m from Plots 3, 11 and 23. In terms of outlook onto blank elevations there are bedrooms looking beneath the 3m wide cantilevered flying link and parts of Plot 7 look into the cantilevered site entrance.

6.12. I raise no objection to the residential environment afforded to future residents of the proposed development. Although we would normally expect a greater interface distance, the development reflects the grain and character of the Jewellery Quarter, where typical standards are not always appropriate. The closest window to window distance of 8.2m is due to the retention of the historic shopping wing as required by Historic England. The rear courtyard will provide a useful private environment for future residents.

6.13. Regulatory Services raise no objection subject to a variety of safeguarding conditions. I concur that the development would, subject to conditions, provide a

Page 5 of 10 suitable environment with regards to noise and contamination. I also acknowledge previous residential consents on this site. Appropriate safeguarding conditions in relation to contamination; noise insulation; plant and machinery noise and window specifications are recommended. I do not consider conditions restricting the type of commercial vehicle visiting the site, provision of an electric vehicle charging policy, provision of a Travel Plan or removing permitted development rights for the A2 units reasonable.

6.14. I note that the Acoustic Report recommends that windows be fitted with double glazed units with trickle vents. This would not be acceptable on a listed building within a Conservation Area due to the impact upon the historic significance of this heritage asset. I therefore recommend that an alternative scheme including secondary glazing and mechanical ventilation (where appropriate) is provided and an appropriate condition is recommended.

HIGHWAY MATTERS

6.15. The scheme would provide a total of 9 on-site parking spaces. Transportation Development raises no objection subject to conditions. I concur with this conclusion and consider the proposed on-site parking provision sufficient in this accessible city centre location. I note that there are permit holder spaces within Legge Lane opposite the application site that provide additional parking capacity, together with pay and display parking both on the site opposite and elsewhere along Legge Lane.

SECTION 106 / FINANCIAL VIABILITY

6.16. This application was accompanied by a Financial Appraisal that concluded that the scheme was not financially viable in the event of a Section 106 / affordable housing requirement being secured. This appraisal was subject to independent assessment that concluded that the development could sustain a financial contribution of £53,000 and remain viable. The applicant has accepted the conclusions of this assessment. I consider this conclusion reasonable and recommend that the sum be used for the improvement of public realm within the vicinity of the site to the benefit of residents of the future development. I consider this to be in accordance with CIL legislation.

6.17. Local Services’ request for £30,400 is noted; however I consider the sum of £53,000 reasonable given the conclusions of the Financial Appraisal Assessment and in the absence of an affordable housing contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application proposals would help secure the redevelopment and subsequent occupation of this vacant building. This is in the best interests of the preservation of this heritage asset. The scheme would provide an acceptable living environment and would not materially impact upon the highway network. I therefore recommend approval subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That consideration of planning application 2015/08003/PA be deferred pending the completion of a planning obligation agreement to secure the following:-

Page 6 of 10 a) A financial contribution of £53,000 (index linked from the date of resolution) towards the provision and/or improvement of public realm within Legge Lane and/or Camden Drive, Jewellery Quarter, Birmingham.

b) Payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement of £2,275.

8.2 In the absence of the suitable planning obligation agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 22nd December 2015 that planning permission be refused for the following reason(s):

a) In the absence of a suitable legal agreement to secure the provision of public realm improvements then the proposal conflicts with Policies 3.53, 3.53 A and B, 5.20B and 5.20C and the public open space in new residential development SPG.

8.3 That the Director of Legal and Democratic Services be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the planning obligation.

