Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 18 February 2016

Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 18 February 2016

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 8 2015/10061/PA

1261 Bristol Road South Northfield Birmingham B31 2SP

Creation of car parking area to rear

Refuse 9 2014/06660/PA

Knightlow Road Land off (Former Ravenhurst Playing Fields) Harborne Birmingham B17 8PB

Refuse 10 2015/09512/PA

Silver Street Lidl Kings Heath Birmingham B14 7QU

Demolition of existing foodstore and former neighbourhood office, and construction of replacement foodstore, formation of access and car parking, and associated landscaping

Approve - Conditions 11 2016/00019/PA

14 Pershore Avenue Selly Park Birmingham B29 7NP

Change of use from residential (Use Class C3) to HMO (Use Class C4).

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Temporary 12 2015/10495/PA 12 months 596 Bristol Road Selly Oak Birmingham B29 6BQ

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/10061/PA Accepted: 14/01/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 10/03/2016 Ward: Longbridge

1261 Bristol Road South, Northfield, Birmingham, B31 2SP

Creation of car parking area to rear Applicant: Mr John Talbot The White House, Trench Lane, Oddingley, Droitwich, Worcs, WR9 7NB, Agent: John Edwards RIBA Rose Cottage, Shernal Green, Droitwich, Worcestershire, WR9 7YX Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is for the creation of a 12 space car parking area to the rear of a small ‘One Stop’ supermarket located to the rear of 1261 Bristol Road South, Northfield. The car park would replace an existing overgrown garden area. The shop is open 0600 – 2200 hours daily.

1.2. The car park would be accessed from an existing rear access road off Bodenham Road. It would be constructed from porous materials to minimize rainfall run off into the existing storm drains.

1.3. The Applicant states there would be no deliveries taken within the proposed car park area, deliveries would remain as existing from the forecourt area. An existing external staircase would remain in situ (it was originally proposed for re-positioning, but is now amended to remain as existing).

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to 1261-1263 Bristol Road South, Northfield. This is a two storey end terrace property located at the end of a row of ground floor retail units with flats above. The retail parade extends to the south west and includes other retail uses such as a print and stationary shop at 1265 and barbers at 1267 Bristol Road South.

2.2. The site is at the junction of Bristol Road South and Bodenham Road, with residential properties extending to the North West along Bodenham Road and north east along Bristol Road South. There are further residential properties opposite the site to the south east.

Page 1 of 6 2.3. To the rear of the site is an overgrown garden area, with a pathway provided to a rear staircase which provides access to the first floor flat. Beyond the rear boundary and between the site and the neighbouring property of 14 Bodenham Road is a vehicular access road providing access to the rear of the shops and an area of land previously used as a car repair garage at the rear of 14-22 Bodenham Road.

Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 11/11/2015 – 2015/07502 Creation of car parking and loading area to rear of property and new vehicular access. Withdrawn by agent.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection.

4.3. Letters of notification have been sent to surrounding occupiers, local residents associations, Longbridge Ward Councillors and Planning Committee members from the Northfield Constituency. Five letters of objection, and one letter of support albeit with some concerns, have been received, as summarised below.

4.4. Cllr Ian Cruise objects to this application for the following reasons; • The application does not give a definitive description of the term 'loading'. • If the term 'loading' means large goods vehicles accessing the rear of the shops, the impact on Bodenham Rd traffic movement will be increased as the goods vehicles will have to reverse onto the loading area. This will impact on local residents in the immediate area. • The extra noise created by more vehicles will have an impact on the residents in the immediate area • There is provision for parking at front.

4.5. Four letters of objection have been received from nearby occupiers objecting to the proposal on the following grounds: • There are already problems with HGV vehicles on Bodenham Road parking and blocking existing driveways and destroying grass verges and walls. • The shop will get more passing trade and therefore require more deliveries and more HGV’s causing problems. • The car park will just bring more cars to the area and not relieve any congestion. • It will encourage more traffic onto Bodenham Road. • The safety of small children is put at risk. • There is no right of access for customers • The side access is in a dilapidated state, who will keep it maintained. • A car park would have a significant visual impact on the area. • No landscaping to soften the impact. • No need for the car park. • What arrangements are in place for refuse storage? • Increased risk of flooding. • Increase in noise early in the morning and late at night. • Little thought has been given to the relocation of the rear access steps. • The car park could be misused outside normal store opening times.

Page 2 of 6 • No guarantee that the car park would be maintained.

4.6. One letter of comment from a surrounding occupier, who generally supports the application as the car park may stop customers and delivery lorries parking outside their house and blocking their drive. Although, some concerns remain that by creating the car park it will encourage more customers, thus continuing the nuisance parking outside their home.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following national policy is relevant

• The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

5.2. The following local policies are relevant.

• The Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) • Draft Birmingham Development Plan

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The proposal seeks to change the use of the unused rear yard of 1261 Bristol Road South to a car park for use by customers of the ‘One Stop’ Supermarket. Access would be from Bodenham Road, with a total of 12 spaces provided. Existing concrete-sectional walls around the site would be removed and the dwarf wall repaired.

6.2. The existing garden area is unused and overgrown and its loss would not be harmful to the wider streetscene. In addition the provision of extra car parking would help relieve on-street parking in the surrounding area and would also help prevent unauthorised access and parking by vehicles on the forecourt to the front. On this basis, in this setting I consider the proposal to be acceptable.

6.3. Transportation Development raise no objection to the proposal. I concur with this view. The proposals would make better provision for car parking and help reduce congestion for residents of Bodenham Road. In summary the proposed works are not expected to give rise to any adverse parking/highway safety impact.

6.4. The applicant confirms that the car park would not be used for deliveries and loading and unloading of goods and larger good vehicles would not have access to the car park. A condition to secure this position is therefore recommended.

6.5. The applicant has confirmed that the relevant notice has been served on all interested parties that have associated access rights and Certificate B has been signed. Whilst I note the objection regarding access rights, this is a civil matter. Notwithstanding this, this proposal would not prevent access to other properties with access rights.

6.6. The proposed works would not have an adverse visual impact and Regulatory Services raise no objection to the proposal. I concur with this view. The proposed development is not expected to impact the amenity of residential occupiers by reason of noise and disturbance, given the level of existing activity at the site. I note that there is currently a well-used access between the site and neighbouring property and this would remain in use. I note the concerns of residents regarding

Page 3 of 6 the use of the area as car parking. Safeguarding conditions are recommended to ensure proper use of the site, including details of refuse areas.

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) 6.7. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. It is considered that the provision of a small car park would not have any detrimental impact on the visual or residential amenities of the surrounding area and occupiers and therefore it is recommended that the application be approved subject to the attached 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 Restricts the loading and unloading of goods from within the car park.

4 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

5 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

6 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: James Mead

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Photograph 1: Bodenham Road frontage

Photograph 2: Bodenham Road frontage, rear yard, and accessway

Page 5 of 6 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 6 of 6

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2014/06660/PA Accepted: 17/09/2014 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 17/12/2014 Ward: Harborne

Knightlow Road, Land off (Former Ravenhurst Playing Fields), Harborne, Birmingham, B17 8PB

Application for residential development of 73 dwellings. Formation of public open space (of 1.6ha), provision of access via Knightlow Road & associated engineering works and demolition of former pavilion. Applicant: Redrow Homes Ltd/The Trustees of the Oratory of St Philip Neri Redrow House, Kinsall Green, Wilnecote, Tamworth, Staffordshire, B77 5PX Agent: GVA PDR and GVA Financial Consulting, 3 Brindley Place, Birmingham, B1 2JB Recommendation Refuse

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks planning permission for the erection of 73 dwellings and the provision of 1.6ha of public open space, including a children’s play area. Vehicle and pedestrian access would be gained from Knightlow Road, which connects on to Gillhurst Road and Lordswood Road. The dwellings would consist of a pair of semi- detached, 13 terraced and 58 detached properties. This amounts to 12 five beds, 29 four beds, 24 three beds and 8 two beds. All bedrooms and garden areas meet the size guidelines in Places for Living. Most dwellings also satisfy separation distance guidelines apart from in three specific locations due to design constraints.

1.2. The road layout would consist of a spine road that includes two loop spurs. The layout would be a perimeter block development with houses facing onto the new roads and with rear gardens mostly adjacent to neighbouring gardens. All dwellings would be two storey.

1.3. The proposed dwellings would consist of a traditional design with a strong 1930’s influence. The principal materials would be brick with some render areas and having tiled roofs. Many of the styles have two storey projecting gables and integrated garages (both double and single). Car parking ranges from 100% to 400% depending on the size of the dwelling.

1.4. The application has been supported by a Design and Access Statement, an Arboricultural Report, an Ecological Report, A Flood Risk Assessment, Landscape Design Statement, Planning Statement, Playing Pitch Assessment, Site Investigation Report, Statement of Community Involvement and a Transport Assessment.

Page 1 of 34

1.5. The Design and Access Statement identifies the character of the area consisting of two storey detached and semi-detached houses. Many of these are red brick with some render areas and many with large two storey bay windows and being of an inter-war style. The proposed dwellings would replicate this style with dwellings arranged around perimeter block developments creating a strong delineation between public and private realm.

1.6. The Arboricultural Report identifies that there are 163 trees, 13 groups and 9 hedge groups within the site. The application proposes the removal of 21 trees, 2 tree groups and 2 hedges. The landscape scheme proposes the planting of 108 new trees.

1.7. The Ecological Appraisal comprises a Phase 1 Habitat Survey, preliminary protected species survey (bats, badger) and desk study/records search (Jan 2014), Nocturnal bat emergence and activity surveys (during July-Sept 2014 with three visits) and a Badger survey, (Aug 2014- Jan 2015, with five visits) and concludes that there is a badger group on-site, that Japanese Knotweed is present, that the Pavilion is a low/moderate potential bat roost and the site generally has many trees that are suitable for nesting and foraging birds. Survey work has concluded that the badger group is smaller than the applicants first anticipated. The bat surveys have found no bats emerging from the Pavilion or on-site trees during the three survey visits.

1.8. The Flood Risk Assessment (revised 10th June2015) shows that the applicants propose an on-site water storage system that would limit the outflow to 22.5 litres per second, through the provision of 891 cubic metres of water storage. It is proposed for the drainage system to be adopted by Severn Trent Water.

1.9. The Transport Assessment (TA) notes that based on 73 dwellings the predicted trip generation would be; AM Peak (0800 to 0900) = 12 arrivals and 30 departures. In the afternoon the PM Peak (1700 to 1800) would be; 26 arrivals and 17 departures. Furthermore, the predicted trip generation within the TA would, in reality, be slightly lower as detailed in the Technical Note appended to the TA.

1.10. The applicant’s Playing Pitch Assessment considers that the site is surplus to requirements and the applicants have offered compensation for the loss. The applicants comment that there is a sufficient supply of pitches in quantitative and qualitative terms to meet predictive demand for football, cricket and rugby in the area. They also comment that no significant demand has been identified through consultation with the National Governing Bodies and clubs.

1.11. The Site Investigation Report does not show significant levels of contamination. The investigations have shown that the site is affected by some limited land contamination. Some made ground has been found to have elevated levels of only slightly soluble compounds. These substances are commonly encountered at such concentrations on many sites and ought not to present a significant development constraint.

1.12. The Statement of Community Involvement illustrates that a public consultation event was undertaken in early August 2014 prior to the application being submitted in September 2014. The event was visited by 107 people, representing 90 households, 53 comments forms were made. Traffic was raised as the biggest concern followed by concerns (inter alia) in regard to density, access, impact on local services and loss of playing fields.

Page 2 of 34 1.13. The Transport Assessment identifies that in the last 5 years the local roads have experienced 17 road accidents (1 serious and 16 slight). This report also summarises the location of local bus routes. The report considers trip generations for 130 private dwellings, this finds that in peak mornings would be 21 arrivals and 53 departures and in the afternoons 47 arrivals and 30 departures.

1.14. A Planning Contribution offer has been made by the applicants, in addition to the public open space of 1.6ha and children’s play area proposed on-site, with the following components;

o 25% Affordable Housing on site, consisting of 18 dwellings (8 x two beds, 8 x three beds, 2 x four beds)

o 10% Affordable housing, as an off-site contribution of £274,000 (£34,250 per unit)

o Education contribution of £652,736

o On-site Children’s play area of £90,000

o Off-site contribution for the loss of the playing fields £490,000

o Sports Hall at Lordswood Boy’s School £45,154

1.15. The site is 4.5 ha. The scheme has a density of 25dph, excluding the area of public open space.

1.16. This application has been amended twice. The scheme was originally submitted for 121 dwellings, this was later amended to 103 dwellings and amended again to the current scheme of 73 dwellings.

1.17. A screening opinion was undertaken 12/11/14 and it was determined that an Environmental Impact Assessment was not needed.

1.18. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is known as Ravenhurst Playing Fields, it covers an area of 4.5 hectares and has a locked vehicular access from Knightlow Road. The majority of the site is flat and consists of long grass. Other than the access point the site is surrounded by residential rear gardens. Existing houses, on the perimeter, front onto Knightlow Road, Gillhurst Road and Ellesboro Road.

2.2. The site includes steep banks to the north and west boundaries as the land outside the site falls away to a lower land level in these directions. The bank is a result of land remodelling in the past to create a flat area for playing field use. The north western corner consists of made ground. The site is relatively flat ranging from 177 (Above Ordnance Datum) AOD in the west to 172AOD in the east of the site. The bank on the north and west boundaries is steep in places and falls down off site to rear gardens on Knightlow Road and Ellesboro Road. This variant represents a maximum level change of 9m between the top of the bank and parts of adjacent gardens. The southern and eastern boundaries are generally at the same height as neighbouring gardens.

Page 3 of 34 2.3. There are substantial trees and hedges around the perimeter of the site. A Tree Preservation Order (TPO) covers the site as a group order, a second TPO covers one tree next 135 Knightlow Road and there is another TPO on the properties of 119-123 Knightlow Road.

2.4. The surrounding area is principally residential in character. Houses consist of detached and semi-detached properties; built largely in the inter-war period. A small parade of shops are located on the junction of Knightlow Road and Gillhurst Road. Three houses (119-123 Knightlow Road) are located adjacent to the existing entrance to the playing fields, just off Knightlow Road itself.

2.5. Colleagues in Leisure Services have confirmed that the City Council originally maintained a lease for the land but sold this 1959 lease to the Oratory in 1993. The land was then leased by the Oratory to South Birmingham College and then sub- leased to Old Dixonians Rugby Club in 2001 to 2003/4. The site then fell into disuse.

2.6. Site Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. On site

3.2. 16/05/12. Pa no. 2012/02174/PA Demolition of existing two storey former sports pavilion of traditional masonry construction. Prior Approval given.

3.3. Sandon Road Playing Fields and City Road sites

3.4. 22/01/16. Pa no 2015/02983. Development of playing pitches (2 x rugby, 1 x all weather pitch with lighting), changing rooms, w/c's and parking (phase 1), and club room with kitchen and bar, additional changing rooms, and ancillary office, stores and wc's (phase 2).

3.5. 22/01/16. Pa no. 2015/02982/PA. Residential development of 116 dwellings, access, parking and landscaping. Approved subject to a S106 Legal Agreement to secure;

o an agreed timetable for the delivery of the Sandon Road development (2015/02983/PA)- valued at £1M,

o Provision of 18 affordable housing units within the development, to be 50% affordable rent, and 50% shared ownership in accordance with the approved layout plan,

o A financial contribution of £445,650 (index linked) towards reconstruction of the tennis courts and improvements to the changing room at Summerfield Park, and provision of an outdoor gym trail, path/bank restoration, signage, seating and bins at Edgbaston Reservoir,

o A financial contribution of £295,400 (index linked) towards restoration of the bandstand and enhancement of the play areas at Summerfield Park and restoration of the entrances, car park, promenade railings and path/bank restoration at Edgbaston Reservoir,

o A financial contribution of £248,400 (index linked) towards the provision of primary school places at Harborne School Annex at Lordswood Girls School in Knightlow Road.

Page 4 of 34

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Consultation Responses

4.2. Transportation – No objection subject to conditions to secure; Construction Management Plan, S278 works for the junction works onto Knightlow Road, Footway to be reduced to 1.85m on each side for the first 25m of the access allowing the carriageway width to be increased to 7.3m (to be undertaken at the S38 stage), Residential Travel Plan, pedestrian visibility splays of 3.3m x 3.3m x 600mm high to be incorporated into the driveways, and an appropriate level of secure cycle parking to be provided per dwelling.

4.3. Centro - The site is served by the number 10 bus service providing a half hourly service to Birmingham City Centre. More frequent services are located on Hagley Road. The developer should ensure that walking links from the development site to the public transport network is direct, convenient and safe and secure. If the developer requires any assistance on the future development of the travel plan. Centro's sustainable Travel Team can provide support.

4.4. Regulatory Services – No objection. In terms of contamination, the findings of the Site Investigation report do not show significant levels of contamination. The investigations undertaken by RSK have shown that the site is affected by land contamination to a degree. In particular samples of made ground have recorded elevated levels of only slightly soluble compounds. These substances are commonly encountered at such concentrations on many brownfield sites and ought not to present a significant development constraint. RSK propose to mitigate the risks posed by the contamination by providing 600 mm clean soil cover in the affected areas. This is an accepted and widely adopted method for dealing with such substances, and ought to be sufficient to reduce exposure of future site occupiers. The information submitted is considered sufficient to enable the planning application to be determined, subject to the imposition of conditions to require further investigations and the submission of a remediation scheme for approval. In terms of remediation, the proposal would need to provide a clean soil cover in all gardens. Also, having considered the comments from some residents saying there are buses buried in the ground, the contamination team is sceptical that this could actually have been achieved on-site. The site appears to have been raised and the surrounding houses established by the 1930s. The maximum recorded depth of fill is only just over 3 metres, not enough to bury a bus.

4.5. Education – There is a lack of school places for both primary and secondary education in the area as such a financial contribution is necessary. Based on 73 dwellings the proposal would generate an off-site education contribution of £652,736.

4.6. Local Services –The proposed development is contrary to UDP Policy. Having reviewed the history and current demand for playing fields for football, rugby and cricket in Harborne Ward and the wider Edgbaston constituency we strongly object to development of this site and don’t consider exceptional circumstances have been or can be demonstrated to justify its loss. In regard to Public Open Space (POS) and Play area contributions the calculation as contained in the supporting documents ie 211 people generating 4220sqm (ie 0.42 hectares). The scheme would also generate the need for a 1225m2 Junior Play area at the cost of £90,000. We would not necessarily agree with the positioning shown of the open space within the development but this would be for Landscape planning colleagues to determine. We

Page 5 of 34 note the developer's commitment to provide play facilities to this value predominantly on the proposed new open space and we would support this. However, we would not regard as proper durable play equipment the illustrations of natural materials provided and would therefore request a revised scheme to be submitted detailing equipment that could be genuinely costed at £90,000. Whilst we would not insist on the equipment being set in one space within the proposed POS or in a natural play setting, we would require robust, manufactured pieces of lasting play value laid out to BCC standards for open space. The Service would not be interested in adopting the POS and play area. If the developer felt that the type of play equipment described above could not be provided on this site we would insist that an off-site contribution to the value of £90,000 be provided towards provision and/or improvement of play facilities within the Harborne Ward and the maintenance thereof.

4.7. Rugby Football Union – The RFU have spoken to Dixonians RFC to discuss the Ravenhurst site. The club have told us that that they see their long-term future at Rowheath Pavilion (their current base) and therefore no longer hold aspirations to relocate back into Edgbaston. That said we have other nomadic clubs that are looking to secure a site to enable them to continue to develop. Bournville RUFC have a large playing base and currently operate out of the university. They are looking to locate to a site that can accommodate their needs and provide them with a long term home. I am not sure how many pitches Ravenhurst could accommodate but this may be a better fit as they are probably more established than Dixonians. Ultimately this might be down to how many pitches the site could feasibly offer though. Sandon Road would meet some of the demand but there would still be some remaining but I don’t know if Ravenhurst could meet that demand.

4.8. English Cricket Board – No comments received.

4.9. The Football Association – Clubs have expressed an initial desire to use the site for football.

4.10. Harborne Youth FC - It has been extremely difficult to find suitable venues for us to play and train in the Harborne area as playing fields, unless attached to schools are virtually non-existent. We provide a facility for local children to play football and the children that play attend an number of local schools including for example Harborne, St Peters, St Marys, Shenley, Priory and Lordswood Boys. We hope to expand to run teams for more age groups and also girls teams at some point. We are in the process of applying for Chartered Status through the FA. My understanding is that it was suggested that there was no local need for the playing fields but we as a club, and in effect the young people of Harborne, would benefit enormously if we could access this facility.

4.11. Sport England – Sport England have made a series of positions known since this scheme was first submitted in October 2014. In summary they have stated that;

o October 2014. Sport England is a non-statutory consultee in this case as the playing fields have not been used for over 10 years. The City Council’s playing pitch strategy identifies that the site should be brought back into use for rugby or cricket. The scheme fails to meet the Sport England summary of exceptions for the release of playing field land. The current PPS is considered to be robust. A solution offered by Sport England, to meet local needs would be to replace the loss of Ravenhurst with improvements at Lightwoods Park as an ‘equivalent or better provision’. It is the view of Sport England that the site is not surplus but in

Page 6 of 34 fact identifies a need to bring it back into use. Sport England object, but this objection would be overcome if the playing field area which is to be lost was replaced.

o July 2015. The English Cricket Board considers that there should be provision for Cricket on site, but no club is identified. The site was previously used by the Dixonians RUFC who now play at Rowheath Pavillion, the RFU would expect to see an off-site contribution to improve Sandon Road, Rowheath Pavillion and Billesley Common. In terms of football, there has been a loss of football pitches with no gain in replacement pitches yet (until Lordswood School and Sandon Road become available). The current playing pitch strategy is now 4/5 years old and this needs to be refreshed. The applicants have not properly investigated how the site can be brought back into use as per Policy E6 of the PPS. The site may contribute to the shortfall of football places across the city. The applicant has failed to demonstrate that this site is surplus and has failed to offer any compensation for the loss.

o November 2015. Sport England does not agree with the applicants that there is a sufficient supply of pitches but has agreed with the applicants that off-site mitigation of £490,000, to improve/create City wide Strategic football hubs, would satisfy all local need and satisfy Sport England’s exception policy E4 (better quality replacement) as such would remove their objection if compensation was secured in this form. Sport England also welcome the provision of £45,154 towards a new sports hall which could be provided at Lordswood Boys’ school.

o February 2016. Sport England notes that the City wide Strategic football hub project has been abandoned/postponed and as such the compensation can no longer be targeted to a specific project. With this in mind Sport England objects again. However, it acknowledges that the Playing Pitch Strategy identifies that Sennellys Park requires investment and on that basis Sport England suggest that they would withdraw their objection subject to the provision of; a compensation sum of £490,000, the money targeted to a specific sports improvement plan at Sennellys Park, a feasibility study for sports provision in the area, a scheme for playing field/changing room improvement and a review of the scheme 18 months after planning permission is given.