8.4 That in the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 22nd December 2015, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below:

1 Requires the prior submission of amended window details

2 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

3 Requires the prior submission of amended door details

4 Requires the prior submission of sprinkler details

5 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

6 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

7 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation between commerical and residential premises

8 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

10 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

11 Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement

12 Requires any additional ventilation to be via mechanical extraction, details to be approved prior to its installation

13 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

14 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

Page 7 of 10 15 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

16 The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of (3) years from the date of this permission.

Case Officer: Nicholas Jackson

Page 8 of 10 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Legge Lane (looking east)

Page 9 of 10 Location Plan

BY STREET

31 Works

47 5 to 54

33

Works Works

12 Warehouse 48 Works

11 Works 48 to 52 to 48

36 49 Bank

Amazon Lofts 22 10 Westminster

Works House 9 Works Regent 21 House Works

PW 8

20 Works 38 140.2m Albion 37 Court

37 to 42

6 19 33 to 36 49

ALBION STREET 52

5 52

53 16 Vittoria Work

The Orb 54

3 55 53a

15

1 14

57

60 FREDERICK STREET 18 22 to 1

13 102 to 107 140.5m

12 65 The Orb

.2m 66 Works 15

Works 69

Museum Nursery

139.6m 60 51 Works

13 Works The Argent 2 Wks Works Centre

11 1

2 12 7 5

12a 8a 21 10 9 4 LB

Albon Mews LEGGE LANE 3 14

El Sub Wing Albert

Sta 137.2m

15 23

94

16 95

93 20

25

92 17

Warehouse 91 96 to 1 to 96

Warehouse 29 Posts

89 90

18 Hall

Works

CAMDEN GROVE

Works

15

15

64

CAMDEN DRIVE Car Park

66 50

137.5m 28 Warehouse NEWHALL HILL El Sub Pyramid Works Sta

8 1 to 14 to 1 62 4 to 5 Sloane House

den

48

ge 81

1 to 25 to 1 Flats 14-29 Flats

8 46

12

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or

civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010

Page 10 of 10

Committee Date: 17/12/2015 Application Number: 2015/08004/PA Accepted: 30/09/2015 Application Type: Listed Building Target Date: 31/12/2015 Ward: Ladywood

3-5 Legge Lane, Hockley, Birmingham, B1 3LD

Listed Building Consent for part demolition of existing factory and erection of 22 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building Applicant: Kendrick Homes Westhill House, Hagley Road, Stourbridge, DY8 1RD Agent:

Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application for listed building consent proposes demolition, alteration and extension works to this Grade II listed building associated with its conversion to 22 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units.

1.2. This application proposes the total demolition of a 1970’s/80’s later part of the building and associated rear structures. The 1890’s part of the building on the Legge Lane frontage with a terracotta façade would be retained together with a historic L- Shaped wing to the rear. Internal alterations to the retained building include removal of internal dividing walls to form the commercial units on the frontage at ground and first floor levels; the insertion of new subdivisions to form residential units at second floor level and within the retained wing; and the relocation of staircases to correspond with the new layout.

1.3. The new build extension would consist of a three storey building extending from the Legge Lane frontage along the site’s western, northern and eastern boundaries creating two internal courtyards (one providing vehicular parking, the other pedestrianized). The frontage building would be partly cantilevered to allow vehicular access to the larger courtyard.

1.4. Detailed plans; a Design and Access Statement; and Heritage Statement have been submitted in support of this application.

1.5. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application property comprises of a Grade II Listed former pen/pen holder/pencil case manufactory. The site is within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area and is 100% covered by the existing building. The existing building comprises of a late 19th

Page 1 of 7 century former manufactory (as described in the list description) along with modern additions to the side and rear. The building is a commercial three storeys tall, with elements of the infill extensions behind being lower. The building is generally in a good state of repair, however it is currently vacant. The adjacent building (6 Legge Lane) is in a very poor derelict condition, as are the retained buildings on the opposite side of Legge Lane to the south.

2.2. The adjacent site to the east is in use by a badge manufacturers set behind an electricity substation with frontage parking. There is a public pay and display car park obliquely opposite the site to the southeast.