4.12. Sports Development Officer (Steve Hollingworth) - The 3 sites referred to by Sport England are sites that the City Council has been looking at with the FA. These are at Moor lane Playing Fields (off college Road) in Perry Barr, The stadium at castle Vale and Hayes playfields in Northfield. None of these are particularly close to the site, but these are the football hubs that the City Council wants to take forward to meet a Strategic football hub objective.

4.13. Environment Agency –No objection. They recommend consultation with the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA) and/or Local Land Drainage section, to provide information to support the review of FRAs where surface water flooding is/may be an issue.

4.14. Lead Local Flood Authority – No objection subject to the submission of a revised sustainable drainage scheme and the submission of an operation and maintenance plan.

Page 7 of 34 4.15. Severn Trent – No objection subject to a drainage condition.

4.16. Ecology – Objects due to the impact on the identified badger habitat.

4.17. Natural England - This does not serve as a formal response on badgers by NE and that Standing Advice is our response. Natural England is only duty-bound to provide a bespoke response by the Habitats Regulations. However, we are in agreement that the City’s Ecologist has come to some reasonable conclusions on the suitability of survey work and the impact upon badgers – i.e. her conclusions are justifiable and further detail could be provided in support of the application. The concerns that she has raised about habitat size, quality and the disturbance impact from dogs, people and the access roads are all valid and which should be detailed within the planning submission. Certainly the mitigation strategy needs to address these impacts and without reading any of the application information, it appears that these haven’t been assessed. The Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 establishes a clear duty on LPAs to conserve and enhance biodiversity. Badgers should not just be displaced from this site. There should be suitable habitat made available for them when they will be displaced/disturbed.

4.18. Wildlife Trust - The network of open spaces also support a population of badgers. This particular development will have direct impacts on the local badger population and indirect impacts on bat populations. The application site has a large and significant badger sett and provides an important area of foraging habitat. To enable an appropriate mitigation strategy, further badger surveys should be conducted to assess the population size and exact impacts of the development. Neighbouring gardens may also play a role in providing further foraging habitat and external access for the badger population (Fig 21 in the Habitat Survey Report). This role appears to have not been examined. In our view, to mitigate the development’s severe impact on the site’s stepping stone function in the wider ecological network, the amount and location of open space should be increased and have a strong element of semi-natural habitat to retain ecological linkages which will contribute to the wider ecological network in this part of Harborne. This will also benefit the local badger population and also foraging habitats for bats. The Trust would like to emphasise strongly that the implementation of a landscaping approach which achieves these objectives is vital. In achieving this, and to strengthen the city’s ecological network the City Council should seek to secure resources from the developer to invest in the improvement and management of the semi-natural quality of other open spaces within this corridor.

4.19. West Midlands Fire service – No objection.

4.20. West Midlands Police – No objection. In terms of security, this current proposal is well laid out affording good levels of natural surveillance. Boundary treatments and gated alleyways meet the standards set by ‘Secured by Design’. Subject to Planning approval, I would recommend that each dwelling is built to enhanced security standards recommended by Police Crime Reduction initiative ‘Secured by Design.

4.21. Public Participation Responses

4.22. Residents, residents associations, commercial occupiers, councillors and MP notified. Site Notices erected, press notice made. The application has undergone three rounds of consultation; on 18/9/14 for the original 121 dwellings, on 14/02/15 for 103 dwellings and on 25/06/15 for 73 dwellings.

4.23. First consultation (18/09/14 – 13/02/15) responses;

Page 8 of 34

4.24. Gisela Stuart MP – extremely concerned that the scheme would result in a significant increase in traffic. It seems highly likely that there would be gridlock along Croftdown Road, Gilhurst road and Knightlow Road, particularly in the mornings.

4.25. Councillor John Alden – Objects, as the land is a playing field and A considerable part of the area was land fill after the 2nd World War and by the admission of the agents for Redrow Homes there are some potential nasty deposits on the site. Also, the site is an area of nature. It has the largest Urban Badger Set in the UK, in the corner of the site, according to naturalists. A further badger set is in the area that the plans indicate it is to build on. The land has two large areas of "Japanese Knott Weed".

4.26. Councillor James McKay – Objects, due to the anticipated impact on highway safety, loss of green space, and loss of wildlife. He encourages the efforts of ‘the Friends of Ravenhurst’ to find middle ground with some development and some playing field retention. However, if the Planning Committee is minded to approve the application some S106 money should be use to fund access improvements to Lordswood Girls’ School.

4.27. Councillor Elaine Williams – Objects in support of Cllr James McKay’s comments.

4.28. Councillor Deirdre Alden – Objects, the scheme would result in the loss of an area of green space that contributes towards a diminishing supply of green spaces in the area.

4.29. Moor Pool Residents Association – Objects due to the loss of sporting facilities and the loss of open space. It also remarks that if Planning Committee are minded to approve then the scheme should be subject to a S106 Agreement and include a package of mitigation measures that have been agreed with the local community.

4.30. Friends of Ravenhurst Association (Resident Group) – Objects on the grounds of highway safety, Ecology, and lack of parking. It has also undertaken a formal traffic survey that has shown the current traffic levels.

4.31. Calthorpe Estates – Object on highway safety grounds.

4.32. Lordswood Girls’ School – Objects due to serious concerns regarding the safety of Lordswood students to and from the two Lordswood schools. Knightlow Road is not safe due to its over-capacity usage in peak hours; the volume of traffic, coupled with residents’ parking and the irresponsible parking of some parents make the road totally unsafe for our children. More volume will make the road completely perilous in the peak times, and without on street parking restrictions or a means for us to improve, and divert to an alternative main access into the site. We must lodge our objection and concerns about the proposals on account of the safety and risk to our students. Safety would, without doubt, be compromised were this to be approved.

4.33. 273 letters of objection from residents with concerns regarding;

o Loss of open space/playing fields. Once the open space is lost, it would be lost for good and they are few and far between in cities. Please reduce this development and retain a sports playing field for school and community use. The owners of the land have over the years repeatedly blocked approaches from interested parties to use the space in the manner which was intended ie. playing fields. There is a severe shortage of playing fields in this area, either

Page 9 of 34 for use by schools, sports clubs, or residents. The playing fields provide an opportunity to develop sporting facilities for football, cricket, tennis etc. in a safe environment and should not be built upon. o Loss of Ecological habitat including badger setts. Foxes and bats have been seen on the site and in the area. The issue of how to deal with Japanese Knotweed has not been clearly outlined. o Traffic Impact causing obstruction, noise pollution and risk to pedestrians. The only proposed access is via a road which feeds onto Knightlow Rd which is already very busy, and gets a large number of cars dropping off and collecting children at Lordswood school. The scheme would create a substantial number of new car movements. Lordswood Girls school has serious congestion issues with cars dropping off and picking up children resulting in high risks to pedestrians, school children, other pedestrians and other vehicles trying to use Knightlow and adjacent roads. This has a direct detrimental effect on us as residents in Ellesboro and neighbouring roads, without adding considerably more traffic from 121 new properties. Existing vehicles that park along Knightlow Road which is likely to significantly affect safe access to the proposed development. There is parking at the Gillhurst Road end of Knightlow Road which routinely causes this to become a “single track” route. In addition estimates of traffic numbers from the development appear to be significantly different to estimates from other similar development. The single access to site is totally unacceptable and would cause misery and take out the cohesive nature of the community. I believe a second access road is the minimum that planning has to insist on. There will be an unacceptable increase in road traffic on what is a narrow road. Severe congestion problems already exist at the end of knightlow Road at peak times. The average car ownership in Gillhurst Road is about 2.5 per house, and at that level there could be about 300 cars on the estate. If only half of those tried to leave the estate between 8 a.m. and 9 a.m. it would grid-lock Gillhurst Road and probably the surrounding roads as well. o Construction traffic whilst building is in process. During construction of the development the number of lorries taking away and delivering building materials will be overwhelming. o Drainage which is already at capacity. The ground falls in a northerly direction from approximately 10m. These gardens have already been subject to flooding after heavy rainfall from the existing bank. It is very well know that Harborne has a very high water table and the proposals by Redrow homes regarding how they will deal with water run-off are inadequate given the amount of water involved. Water run-off is likely to have a significant impact on surrounding properties. o Impact on infrastructure, the sewerage system locally would not be adequate. o Impact on local services, there are not sufficient local resources in terms of schools, GPs etc to support this population influx. The local primary schools of Harborne Primary and St Peters are two of the most oversubscribed schools in Birmingham. There is an inadequate provision for primary schools within the area. The proposed development will only give rises to increased demand for local primary school places which the present local schools soon will not be able to meet.

Page 10 of 34 o The impact of social housing as local house prices will be affected. The proposal for low cost/social housing is not within the interests of the residents of this area, and there are many other sites in Birmingham which can be used for social housing. o Impact on trees. The proposed removal of trees on the Northern Boundary will reduce the screening and have a significant effect on properties on Knightlow Road. The Poplar trees at the perimeter of the site have a preservation order. These trees provide screening and are an environmental asset. o Density too high, architecture not in character with the surrounding houses in terms of scale and style. The gardens are too small. The proposed development is totally out of character for a residential area. o Lack of permeability of the site. There are a group of 9 retail units at the end of Knightlow Road which are important to the local community. There is no easy walking access from the proposed development to these shops or the bus stops on Gillhurst Road. This will force people to use their cars and possibly shop elsewhere. Why not install a pedestrian entrance down either side of the shops best place would be down the side of 181 Knightlow Road this would provide easy access to the bus stop, shops and Harborne village if people choose to walk. o Loss of privacy and overlooking. Residents are already over-looked by neighbouring properties. The view from the rear of existing dwellings would be seriously compromised. Overlooking as the site is 11m higher than the rear gardens of houses on Knightlow Road. Human Rights Act in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land. We believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on us and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act states that a person has the substantive right to respect for their private and family life. Anyone standing on the fields is at a level of our first floor bedrooms and the height differential increases as the house numbers decrease. With the close proximity of the proposed houses to the rear of our property their occupants will be peering down on us from a further two stories in height. This is unacceptable intrusion into our privacy not only into our bedrooms but our kitchen, dining-room, lounge and back garden. o Traffic creating air pollution o Existing ground contamination and stability. Residents have concerns about the impact of the proposed development on surrounding properties in terms of drainage as well as ground stability. It is understood the site was originally a refuse tip. Parts of the proposed building site contain PAH's (Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons) which are by definition carcinogenic, mutagenic and teratogenicand as such a 'risk to human health'. The report states that remediation of the area would be required to enable its development for a residential end use. Contaminated areas have been found in the north west of the side and an area alongside houses in Gillhurst Road opposite to the site's entrance. o Public Access - Residents have an established Right of Way by prescription, having walked the fields for 48 years, repeatedly, openly and without

Page 11 of 34 landowner's consent. There is a clearly defined path which they walk every day.

o The security risk caused by the 3m badger run. After the houses have been built this will become a dumping ground / an area for potential hooliganism and a general safety risk to resident’s properties.

o Due to the close proximity of some houses the scheme would infringe on residents’ privacy. The proposed development would be constructed on land which is 11 metres above some resident’s properties (Section D-D), with windows in properties within the proposed development overlooking houses and back gardens. The proposal is contrary to the Human Rights Act, in particular Protocol 1, Article 1 which states that a person has the right to peaceful enjoyment of all their possessions which includes the home and other land. We believe that the proposed development would have a dominating impact on residents and our right to the quiet enjoyment of our property.

4.34. Second consultation (14/02/15 – 24/06/15) responses;

4.35. 71 letters of objection with the following different/additional concerns;

• Councillor Elaine Williams has stated that her previous objections remain the same.

• Petition with 240 Signatures objecting to the loss of the playing field and impact on local wildlife (Bill Oddie has also signed this)

• A second petition with 1279 signatures “stop the bulldozers destroying yet more open space in the suburb of Harborne”.

• The amended plans do not address the fundamental issue of the loss of playing field and the changes are not enough to reduce the negative impact of the development on the local area. Although the size of the development has reduced it is still far too intensive

• Requests for a site visit by committee are made.

• The affordable homes should be fully integrated into the development as a whole. They should be located throughout the site and not developed as an estate within an estate. The application has an allocation of 24 affordable homes ALL of which are grouped together and ALL of which are located at the extremity of the site.

• The developers do not seem to be solving the problem of Japanese Knotweed that is over-taking the site.

• The Updated Badger reports is clearly mis-representing the true situation, there are far more badgers on the site than the report suggests.

4.36. Third consultation (25/06/15 – present) responses;

4.37. 74 letters of objection with the following different/additional concerns;

Page 12 of 34 o Applaud the increase in POS with the revised plans, however the change doesn’t overcome the loss of POS and impact to badgers and increase in traffic that development would cause.

o The rent of playing field should be reduced so people can use it for its designated purpose.

o TPO’s on the site cannot be ignored.

o Impact on existing property prices.

o Concerns still expressed in regard to the previous use of the site as landfill and the potential harmful effects on new residents if the scheme goes ahead.

4.38. Gisela Stuart MP and Cllr James McKay consider that the comments and concerns that they have already raised are still valid. The reduction in dwellings is insufficient, and the City should not be losing open space when there is a recognised shortage within the wider area.

4.39. One letter of support from a resident who identifies a chronic shortage of affordable family sized housing in Harborne.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Birmingham UDP (2005); Draft Birmingham Development Plan; Places for Living (2001) SPG; Public Open Space In New Residential Development (2006) SPD; Car Parking Guidelines (2012) SPD, Affordable Housing (2001) SPG, Mature Suburbs (2008) SPD. TPO 1127 (adjacent to 135 Knightlow Road), TPO 38 (covering properties 119-123 Knightlow Road) and TPO 1158 (covering the application site).

5.2. NPPF (2012), NPPG (2014), Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance – Sport England (2013)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The proposal raises two key policy issues in regard to the principle of redevelopment for residential use; the loss of the open space-playing field land and the appropriateness of residential development. Otherwise, there are a range of issues to address, including ecology, layout, design, drainage, trees, planning obligations, transportation matters.

6.2. Principle - loss of playing field land

6.3. POLICY CONTEXT

6.4. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) states that “Planning law requires that applications for planning permission must be determined in accordance with the development plan”. The extant Development Plan remains the Birmingham UDP.

6.5. The key policies, of the UDP, relevant to this application are:

6.6. Para 3.52A, of the UDP, relates to Open Space. This Policy states that “Proposals which would result in the loss of open space will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances. In determining whether exceptional circumstances exist, the City Council will take account of the availability of public open space nearby, its quality,

Page 13 of 34 and how well it meets local needs. It is unlikely that developers will be able to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist where:- (a) existing public open space provision falls below the standard of 2.0 hectares per 1000 population (see para 3.53); and/or (b) there would be a loss of land from the open space network.”

6.7. Paragraphs 3.55 to 3.57 of the UDP, comment on playing field provision. Paragraph 3.55 states that the UDP seeks to achieve a target of 1.2ha of playing field land per 1000 population per ward and seeks a planning obligation, in wards below this target, to be used towards the creation of new playing fields or bringing existing pitches into more beneficial use such as with better drainage or the provision of changing facilities. Paragraph 3.57 states that “…development of playing fields will not normally be allowed particularly in areas which fall below the [1.2ha] standard …Where, in exceptional circumstances, permission is granted for the development of a sports field this will be subject to the provision of equivalent long term recreational community benefit”. Paragraph 3.60 states that improvements to sports pitches will be encouraged.

6.8. The UDP policy 3.57 seeks to resist the loss of playing fields unless exceptional circumstances exist and compensation is provided. However, the NPPF allows consideration of playing field land for development to be entertained where it is either, shown to be surplus through an assessment of need, or certain other circumstances apply. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF sets out these exceptions;

6.9. Paragraph 74 “Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless:

• an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or • the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or • the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss.”

6.10. Paragraph 73, of the NPPF, states that “…access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities. Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should be used to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision is required”. This therefore requires Local Planning Authorities to produce and keep up to date assessments of need for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The current Playing Pitch Strategy was adopted in 2012 and was considered up to date by the Inspector in preparation of background documents for the Examination into the draft BDP. The Playing Pitch Strategy has been reviewed by the applicants, and the details of the applicant’s findings are set out later.

6.11. Birmingham Development Plan

Page 14 of 34 6.12. The Birmingham Development Plan has now been through an examination in public, it is due to be adopted early this year. Policy TP9 states that “Planning permission will not normally be granted for development on open space except where:

• It can be shown by an up to date assessment of need that the open space is surplus taking account of a minimum standard of 2 ha per 1,000 population and the accessibility and quality criteria listed below.

• The lost site will be replaced by a similar piece of open space, at least as accessible and of similar quality and size.

• Where an area of open space is underused, as it has inherent problems such as poor site surveillance, physical quality or layout, which cannot be realistically dealt with, then in this case proposals that would result in the loss of a small part of a larger area of open space will be considered if compensation measures would result in significant improvements to the quality and recreational value of the remaining area.”.

6.13. This Policy fully aligns with Paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

6.14. Furthermore, Policy TP11 of the draft BDP, states that sports and physical activity facilities will be protected from development, unless it can be demonstrated that they are surplus to requirements through a robust and up to date assessment of need. Where there is identified need for particular sports and physical recreation facilities, the loss of existing sports facilities for these sports would not be allowed unless an equivalent or better quantity or quality replacement provision is provided.

6.15. THE APPLICANT’S CASE

6.16. The Applicant claims the site is neither a playing field, nor a playing pitch (having regard to various definitions) and as such development would not lead to the loss of a functioning playing pitch. They advocate the site should be considered as “open space” and as former playing fields. They consider that the site is surplus to requirements and they are also offering compensation for the loss. The applicants comment that there is a sufficient supply of pitches in quantitative and qualitative terms to meet predicted demand for football, cricket and rugby in the area. They also comment that no significant demand has been identified through consultation with the National Governing Bodies and clubs. They state that the playing fields have been out of use for 10 years and have common characteristics to the Martineau Centre and Portland Centre where off-site contributions were sought for the loss of those playing fields. In terms of mitigation, for this site, the applicant has offered a contribution designed to meet an identified priority in the Playing Pitch Strategy and have offered £490,000 to fund a grass pitch and new changing facilities at a football hub (albeit outside the city’s southern boundary) and £45,154 to satisfy Sport England’s Sports Facility Calculator.

6.17. The applicant’s Playing Field Assessment uses the established principles of the City Council Playing Pitch Strategy of 2012 and consider that a number of key changes have occurred locally. In summary these are;

• Cape Hill Brewery, becoming available for cricket field for WCCC. A replacement changing pavilion and changing rooms have been built, WCCC have now taken occupation. • A new Artificial Grass Pitch is proposed at Lordwood Boys’ and Girls’ schools, fully funded by the loss of a playing field at the Martineau Centre.

Page 15 of 34 • Sandon Road Playing Fields is becoming a rugby academy consisting of 2 rugby pitches, 1 junior football pitch and an all-weather pitch. • Selly Oak (former hospital) approved plans for a reinstated cricket square and new changing facilities. This approved scheme included new housing which triggered the payment of £70,000 towards local sports provision. • Loss of Portland Centre former school playing fields and compensation payment to a local school of £100,000 to improve local sports provision. • In summary the applicants have identified a surplus in cricket provision, an over- supply of adult football pitches (except in Harborne Ward where there is a slight deficit) and that the Sandon Road site would meet local rugby needs. As such the applicants consider that the site is surplus to requirements.

6.18. The applicant has also stated that they have approached the National Governing Bodies for sports and have found no specific interest in the site.

6.19. REACTION TO THE APPLICANT’S CASE

6.20. As the applicants acknowledge, the starting point for the consideration of this planning application is the Birmingham UDP, but to be read in the context of the more recently published NPPF. As highlighted above the UDP clearly states that “Proposals which would result in the loss of open space will only be permitted in exceptional circumstances”. Despite submitting a Playing Pitch and Open Space Statement, this does not set out any case for exceptional circumstances. The application therefore fails the first UDP policy requirement.

6.21. Policy 3.52A of the UDP further states that “It is unlikely that developers will be able to demonstrate that exceptional circumstances exist where:- (a) existing public open space provision falls below the standard of 2.0 hectares per 1000 population; and/or (b) there would be a loss of land from the open space network.” The POS provision in Harborne Ward is 1.48ha ie well below the standard required and the proposal would result in the loss of nearly 3 ha of open space from the network. It therefore fails the Policy test.

6.22. Whilst the applicants claim the site should not be considered an existing playing field or pitch, the UDP policy is very clear that development will not be permitted “simply because a playing field has been allowed to fall fallen out of use and become derelict” The applicants do not disagree that this is a former playing field and as such the City Council believes its playing field policy tests are applicable. There is a presumption against the loss of playing fields particularly where the standard of 1.2ha per 1,000 population is not reached. The current level of provision in Harborne Ward is 0.4 ha – considerably under the standard sought. This policy test is therefore also failed.

6.23. Underpinning the UDP’s environment policies is a desire to improve both the quantative and qualitative provision of open space and playing fields, particularly in wards which fall below the target thresholds. The Ravenhurst site has previously been predominantly used as education playing fields and is registered as such on BCC’s register and network of Open space. The UDP has a specific policy pertinent to this case, “Some school playing fields will become surplus to educational requirements. In these circumstances development will not normally be allowed and the site will be expected to remain in playing field or open space use, especially in areas where existing provision falls significantly below the standard of 1.2 hectares per 1000 population”. It is clear, therefore that our policies encourage the reuse of these former playing fields as they are capable of making a major contribution to

Page 16 of 34 enhancing local provision. 4.5h of playing fields and/or new public open space would make significant improvements in the level of local provision.

6.24. Given the above, our policy expects surplus or former playing fields to test out demand for their re-use – a logical requirement before any exceptional circumstances could be argued. Marketing could be a useful method to help determine demand. The applicants state they have marketed the site, between June 2003 and June 2004, “To Let as an existing sports ground with substantial clubhouse, but with no interest capable of being taken forward”. No further details of marketing or of the enquiries received have been submitted. Marketing some 12 years ago cannot be deemed acceptable as reflecting likely current potential demand, this issue was raised several times during the application consideration process but no further marketing has been undertaken. Further information regarding potential demand has been found in some response from local residents and clubs. Therefore even had the applicant made a case for exceptional circumstances, it would have failed both policy tests of Policy 3.52A.

6.25. The draft BDP which, whilst not yet adopted, has been prepared in conformity with the NPPF and tested through Examination in Public. As such it now carries more weight as a material consideration and may be deemed to be more up to date than the UDP policies. Draft Policy TP9, of the BDP highlights there remains a presumption against any development on open space unless one of the following can be met:

o The open space is surplus, taking account of the standard of 2.0ha per 1,000 population. As shown above, the application fails this test.

o The lost site will be replaced by a similar piece of open space, at least as accessible and of similar quality and size. The applicant is not proposing this so it fails this test, or

o Where an area of open space is underused... proposals that would result in the loss of a small part of a larger area of open space will be considered if compensation measures would result in significant improvements to the quality and recreational value of the remaining area.

6.26. The application should be considered against this third policy requirement as, if approved, it would deliver 1.5 ha of public open space. The proposal, however, does not deliver the loss of a small part of a larger area, it results in two thirds of the site (3 ha) being lost to residential development. Had the development been on a third of the site with two thirds being significantly improved for recreational value, then this policy test may have been met. However, to allow the loss of two thirds of the site to development would set an unacceptable precedent that could put many other open spaces under unnecessary pressure of development.

6.27. Incidentally, officers have discussed the above policy with the Applicants as a possible positive way forward. At a meeting with them, a plan was tabled by the Applicants showing development on the eastern portion of the site delivering 33 dwellings with the western portion delivering two full sized sports pitches and a modest changing pavilion. Your officers agreed that this would be deemed a policy compliant scheme and recommended that this scheme should be submitted. Unfortunately, this was not subsequently formally submitted as an amended layout.

6.28. In addition, the BDP policy TP9 has specific policies relating to playing fields stating they will be protected and will only be considered for development where they are

Page 17 of 34 either shown to be surplus for playing field use, taking account of the minimum standard of 1.2 ha per 1000 population, through a robust and up to date assessment and are not required to meet other open space deficiencies, or alternative provision is provided which is of equivalent quality, accessibility and size. In relation to the 1.2 ha standard and the alternative provision, the application fails these tests as highlighted above. Whether they can be regarded as surplus to requirements through an up to date assessment of supply v demand needs consideration and forms the main plank of the applicant’s argument - they claim there is no demand and the former playing fields should be considered surplus.

6.29. NPPF guidance puts an onus on local authorities to periodically undertake robust reviews of open space and the need for new provision. With regard to sport and recreation facilities they specifically recommend reference to Sport England’s methodology on how to assess needs. BCC has undertaken this resulting in the adoption in 2012 of BCC’s Playing Pitch Strategy. This has as its overriding aim/recommendation “the need for investment…where there are deficiencies in quality and quality”. With specific regard to Edgbaston constituency the strategy makes a specific recommendation to a lack of quality regarding football, a need to redress the balance between junior and senior provision and that there is also some indication that non-community demand is increasing. With regard to both rugby and cricket a specific policy recommendation is highlighted, E6 - “Ravenhurst Playing Field has been used for cricket and rugby in the past and more recently a scheme to reinstate cricket has been tabled. It is understood that the site is owned by the Oratory to whom representations should be made to investigate how to reinstate sports use.” The strategy highlights potential rugby clubs seeking grounds. It is clear, therefore that from BCC’s perspective the playing fields are not only not surplus to requirements, they are actively being recommended to be brought back into active use. I also note the comments of Sport England’s correspondence which states, “ I do not accept the applicant’s statement that – there is sufficient supply of pitches in quantitative and qualitative terms to meet existing and predicted demand for football, cricket and rugby”. It is clear, therefore that the former playing fields cannot be deemed surplus to requirements and thus this aspect of BCC’s policy test is also not met.

6.30. For the avoidance of doubt, it is clear from the above arguments that the proposals fail to meet the LPA’s policy exceptions, as well as the NPPF’s approach to these matters as set out in paragraphs 73 and 74. As such the open space and former playing fields should not be built upon.

6.31. Whilst it is clear there is an overriding and fundamental objection in principle to this application, nevertheless the applicant has tried to show through their supporting material that the site should be released for development. I set out below my observations on those aspects of their case that have not already been covered above.

6.32. The applicants have provided their own observations on the playing pitch strategy (PPS) and updated it with their own assessment incorporating recent commitments and their own assessment of demand. Whilst they concede, “The PPS …. is up to date, robust in terms of methodology, and has been provided to the BDP Inspector as the evidence on which relevant policy in the BDP is based”, they go on to comment that recent proposals in the vicinity of the site have updated the analysis of supply and demand. In particular they reference decisions at the Portland Centre, Martineau Centre, Selly Oak Hospital and at City Road/Sandon Road in which they claim that either quantitative or qualitative improvements in local playing field provision have been secured on the back of planning decisions. This is not disputed,

Page 18 of 34 although in the case of City/Sandon Road, the loss of two private playing pitches was compensated with an equivalent improvement in local pitches with £1.5M of targeted investment.

6.33. The applicant further argues that in considering this application, ”Consideration of compliance with relevant policy on this basis is consistent with the approach taken to the consideration of development proposals on former playing fields at Portland Centre and Martineau Centre* . The former they note, resulting in a £100,000 compensation for the loss of playing pitch and the latter a compensation of £830,000 for loss of one pitch through provision of an all-weather playing pitch nearby. I consider, however, that these assumptions are flawed, not directly comparable (there are fundamental differences between this application and those sites) and are not directly applicable. In the case of the Portland Centre, the educational buildings were a site specific UDP proposal in which the principle of allowing residential development was established and there was specific reference in the PPS to the fact that the single historic pitch was surplus to requirements. At Martineau the application was also for the redevelopment of educational buildings in which the single playing pitch was an ancillary use. Accepting that residential development was appropriate for the developed part of the site, the issue became one of the practicality of retaining a single “unattached” playing pitch adjacent to new residential development. Given the longstanding difficulties posed by managing and maintaining freestanding single pitches (the council’s preference is to have several pitches located on one site with appropriate changing and maintenance facilities) the case for exceptional circumstances could be made, thus triggering the need for compensation measures. With the Ravenhurst application, the whole of the site comprises open space and former playing fields (historically 5 pitches and a safeguarded cricket square) of a size suitable for easy management and maintenance. It is clearly not directly comparable and no exceptional circumstances exist.

6.34. The applicants also argue that there is no demand for these pitches to be retained with most of the examples of demand highlighted in the PPS now being potentially accommodated with the proposed improvements being delivered elsewhere (highlighted in their case above). This is not considered to be an effective “test” of need, nor is their conclusion accepted by either BCC or Sport England. The latter have stated in their correspondence (Nov 2015) that this is representative of all the National Governing bodies and it has confirmed that it does not accept the applicant’s statement that there is a sufficient supply of pitches in either quantitative or qualitative terms.

6.35. The recent changes to sports provision, as listed by the applicant (Cape Hill, Sandon Road, Selly Oak former Hospital and Lordswood Schools) have mostly not yet taken place. Cape Hill Brewery playing field was originally laid out as a cricket square, this fell out of use and is now back in use through Warwickshire County Cricket Club. Sandon Road Playing Fields is subject to a scheme to upgrade the playing fields for rugby use and build new changing rooms, a scheme approved in January. The Selly Oak (former hospital) cricket square is subject to planning permission for a new pavilion and changing rooms to enable it to be available for use once again. The Artificial Grass Pitch proposed at Lordswood Boys’ school has consent but has not yet been built. As such sporting needs may or may not have changed but actual sporting provision in quantitative terms has not, whilst the qualitative improvements have yet to be implemented. Until the sporting provision can be reviewed, through a revised Playing Pitch Strategy and until real change is evidenced on the ground, it would be premature to conclude that there is no need for the playing fields.

Page 19 of 34 6.36. Recent marketing of the site to accompany the application would have given a much clearer picture of current demand, but this has not been undertaken. My consultation on this application, however, has led to the Rugby Football Union stating there are nomadic clubs in Birmingham seeking suitable sites, including Bournville RFC. The Football Association state clubs have a desire to use the site for football and Harborne Youth FC has specifically expressed an interest in being able to use these fields. It is clear, therefore that there are local unmet needs that the reinstatement of these playing fields could significantly contribute to.

6.37. The Applicant’s Offered Mitigation Package.

6.38. Had the developer been able to justify exceptional circumstances, then approval of any development scheme would still be subject to a compensatory package “of equivalent long-term recreational community benefit”. Although the applicant has not justified exceptional circumstances, nevertheless a compensatory package has been offered for which I offer the following comments. The mitigation package offered comprises £490,000 contribution towards new changing facilities and a further grass pitch at a proposed football hub being promoted jointly between BCC and the Football Association – one of the priorities highlighted in the Sports Pitch Strategy. In addition they have offered £45,154 contribution towards a new sports hall at Lordswood School as there is an identified need for this. Sport England have most recently confirmed that the Football Hub is now unlikely to be delivered and have instead offered that compensation could be targeted towards Sennellys Park, with a series of caveats. This view has been expressed in Sports England’s capacity as a non-statutory Consultee.

6.39. I do not consider that the mitigation package offered adequately provide equivalent long term recreational community benefit for the proposed loss of the former playing fields, particularly given their size, 4.5 ha, and that historically they provided 5 pitches, a clubhouse/changing facilities and a cricket square. This view is partly based on the size of the sum and partly based on the lack of understanding as to how the sum would be spent to satisfy the tests of paragraph 74 of the NPPF. In comparison, the loss of the single playing pitch at The Martineau Centre recently resulted in a financial contribution of £830,000 towards the provision of an artificial grass pitch at Lordswood Boys and Girls School. Elsewhere in the city the loss of unattached freestanding sports pitches has led to substantial compensation packages such as at The Hardy Spicer Sports Pitch in Walmley (approx. £1.5m), Haden Circus (£1m) and Brockenhurst playing fields (£1m) all far smaller in size than Ravenhurst. The offer on the table appears to be out of kilter with these examples. It would be inappropriate to promote or put a price per pitch value on how compensation should be calculated – each application needs to be determined on its own merits and in the light of local needs and opportunities - but to accept this inappropriate offer could put further development pressures on other private playing fields.

6.40. Therefore, even with the offered mitigation identified, the scheme would result in the loss of playing field land contrary to Policy 3.57, Paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Policy TP9 of the draft BDP. The applicants have failed to identify exceptional circumstances and some interest has been found for sporting use over the application period. The applicants have failed to make a case that the playing fields are surplus, with no evidence of recent marketing of the site and have also failed to find adequate and substantial compensation that illustrates that the mitigation would provide equivalent or better provision of sporting facilities than those being lost.

Page 20 of 34 6.41. In conclusion, the proposal is unacceptable based on Policy requirements in regard to the loss of open space-playing field land. As such the scheme is contrary to Policy 3.57, of the UPD, TP9 of the draft BDP and paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

6.42. Principle – the appropriateness of residential development.

6.43. The NPPF includes three dimensions to sustainable development, being; Economic, Environmental and Social. Recently the NPPF and appeal decisions have established that there must be very good reasons to resist development if it otherwise constitutes sustainable development. There is also a strong emphasis on providing new housing, especially at sustainable locations within urban areas. The NPPF seeks to ensure the provision of sustainable development, of good quality, in appropriate locations and sets out principles for developing sustainable communities. The NPPF promotes high quality design and a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings. It encourages the effective use of land by utilising brown-field sites and focusing development in locations that are sustainable and can make the fullest use of public transport, walking and cycling. The NPPF seeks to boost housing supply and supports the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes, with a mix of housing (particularly in terms of type/tenure) to create sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities.

6.44. Paragraph 5.25C sets down criteria for new housing development. This requires the Local Planning Authority to take into account locational suitability, accessibility of the site and consideration of impact on infrastructure. Paragraph 5.38 seeks that new housing development achieve densities of at least 40 dwellings per hectare, 50 within centres or adjacent to main transport corridors and over 100 within the city centre.

6.45. Places for Living (SPG) encourages good quality accommodation in attractive environments. It contains a series of urban design principles with emphasis to assessing context and responding positively to local character.

6.46. Mature Suburbs (SPD) states that new housing can have a significant impact on local distinctiveness on the character of an area and that new development must be of 'good design' resulting from a good understanding of the local character and circumstances. It states that design should determine density and not vice versa. It concludes that proposals that undermine and harm the positive characteristics of a mature suburb will be resisted.

6.47. In conclusion, I consider that the principle of residential use would be acceptable, in location terms, but due to the loss of required playing field land the proposal would not constitute Sustainable Development. The principle of the use of the site, for residential use, is therefore not agreed.

6.48. Design and Layout

6.49. The scheme would deliver a ‘perimeter block’ arrangement of houses with back gardens mostly adjacent to other back gardens and with front elevations of new houses facing onto new roads. The area of public open space would be located to the west area of the application site and new houses would face onto this space. Equally new rear gardens would be located adjacent to existing off-site gardens where possible- allowing for the badger corridor that runs to the rear of 21 proposed rear gardens. Consequently, the layout is acceptable and satisfies master-plan principles of legibility and creating a good sense of place. Elevational design and materials are well-considered and acceptable to the local context.

Page 21 of 34

6.50. In November 2015, the Government introduced National Space Standards and explained to Local Planning Authorities that these Standards could only be used if formally adopted through a formal Development Plan adoption process. It also stated that Local Authorities could no longer use local internal space standards. As such the bedroom size guidelines in Places for Living can no longer be officially used to gauge the acceptability of bedrooms, but they can still indicate (informally) the LPA’s minimum threshold for a decent standard of living.

6.51. All proposed dwellings satisfy the bedroom sizes guidelines set out in Places for Living. Garden Sizes are also achieved for all dwellings. In terms of separation distances most new houses would sit on relatively large plots, Places for Living requires 21m back to back and 12.5m rear to blank side elevation, but stresses that good design should drive a layout rather than numerical requirements. In regard to the proposal, on corner plots, separation distances are generally met but provide a separation distance of 12 m from a rear elevation to the blank side elevation of the nearest house in three locations (for plots 49, 62 and 2). In terms of front to front distances these would be a minimum distance of 18m and back to back distances are generally 22-24m. This distance is reduced at one location to 20m, between plots 70 and 73, due to a design-lead solution for a part of the site which is an awkward shape.

6.52. Impact on Residential Amenity

6.53. Places for Living is also considered in regard to the impact of the proposal upon adjacent residential amenity. The scheme is generally relatively generous in terms of separation from boundaries. This is partly caused by the location of a badger corridor that would run to the rear of approximately half the proposed dwellings. Furthermore, existing off-site rear gardens are long and are on average 30m long, the shortest existing gardens are 20m, the longest are 50m. The pinch points are in the eastern section of the site, where the higher density affordable housing would be located and the site narrows. This has resulted in some areas where the proposed houses are close to the boundaries (and no badger corridor is proposed). A row of 5 terraced two storey houses (plots 10-14) are proposed in the north eastern corner of the site. The eastern most terraced house would have a garden length that ranges from 9.5m to 10.5m. The house beyond (157 Knightlow Road) has a garden length of 27m and as such I do not consider that significant overlooking or over-domination would take place onto rear windows or the most private area to the immediate rear of existing houses.

6.54. The second area where new houses would be located close to a boundary occurs in regard to plots 15 and 16, to the southeast section of the site. Part of the rear garden length of plot 15 is 9.5m to the rear boundary fence. Rear gardens beyond are between 38m (96 Gillhurst Road) and 48m (90 Gillhurst Road) long and some existing trees are located on the edge and within these rear gardens. As such I do not consider that over-looking or over-domination would be evident. Furthermore, the perimeter of the site has further new housing proposed to its edges from 78 to 98 Gilhurst Road, this row of 8 new houses would have rear garden lengths of 10- 12m and be adjacent to off-site existing gardens which are around 45m long, as such I also do not consider that this relationship would affect existing residents’ amenity.

6.55. Transportation

Page 22 of 34 6.56. Policy 6.49B, of the UDP requires new development to make adequate provision for all transport needs. Policy TP37 of the draft BDP requires development proposals support and promote sustainable travel and TP43 requires new development to support the delivery of a sustainable transport network.

6.57. The scheme proposes 73 dwellings with parking ranging from 200-400% parking provision (including garaging). Access would be gained into the site from Knightlow Road, a relatively narrow road, which in turn feeds onto Lordswood Road and Gillhurst Road.

6.58. The original submission proposed 121 dwellings, which was then amended to 103 and finally to the current proposal of 73 dwellings. The amended application is supported by an updated Technical Note (8-6-2015) produced by Phil Jones Associates. The previous layout gave concern with the emergency service accessibility. Discussions with the fire service, secured amendments to the layout which now satisfy these concerns. Transportation colleagues have also confirmed that the Highway Tree Asset Officer does not object to the removal of the street tree adjacent the access on Knightlow Road. Tracking has been provided for refuse and fire tenders.

6.59. The original Transport Assessment (TA) assessed the impact of a residential development of up to 130 houses, with a sensitivity test that 20% could be either 1 or 2 bed apartments. In addition, for further robustness the TA assumed the development would not contain any “affordable housing”, therefore modelling a very high car ownership as opposed to the anticipated actual car use levels. Based on 73 dwellings the predicted trip generation was: AM Peak (0800 to 0900) = 12 arrivals and 30 departures. PM Peak (1700 to 1800); 26 arrivals and 17 departures. It is noted that the current development layout suggests 73 dwellings, 18 being “affordable” houses (total 73 dwellings). The predicted trip generation within the TA will, in reality, be slightly lower as detailed in the Technical Note.

6.60. The network distribution (informed by Census data) indicates that approximately 60% of trips will route along Knightlow Road westbound and 40% along Knightlow Road eastbound. These equate to relatively insignificant numbers. Junction analysis has been undertaken at the proposed priority junction site access on Knightlow Road and also the priority junction of Knightlow Road/Lordswood Avenue (including development traffic and future year growth) this indicates that future years with the proposed scheme’s traffic can be satisfactorily accommodated. Base line (2014) traffic counts provided by both the applicant (within the PJA Transport Assessment) and from “Friends of Ravenhurst” (submitted October 2014) indicate similar local network “baseline” flows.

6.61. Transportation colleagues consider that the Transport Assessment and additional technical note is robust and they have raised no objection to the scheme subject to conditions to secure a Construction Management Plan, a S278 to secure works for the junction works onto Knightlow Road, the footway to be reduced to 1.85m on each side for the first 25m of the access allowing the carriageway width to be increased to 7.3m, a Residential Travel Plan, Pedestrian visibility splays of 3.3m x 3.3m x 600mm high at each driveway and secure cycle parking per dwelling. I concur with the conclusions drawn by Transportation.

6.62. Trees

6.63. Policy 3.16A, of the UDP, states that “developers will be expected to give priority to the retention of trees, hedgerows and natural features on development sites, and

Page 23 of 34 existing landscaping should be kept and protected where possible”. Policy TP6, of the BDP (in regard to flood management) states that “trees and woodland can provide significant benefits in terms of water management and flood alleviation…in addition to their wider landscape value. The provision of additional trees and woodland will therefore be encouraged”.

6.64. The Arboricultural Report identifies that there are 163 trees, 13 groups and 9 hedge groups within the site. The application proposes the removal of 21 trees, 2 tree groups and 2 hedges. All trees and groups for removal are category C (low quality) apart from a horse chestnut (category B) and two ash trees (both category U- dead/dying/diseased). The horse chestnut is subject to a Tree Preservation Order (TPO) (1127) and is located in the access way, 20m from Knightlow Road and would prevent the site coming forward for development. My tree officer has stated that he has no objection to the proposed tree removal and scheme generally subject to the submitted arboricultural method statement being strictly followed and replacement planting being provided. He considers that provided the proposed tree protection and methods as proposed are followed he has no objection. I concur with his comments.

6.65. The site is also subject to a larger TPO (1158), this is a group order that covers the entire application site and was made in 2006 following previous market interest in the site. Furthermore, TPO 38 covers three properties at 119-123 Knightlow Road, which are adjacent to the site entrance. The trees proposed for removal are included within TPO 1158 and 1127. This order prevents removal of these trees without the consent of the Local Planning Authority. These have been reviewed by my tree officer and he is satisfied that the trees affected are mostly of low quality and does not object to the removals subject to replacement planting.

6.66. The replacement tree planting is proposed to off-set the proposed loss of 21 trees, in the form of 108 new trees. I am satisfied that the proposed landscaping scheme would off-set the proposed tree removal.