2.3. The site is surrounded by listed buildings including the whole of the Albion Street frontage of this development block, the Argent Centre on the corner of Legge Lane and Frederick Street and 6 and 9-11 Legge Lane. There are many listed buildings in the wider area, consistent with this part of the city’s designation as a Conservation Area.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 30.03.2006 – 2005/03318/PA & 2005/03319/PA – Planning Approval and Listed Building Consent Granted – Partial demolition, refurbishment of listed building and erection of extension to provide 10 commercial units and 11 residential units, access and car parking

3.2. 11.09.2008 – 2008/03450/PA & 2008/03451/PA – Planning Approval and Listed Building Consent Granted – Partial demolition, refurbishment of listed building and erection of extension to provide 14 residential units, 1 live/work unit and 9 commercial unit

3.3. 26.05.2011 – 2011/01188/PA & 2011/01189/PA – Planning Approval and New Listed Building Consent Granted – Application for planning permission to extend time for the implementation of extant planning approval 2008/03451/PA

3.4. 02.06.2015 – 2015/02680/PA & 2015/02822/PA – Planning and listed building applications withdrawn – Part demolition of existing factory and erection of 20 apartments and 4 commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of existing listed building

3.5. Current application – 2015/08003/PA – Part Demolition of existing factory and erection of 22 no. apartments and 4 no. commercial units, part new build and part refurbishment of listed building.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Historic England – Recommends that the application is determined in accordance with BCC Conservation Officer advice. They recommend that further detailed discussions regarding the timber floor structure within the workshop range be progressed. They do no object to the design of the new streetscape onto Legge Lane. They recommend amended window and door designs.

4.2. Site and Press Notices Displayed. Amenity Societies, Ward Members, Residents’ Associations, the MP and local occupiers consulted. One letter of support from a local resident who considers the scheme to be a really attractive development but

Page 2 of 7 considers that additional cycle parking should be provided and that blue brick paving (traditional in this area) should be used.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; the submission draft Development Plan; Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan (JQCAAMP) (2002) SPG; Jewellery Quarter Design Guide (2005) SPG; Regeneration Through Conservation SPG (1999); National Planning Policy Framework 2012.

6. Planning Considerations

POLICY

6.1. The NPPF makes specific reference to ‘Heritage Assets’, which includes conservation areas and listed buildings. Paragraph 129 refers to a need to assess the significance of a proposal on any heritage asset, with paragraph 131 stating that local planning authorities should take into account the desirability of sustaining and enhancing heritage assets and the positive contribution that the new development would make to local character and distinctiveness. Paragraph 132 places ‘great weight’ on the impact of development on a heritage asset’s significance and 133 refers to developments causing substantial harm to a heritage asset, outlining key points that the applicant should be able to demonstrate in order to justify this harm.

6.2. Within the adopted UDP policy 3.27 states that development which fails to preserve or enhance the character of the conservation area will be resisted and any new development should respect the character of the existing architecture, in scale, grouping and materials and should generally reflect the character and appearance of the area. Policy 3.25 refers to the setting of listed buildings and states that appropriate control will be exercised over the design of new development in their vicinity. Policy 3.10 notes that proposals which would have an adverse effect on the quality of the built environment will not normally be allowed and policy 3.8 refers to the City’s environmental strategy which is based on protecting and enhancing what is good and improving what is less good in the City’s environment, along with recognising the key relationship between environmental quality and levels of economic activity. Policy 3.14D concerns design and provides a set of assessment principles, including impact on local character, views, skyline, scale, and massing and neighbouring uses.

6.3. The principle of the proposed refurbishment of this vacant listed building with the aim of securing its future use as commercial units and residential apartment is consistent with the preservation of this heritage asset and is therefore supported.

DESIGN/HERITAGE

6.4. The proposed new build element is three storeys tall and has simple detailing including large windows and a modern style cartway entrance. The formation of perimeter development with two courtyards is an appropriate response to the character of the Jewellery Quarter. The scale of the new build extensions is acceptable and has a satisfactory relationship with the listed buildings to both sides and the rear.

6.5. My Conservation Officer confirms that the proposals are in accordance with discussions in relation to the previously withdrawn applications, showing the

Page 3 of 7 retention of the east side shopping wing. However, he adds that the proposals for the windows are not satisfactory (the use of double glazing on the listed building is not acceptable and the windows to the rear would traditionally have been metal and therefore an alternative approach is required) and a condition requiring amended window design is recommended.

6.6. Historic England confirms that the submission is in accordance with earlier advice, showing the retention of the L Shaped workshop block. They add that they do not object to the design of the new streetscape block. They add that the design of the proposed windows requires amendment to a more historically-accurate design. They conclude that the level of harm has been substantially reduced in comparison to the previously withdrawn application and that the renovation of the site as proposed may enhance and better reveal the significance of the conservation area (subject to appropriate detailing of windows and doors). They no longer object to this application.