6.67. Ecology

6.68. Policy 3.37, of the UDP, states that “The importance of safeguarding and enhancing the natural environment of the City is recognised. This involves both the protection of existing areas of nature conservation importance and measures to improve the diversity and quality of wildlife habitats throughout the city.” Policy TP8, of the draft BDP, states that “development which directly or indirectly causes harm to…species which are legally protected, in decline or rare within Birmingham or which are identified as national or local priorities will only be permitted if it has been clearly demonstrated that; there is a strategic need that outweighs the need to safeguard, the damage is minimised and mitigation put in place, or where appropriate compensation is secured”. This is also reinforced at paragraph 118 of the NPPF.

6.69. The revised scheme for 73 houses allows for an increased open space/badger habitat provision: 1.61ha of open space, comprising 1.02ha badger habitat (including badger corridors) and 0.59ha of informal play area. This represents an increase of 0.47ha in the area of land set aside for POS/badger habitat compared with the previously submitted schemes for 121 and 103 houses. My ecologist notes the increase in the area of badger foraging habitat that would be retained on site. Of the new tree and shrub planting proposed, especially within the protected badger area, much of this would comprise species that provide food sources for badgers. The variety of habitat types within the POS as a whole – fruit-bearing trees and shrubs, areas of short mown grass and longer grass margins – would also help to enhance

Page 24 of 34 the quality of foraging resources. A new defensive hedge would create a clear separation between the informal recreation/amenity space and habitat area, therefore reducing the potential for conflict between the different uses, and reducing (but not entirely preventing) unauthorised access to the badger zone. These measures contribute to a scheme that has taken some account of the need to provide adequate habitat resources on site to sustain the badger population. The addition of a new section in the badger survey report outlining proposals for management of the badger area is also encouraging, for example, by seeking to address concerns regarding accessibility/obstruction of the badger corridor.

6.70. Whilst my ecologist welcomes these details, which have gone some way towards addressing issues raised in connection with the previous schemes, there are still issues that require further consideration. The treatment of the northern outlier sett(s), the programming/phasing of the open space habitat enhancement works, the boundary between the protected badger zone/informal recreation area and built development, a consideration of traffic calming measures and lighting adjacent to the edge of the informal play area/badger zone. Notwithstanding the above issues, for which there is scope to satisfactorily address, she remains concerned about the overall level of habitat loss, and the impact this would have on the long-term survival of the badger group.

6.71. Based on First Environment’s surveys, my ecologist’s site visits and information from residents, she has mapped points of badger activity within the site and adjacent gardens on Ellesboro’ Road and Gillhurst Road to establish what she considers to be the badgers’ “core” habitat – an area of c. 3.4ha. The majority of that area lies within the proposal site. She has excluded the most distant points of activity. The revised proposals allow for retention of c. 1.61 ha of open space, just under 50% of the core habitat area. An assumption has also been made that badgers will continue to forage in off-site rear gardens (a nominal allowance of 0.3ha has been made), so the minimum area of land reasonably available for sett excavation, foraging, gathering of bedding material etc is around 1.9ha. New gardens within the development have not been included in calculations of overall foraging provision.

6.72. The site and accessible neighbouring gardens currently appear to provide the only habitat resources for this badger group. Dispersal beyond the site does not appear to take place, and there is no evidence of exit points onto the Knightlow Road access road, or beyond rear gardens adjacent to the playing fields boundary. The proposed layout does ensure badgers can continue to access these neighbouring gardens, but it is unrealistic to rely on continued provision of this habitat as part of the overall approach to mitigation, as maintaining access to these gardens is outside of Redrow’s control. If there is not sufficient space within the development site to support an adequate level of foraging resources, the badgers will increasingly visit the off-site gardens. This will increase the likelihood of residents taking measures to prevent badgers accessing their gardens, which, in turn will lead to even more pressure on the resources available within the site itself. Scottish Natural Heritage’s guidance Badgers and Development (2001) states “…It is irresponsible to expect badgers to replace lost foraging by feeding in gardens or other amenity areas. This will only lead to animosity from neighbouring landowners, many of whom will not welcome badgers digging up their lawns, vegetable plots and flower-beds…” Therefore sufficient space needs to be provided within the development site to support adequate habitat resources that will ensure the long-term sustainability of the badger group, without the need to rely on off-site habitat resources.

6.73. My ecologist can find very little published research about the size of urban badgers’ territories/ranges or the scale of habitat loss that can be tolerated by an individual

Page 25 of 34 social group before there are significant impacts on long-term survival. This lack of evidence therefore makes it very difficult to come to a definitive view about the size of territory required to sustain the badger group. Research focusing on six social groups occupying an area of c. 1km2 in Brighton recorded group ranges from 5.2ha- 15.4ha, with an average group range of 9.3ha; in the same study, an individual badger’s range averaged 4.9ha. These ranges were considerably smaller than those recorded from research conducted in Bristol, where group ranges varied throughout the year, from a mean of 50.8ha in spring to 10.3ha in winter. The current range of the social group at Ravenshurst Playing Fields would therefore appear to be at the lower end of the group ranges recorded in the Brighton study.

6.74. Taking all these issues into account, my ecologist considers that 2-2.5ha of open space should be retained as one block at the western end of the site in order to maintain an adequate level of habitat resources to support the badger group and not significantly affect its long-term ability to survive. Although she considers that the revised proposals are an improvement on the previous submissions, she also notes that the amount of suitable habitat for badgers still falls below her recommended level, she maintains her objection to the revised scheme on the grounds that the development proposals would result in significant harm to biodiversity which cannot be avoided, adequately mitigated or compensated. This is consistent with advice in the NPPF, paragraph 118. My ecologist would consider losses in excess of 25% of the badgers’ current territory (of 3.4ha) as significant, which would require the retention of around 2.5ha of open space. However, she admits she can find no published research which supports this figure of 25%; rather it appears to be a “rule of thumb” figure from an experienced badger ecologist as to the extent of land that an “average” badger group could tolerate without any noticeable impact on the badger group’s viability or dynamics.

6.75. Therefore, what is perhaps more important than the total area that will be left is the functionality of the retained area, to ensure that there is a diversity of habitats that provide year-round food sources, and that access to the off-site gardens is maintained. My ecologist would be prepared to accept a retained open space area of 2-2.5ha; clearly we would prefer to see the retained area closer to 2.5ha than 2ha, but taking account of the views from the expert badger ecologist, there can be some flexibility within that range. My ecologist would consider a loss of more than 25% of this “core” habitat area as likely to have a significant impact on the long-term survival of the badger group. Therefore, to ensure protection of the existing setts and provision of adequate habitat resources – for foraging, gathering of bedding material etc, the development proposals should ensure that badgers have continued, unobstructed access to 75% of their “core” area. This equates to the retention of 2- 2.5ha of open space.

6.76. This issue is clearly complicated and based on good judgement rather than numerical standards or formulas. Whilst there is some uncertainty as to the level of foraging area required, it is clear that my ecologist is not convinced that the area of on-site foraging retained, at 1.6ha, would be sufficient to maintain the identified population of badgers found on-site. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy 3.57, of the UDP and paragraph 118 of the NPPF. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy TP8 of the draft BDP.

6.77. In terms of other ecological issues, my ecologist notes that the proposal includes measures to install ten bat boxes on mature trees around the site boundaries to provide roosting and/or hibernation opportunities for bats. She has no objection in principle to this biodiversity enhancement measure. Installation of the boxes should be supervised by a suitably experienced/qualified ecologist; ongoing maintenance

Page 26 of 34 requirements (including legal restrictions) should be clearly defined in a long term management plan for non-private open space areas. The proposed POS, which would include new planting (mostly native species) and beneficial ongoing management, would continue to provide suitable foraging habitat, complementing existing foraging resources available in neighbouring gardens and adjacent areas of open space.

6.78. Flood Risk and Site Drainage

6.79. Policy 3.71 states that “proposals for new development will be expected to take account of any effects they might have upon water and drainage and to consider using water minimisation techniques to conserve water”. Policy TP3, of the draft BDP, states that new development should be designed and built to sustainability standards which include conserving water and minimise flood risk. Furthermore Policy TP6, of the draft BDP, states that developers must demonstrate how surface water drainage will not exacerbate existing flooding and a seek a minimum of 20% reduction in peak flows between the existing and proposed water flows. It is also a core principle of the NPPF to take full account of flooding issues in decision making (paragraph 7).

6.80. The proposal includes development on a site which is currently fully grass and as such ‘greenfield’ in character. The proposal would include the retention of green space (in the on-site POS and new gardens), but also includes a substantial quantity of hard-surfacing in the form of new road ways, roofs, driveways and other incidental areas of hard-surfacing. The applicants need to demonstrate how the proposal will retain all surface water outflow on site as a first objective.

6.81. The Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) (revised 10th June2015) shows that the site is within flood zone 1, least likely to flood, and demonstrates that the proposed development can be achieved with no risk of flooding and without increasing flood risk to third parties. In terms of groundwater flooding, a site investigation revealed that the site is underlain by significant areas of variable thickness of made ground over Glacial Till. This identifies that there is a low risk of groundwater flooding. The drainage strategy proposes on-site attenuation and water run-off. Drainage would be designed to ensure that surface water is intercepted before it is able to flow uncontrolled into adjoining land. The favoured method of sustainable drainage, surface infiltration through balancing ponds, cannot be used on this site due to the need to retain the open spaces for ecological habitat. Furthermore the existence of made-ground prevents infiltration due to the danger of leaching contaminants preventing the use of soak-aways. The applicants propose an on-site water storage system that would limit the outflow to 22.5 litres per second, through the provision of 891 cubic metres of water storage. It is proposed for the drainage system to be adopted by Severn Trent Water.

6.82. The Local Lead Flood Authority (LLFA) has considered the proposed discharge rate of 22.5l/s (5 l/s/ha), for all events up to and including the 100yr plus climate change (30% climate change allowance) and conclude that this is acceptable in principle to the LLFA. However, it is noted that the proposed surface water strategy allows for oversized pipes and underground storage only. There is no use of any quality control measures within the proposed strategy. The LLFA strongly encourage incorporation of permeable paving and hydrocarbon separators to improve the quality of runoff, particularly as this will ultimately discharge to a watercourse in close proximity to the site. The also LLFA require evidence as to why green/traditional Sustainable urban Drainage Strategies have not been further

Page 27 of 34 explored. For example, use of rain gardens, filter drains and permeable paving do not require significant space however have not been proposed in this development.

6.83. Proposed finished floor levels (FFL’s) should be designed to mitigate risk of flooding to people and property. As noted in this FRA, the LLFA support the recommendation that all property FFLs should be set to a minimum of 150mm above surrounding ground levels. A plan showing proposed FFLs and surrounding ground levels should be submitted with all applications. Finally, while it is noted that some consideration has been given to the Operation and Maintenance of the proposed surface water features, further information is required, particularly as a number of these systems are to be placed in private or off highway areas. In summary, they have raised no objection subject to the submission of a revised sustainable drainage scheme and the submission of an operation and maintenance plan. The Strategy is generally considered acceptable and satisfies the requirements Policy TP6 of the draft BDP, 3.71 of the UDP and paragraph 7 of the NPPF. If the scheme were being recommended for approval a condition would be required to secure a detailed drainage Strategy and maintenance plan.

6.84. I note the comments raised by residents in regard to existing off-site flooding and the potential run-off already occurring from the site – especially potentially in the northwest corner- due to the natural land level gradient. However, the FRA has illustrated that water run-off would not be exacerbated by the proposal and groundwater storage tanks would prevent rapid run off from those areas shown as hard-surfacing.

6.85. Sustainability

6.86. The scheme would locate new residential development within an area with good public transport linkages and not distant for local centres such as at Bearwood and Harborne. The drainage strategy would ensure that the scheme would not contribute to off-site flooding. However, the proposal would also result in the loss of the playing fields without adequate compensation and would fail to adequately protect the identified ecological assets on-site or maintain the biodiversity found on the site. As such the proposal is not a sustainable solution and cannot be supported on this basis.

6.87. CIL Calculation and Heads of Terms

6.88. This site is within the high residential value, as identified in the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) calculation document, attributing a rate of £69 per sqm. The total floor-space of the development is 9,330sqm and as such this development generates a CIL sum of £643,770. The applicant has identified that they note that under CIL an education sum cannot be secured by S106 as this would be specifically funded through CIL. Conversely, the remaining offered heads of terms are not specifically identified through CIL and are consequently still offered through a S106 mechanism.

6.89. The applicant has offered to enter into a S106 to achieve the following objectives;

• 25% Affordable Housing on site, consisting of 18 dwellings (8 x two beds, 8 x three beds, 2 x four 4 beds)

• 10% Affordable housing, as an off-site contribution of £274,000 (£34,250 per unit)

Page 28 of 34 • On-site Children’s play area of £90,000

• Off-site contribution for the loss of the playing fields £490,000

• Sports Hall at Lordswood Boy’s School £45,154.

6.90. These sums collectively would satisfy several key Policy goals. The applicants have offered an on-site affordable housing provision of 25%, and an off-site contribution of £274,000 representative of a further provision of 10% affordable housing. The affordable Housing sum and affordable housing on-site provision is considered satisfactory to my colleagues in Housing Strategy. They have confirmed that the additional 10% commuted sum equates to 8 additional units at £34,250 which compares well with the current grant rate of £20-25,000 per unit. The commuted sum would be used to contribute to the delivery of family sized affordable housing through the BMHT development programme in other parts of the city.

6.91. A play area is required; this could either be provided on-site or off-site. However, due to the lack of nearby alternative open space an on-site provision would be more appropriate. This would need to be delivered to the City’s specification and maintained by the landowner or a resident trust. The play area and wider POS would not be adopted by the City Council and would need a management agreement for its maintenance and upkeep.

6.92. However, as discussed in detail above, the contribution offered for the loss of playing field land would not adequately compensate for the loss of 4.5ha of playing field land and as such the package as a whole fails to satisfy Policy of the UDP, NPPF and the draft BDP.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed scheme for 73 dwellings and 1.61ha of public open space would deliver new housing in an area with good access to public transport. But, the proposed scheme is considered unacceptable due to the resultant loss of playing field land, the impact that the scheme would have upon the identified badger colony found and the harm caused to Local and National Policy as it does not constitute Sustainable Development.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That the application is refused for the following reasons;

Reasons for Refusal

1 The proposed scheme would fail to provide a sufficient area of foraging habitat for the badger ecological interests identified on site. The quanity of land proposed to be retained, and the expected resultant pressure this deficiency would place on the remaining habitat and the wider existing foraging areas, (within existing residents gardens), would have a direct impact of the long term success and longevity of the identified protected species and its habitat. As such the proposal is contrary to Policy 3.37, of the UDP and paragraph 118 of the NPPF. The proposal would also be contrary to Policy TP8 of the draft BDP.

2 The proposed scheme for 73 dwellings would result in the loss of open space land

Page 29 of 34 previously used as playing fields, which is not surplus to requirement for open space uses including playing field and which is offered with limited compensation for the loss which is not considered to be an equivalent or better provision. The proposal is consequently contrary to Policy 3.52A, 3.57 of the UDP, Policy E6 of the 2011 Playing Pitch Strategy, Paragraph 74 of the NPPF and Policy TP9 of the draft BDP.

Case Officer: Ben Plenty

Page 30 of 34 Photo(s)

1. East View from NW corner

2. North view looking towards Knightlow Road

Page 31 of 34

3. North view looking over embankment towards rear gardens of Knightlow Road

4. South view looking towards rear gardens of Gillhurst Road

Page 32 of 34

5. NW view of the old Pavillion (on site)

Page 33 of 34 Location Plan

Page 34 of 34

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/09512/PA Accepted: 15/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 15/03/2016 Ward: Moseley and Kings Heath

Silver Street, Lidl, Kings Heath, Birmingham, B14 7QU

Demolition of existing foodstore and former neighbourhood office, and construction of replacement foodstore, formation of access and car parking, and associated landscaping Applicant: Lidl UK GmbH c/o agent Agent: Bilfinger GVA 3 Brindleyplace, Birmingham, B1 2JB Recommendation Refuse

1. Proposal

1.1. The proposal is for the demolition of the existing Lidl foodstore and former neighbourhood office building and for their replacement with a new, larger Lidl foodstore with the associated formation of a new vehicular access off Silver Street, a 102 space car park and landscaping.

1.2. The proposed new foodstore would be sited on the western half of the application site. It would predominantly comprise of a double height single storey building, with a small first floor located along part of its southern elevation. It would measure 63m in length, a maximum of 43m in width, and a maximum height of 8.3m at its southern end. It would be sited a minimum of 1.6m from the western site boundary at the store’s north western corner, a minimum of 1.4m from the footway of Silver Street i.e. the southern site boundary, and a minimum of 3.4m from the northern site boundary.

1.3. The proposed foodstore would have a gross internal floor area of 2454sqm, and a sales area of 1424sqm. The sales area would be accommodated between warehouse/storage areas (along the southern and western edges of the building), and a delivery/loading bay (adjacent to the northern edge of the building). The customer entrance would be located in the south east corner of the building. The first floor would accommodate offices, toilets and a staff room/canteen.

1.4. The proposed building would have a mono-pitched roof with a 4 degree slope, tapering down from 8.3m along its southern edge to 5m in height along its northern edge. The roof would be constructed of silver coloured, raised seam cladding. The east elevation would predominantly comprise of glazed curtain walling, extending around the south eastern corner to form the entrance lobby. The north, south and west elevations would comprise of white rendered walls (lower sections) and silver

Page 1 of 16 coloured, flat panel metal cladding (upper sections). Louvered strip windows would be located at a height of 4.8m on the south elevation of the building.

1.5. Both the vehicular access serving the existing pay and display car park and existing service access for the current Lidl store would be closed off. A single new vehicular access would be created on to Silver Street in the centre of the site. This 7m wide access would be used by customers to access the proposed new car park, and also by heavy goods vehicles to provide deliveries to the foodstore.

1.6. The proposed new 102 space car park would be located on the eastern half of the site. Six disabled car parking spaces would be included. Eight cycle spaces are also proposed. The proposed car park would be for use by Lidl customers as well as providing up to 90 minutes free parking for other shoppers visiting Kings Heath Centre. An automated vehicle number recognition system would be used.

1.7. Landscaped beds are proposed to be created around the edges of the car park, on the Silver Street frontage being 1.3m in width. Fifteen new trees are proposed to be planted on the site, mostly along the southern site boundary to Silver Street.

1.8. The proposed opening hours of the foodstore would be 0700-2200 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 1000-1700 hours on Sundays and Bank Holidays. Staffing would remain similar to that which exists at the current food store i.e. the equivalent of 20 full time staff are proposed to be employed.

1.9. Indicative signage is shown on this proposal but would require separate advertisement consent and therefore does not form part of this planning application.

1.10. A Planning and Retail Statement, Design and Access Statement, Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan, Transport Assessment, and Noise Assessment have been submitted in support of the application.

1.11. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

1.12. To mitigate for the loss of the existing long stay pay and display car park at Silver Street the Local Planning Authority have requested a Section 106 contribution to be spent towards enhancing the existing public car park at The Parade, King’s Heath. The Applicant has declined to pay any contribution.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is 0.7ha in size and rectangular in shape, running east to west parallel to Silver Street. The site is located on within Kings Heath District Centre, the High Street being located 25m from the eastern edge of the site. Silver Street is predominantly a residential road, but its eastern end has commercial uses.

2.2. Running east to west across the length of the site is the staff parking/delivery area serving the existing Lidl foodstore; the existing Lidl foodstore itself (which was built in the late 1990s); the single storey former Neighbourhood Office building which is currently vacant; and a 122 space pay and display car park which serves Kings

Page 2 of 16 Heath Centre. The north west corner of the site incorporates the bottom half of three residential gardens to Nos. 41, 43 and 45 Waterloo Road.

2.3. Immediately adjoining the site to the east is a retail shop at No. 10-12 Silver Street. Continuing around the north eastern site boundary are the backs of commercial/shop premises. Further west along the northern site boundary the rear gardens of houses along Waterloo Road adjoin the site. The western site boundary adjoins a block of sheltered housing flats at Nos. 68-76 Silver Street. Located opposite the site, on the other side of Silver Street, are sheltered housing flats centred on Whitesmith Croft, and further to the east is the large International Stock retail store.

Site Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 12 September 1996 - 1996/01030/PA – Reserved Matters Application for food retail unit (962 square metres) plus associated landscaping, service area and provision of 134 parking spaces. (Amendment to approved scheme) – Approved subject to conditions

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection – Subject to conditions requiring new access to be constructed to City specification and redundant accesses reinstated with full height kerbs; details of secure and sheltered cycle storage; no occupation of foodstore until turning and parking area constructed; submission of a Parking Management Strategy; no occupation of foodstore until delivery and service area completed; and submission of a Construction Method Statement/Management Plan.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection – Subject to conditions requiring provision of vehicle charging point; that the rating levels for cumulative noise from all plant and machinery shall not exceed 5dB below the existing LA90 background levels and 10dB below the existing LAeq at any noise sensitive premises; and that the hours of use are restricted to 0700-2200 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 1000-1700 hours on Sundays/Bank Holidays.

4.3. West Midlands Police – No objection - This application would be an ideal new build development eligible for Secured by Design Accreditation. Would strongly recommend that this proposed development installs an intruder alarm that attracts a police response.

4.4. Severn Trent Water – No response received.

4.5. Lead Local Flood Authority – No objection - Further information required and subject to conditions requiring revised Sustainable Drainage Assessment and revised Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.6. Local residents, Ward Councillors, Residents Associations and M.P. notified. Advertised by press and site notice. Six letters of objection received from local residents, two letters of objection received from Ward Councillors and one letter of objection received from Kings Heath Residents Forum. The following concerns were raised as summarised:

Page 3 of 16 • Evening/night time noise and disturbance from deliveries e.g. reversing vehicles, amplified music, slamming doors, conversations etc. • Noise from mechanical plant/machinery would adversely affect residential amenity • Proper new boundary treatment should be provided to residential gardens • No tree survey – off-site mature oak tree within neighbouring rear garden • Would generate additional traffic and cause greater levels of on-street parking • New building would block light to property • New building would adversely affect outlook from property, particularly given its height and proximity to residential boundaries – not all adjoining rear gardens benefit from tree screening • No provision to prevent or deal with any increased vermin • Silver Street should become a one-way street to avoid increased ‘rabbit runs’ • Want assurances that Applicant will not impose excessive charging arrangements for car park, that car parking should be free for short period and that other shoppers will be able to use it • Busy seasonal trends would result in number of parking spaces on-site being inadequate and would result in overspill to residential roads • More noise, litter and beggars outside shop entrance would impact on quality of life of elderly residents living opposite • Store would be too large and not in keeping with residential area • Construction of store should be phased to ensure full availability of parking spaces at all times during development period • Footway along Silver Street would need to be widened • Applicant should be required to contribute to improvements to Silver Street, High Street and any other relevant road/pavement infrastructure • Should be restriction on length of HGVs and delivery vehicle times to prevent risk to pedestrian safety • New building of modernist warehouse design would appear completely at odds with surrounding area, emphasising its full height of 8m • Increased size of store would be at expense of other independent retail shops on High Street • Need for sustainable planting and floral display as currently exists outside store

Councillor Spencer – Objects – 1) The design of the expanded store creates an imposing and uninspiring frontage for the residents of, and visitors to, Silver Street. Given that Lidl’s viability will rest on the same residents and visitors spending their money in that store, it is in their interest to redesign the store into something more visually pleasing. 2) With a larger car park and larger footprint, I would expect an investment from Lidl into the locality – particularly if there are to be more cars driving up and down Silver Street. However, I am pleased that they intend to make their car park available to other people visiting the area. If they were to address both of these criteria – as well as working with the community on ‘greening’ the site and looking after Silver Street and Whitesmiths Croft, I would feel much happier about the overall application, and would be happy to back it in such a case.

Councillor Trickett – Objects – On similar grounds to above

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable: • Birmingham UDP

Page 4 of 16 • Draft Birmingham Development Plan • Places for All SPG • Car Parking Guidelines SPD • Kings Heath Local Action Plan SPD • Shopping and Local Centres SPD

5.2. The following national policies are applicable: • National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) • National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG)

6. Planning Considerations

Background and Principle

6.1. The Applicant has explained that the replacement foodstore would ensure that operational efficiencies are maintained and enhanced; that reconfiguration and modernisation would allow more flexibility with merchandising and a brighter store with more room for customers to manoeuvre around, improving their overall shopping experience; and that it would not result in any material increase in the range of products displayed for sale, rather it would allow products to be stocked in greater depth.

6.2. A pre-application discussion meeting was held with the Applicant in 2015, with the principal points arising in relation to the operation of the store car park and store design. The Applicant was advised to improve the design of the store and ensure that it provided an active frontage on to Silver Street. No subsequent pre-application discussions were had.

6.3. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development (Para. 14), with the three dimensions to sustainable development being economic, social and environmental.

6.4. Planning law requires that applications must be determined in accordance with the Development Plan, of which the Birmingham UDP and Kings Heath Local Action Plan (an adopted SPD) are pertinent. Although the UDP and Kings Heath Local Action Plan SPD both encourage retail investment in Kings Heath, part of the application site (the existing pay and display car park) forms a site specific allocation within the SPD proposed for ‘Rationalisation of Site’ - stating at Paragraph 8.3 that “there are opportunities to improve the layout and circulation of several car parks within the study area, including the Lidl/Neighbourhood Office car park in Silver Street”.

6.5. There is no in-principle objection to the demolition of the existing foodstore or former Neighbourhood Office building.

Retail Impact

6.6. The gross internal floor area of the proposed foodstore, when compared to the existing foodstore would result in an increase of 1,447sqm gross internal floor area and 689sqm net sales area. The resulting new store would provide 2454sqm gross internal floor area, with a net sales area of 1424sqm.

Page 5 of 16 6.7. Paragraph 26 of the NPPF advises that an impact assessment be carried out for retail development over 2500sqm in floorspace. The proposed development would not require an impact assessment as the floorspace proposed would fall under this threshold.

6.8. Policies in both the NPPF (Paragraph 24) and UDP (Chapter 7) direct new retail development to ‘in centre’ locations first and that a sequential test should be applied if such development cannot be accommodated within a centre. Policy TP21 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan states that proposals for convenience retail development in defined centres will be supported in principle, subject to proposals being at an appropriate scale for the individual centre. It states that proposals should deliver quality public realm and create linkages and connections with the rest of the centre and improve accessibility.

6.9. Policy S7 of the Kings Heath Local Action Plan SPD explains “Redevelopment schemes that improve the shopping function and further upgrade and enhance the centre will be encouraged.”

6.10. The application site, as defined by the Council’s Shopping and Local Centres SPD, is located within Kings Heath District Centre, albeit except for a very small part of the site in its north west corner which currently accommodates the ends of three residential rear gardens. The eastern half of the site, where the existing foodstore is located, falls within the Primary Shopping Area. I am satisfied that the proposed foodstore would be located in an ‘in centre’ location as defined by the NPPF, and a sequential test need not be applied.

Siting, Scale and Appearance of Store

6.11. Chapter 7 of the NPPF focuses on good design as a key element of sustainable development. Paragraph 56 states: “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.”

6.12. Paragraphs 3.14A-E of the Birmingham UDP sets out design principles that should be applied to any new development. Among the good urban design principles set out in the UDP at Paragraph 3.14D are that “The City Council will have particular regard towards the impact that the proposed development would have on the local character of an area, including topography, street patterns, building lines, boundary treatment, views, skyline, open spaces and landscape, scale and massing, and neighbouring uses”. It explains that “Local characteristics which are considered detrimental in terms of urban design and which undermine the overall character of the area should not be used as a precedent for the design of new development; for example buildings that back onto the public realm.” It also explains “To ensure that places feel safe, pleasant and legible, the fronts and backs of buildings should be clearly defined. Windows and more active rooms should face the public realm and main entrances should open onto the public realm, whereas the backs of buildings should be private and face other backs.”

6.13. The Council’s Places for All SPG also provides detailed design guidance, noting on page 18 that “Frontages should be as ‘active’ as possible particularly at ground level…Facing public space with deadening elements such as long runs of blank wall and external security shutters should generally be avoided.”

Page 6 of 16 6.14. The existing Lidl foodstore actively addresses Silver Street, with the main entrance on the corner of the building next to Silver Street and the car park, and with windows to the rear of the tills on Silver Street. I concur with the Council’s City Design Officer that the whilst the architecture of the building could be better it does makes some reference to the scale and local vernacular of Silver Street and sits appropriately in the street scene. In contrast, the large International Stock warehouse building located on the opposite side of Silver Street to the south east of the application site, and built in the early 1980s, has blank brick facades which results in an oppressive building that creates dead frontage on to Silver Street. The only positive aspect of this building is that is set back significantly from the footway along Silver Street. I consider the past urban design mistakes in respect of this building should not set a precedent for approval of other such poorly designed buildings.

6.15. Given the existing context as described above I concur with the Council’s City Design Officer that any new foodstore on the site should create a continuous and contiguous retail street scene with existing retail properties on the High Street end of Silver Street. It should reflect the scale, materials and articulation of nearby buildings in a contemporary and appropriate way that will enhance the character of Kings Heath and the shopping experience. The Council’s City Design Officer objects to the current application on the basis of building design, site layout and relationship with its neighbours.

6.16. The Applicant has explained that re-positioning the store to the western part of the site, with the entrance facing towards the Centre and parking in between, enables the creation of a much stronger visual and functional relationship between the site and the Centre. However, I disagree, because relocating the store to the western half of the site nearer to the residential part of Silver Street, actually divorces it further from the High Street and Primary Shopping Area and increases the potential conflict between residential uses and shoppers, as well as making the store less visible from the High Street e.g. requiring totem advertising sign.

6.17. The existing single storey Lidl foodstore and former Neighbourhood Office building are located approximately 3.4m distant from the footway along Silver Street, with the former having a frontage length of 26m. In contrast, the proposed foodstore would be sited between 1.4m-5.8m distant from the footway, being located closest to the footway at its western end. It would have a frontage length of 63m and a height of 8m at its southern end. Not only would it be sited forward of the neighbouring property at No. 76 Silver Street, at the point where the building would be located nearest to Silver Street it would be sited forward of any other building along the road. I note the existing public footways along Silver Street are already narrow in width. Therefore I consider its siting so close to the footway along Silver Street, together with its height and frontage length, would make the building appear overly dominant and detrimental to the streetscene along Silver Street.

6.18. It could be argued that a building of the scale that is being proposed on the application site may be acceptable in principle. However, the proposed building has been designed so that its tallest part would be sited very close to Silver Street and as such would visually create an 8.3m high unbroken wall running for a length of 63m along Silver Street. The Silver Street elevation of the building does not provide an active frontage on to the street and deadens the public realm. No activity would be visible behind the high level louvred ‘strip windows’ which have been incorporated. With no variation in height and a deadening façade treatment I consider the proposed building would have undue massing within the streetscene, creating an oppressive and dominant building that would not sit comfortably within the street scene and would significantly harm the public realm.

Page 7 of 16

6.19. I concur with the Council’s City Design Officer that the proposed building, with its mono-pitched roof and unbroken scale does nothing to reflect the local character, vernacular or materials of Silver Street. The architecture and internal arrangement of the proposed store is the same as other recent Lidl developments proposed elsewhere in the City and does not respond to individual location requirements, which can vary significantly. The Applicant has stated their standard business model legitimately constrains its ability to be flexible with its store layout and building footprint. Whilst attributing some weight to the inflexibility of the Applicant’s business model in reaching any decision I do not consider that this should ultimately override, or be at the expense of, good urban design - as strongly advocated by the national and local planning policies set out earlier. In this instance it appears that the proposed building cannot be accommodated on the Silver Street site in its current form and design.

Traffic and Parking

6.20. Paragraph 32 of the NPPF explains that plans and decision should: take up opportunities for sustainable transport modes, that safe and suitable access to the site can be achieved for all people, and that improvements can be undertaken within the transport network that cost effectively limit the significant impacts of the development. It goes on to explain that development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe. Paragraph 40 continues “Local authorities should seek to improve the quality of parking in town centres so that it is convenient, safe and secure, including appropriate provision for motorcycles.”

6.21. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) under the chapter ‘Ensuring the Vitality of Town Centres’ explains that “Local planning authorities should plan positively, to support town centres to generate local employment, promote beneficial competition within and between town centres, and create attractive, diverse places where people want to live, visit and work.” It goes on to explain “This positive approach should include seeking to improve the quality of parking in town centres (in line with the National Planning Policy Framework) and, where it is necessary to ensure the vitality of town centres, the quantity too.”

6.22. The Council’s Car Parking Guidelines SPD recommends a maximum of 1 space per 14m2 in this location, and the proposal would comply with this policy.

6.23. The existing 122 space pay and display public car park at Silver Street is currently co-owned by the Applicant and Council. Both Lidl customers, and other visitors to the car park, have pay to use the car park. It operates during the hours of 0800- 2000 Mondays to Saturdays and 1000-1600 on Sundays. Shoppers or local businesses can park for up to a maximum of ten hours.

6.24. The submitted Transport Assessment incorporates surveys undertaken to analyse the demand for the existing 122 space car park on a Friday & Saturday, when the store would be expected to be busiest. Although it should be acknowledged that the surveys were only undertaken over one weekend. The busiest time was found to be during a 15 minute period between 12:00-12:15 on the Saturday, when 117 spaces were noted to be occupied. Demand had fallen down to 88 spaces in the following 12:15-12:30 period. The maximum demand observed on the Friday was 74 spaces.

6.25. Transportation Development have raised no objection to the proposal, although they acknowledge that in addition to serving the existing Lidl store, the existing car park is

Page 8 of 16 also a general pay and display facility for the wider local centre. The Applicant is proposing a replacement 102 space car park and Transportation Development are satisfied that given the survey information set out above there would only be a small time period (the survey suggests for a 15 minute period on a Saturday lunchtime) whereby the proposed 102 replacement car park could not accommodate all its visitors.

6.26. The submitted Transport Assessment suggests that 20% of visitors to the existing car park are non-Lidl customers. Transportation Development note that this figure is approximate rather than based on site specific survey data. In assessing the capacity of the proposed replacement car park to meet demand they note that Council signage and long stay parking would be replaced by Lidl signage and an automatic number plate recognition system would be installed to prevent parking of any longer than 90 minutes. The Transport Assessment explains that the enlarged store would generate a potential increase in Lidl customer trips of 7.5%, although it is stressed this is very much a worst case scenario. It goes on to explain that the enlarged store is not anticipated to create significant additional customer demand at the site, given that Lidl already operate from this location and have an existing customer base. Given the above, Transportation Development are satisfied that it has been demonstrated that the proposed 102 space car park should be sufficient to accommodate the parking demand associated with Lidl customers.

6.27. In relation to the displaced non-Lidl customers who might use the existing pay and display car park the Transport Assessment has included details of alternative nearby car parks. At the same time as the survey took place of the existing car park, nearby Sainsbury’s and Asda car parks were also surveyed (which in total offer 411 spaces). The survey found that during the peak period of 12:15-12:30 on a Saturday there were 105 spaces still available. Other Pay & Display car parking options are available along the High Street, at The Parade, and at nearby Institute Road. In addition, unrestricted parking is available along Silver Street and other surrounding residential streets. Whilst Transportation Development are satisfied that there would remain parking opportunities for non-Lidl customers within the existing Centre, I consider there is still the loss of a public pay and display car park – a key component of the overall strategy for dealing with parking in the Centre, and which I shall explore in more detail later in this report.

6.28. Whilst I note the concerns of local objectors, a swept path analysis for delivery vehicles has been provided as part of the submitted Transport Assessment. It demonstrates that the largest vehicle (a 16.5m long articulated lorry) would be able to enter, manoeuvre within and leave the site without posing a risk to pedestrian or highway safety

6.29. Eight cycle spaces are proposed to serve the proposed development. This would exceed the minimum recommended cycle parking standards as set out in the Council’s Car Parking Guidelines SPD. In addition, the site is well served by regular buses running along High Street throughout the day.

6.30. Transportation Development have requested a number of conditions be attached to any consent including details to require that the new access would be constructed to City specification and redundant accesses reinstated with full height kerbs; and that secure and sheltered cycle storage is provided. In addition, conditions are requested requiring no occupation until turning and parking areas are completed and delivery and service areas are completed. A Parking Management Strategy and a Construction Method Statement are also requested.

Page 9 of 16 Noise

6.31. The submitted Noise Assessment confirms that the existing noise climate is primarily determined by traffic flows on adjacent roads and by noise break out from the existing store. It confirms that all of the noise producing activities associated with the proposed foodstore already occur from the existing foodstore. It goes on to explain that predicted noise levels for various activities at the proposed development and the customer car park would fall below existing levels of ambient noise and background noise that currently occur at adjacent residential premises. The Assessment indicates that emission levels for delivery activities would be expected to fall into the category of 'low impact' when compared against the typical lowest background noise levels. The calculated sound levels for site activities at the nearest dwellings would fall within the relevant recommended British Standard requirements for dwellings. The Noise Assessment confirms that calculated emission levels for delivery and unloading operations, together with use of the car park, would all achieve the relevant noise and vibration recommendations as set out in the Council’s Planning Control Guidance Note 1. In the case of external plant, noise limit criteria have been determined in accordance with PCGN 1 and the derived noise limit criteria would be used to finalise the selection of external plant and determine where noise control treatments may be required.

6.32. Whilst I note the concerns of local residents in respect of noise and disturbance arising from the proposed development Regulatory Services have raised no objection to the proposal and I concur that there would unlikely be a material adverse impact on residential amenity as a result of noise and disturbance. Regulatory Services have advised that conditions should be attached to any consent requiring that the rating levels for cumulative noise from all plant and machinery should not exceed 5dB below the existing LA90 background levels and 10dB below the existing LAeq at any noise sensitive premises. They also recommend restricting the hours of use of the foodstore to 0700-2200 hours Mondays to Saturdays and 1000-1700 hours on Sundays/Bank Holidays.

Effect on Residential Amenity

6.33. In order to protect outlook for existing residential occupiers the Council’s Places for Living SPG recommends a minimum separation distance of 12.5m between the flank walls of any new buildings and existing windowed elevations. Nos. 68-76 Silver Street, a two storey block of sheltered flats, immediately adjoins the site boundary to the west. There are four ground floor, and six first floor, windows located in the east elevation of Nos. 72, 74 and 76, some of which serve habitable rooms. The flank wall of the proposed foodstore, which would be at a height of between 6.8m-8.3m, would be sited between 12.6m-11.2m distance from these windows.

6.34. The proposed foodstore would not meet the minimum recommended separation distance set out in Places for Living SPG, and together with its height, would result in the loss of morning sun and outlook for the residents of these flats. In addition, the replacement of mature boundary privet hedging and trees, and the ‘green’ outlook which residents currently enjoy from these existing windows, with concrete panel boundary fencing and a metal clad flank wall, would provide a substantially different and stark outlook for these residents, harming their amenity. I also share the concerns of the Council’s Landscape Officer that concrete panel fencing would be inappropriate as a type of boundary treatment on this part of the site, given its visibility from the public realm.

Page 10 of 16 6.35. I note the concerns of objectors of Waterloo Road whose rear gardens back on to the site, and the fact that some of the open views that they currently enjoy from rear gardens/rear windows would be replaced by the proposed foodstore building. To an extent I share these concerns because the proposed foodstore would be visible from some of the rear gardens/rear windows, but given these gardens are generally 20m in length, the proposal would exceed the minimum recommended separation distances to rear windowed elevations as set out in Places for Living SPG, and the store would only be a height of 5m adjacent to rear garden boundaries, I do not consider the proposal would materially adversely affect the amenity of these residents and there would be insufficient grounds for refusal of the application on this basis. Notwithstanding the above, I consider that room should be made on the application site for new boundary planting adjacent to these residential boundaries to help screen/provide a buffer to the proposed foodstore.

6.36. The issues above demonstrate the inherent conflicts that exist in proposing to relocate the foodstore towards the residential end of the site, rather than retaining its current location towards the commercial end of the site.

Trees and Landscaping

6.37. The existing pay and display car park benefits from generous planting beds (incorporating trees) along its Silver Street frontage. This provides visual screening/softening of the car park when viewed from the street. The Council’s Landscape Officer has raised concerns about the narrowness of proposed planting beds. He recommends that these need to be a minimum width of 2m, planted with tree or tree like feature shrubs, and are needed along all rear/side boundaries to accommodate screening/buffer planting. He also recommends that shrub/hedge planting should concentrate on more robust, longer living, and reliable evergreen species.

6.38. I concur that the narrowness of landscaping beds (1.3m width along the Silver Street frontage of the proposed car park), together with a general lack of soft landscaping along site boundaries and within the car park, would emphasise the starkness of the foodstore and expanse of car parking, particularly in the streetscene along Silver Street. I am concerned that the six trees to be planted immediately adjacent to the Silver Street elevation of the store would have insufficient room to grow to a reasonable size and there would always be a temptation to remove them because their canopies would be located so close to the store elevation/overhanging the footway along Silver Street.

6.39. Whilst there are a number of existing trees on the application site these are young trees, and I consider their removal would be acceptable. There is an existing mature Oak tree located within the rear garden of No. 47 Waterloo Road and which would overhang the application site. The Council’s Tree Officer has informally advised that the proposed foodstore would be located within the root protection area of this tree and that any re-design of the foodstore should acknowledge this. However, he does not consider this tree would merit a Tree Preservation Order given its limited contribution to public amenity.

Planning Obligations

6.40. Paragraph 204 of the NPPF explains that planning obligations should only be sought where they are necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

Page 11 of 16

6.41. Paragraphs 8.50-8.54 of the Birmingham UDP sets out the Council’s approach towards securing planning obligations and gives examples of planning obligations which may be sought. Among these examples it refers to ‘improvements to public parking’ and ‘environmental enhancement’. Paragraph 10.12 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan explains that “…The City Council will, where appropriate, seek to secure site specific measures through planning obligations. The nature and scale of any planning obligations sought will be related to the form of development and its potential impact on the site and surrounding area. Infrastructure and mitigation measures will be provided in a timely manner to support the objectives of the Local Plan, and will ensure any new developments will provide the infrastructure, facilities, amenities and other planning benefits which are necessary to support and serve the development, and to offset any consequential planning loss to the local area which may result from the development…”

6.42. Policy S7 of the Kings Heath Local Action Plan SPD explains “Redevelopment schemes that improve the shopping function and further upgrade and enhance the centre will be encouraged.” Policy T1 of the SPD recognises the need to explore additional off street parking facilities. Paragraph 8.1 of the SPD explains: “…as with many other shopping centres within the city there can be congestion and there is a lack of sufficient off street parking.” Paragraph 8.3 continues “There is limited available off-street parking. King’s Heath relies heavily on on-street parking which compounds the problem in the residential areas. There are opportunities to improve the layout and circulation of several car parks within the study area, including the Lidl/neighbourhood Office car park in Silver Street...” As such the application site is identified within the SPD for ‘Rationalisation of Site’ rather than as a ‘development opportunity’ and it can be inferred from this that there is a desire to seek retention of the existing pay and display facility.

6.43. To mitigate for the loss of the existing Council owned car park which is currently available for non-Lidl customers to use long stay the Local Planning Authority have requested from the Applicant a Section 106 contribution to be spent towards enhancing the existing Council owned public car park on The Parade in King’s Heath. The Parade car park is located approximately 275m from the application site and is identified with the Kings Heath Local Action Plan SPD for ‘Environmental Enhancements/Rationalisation of Parking’. The Section 106 contribution would be used for improvements to circulation, and environmental enhancements to The Parade. This Council owned car park has been the subject of recent public consultation as part of the Sustrans Project in Kings Heath. Following public consultation, concept options for the remodelling of this car park have been drawn up and resources already been directed towards this project. I am therefore satisfied that in requesting this planning obligation it would pass the three tests set out in the NPPF.