6.7. I consider that subject to conditions requiring an amended window/door design, structural survey and demolition/reconstruction method statement the proposals would enhance the character of this listed building and the character of the conservation area. In NPPF terms the proposals show less than significant harm to this designated heritage asset. I therefore raise no objection to the proposals on

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application proposals would help secure the redevelopment and subsequent occupation of this vacant building. This is in the best interests of the preservation of this heritage asset. Those areas with historical significance (i.e. the terracotta faced building and historic shopping wing) are to be retained and enhanced, with the later modern development that detracts from the street replaced with new, sensitively designed, development. I therefore recommend approved subject to appropriate safeguarding conditions.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That listed building consent is granted subject to the following conditions.

1 Requires the prior submission of amended window details

2 Requires the prior submission of amended door details

3 Requires the prior submission of a schedule of repair works

4 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

5 Requires the prior submission of a structural survey details

6 Requires the prior submission of a demolition/reconstruction method statement

7 Requires any damage to the listed building to be made good

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

9 Limits the approval to 3 years (conservation/listed buildings consent)

Page 4 of 7

Case Officer: Nicholas Jackson

Page 5 of 7 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Legge Lane (looking east)

Page 6 of 7 Location Plan

BY STREET

31 Works

47 5 to 54

33

Works Works

12 Warehouse 48 Works

11 Works 48 to 52 to 48

36 49 Bank

Amazon Lofts 22 10 Westminster

Works House 9 Works Regent 21 House Works

PW 8

20 Works 38 140.2m Albion 37 Court

37 to 42

6 19 33 to 36 49

ALBION STREET 52

5 52

53 16 Vittoria Work

The Orb 54

3 55 53a

15

1 14

57

60 FREDERICK STREET 18 22 to 1

13 102 to 107 140.5m

12 65 The Orb

.2m 66 Works 15

Works 69

Museum Nursery

139.6m 60 51 Works

13 Works The Argent 2 Wks Works Centre

11 1

2 12 7 5

12a 8a 21 10 9 4 LB

Albon Mews LEGGE LANE 3 14

El Sub Wing Albert

Sta 137.2m

15 23

94

16 95

93 20

25

92 17

Warehouse 91 96 to 1 to 96

Warehouse 29 Posts

89 90

18 Hall

Works

CAMDEN GROVE

Works

15

15

64

CAMDEN DRIVE Car Park

66 50

137.5m 28 Warehouse NEWHALL HILL El Sub Pyramid Works Sta

8 1 to 14 to 1 62 4 to 5 Sloane House

den

48

ge 81

1 to 25 to 1 Flats 14-29 Flats

8 46

12

This map is reproduced from the Ordnance Survey Material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or

civil proceedings. Birmingham City Council. Licence No.100021326, 2010

Page 7 of 7 Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 17 December 2015

Appeal Decisions Received from the Planning Inspectorate in November 2015

CATEGORY ADDRESS USE DECISION TYPE PROCEDURE

Erection of single storey 39 Blakesley Road, Written Householder side extension. Dismissed Delegated Yardley Representations 2015/04820/PA

Erection of 6.0 metre deep single storey rear 57 Woolacombe extension. Maximum Written Householder Lodge Road, Dismissed Delegated height 3.0 metres, eaves Representations Selly Oak height 2.8 metres. 2015/05154/PA

Display of 2 double sided internally illuminated projecting signs, 2 wall 60 Birmingham Road, mounted signs single Written Advertisement Dismissed Delegated Sutton Coldfield sided with overhead Representations pelmet externally illuminated. 2015/03429/PA

Erection of a detached building for use as a 383 Lindridge Road, boarding cattery with two Written Other Dismissed Delegated Sutton Coldfield ancillary training Representations classrooms. 2014/08916/PA

Total - 4 Decisions: 4 Dismissed (100%)

Cumulative total from 1 April 2015 - 71 Decisions: 56 Dismissed (79%), 13 Allowed, 2 Part Allowed

Page 1 of 1