6.44. The Applicant has declined to pay any Section 106 contribution and as such I consider the loss of long stay car parking options for Kings Heath District Centre would adversely impact on the attractiveness and viability of the Centre as a shopping/business destination. The proposal, in part, therefore compromises the site allocation and removes the pay and display car park which currently forms part of the overall strategy for parking in the Centre which seeks to minimise pressure on on-street parking and provide for off-street short and long stay parking. Whilst I consider the investment in retailing should carry more weight than the site specific proposal, the loss of the pay and display car park, long term parking and environmental enhancement opportunities should be mitigated by appropriate

Page 12 of 16 compensatory investment elsewhere in Kings Heath. Such compensation is in line with the UDPs policies on planning obligations.

Other Matters

6.45. The Lead Local Flood Authority have raised no objection to the proposed development. However, they have noted a number of inconsistencies with the submitted Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan and require further information on a number of aspects. They therefore recommend conditions requiring submission of a revised Sustainable Drainage Assessment and Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

6.46. I note the concerns of local objectors in respect of the proposed development resulting in an increase in vermin, litter or homeless persons. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this would be the case. I note West Midlands Police have raised no objection to the proposed development.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Whilst accepting that an enlarged foodstore would offer an improved customer experience, and also attributing some weight to the rigidity of the Applicant’s business model, I do not consider that this should be at the expense of good design. The siting, scale and appearance of the foodstore, in particular its lack of an active frontage to Silver Street and deadening impact on the public realm, would result in poor design which fails to respect or respond positively to the local vernacular and specifics of this site. The lack of proposed soft landscaping would have a negative impact on the public realm and outlook for adjoining residential occupiers. The proposed development would also result in loss of outlook from habitable room windows for the residential occupiers of Nos. 72, 74 and 76 Silver Street. Finally, there would be no financial compensation for the loss of an existing long stay car parking facility and as such this would adversely impact on the attractiveness and viability of Kings Heath District Centre as a shopping/business destination. Therefore I consider the proposal would not constitute sustainable development and I recommend that planning permission is refused.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Refuse

Reasons for Refusal

1 The siting, scale and appearance of the proposal, together with a lack of soft landscaping, would have a detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street scene and public realm. As such it would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14-3.14D, 3.16A of the Birmingham UDP 2005, Places for All SPG, the Kings Heath Local Action Plan SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

2 The proposal does not provide an adequate separation distance to existing residential windows at Nos. 72, 74 and 76 Silver Street and would lead to a loss of outlook for these occupiers. As such the proposal would be contrary to Paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14C and 5.20 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, guidance in Places for Living adopted

Page 13 of 16 as Supplementary Planning Guidance, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

3 The absence of a financial contribution to mitigate for the loss of an existing long stay car park available for all users would have an adverse impact on the attractiveness and viability of Kings Heath District Centre as a shopping/business destination. It would therefore be contrary to the Kings Heath Local Action Plan SPD, Paragraphs 8.50-8.54 of the Birmingham UDP 2005, and the National Planning Policy Framework.

Case Officer: Andrew Conroy

Page 14 of 16 Photo(s)

Figure 1 – Existing Lidl store looking east along Silver Street

Figure 2 – Western end of Silver Street car park, adjoining boundary with Nos. 68-76 Silver Street

Page 15 of 16

Location Plan

5 1 10 32 Milford Place

59 30

24 47

4 Hare and Hounds 2 18 6 10 2 (PH) 4

YORK ROAD 18

Garage 43

23 21

19 15

11 1 3

32 25

110a WATERLOO ROAD

46 112 17 39 1

11 53

118 2 4 8 10 12

Car Park 57

12 Neighbourhood 20 to 32

10 Office 120

El Sub Sta 8 38

68 70 1a

4 72

128 9

74 9

SILVER STREET 15

11 Warehouse 76 17

Whitesmith Croft

29 134 78 27

82 136

2 41 138

82a 39

84 3

155.8m 1b 1

88 1a War 12

10 Meml

47 All Saints' Church

1 23 17

FAIRFIELD ROAD 9

53 2 Shelters

13 14

Hall KING'S HEATH

Page 16 of 16

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2016/00019/PA Accepted: 07/01/2016 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 03/03/2016 Ward: Selly Oak

14 Pershore Avenue, Selly Park, Birmingham, B29 7NP

Change of use from residential (Use Class C3) to HMO (Use Class C4). Applicant: Mr John Etheridge 1 Whitley Court Road, Quinton, Birmingham, B32 1EZ Agent: Integrity Surveying Limited Able House, 26 Waterloo Road, Wolverhampton, WV1 4BL Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. This application is for the change of use of 14 Pershore Avenue from a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) to small house in multiple occupation (Use Class C4).

1.2. The requirement for this application has arisen due to an Article 4(1) Direction, within a defined area within which the application site is situated, which states development consisting of a change of use of a building to a use falling within Class C4 (house in multiple occupation) from a use falling within Class C3 (dwellinghouse) would require planning permission.

1.3. No external alterations are proposed. The ground floor would provide one bedroom, lounge/dining room, kitchen and bathroom, with the first floor providing one bedroom and a bathroom with a further two bedrooms within the roofspace.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site relates to the property of 14 Pershore Avenue, Selly Park. This is a two storey terraced property situated within a row of similar properties fronting onto Pershore Avenue. Pershore Avenue has no vehicular access and is set behind the properties that front onto Pershore Road.

2.2. The property is currently in use as a dwellinghouse (Use Class C3) and both neighbouring properties of 13 and 15 are in residential use.

2.3. The surrounding area has a predominantly residential character, with residential properties opposite and to the south and west. To the east is large recreational ground.

Location Map

Page 1 of 7 3. Planning History

3.1. 22/10/2015 – 2015/06208/PA Change of use from residential use (C3) to HMO use (C4). Application returned as invalid.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development – No objection.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection.

4.3. West Midlands Police – No objection.

4.4. Letters of notification have been sent to surrounding occupiers, local resident’s associations and Selly Oak Ward Councillors. A site notice has also been posted.

4.5. The Community Partnership for Selly Oak – Object to the application on the grounds that the density of HMO properties in the area is already too high.

4.6. Selly Oak Ward Committee - The Ward Committee and residents object to the application because of the over intensive use of the property which is inappropriate for the area. In addition the increase in more Homes in Multiple Occupation would put an unacceptable strain on resources currently available to the ward and local community, as well as impact on community cohesion and safety due to the transient nature of many of the occupants of these types of dwellings.

4.7. In addition to the above, one further letter of objection has been received from a neighbouring occupier, objecting to the application on the following grounds

• The avenue has always been a (Class C3) residential area and changing it to a HMO would cause endless problems with the access of the residents already here. • This is a private avenue; the new landlord would have to pay more towards the upkeep of the avenue than the residents already here.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following national policy is relevant

• The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

5.2. The following local policy is relevant.

• The Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) • Draft Birmingham Development Plan • Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Article 4 Direction Area of Selly Oak, Edgbaston and Harborne Wards (2014). • Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In normal circumstances, the conversion from a C3 use to a C4 use is permitted development and owners of properties would normally have no need to inform the Local Planning Authority that a dwelling is changing to a small HMO. However, in

Page 2 of 7 November 2014, an Article 4 Direction was bought into effect that removes these permitted development rights within a designated area of Selly Oak, Edgbaston and Harborne wards. The application site falls within this area.

6.2. The decision to introduce an Article 4 Direction in this area resulted from an analysis of city wide concentrations of HMOs revealing the particularly high levels found in Bournbrook and the spread to surrounding areas of Selly Oak, Harborne and Edgbaston wards.

6.3. The policy accompanying the Article 4 direction ‘Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Article 4 Direction Area of Selly Oak, Edgbaston and Harborne Wards’ which was adopted by the Local Planning Authority in September 2014 aims to manage the growth of HMOs by dispersing the locations of future HMOs and avoiding over- concentrations occurring, thus being able to maintain balanced communities. It notes that the neighbourhoods included in the confirmed Article 4 area have capacity to accommodate further HMOs in the right locations.

6.4. Policy HMO1 states the conversion of C3 family housing to HMOs will not be permitted where there is already an over concentration of HMO accommodation (C4 or Sui Generis) or where it would result in an over concentration. An overconcentration would occur when 10% or more of the houses, within a 100m radius of the application site, would not be in use as a single family dwelling (C3 use). The city council will resist those schemes that breach this on the basis that it would lead to an overconcentration of such uses.

6.5. Should the application not cause an over concentration, or the exacerbation of an existing over concentration, the city council will then apply the existing policies that apply to HMOs city wide in determining planning applications for C4 HMOs, as well as large HMOs in the Article 4 Direction area. The proposal would also need to satisfy these criteria in order to be granted planning consent.

6.6. Using the most robust data available to the Local Planning Authority, including Council Tax records, Planning Consents and HMO Licensing information, it is revealed that within 100m of 14 Pershore Avenue there are 72 residential properties. Of these properties and including the application site, 8 are identified as being HMO’s, equating to 11.1%. As such, based on this figure alone, the application would be contrary to policy HMO1.

6.7. The applicant originally enquired whether such a change of use would be acceptable, in April 2015. At that time, the data available to the Local Planning Authority indicated that the change of use would result in less than 10% of properties within 100m being identified as being HMO’s. On the basis of this advice, the applicant purchased the property, and submitted an application to the Local Planning Authority for the change of use, on 30th July 2015. The application was incomplete and required additional information to be submitted and a letter requesting this information was sent 6th August 2015. Unfortunately, the applicant did not receive this letter and believed the application was being considered in the normal manner. As the Local Planning Authority had not received the additional information requested, the application was returned as invalid on 22nd October 2015. It must be noted had the application been complete, it would have complied with the policy threshold and so considered favourably.

6.8. Last October-November, an update was made to the data held by the Local Planning Authority, which included further information from the Council’s HMO licensing team. This update resulted in a slight change to the percentage of

Page 3 of 7 properties in use as HMO’s surrounding the application site and, when taking into account the application property, the percentage had increased to 11.1% as outlined above.

6.9. After the return of the application, the applicant compiled a complete and new submission and sought further advice, in December 2015. It was at this point that the change in the percentage was noticed. However, given the circumstances, the applicant was invited to submit a new application. As such, despite the proposal being contrary to policy HMO1, the exceptional circumstances surrounding the application are noted. In this instance, given that the applicant had purchased the property on the advice given to him by the Local Planning Authority, and that an attempt to make an application was made, I consider it would be unreasonable of the Local Planning Authority to withhold consent.

6.10. Policy 8.24 of the adopted UDP 2005 advises that when determining applications for houses in multiple paying occupation, the effect of the proposal on the amenities of the surrounding area, and on adjoining premises; the size and character of the property; the floor space standards of the accommodation; and the facilities available for car parking should be assessed.

6.11. Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG recognises that dwellings intended for multiple paying occupations have a role to play in meeting the housing needs of certain groups in society.

6.12. The application site is located within a predominantly residential area. Whilst there appear to be other HMO type uses near to the site, the area primarily consists of family dwellings and has a typically residential character. The application premises is a terraced property that has capacity for four bedrooms due to internal alterations no changes are proposed externally. I therefore consider that the proposal would have a minimal impact upon character.

6.13. The property would provide four bedrooms. These bedrooms would all be within the recommended size for a single bedroom as advocated by “Places for Living”. Apart from the loft conversion, there has been/would be no sub-division of rooms from the original dwelling.

6.14. Policy 8.25 of the UDP states that generally, the use of small terraced houses as HMO’s will cause disturbance to adjoining residents and, as such, be refused. However, in this case, I do n t consider that the proposed HMO would not have an adverse impact on the amenities of adjoining residents given that no external alterations are taking place and the property would most likely be lived in, in a similar manner to a family, with living accommodation at ground floor and the majority of the bedrooms at first floor and second floor.

6.15. The guidance in Specific Needs Residential Uses SPG advises that car parking provision for HMO applications should be treated on its own merits. My Transportation Development Officer raises no objection to the proposal. It is not considered traffic and parking demand would increase notably to that generated currently. It is noted that no off street parking is available, which is typical of residential properties at this location. On street options are available along Pershore Road, although not permitted during peak hours. In addition there are regular buses running nearby the site throughout the day.

Page 4 of 7 6.16. The site is noted to be in a highly accessible location, and close to Stirchley Centre. It is therefore considered that there would not be any detrimental impact to highway safety as a result of this change of use.

6.17. The site is within Flood Zone 3, however consultation of the Environment Agency is not required as the development does not involve the change of use where there is a change to flood risk vulnerability.

Community Infrastructure Levy 6.18. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The property is of a sufficient size to accommodate the proposal use with no significant impact upon the amenities of adjoining residents and highway safety. The proposal breaches the 10% threshold set out within Policy HMO1 of the Houses in Multiple Occupation in the Article 4 Direction Area. However, there are exceptional circumstances, which are unlikely to be repeated, which count in the application’s favour, in my opinion. As such, the proposal is recommended for approval.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions.

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

2 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: James Mead

Page 5 of 7 Photo(s)

Photograph 1: Front elevation.

Page 6 of 7 Location Plan

Page 7 of 7

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/10495/PA Accepted: 24/12/2015 Application Type: Variation of Condition Target Date: 18/02/2016 Ward: Selly Oak

596 Bristol Road, Selly Oak, Birmingham, B29 6BQ

Variation of condition number 4 attached to planning approval 1994/02926/PA to change closing time from 11:30pm and extend opening hours for Sunday to Wednesday until 12:00am and Thursday to Saturday untll 01:30am Applicant: Mr N Rai 596-598, Bristol Road, Selly Oak, Birmingham, B29 6BQ Agent: Brock Charles Architects Unit 3, The Old School House Arrow, Alcester, Warwickshire, B49 5PJ, Recommendation Approve Temporary

1. Proposal

1.1. 596 Bristol Road operates as a Class A3 restaurant, with ancillary takeaway. By condition, the premises shall only be open for customers between the hours of 09:00 and 23:30. This application seeks the variation of condition number 4 attached to planning approval 1994/02926/PA, to allow for extended opening hours of the, Selly Oak, until 12am Sunday – Wednesday, and 1.30am Thursday – Saturday.

1.2. This application follows the refusal of a previous application in January 2015 that proposed opening until 3am on a daily basis and was subsequently dismissed at appeal.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is located on the southeast side of Bristol Road between the junction of Tiverton Road and Hubert Road. It is located within the Primary Shopping Centre of Selly Oak District Centre and surrounding properties are all in commercial use at ground floor (some with residential above). Side roads off Bristol Road are in residential use and are predominantly occupied by students due to the proximity of the site to the University of Birmingham.

2.2. The application property is two-storey and part of a terrace of shops with flats or storage above. Aldi supermarket and its associated car park are situated opposite the site.

Page 1 of 7 2.3. No off-street parking is provided within the application site and on-street parking is restricted in the vicinity of the site by TROs.

Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 08/09/1994 - 1994/02926/PA – Planning permission granted with conditions for the change of use of the ground floor to a restaurant. Conditions include: (3) limits the use to the approved use only, (4) opening between 0900 and 2330 hours daily and (5) no sale of food for consumption off the premises.

3.2. 13/02/1997 – 1997/00074/PA Planning permission approved for the erection of external staircase to provide access to first and second floor living accommodation.

3.3. 16/06/1997 - 1996/01824/PA - Deletion of condition (5) attached to 1994/02926/PA to allow the sale of take-away food. Refused, subsequently allowed at appeal (as an ancillary use)

3.4. 16/06/1997 – 1996/01825/PA – Variation of condition (4) attached to 1994/02926/PA to allow opening between 09:00 and 00:30 daily. Dismissed at appeal due to adverse impact on amenities of nearby residents.

3.5. 18/11/2003 – 2002/05991/PA - Variation of condition (4) attached to 1994/02926/PA to allow opening between 09:00 and midnight daily. Dismissed at appeal due to adverse impact on amenities of nearby residents.

3.6. 05/06/2014 - 2014/02544/PA – Planning permission granted with conditions for the installation of a new shopfront.

3.7. 05/06/2014 - 2014/02647/PA – Temporary advertisement consent granted for the installation of one internally illuminated facia sign and one internally illuminated projection sign.

3.8. 09/07/2014 – 2014/03356/PA Planning permission refused for the change of use from a Class A3 restaurant to a mixed A3/A5 restaurant and takeaway.

3.9. 17/02/2015 – 2014/09552/PA Variation of condition number 4 attached to planning approval 1994/02926/PA to allow for extended opening hours until 0300 hours daily. Refused and dismissed at appeal due to adverse impact on amenities of nearby residents.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Transportation Development - No objection.

4.2. Regulatory Services – No objection, recommend a 12 month temporary approval to assess the impact to amenity.

4.3. Letters of notification have been sent to surrounding occupiers; local residents associations and Selly Oak Ward Councillors. A site notice has also been posted. No comments have been received.

Page 2 of 7 5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are relevant.

• The Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005) • Draft Birmingham Development Plan • SPD: Shopping and Local Centres (2012) • Wider Selly Oak SPD (2015)

5.2. The following national policy is relevant.

• The National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The existing A3 use was approved in 1994 (1994/02926/PA), with Condition 3 limiting the use to a restaurant, Condition 4 limiting the opening hours to 09:00 to 23:00 daily, and Condition 5 preventing takeaway sales. An appeal against a refusal to delete the takeaway condition was allowed in 1997 on the basis that any takeaway sales would have to be ancillary. An appeal against the variation of condition 4 to allow opening until 00:30 on a daily basis was dismissed in 1997 with the inspector noting ‘extending the opening hours beyond those prevailing locally would cause demonstrable harm to those local residents who could reasonably expect to enjoy some respite from late night noise and disturbance’. A further appeal against the variation of condition 4 to allow opening until midnight on a daily basis was dismissed in 2003, with the inspector noting in this case that to extend the opening hours by half an hour would ‘prolong the noise and disturbance for nearby residential occupiers’. Finally, an appeal against the refusal to allow opening until 3am daily was dismissed in 2015 also on the grounds of impact on surrounding residents.

6.2. UDP policy 8.7 seeks to confine restaurants, cafes and takeaway hot food shops to shopping areas or areas of mixed commercial development. Where a proposal involves evening opening, account will be taken of the proximity and extent of any nearby residential accommodation, the nature and character of centre and ambient noise levels to ensure that the use does not give rise to additional problems of noise and disturbance. In all cases, account will be taken of the proposed opening hours and states that in order to ensure no demonstrable harm to nearby dwellings conditions may be imposed normally requiring premises to be closed and cleared of customers by 23:30.

6.3. When the application for the restaurant was considered in 1994, it was considered acceptable for the use to be located at this location, provided that the opening hours were restricted to 23:30 daily in order to safeguard nearby residents’ amenities. These times were considered appropriate for a local centre such as Selly Oak where there are a number public houses and establishments that provide a night- time economy for the centre, as well as some residential uses.

6.4. With regards to the proposal to increase these opening hours to midnight (Sunday – Wednesday) and 1.30am (Thursday to Saturday), I note the previous planning history and whilst opening until 3am is clearly not appropriate, it is noted that since the previous appeal in 2003, this section of Bristol Road, which forms a shopping frontage within Selly Oak District Centre and contains a wide range of commercial

Page 3 of 7 uses, has seen an increase in its choice of late night uses and now has a busy evening economy.

6.5. There are now a number of hot food and pub/bar business that have late night opening, until, variously, midnight, 2am, 3am, 4am. They appear to be generally either beyond the closing time specified by planning condition, or operate in premises where there is no hours restriction. The local character is now more intensive and extends later into the evening than in 2003, when the Local Planning Authority and Inspectorate deemed 11.30pm was still an appropriate closing time. Closing at 3am was deemed too late by the LPA and Inspectorate last year. I consider the now-proposed 12am and 1.30pm times a reasonable new limit, given the current local context.

6.6. The area surrounding the shop is predominantly commercial in character, there are flats above the shop parade and there are residential properties to the rear. However, given the commercial character of the area and the proximity of other late night uses elsewhere within the shopping centre, I consider that the extended opening hours is unlikely to significantly increase overall levels of noise and disturbance experienced by residents. Regulatory Services raise no objection to the extended opening hours, however, recommend that a 12 month temporary consent should be given in in order to assess the impact on amenity. In this instance, I consider this to a reasonable condition.

6.7. In addition, condition 3 of the original consent stated that the premises shall not be used for any other purposes, other than the specifically approved use. In line with the inspector’s decision in 1997, which allowed ancillary takeaway sales, I recommended this condition is updated to reflect this current situation.

6.8. Transportation Development has no objection to the proposal. They do not consider that the impact of the additional evening hours would create an on street-parking situation any worse than the existing daytime situation. Traffic flow and parking at this location is generally at its busiest during the daytime, when all other uses within this parade are operating.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Whilst it is acknowledged that previous applications for the extension of opening hours have been refused at this location, I consider the area has significantly changed since the appeal decisions of 1997 and 2003. There is now a thriving night time economy and, given the commercial location of the premises within a defined district centre, I consider that, on balance, the proposed increase in opening hours is unlikely to adversely affect the amenities of occupiers of dwellings and premises in the vicinity by reason of increased noise and disturbance. I therefore recommend that the application be approved, but for a temporary period of 12 months to assess the impact on amenity.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approved temporary.

1 Requires adequate areas for refuse storage

Page 4 of 7 2 Requires adequate extraction and odour control to be installed.

3 Prevents the use from changing within the use class

4 Limits the hours of use (09:00 - Midnight Sunday to Wednesday; 09:00 - 01:30 Thursday to Saturday nights)

5 Requires the use to discontinue within a timescale - 12 months

Case Officer: James Mead

Page 5 of 7 Photo(s)

Photograph 1: Front elevation

Page 6 of 7

Location Plan

37 539 Bank 545

25 547 46 16 549

Bournbrook Hotel

(PH) 125.0m

13 544

32 4 PC Shelter 548 546

28 550 563 556

3 565 2 567

569

558

3 16 1

2 127.4m 562 3 571 564

566 1 126.2m

1 4 568 Shelter

3 570 2

579 2 4

DAWLISH ROAD 13

576 6

11 8 578

13 581

582

580

584

586

30 GEORGE ROAD 25 588 El Sub 1a Sta

592

590 125.6m 37 Dawlish

594 3 Court

43 600

45 University 20 Court

4 Tiverton

Court

612 Douper Hall 610

616 7

620 to

618 16 9 622

626 13

to 630 to

628

614 634

131.1m 26

Gospel Hall

Day Nursery 32

TCB 636 639

641

11 44 644 11a Club

47 4 53 57

Selly Oak 6 Centre 55

652 59 58

58a

Page 7 of 7 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 18 February 2016

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Refuse 13 2015/07064/PA

Masjid Quba 147-149 Fentham Road Aston Birmingham B6 6LX

Defer – Informal Approval 14 2015/10151/PA

50 Livingstone Road Handsworth Birmingham B20 3LL

Approve – Conditions 15 2015/09003/PA

Masjid - E - Aisha The Grange Handsworth Wood Birmingham B20 1BH

Alterations to the roof at the rear of the building.

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve – Temporary 16 2015/10378/PA

New John Street and Blews Street Newtown Middleway Newtown Birmingham B6 4EP

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/07064/PA Accepted: 21/09/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 16/11/2015 Ward: Aston

Masjid Quba, 147-149 Fentham Road, Aston, Birmingham, B6 6LX

Retrospective application for use of existing building as Mosque and Madrassah, proposed remedial works to insert replacement windows to front elevation, erection of privacy screen and retention of associated external rear staircase, proposed lean to store access extension Applicant: Mr Mohammed Nazir c/o Agent Agent: Marmol Architectural 93 Wenlock Road, Perry Barr, Birmingham, B20 3HP Recommendation Refuse

1. Proposal

1.1. Planning consent has previously been granted for the erection of a two storey building for use as a madrassa with an associated flat above (see planning history).

1.2. The building that was constructed is a three storey building that has been brought into use as a mosque and a madrassa, with no residential accommodation proposed. The building contains a main prayer hall with a capacity of 125 people on the ground floor, the 1st floor is to be used for education and as a ladies prayer area, with the 2nd floor used for storage, a meeting room and an office.

1.3. This application has been submitted in response to enforcement investigations and seeks to regularise a long standing breach of planning control, having been monitored by both my enforcement officers and transportation officers, who have attended several Friday prayers sessions to monitor the impact of the mosque. Those investigations concluded that the mosque was not causing traffic and parking issues to warrant the serving of an enforcement notice to date.

1.4. The proposed works would include some external remedial works to the windows on the front elevation at first floor to improve their vertical proportions, to add a single storey lean to side extension to provide an additional corridor access to the main hall, and to erect a privacy screen along the boundary of the property to prevent overlooking from the external fire escape stair at the rear.

1.5. The application is accompanied by a letter which sets out some additional information in respect of the use of the site as a mosque and madrassa. This advises that the mosque is used for prayers 5 times a day with approximately 20 people attending, with the exception of Friday prayers when the numbers are greater.

Page 1 of 8

1.6. The letter sets out that they surveyed numbers of male attendees on three Friday dates in January and February last year, with a maximum attendance of 124 persons.

1.7. Womens prayers are held at the same time each day in a different part of the building. Numbers are usually around 10 people and would not exceed a maximum of 30 people due to the number of toilets and washing facilities. There are no women currently attending Friday prayers.

1.8. The madrassa is currently used between the hours of 16:00 – 18:00 hours weekdays only. There are currently 13 children, but the building could have capacity for 4 separate classes of 15 children, by dividing the first floor space if required.

1.9. They comment that there are no plans for the premises to be used for weddings, birthdays or other similar functions. It will be used for the main prayers for the festival days on 2 or 3 times per year.

1.10. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site is located at the northern end of Fentham Road, a street of predominantly residential properties and is approximately 40 metres from the junction of Fentham Road and Trinity Road. The street is characterised by two storey terraced dwellings, with a mix of red brick and rendered frontages, ground floor bay windows, elaborate stone window surrounds and eaves detailing with a generously proportioned projection to the roof overhang. The windows in the surrounding properties have a vertical proportion, though the fenestration patterns vary reflecting that many have replaced the original timber windows with more modern UPVC windows.

2.2. site location and street view

3. Planning History

3.1. 4/11/2004 – 2004/05802/PA – Erection of detached dwelling – Approved subject to conditions.

3.2. 13/11/2009 – 2009/03487/PA – Change of use from residential approved under 2004/05802/PA to community centre – withdrawn.

3.3. 03/02/2010 – 2009/05761/PA – Erection of 2 storey building with room within roofspace to provide a mosque/madrassa with ancillary crèche, offices and youth centre – withdrawn.

3.4. 04/08/2011- 2010/04241/PA – Erection of two storey new build property to operate as a madrassa on the ground floor and a residential flat on the 1st floor – Approved subject to conditions. This consent contains conditions that limits the use of the premises to a madrassa with ancillary prayers for children only, and restricts the madrassa to a maximum of 30 children and 3 staff.

Page 2 of 8 3.5. 2012/0928/ENF - Siting of 6 freight containers; building not constructed in accordance with approved plans; use of premises as mosque; erection of external staircase – Under investigation.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. MP, ward members, Residents Associations and neighbouring residents notified. 24 representations received (only 2 of which are from residents in Fentham Road), objecting on the following grounds :

• Traffic and parking problems • There are 6 shipping containers at the back of the building which causes an overlooking problem • The owner feeds the pigeons on top of the containers which is causing a nuisance as we cannot hang washing outside to dry without getting pigeon droppings on our clothes • There is no need for another mosque in the area as there are already several existing mosques in the area already • The land should be used to provide housing • Noise and disturbance • The applicant has been in breach for years and the Council should not be pressured into granting permission just because the applicant has ignored the system for so long.

4.2. One resident comments that they support the application stating that they feel the centre provides positive religious needs and support.

4.3. The representations received include a number of inappropriate comments that have not been reported.

4.4. Transportation Development - No objections. Recommends conditions relating to limiting the maximum number of occupants of the building, that the premises should not be used for weddings, funerals or similar functions, cycle storage, travel plan and that no approval is to be given to the parking plan. They comment that in relation to the maximum proposed number of attendees set out in the applicants statement, that a similar or less number of people were observed attending when the transportation officer visited the site. They advise that waiting is unrestricted in the surrounding highways and many people were observed walking to and from the site at Friday prayer time. On-street parking was observed to not be causing significant highway safety issues at that time.

4.5. Police – Raises concerns regarding the lack of off-street parking given the size of the mosque and also for the pick-up and drop-off of children at the madrassa. Comments that they recommend CCTV is installed at the premises and an intruder alarm.

4.6. Regulatory Services – Recommends refusal. Comments that the concerns do not relate to disturbances from inside the building, as there are essentially 2 sets of external walls with a gap and no ventilation openings between this site and the adjacent house. The concerns arise due to external activities such as people talking on their way in and out of the premises, and associated vehicular noises including car doors closing, people calling, engines starting and horns sounding. Patrons’ use of the external staircase is also an external source of noise affecting nearby

Page 3 of 8 occupiers. Comments that whilst some degree of disturbance could be considered reasonable (particularly during daytimes), if the application is granted then the risks of significant adverse impact on the amenity of existing nearby occupiers is considered high. The disturbances would, in the summer times, begin at about 02.30-03.00 hours and continue intermittently until around 23.30 hours. This level of disturbance is considered very likely to cause unacceptable impact.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Adopted UDP, Draft BDP, Aston, Newtown and Lozells AAP, Places of Worship and Faith Related Community and Educational Uses SPD, Places for All SPD, Car Parking Guidelines SPD. NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Paragraph 8.32 of the adopted UDP states that in the case of premises which are intended to serve a wide catchment area and/or are likely to be used for festivals and ceremonies attracting substantial numbers of people, sites should be of sufficient size and located so as to not cause loss of amenity to occupiers of nearby residential accommodation through undue noise and disturbance nuisance. Where a site is located in a predominantly residential area, the development should take account of the need to avoid attracting extraneous traffic to quiet residential streets, in order to minimise disturbance to residents. The site should be capable of accommodating a development which may be non-domestic in scale and of non- traditional design. In assessing the amount of car parking to be provided regard should be had to the capacity of the road network and proximity of public transport facilities, the availability of alternative parking in the area, the scale of the development and car ownership levels. Off-street parking spaces should be located so as to minimise noise and disturbance to adjoining occupiers and safeguard the visual amenity of the surrounding area.

6.2. The Council’s SPD for Places of Worship and educational uses sets out the importance of finding the right location for such uses with established centres identified as the preferred location for uses that tend to attract a large number of users to benefit from the accessibility that such centres provide. The SPD sets out that as a general rule, because of the likelihood of adverse impact from noise disturbance and traffic problems, predominantly residential areas are not suitable for places of worship if they attract large numbers of people.

6.3. The SPD states that the preferable location for places of worship serving a purely local need should be within a parade of commercial premises, and if such a site cannot be found, that a site within easy walking distance of a parade of commercial premises and/or on the fringe of residential areas should be identified, as long as this is compatible with the character of the surrounding area.

6.4. Consent has been granted previously for use of the site as a madrassa. It is not located within an established centre, but is approximately 220 metres from the edge of Witton Neighbourhood Centre to the east. The premises are located at the northern end of a residential street and abut an existing terraced house to the south, with a car park serving the adjoining flats to the north side of the building.

6.5. The building has been operating as a mosque serving predominantly local people, with the ground floor male prayer room having a capacity of 125 people. This

Page 4 of 8 capacity is generally only reached during Friday prayers with numbers of attendees on other days and times being approximately 20 people. The first floor is intended to be used for ladies prayers for 30 people and as a madrassa with a maximum number of 60 children. Whilst it is accepted that the facility does serve a local need, it is evident that the maximum number of attendees could give rise to issues that may have an impact on the amenities of surrounding residents particularly during noise sensitive hours.

6.6. I note the advice from Regulatory Services who recommend refusal of the application on noise and disturbance grounds and concur that the application is unacceptable in such a predominantly residential setting. It is understood that the building is not currently being used to its capacity. There is therefore potential for a greater degree of noise and disturbance than is currently taking place. The applicant proposes to use the mosque from 3 am to 11pm which will therefore include noise sensitive hours when residents are likely to be sleeping. The access to the premises is from the front via Fentham Road with arrivals and departures likely to increase activity in the street frontage during these noise sensitive times. It is considered that this is likely to lead to complaints from neighbouring residents in relation to the noise associated with arrivals and departures including the noise from patrons and any associated vehicles. I do not consider that the use could be reasonably restricted in such a way so as to mitigate or prevent the potential for such disturbance and so refusal is recommended. I note that Regulatory Services advise that they are not objecting to the impact of the internal activities within the building as there are essentially two sets of external walls with a gap and no ventilation openings between this site and the adjacent house.

6.7. In respect of traffic and parking issues, I note that Transportation comment that waiting is unrestricted on the surrounding highways and that when they surveyed the site many people were noticed to be walking to/from the site during Friday prayer times. On street parking on Fentham Road within the immediate vicinity of the site and on Trinity Road near this junction did increase compared to the period before prayer time, however some spare capacity for on-street parking was observed further down Fentham Road at a short distance from the site. They comment that on street parking was not causing significant highway safety issues and did not have a significant impact on traffic conditions. I share these conclusions and consider that as this is a local facility it is unlikely to generate additional parking above the levels that have been observed by transportation during their survey of the site.

6.8. The applicant has proposed some remedial works which seek to improve the appearance of the front elevation and to provide a screen to the rear external staircase to prevent overlooking. The approved building was to be two storeys high, which would have related well to the existing two storey terraced dwellings in Fentham Road. The building that has been built has raised the height of the eaves and ridge of the building slightly, to squeeze in a 2nd floor level, which adversely affects the positioning of the windows to each floor level, in respect of the horizontal alignment relative to the neighbouring terrace. The proportions of the windows at first floor would be improved by the proposed remedial works, but this would not mitigate to an acceptable degree the overall impact on the streetscene. Refusal is therefore recommended.

6.9. The storage containers in the rear of the site referred to by the objector were originally installed during the construction of the building as an office and staff facility to manage the construction process and have not been removed following the completion of the development. The removal of these buildings is being pursued through enforcement and does not form part of this application.

Page 5 of 8

6.10. Subject to the determination of the application as recommended, the intention is to serve an enforcement notice in respect of the use, the building works and in respect of any other associated unauthorised works.

6.11. The development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. This application has been submitted following lengthy enforcement investigations into the use of the premises as a mosque. The proposal to retain the mosque and madrassa does not accord with the Council’s policies for these uses contained in the Places for Worship SPD due to problems of noise and disturbance, and is therefore unacceptable. The proposal also involves some remedial works to the front elevation, however these are not considered to address the concerns regarding the design and appearance of the building. I have therefore recommended refusal for these reasons.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Refuse.

Reasons for Refusal

1 The use as a mosque and madrassa would be likely to give rise to significant problems of noise and disturbance, from the arrival and departures of patrons to and from the site during noise sensitive hours early in the morning and late in the evening, to the detriment of amenities of residents in Fentham Road and the surrounding area, contrary to paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, and 8.32 of the adopted UDP, the guidance contained in Places for Worship and faith related community and educational uses SPD, and the NPPF and NPPG.

2 The building as constructed has a significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the street, by virtue of its design, scale and mass, and the proposed remedial works to the first floor windows will not sufficiently mitigate this impact, contrary to paragraphs 3.8, 3.10, 3.14A-D of the adopted UDP 2005, Places for All and the guidance contained in the NPPF and NPPG.

Case Officer: Stuart Morgans

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1 : Front and side elevation

Page 7 of 8 Location Plan

TOWNLEY

8 128

El Sub Sta

9 Pavilion 59a 61 61a 63 63a 65 65a 67 67a 69 69a 71 136 73

105.2m 78 TRINITY ROAD

98.1m

90 Evason Court

102

1 to 6 to 1

7 to12 7

112 114

116

126 134

61 204

145

103.6m 38

133

115 20

FREER ROAD 188 106 LODGE ROAD

147 122 119

138

13 154

117

Surgery

170 200 1

104.5m

115b 1b 115a 1a 104.5m

113 133 6

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/10151/PA Accepted: 18/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 12/02/2016 Ward: Lozells and East Handsworth

50 Livingstone Road, Handsworth, Birmingham, B20 3LL

Erection of first and second floors above the existing ground floor to accommodate 36 no. en-suite rooms with kitchen facilities to be used as HMO (House in Multiple Occupation) with amendments to car parking provision, in association with change of use of existing building under planning approval 2014/06388/PA for conversion to a HMO and associated shared facilities. Applicant: Aronex Development Ltd 1-1A James Yard, Larkshall Road, London, E4 9UA Agent: Architorium Limited 113 Cranbrook Road, Ilford, Essex, IG1 4PU Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. In February last year, planning consent was granted to change the use of the existing building from a residential school and day nursery to a house in multiple occupation (HMO) containing 61 single bedrooms, 2 studios and associated shared facilities. This was subject to a section 106 agreement that secured the provision of term time travelcards for all residents that are full time students within their first year of study and first year of occupation (ie Freshers) up to a total value of £25,000.

1.2. This application is an amendment to the previously approved scheme which seeks consent to extend the building at the rear above the existing single storey section of the building to provide a further two floors of accommodation providing a further 36 bedrooms within an additional 928 square metres of floorspace. Each unit would also contain a small kitchenette, en-suite bathroom and space for a study desk. Occupiers would also have access to the previously approved communal spaces which include a library/computer room, living room/games room, shared kitchen/dining rooms, laundry, gym, swimming pool, cycle storage and car parking areas.

1.3. The design of the proposed extension would reflect the existing building having a mix of brick and render walls and a flat roof. An additional area of car parking is proposed increasing the parking provision from 20 spaces to 27 spaces overall.

1.4. The developers target market is proposed to be students, graduates and young professionals.

Page 1 of 8 1.5. The applicant proposes a proportional increase in the size of the section 106 contribution, increasing the travel card sum to £40,000, which is proposed to be secured through a deed of variation.

1.6. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The site is an existing former residential school which comprises of classrooms, seminar halls, main hall, kitchen, laundry rooms, stores, w/c’s at ground floor with dormitory bedrooms, kitchen/dining rooms, bathrooms and w’c’s above. The ground floor of the building is arranged in a square footprint with a central enclosed courtyard garden, with the three upper floors situated above the northernmost part of the building. The building is predominantly faced in a dark brown brick with a flat roof and is set within an established landscaped plot of grassed areas interspersed with individual and groups of trees.

2.2. The site is situated adjacent to land to the east being redeveloped for new housing by Birmingham Municipal Housing Trust (BMHT). Broadway Dance Centre adjoins the western boundary. The surrounding area to the west is predominantly residential in character with a mix of housing types and styles. There is an area of allotments to the north west.

2.3. The site adjoins the edge of Perry Barr District Centre with Perry Barr station approximately 5 minutes walk from the site to the north. The site is also accessible via bus services on the A38 into and out of the City Centre.

2.4. Site location and street view

3. Planning History

3.1. 03/02/2015 – 2014/06388/PA – Change of use from residential school/day nursery (Class C2/D1) to house in multiple occupation (HMO) (Sui Generis) for 61 single bedrooms, 2 studios with associated gym, media room, library and offices, room for Council (local community) use, proposed single storey swimming pool extension and external alterations to render parts of the building – Approved subject to conditions, and completed s106 agreement.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site notices erected. MP, ward members, residents associations and neighbouring residents notified. No objections received. Birchfield Residents Action Group have written to seek clarification regarding the relationship of this application to the previously approved scheme and whether the developer still intends the accommodation to be for students or young professionals.

4.2. Transportation Development – No objection subject to amendments and conditions. Recommends amendments to the parking layout and access arrangement to incorporate a visibility splay, that any amendments to the footway crossings to be carried out at the applicants expense, pedestrian visibility splay to be incorporated into the access, travel plan condition, advertisement of the travelcard scheme, marking out of parking spaces, secure cycle storage and appropriate signage.

Page 2 of 8

4.3. Regulatory Services – No objections.

4.4. Lead Local Flood Authority – No surface water information has been submitted. The LLPA actively promote and encourage the implementation of SUD’s on all developments and recommend the use of permeable paving in the car park area, inner courtyard, and recreational areas to the west and north, and the use of filter drains, swales and rain gardens in the landscaped areas to achieve water quality improvements and enhance bio-diversity and amenity value in this development. Recommends a sustainable drainage condition.

4.5. Police – Makes detailed comments in respect of meeting Secured by Design, car parking, CCTV and lighting.

5. Policy Context

5.1. Adopted UDP 2005, Draft Birmingham Development Plan, Aston, Newtown and Lozells AAP, Places for All SPD, Car parking guidelines SPD, Special Needs Residential Uses SPG : Houses in Multiple Occupation, Hostels and Residential care and Nursing Homes and bedroom sizes for student accommodation, NPPF.

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. Paragraph 8.24 of the adopted UDP sets out that in determining applications for HMO’s the following criteria will be considered : the effect of the proposal on the amenities of the surrounding area, and on adjoining premises, the size and character of the property, floorspace standards of the accommodation, the facilities for car parking and the amount of provision in the locality. Paragraph 8.25 states that generally the use of small terraced or small semi-detached houses will be resisted. The impact of such uses will be dependent on the use of adjoining properties and the ambient noise level in the immediate area.

6.2. The Special Needs Residential Uses SPG repeats these criteria and also sets out that the cumulative effect of clusters of such uses on the residential character of an area will also be considered. In an area of housing restraint such uses may be resisted on ground of the impact on the character of the area. The guidance also sets out details of minimum bedrooms sizes for student accommodation to be 6.5 square metres for a single bedroom and 12.5 square metres for a double bedroom.

6.3. The Aston, Newtown and Lozells AAP includes provision for housing regeneration proposals at Birchfield adjoining the application site. The AAP also encourages high- quality residential accommodation above the ground floor as part of mixed-use developments within Perry Barr/Birchfield District Centre. Policy H2 sets out that proposals for new housing should take account of the Strategic Housing Market Assessment and detailed local housing market assessments (where they are available), in particular the need for larger family accommodation. Proposals should assist in the creation of mixed, balanced and sustainable communities.

6.4. The draft Birmingham Development Plan includes a policy for the assessment of proposals for student accommodation. This sets out that proposals for purpose built student accommodation provided on campus will be supported in principle subject to satisfying design and amenity considerations. Proposals for off campus provision will be considered favourably where:

Page 3 of 8

• There is a demonstrated need for the development, • The proposed development is very well located in relation to the educational establishment that it is to serve and to the local facilities which will serve it, by means of walking, cycling and public transport. • The proposed development will not have an unacceptable impact on the local neighbourhood and residential amenity. • The scale, massing and architecture of the development is appropriate for the location. • The design and layout of the accommodation together with the associated facilities provided will create a positive living experience.

6.5. Consent has been granted to convert the existing building into a HMO, and this proposal would provide additional HMO accommodation and so the proposed use of the extension is acceptable in principle. There is a need for additional accommodation for students in the City. The proposed development would also serve to provide HMO accommodation for non-students within a predominantly residential area. The nature and layout of the existing building can appropriately accommodate the proposed extension. The site is not located within an area of housing restraint and the submitted plans demonstrate that the study bedrooms would meet minimum guidelines with sufficient space for a study desk etc.

6.6. The design of the proposed extension would complement the existing building with matching materials and with a similar design and external appearance. I have recommended conditions to agree the materials samples. The proposed extension would be 14.5 metres from the boundary of the site with the adjoining garden for the dwelling at 33 Bridgelands Way. Places for Living advocates a minimum separation distance 5 metres per storey and so the proposal would fall marginally short of this guideline, but would nevertheless result in an acceptable relationship to the adjoining dwelling.

6.7. The site is well-situated to public transport facilities being within a few minutes walk of local bus services into the City and Perry Barr train station. However, the site is less accessible for students to walk to campus. With this in mind, the applicant proposes to increase the provision of term-time travelcards for students in their first year of study (ie.freshers) from £25,000 to £40,000 so that these can be offered to student residents in the proposed extension. It is proposed that a deed of variation to the existing section 106 agreement is completed to secure this provision with a requirement for an annual monitoring report to be provided to demonstrate delivery.

6.8. It is unlikely that occupation of the HMO by students would generate a need for parking. However, as the development will not be exclusively for students, some parking may be required for other occupants and for the on-site manager. The approved scheme proposed 20 car parking spaces. An additional car parking area is now proposed to the rear which would increase the parking to 27 spaces. I consider that the car parking spaces proposed would be adequate for this purpose, taking into account the accessibility of the site and the type of accommodation proposed.

6.9. The creation of the additional car parking area results in the removal of two category C trees. A landscape scheme has been submitted to discharge the landscape condition attached to the existing approval, which includes provision for suitable replacements.

Page 4 of 8 6.10. In respect of the comments from the Lead Local Flood Authority, as this is a minor category application they are not a statutory consultee which is significant in respect of the consideration of sustainable drainage matters. The approved consent for conversion of the existing building did not generate a requirement for sustainable drainage and there is no requirement for such a scheme as part of that consent. Sustainable drainage measures are encouraged in all developments and the comments from the LLFA have been provided to the applicant for their consideration to encourage them to adopt some of the sustainable drainage measures that have been recommended. I do not consider that it would be appropriate to include the recommended sustainable drainage condition in this instance.

6.11. A package of security measures including CCTV and security lighting have been approved as part of the planning conditions attached to the original consent. The comments from the Police have been provided to the applicant for their information in respect of extending these measures to the proposed extension.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed extension accords with the relevant policies in respect of its design and its use as part of the recently approved HMO development and is acceptable subject to the completion of the deed of variation.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That consideration of planning application 2015/10151/PA be deferred pending the completion of a suitable deed of variation to the existing section 106 legal agreement in respect of planning approval 2014/06388/PA to secure the following :

a) Provision of term time travelcards for all residents that are full time students within their first year of study and first year of occupation (ie. Freshers) up to a total value of £40,000, and the submission of an annual monitoring report on the first anniversary of first occupation, and subsequently every 12 months thereafter until such time as the total contribution has been provided to demonstrate provision of the travelcards.

8.2 That payment of a monitoring and administration fee associated with the legal agreement of £1500 be secured,

8.3 That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the appropriate agreement,

8.4 That in the event of the Deed of Variation not being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 11th February 2015, that planning permission be refused for the following reason :

In the absence of any suitable planning obligation to secure the provision of term time travelcards for full time students resident within the development, that the proposed HMO accommodation for students would not be suitably accessible to any University campus within Birmingham, contrary to paragraphs 3.8, 3.10 and 8.50- 8.54 of the adopted UDP, policy TP32 of the Draft Birmingham Development Plan and the NPPF.

Page 5 of 8 8.2. That in the event of the above Deed of Variation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before 11th February 2015 that favourable consideration be given to the application 2015/10151/PA subject to the conditions listed below :

1 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

3 Requires the provision of cycle parking prior to occupation

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

5 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Stuart Morgans

Page 6 of 8 Photo(s)

Figure 1 : Side elevation

Page 7 of 8

Location Plan

10 GP 20

46 26 BURT

El Sub Sta

83 14 6 93 12

4 97 95 99 101 10

43 LIVINGSTONE ROAD 107.0m

41a

Shelter

39 42

Livingstone House 1 to 12 37 (Home for the aged) 107.9m 14 to 91

Birchfield

33 Tower

LIVINGSTONE ROAD 33

24 43

BRIDGELANDS WAY

Subway 18

Page 8 of 8

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/09003/PA Accepted: 20/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 19/02/2016 Ward: Handsworth Wood

Masjid - E - Aisha, The Grange, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, B20 1BH

Alterations to the roof at the rear of the building. Applicant: Mr H Patel The Grange, Handsworth Wood, Birmingham, B20 1BH Agent: Mr Riyaz Nilar 408F The Big Peg, 120 Vyse Street, Birmingham, B18 6NF Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. The original proposal was for the erection of a first floor rear extension to accommodate an overflow ladies prayer room and alteration to the roof form at the rear of the building to remove flat roofed elements.

1.2. The applicants have amended the proposal and are now seeking to only amend the roof design firstly to eliminate the flat roof and secondly to prevent the roof draining into the neighbouring property and causing maintenance issues.

1.3. The application is accompanied by a Heritage Assessment.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site is a large property which is utilised as a mosque with madrassa, following its purchase from the adjacent Elmwood United Reform Church to the west. The building is a Locally Listed building. The building has car parking to the front and sides of the building and a small area of outdoor amenity area. The property is accessed off The Grange. This is a narrow cul-de-sac and has parking restrictions opposite the property.

2.2. There is a church located on the entrance to the Grange, which has a car park at the rear which is adjacent to the application site. The remainder of the area is residential in nature with large detached properties.

2.3. Site Location

3. Planning History

Page 1 of 6

3.1. In June 2008 an application for alterations to elevations and car parking areas (2007/07477/PA) was approved.

3.2. In November 2010 an application for the installation of fire escape to rear, single storey extension to side and removal of three chimney stacks (2010/05300/PA) was approved.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Local councillors, residents and residents associations have been consulted. A petition of 72 signatures of objection has been received from local residents. The issues raised relate to: • Noise and disturbance from worshippers particularly late evening and early morning and from the children attending the madrassa. • Parking issues and inability to access own property and drives. • People are not respecting the parking restrictions. • This is not a suitable location for a mosque. • The increase in the number of worshippers means that the mosque should relocate to more appropriate facilities with increased parking provision.

4.2. In addition 12 letters of objection have been received and these comments can be summarised as follows:

• Noise and disturbance • Loss of privacy and overlooking • Parking congestion • Inconsiderate parking • Increased traffic movements • Affect sunlight into garden • Lack of security for neighbouring properties • Limits access for emergency vehicles • Lack of respect for neighbours from mosque attendees • The unequal dual pitch is not in keeping with the character of the area • The scale, height and massing of a two storey element on the boundary has a detrimental effect on the surrounding properties

4.3. Handsworth Wood Residents Association: Objects on the grounds of vehicle congestion, noise nuisance and restricted access to site and impacts on emergency vehicles accessing properties in The Grange.

4.4. Transportation: No objections.

4.5. Regulatory Services: No objections.

4.6. West Midlands Police: recommend a review of CCTV, alarm and lighting systems and use of anti-climbing aids with appropriate signage.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The Birmingham UDP, The Draft Birmingham Development Plan,

Page 2 of 6 Places for All, Places of Worship and Faith-Related Community and Educational Uses SPD, NPPF and Planning Practice Guidance

6. Planning Considerations

Background

6.1. The original proposal included the creation of additional floorspace with a first floor extension and further information with regard to existing and proposed congregation numbers and parking levels was requested to support the proposal.

6.2. The applicant’s main concern with the building relates to issues of maintenance with the existing flat roof and therefore the application has been amended to remove the first floor extension in order to expedite the consideration of the proposal.

Policy

6.3. The proposal relates to a locally listed building. The works need to be sympathetic to the buildings appearance. The NPPF is clear that the effect of development on the significance of non-designated heritage assets should be considered when determining applications. In particular having regard to harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. The draft BDP in policy TF12 states that ‘The City Council will support development that conserves the significance of non-designated heritage assets including archaeological remains and locally listed buildings’. There is no objection in principle to the maintenance and repair of the building.

Design

6.4. The alterations to the main roof would not increase the overall height, but would amend the pitch to a lower angle to cover the existing flat roof. This design simplifies the roof design and is considered in keeping with the character and design of the main building and overall is an enhancement.

6.5. The existing single storey element of the building which adjoins the boundary with 12 St David’s Grove, currently has a mono pitched roof, sloping towards the neighbouring property and there are issues of maintenance of the guttering. The proposal is to alter this pitch to have a gable end facing the neighbouring property with guttering at either end, which can be maintained from the applicant’s property. A gable roof is characteristic of the property and is considered in keeping with the building and surrounding area.

6.6. The redesigned roof works would not undermine the significance of this non- designated heritage asset and would reflect the character of the existing local listed building, and the locality. My Conservation Officer concurs with this view. The details of the eaves and use of materials are to match the existing building. The works therefore accord with policies within the Unitary Development Plan and the draft Birmingham Development Plan.

Impact on the amenities of occupiers of neighbouring properties

6.7. Objections on the grounds of overlooking and loss of privacy have been raised to the original plans. The inclusion of the first floor extension in close proximity to neighbouring properties would have created such concerns. The amended plan has omitted the first floor extension and there are no new windows proposed, so there

Page 3 of 6 would be no overlooking or loss of privacy with the scheme now under consideration.

6.8. The re-roofing of the single storey element from a mono to dual pitch does not affect the overall height of the development, however the ridge line is moving closer to the neighbouring property. Given the orientation of the property, the proposed development is to the north east of the garden; therefore the impact of altering the roof would have minimal impact on the sunlight into the neighbour’s garden. It is therefore considered not to significantly impact on the amenities of the occupiers.

Other issues

6.9. A number of other issues have been raised by local residents relating to issues of use of the mosque, hours of operation and parking. As the proposed development now for consideration only relates to works to the roof; these issues are now of no relevance to the determination of this application.

Community Infrastructure Levy

6.11. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed roof alterations are in keeping with the design and appearance of the locally listed building and eliminate an issue of maintenance. There are no detrimental impacts on neighbouring properties amenities.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to conditions

1 Requires that the materials used match the main building

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

3 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Emma Green

Page 4 of 6 Photo(s)

Side elevation of building including existing flat roof.

Page 5 of 6 Location Plan

Page 6 of 6

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/10378/PA Accepted: 12/01/2016 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 08/03/2016 Ward: Aston

New John Street and Blews Street, Newtown Middleway, Newtown, Birmingham, B6 4EP

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 footpath to the corner of New John Street West and Blews Street. This would be a new advertisement unit in this location.

1.2. The advertisement unit would measure 2.6m (h) x 1.3m (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 a corner facing traffic travelling westbound on New John Street, which forms part of the A4540 dual carriageway and ring road. The site also falls within a commercial area.

2.2. Link to Site Location

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 and 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. Birmingham Unitary Development Plan; National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the 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 a new advert in this location. Existing highway signage is positioned approximately 6m from the proposed advert, but I do not consider that the proposed advertisement would have an unacceptable cumulative impact. 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 public footpath. It is therefore considered that the proposed advertisement would not have an impact upon visual amenity.

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

Page 2 of 5 8.1. Temporary approval subject to conditions.

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

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: Faizal Jasat

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Site of proposed advertising totem

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

MILLE

ELKINGTON S Works 8

Tanks

ALLESLEY STREET

Works Works

NEWTOWN MID

Works Works m

109.4m

NEWTOWN MIDDLEWAY NEWTOW

NEW JOHN STREET

135 131

Tank 6

120 108.8m Wor

130 5

Works 4

2 Works 4

Bulls Head (PH) Works Works Works 107 PRITCHETT STREET 106 103 ents 100 96 ms 95

H) 94 Works 32 El Sub Sta

El Sub Sta

Scrap Metal Yard Works Works

BLEWS STREET Works

77 to 87 Depot Works

110.0m Tank MANCHESTER STREET

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 18 February 2016

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

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Approve - Conditions 17 2015/07606/PA

Fort Dunlop Fort Parkway Erdington Birmingham B24 9FD

Creation of new car park decked floors, erection of roof top extensions, new hotel car park, alterations to create entrance features/ enclosures and new landscape bridges

Approve - Conditions 18 2015/09648/PA

Former Dunlop Motorsports Site And Jaguar Land Rover West Car Park Off Ashold Farm Road Castle Bromwich Birmingham B24 9QE

Erection of two new storage and logistics buildings (Use Class B8) with associated works.

Approve - Conditions 19 2016/00152/PA

96 Orchard Road Erdington Birmingham B24 9JD

Erection of single storey rear extension.

Page 1 of 1 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/07606/PA Accepted: 04/12/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 04/03/2016 Ward: Tyburn

Fort Dunlop, Fort Parkway, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 9FD

Creation of new car park decked floors, erection of roof top extensions, new hotel car park, alterations to create entrance features/ enclosures and new landscape bridges. Applicant: EPIS03 Tyre Property Ltd Berkley Square House, Berkley Square, London, W1J 6DB Agent: Turnerbates Studio 3, 14 Marshalsea Road, London, SE1 1HL Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for the creation of new car park decked floors, erection of roof top extensions, new hotel car park, and alterations to create entrance features/ enclosures. In additional, the applicant seeks environmental improvements to include new landscaped bridges within the curtilage of the site.

1.2. Currently, the surface and basement level car parks provide 1238 parking spaces for 3,500 permanent staff and visitors to the existing on-site uses including the hotel. Amended plans have been provided and the proposed decked structures would sit above on parts of the existing surface level car park. The two decked structures would retain and be situated on either side of a centralised access road, re-siting the structures further into the surface car parks and away from the perimeters. Both of the decked structures would be rectangular shaped and include two-way ramps along the northern elevations and staircases to the southern elevations. The proposed structures would have the appearance of a chequered flag design achieved through the use of profiled aluminium mesh panels fixed to a steel support structure that would be situated 5 metres above ground level. The proposed structure to the east would measure 80 metres depth by 100 metres wide and provide 329 spaces. The structure to the west would measure 78 metres depth by 48 metres wide and provide 144 spaces. Total increase of combined car parking would be 473 spaces. The decked car park area would be illuminated by existing lighting columns. There are no changes proposed to the existing service road. The provision of additional parking facilities would continue to be available to permit holders associated with the uses that operate at the site or as a pay and display car park.

1.3. Currently, there are two existing lift/ staircase enclosures on roof top of the Fort Dunlop building. The two proposed rooftop extensions would be situated on either side of the existing lobbies and lift/ staircase enclosures and will provide two

Page 1 of 9 meeting/ conference rooms with ancillary kitchen and w/c facilities. The meeting/ conference rooms would be used by existing occupiers or when not in use would be available for private hire. The proposal would also include a centralised inter- connected extension that would connect the two existing lobbies and lift/ staircase enclosures and proposed extensions. The proposed extensions are designed to be light weight steel structures with glazing similar to the design and appearance to the existing lift/ staircase and lobby enclosure. Each of the proposed extensions to the side of the existing enclosures would measure approximately 15.5 metres depth by 10 metres wide by 3 metres in height. Part of the external roof top area would be retained and continue to provide seating, decking and low level landscaped/ garden areas. No alterations are proposed to the existing green sedum roofs on site.

1.4. The main entrance to the north and south elevations of the building would be pulled forward and be aligned with the perimeter of the building to create new centralised entrance features/ enclosures that would include automatic revolving doors with full height glazing shop fronts to the front and new glazed fire doors and cavity wall on the side elevation of the entrance features/ enclosures. The revolving door would project 1.5 metres from the perimeters on the building. The proposed glazing would be recessed by approximately 0.5 metres. The combined total floor area of the proposed centralised entrance features/ enclosures would be approximately 180 sq. metres. The proposal entrance features/ enclosures would allow a protective lobby/ waiting area to be created and opportunity to display artworks to shop front glazing panels.

1.5. Environmental improvements include the construction of two garden bridges (12 metres wide by 28 metres depth) from the car park into the main building and would create outdoor space for the existing occupiers at ground floor level of the site and be complementary to the rooftop amenity area. A variety of seating, a footpath and planting is proposed to counter any loss of grassed embankment area adjacent to the existing access road. The supporting statement also confirms any trees removed would be replanted and incorporated as part of landscaping to the bridges. Other improvement includes installation of pedestrian crossings, ramps and road directional signage.

1.6. Amended plans have been submitted that have reduced the size of the proposed hotel car park and drop-off zone to the east of the site to respect the existing landscaping design that is integral to the setting of the building. There would be a new two way access road proposed to the car park. A total of 19no. parking spaces are proposed to include two disabled spaces. The plans also show a new pedestrian link (3.5 metres wide) with pedestrian crossing from the main car park to the main hotel entrance and car park.

1.7. The following documents have been submitted in support of the proposal: • Design and Access Statement that includes Heritage Statement, Sustainability and Sustainable Drainage Statements • Updated Transport Assessment • Updated Travel Plan

1.8. Since, the initial submissions of the application, roof top car display pods have been omitted from the proposal.

1.9. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

Page 2 of 9

2.1. The application site is a 4.02 hectare former Dunlop tyre store building that was redeveloped in 2004 by Urban Splash into a mixed-use development comprising office space, retail, leisure and a 100 bedroom hotel. The building is Category “A” locally listed and is situated to the north side of Heartlands Parkway and adjacent to the M6 Motorway. The access arrangement to the car park is from the roundabout on East Drive via an intervening private access road between the surface car park and Fort Dunlop building. The car park associated to the use provides 1238 parking spaces. A significant proportion of the existing parking spaces are situated in the surface car park to the north of the building. There are additional parking spaces located in the basement level car park.

2.2. The surrounding context is entirely commercial in character, comprising large purpose-built industrial/ warehouse premises, small light industrial/ warehouse/ industrial buildings, Fort Retail Park and car showrooms. The site is adjoined by Jaguar Land Rover Plant to the east and former Dunlop Motorsport to the northwest, which has been acquired by Jaguar Land Rover for future redevelopment to provide storage and logistic buildings. There is combined Heat and Power Station and railhead associated with Jaguar Land Rover operating on the opposite junction of Heartlands Parkway and Fort Parkway.

Location Map

3. Planning History

3.1. 19-09-2007 - 2007/04440/PA – Erection of 2 no. gate house units/storage units at entrance to site – Approved subject to conditions

3.2. 26-10-2006 – 2006/05584/PA – Bin store and play space structures to promenade of Fort Dunlop building – Approved subject to conditions

3.3. 26-10-2006 – 2006/05583/PA – Change of use of ground floor to include a D1 use (Day Nursery) and D2 use (Play Centre) and the provision for a D1 use (Dentist) on any floor – Approved subject to conditions

3.4. 08-01-2004 - 2003/16101/PA – Internal re-planning and re-positioning of lifts to increase the number of bedrooms from 95 to 100 – Approved

3.5. 09-01-2004 - 2003/06101/PA – Extension to existing building to create 95 bedroom hotel – Approved subject to conditions

3.6. 19-12-2002 – 2002/04355/PA – Change of use involving a mix of office, retail, car showroom, leisure, residential or hotel accommodation, alterations and extensions to former Fort Dunlop building and associated car parking – Approved subject to conditions

3.7. 25-06-1996 – 1996/01943/PA – Construction of new road and car park and reconstruction of the old west perimeter road, with erection of lean-to extension – Approved subject to conditions

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and press notices displayed. Adjoining occupiers, Resident Association, Ward Councillors and MP consulted – one responses received from Travelodge Hotel Ltd., who support the proposal on the following grounds:

Page 3 of 9 • The development will help us deliver a world class service in Birmingham • The car park will help guests especially disabled customers and personal security for those travelling alone or with children • Enhance tourism facilities to Fort Dunlop building and attract more people visiting the city

4.2. Transportation Development - No objections subject to parking management strategy, cycle storage, phasing plan for construction of decked car park areas and updated commercial travel plan conditions.

4.3. Regulatory Services – No objections.

4.4. BCC Local Lead Flooding Authority – No objections subject to conditions requiring a Sustainable Drainage Assessment.

4.5. West Midlands Fire Services – No objections.

4.6. City Ecologist – No objections subject to the submission of a plan for the protection and/ or mitigation measures of peregrine falcons and their associated habitat and ecological enhancement strategy conditions

5. Policy Context

5.1. NPPF (2012), Adopted UDP (2005), Draft BDP (2012), SPG Places for All (2001), SPD Car Parking Guidelines (2012)

6. Planning Considerations

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

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

6.3. Principle of development – The proposed scheme of works would be relatively minor additions to the existing Fort Dunlop Buildings that would makes efficient use of land and improve the environmental quality of otherwise surface level car park, roof top or covered area adjacent to main reception. The additional parking spaces within the decked car park would address parking pressures on site for existing permit holders, improved pay and display facility for visitors and also reduce on- street parking pressures on existing service roads and the immediate area. The proposed additional extensions with decked car parking would be incidental and benefit the long term vitality and viability of the uses that operate within the Fort Dunlop building. Consequently, I consider that the principle of development is acceptable.

Page 4 of 9 6.4. Design/ character and impact on visual amenity – The Fort Dunlop Building within the curtilage of the site is a Category “A” locally listed building. It is a prominent and distinctive feature of the immediate area and the design of the development to include a decked car park has been the subject of detailed negotiation prior to the submission of the application and further discussion and amendments have been carried out following the submission of the application with my City Design and Conservation Officers. Currently, the Fort Dunlop building with associated car park and landscaping have been finished to a high quality standard. The proposed amendments include modification to the design/ siting of the decked car parks to achieve a curved chequered flag design achieved through the use of profiled aluminium mesh panels fixed on steel support structure. This would provide an interesting façade and allow light filter through into the car park. The use of decked car park would be compatible with the existing and neighbouring uses, and would contribute to an improvement in environmental quality over the appearance of its previous use as a surface level car park. The roof top extensions would be in scale and massing with the existing lobby/ lift enclosures. The reduction of floor area to the hotel car park and the removal of car pods to the roof would respect the architectural character and setting of this locally listed building and would continue to make a significant contribution to the immediate area. The entrance features would give the Fort Building a greater presence within the street or car park. The Fort Dunlop building is designated as a Non-designated heritage asset and my City Design and Conservation Officers raise no objections and conclude and that the paragraphs 133 and 135 of the NPPF tests have been complied.

6.5. The proposed amendments to retain grass verges and trees adjacent to the East Drive roundabout would continue to build on strong principles of good quality and robust landscaping on site. The hard landscaping, through the use of different materials and paint, would also retain circular holes on the surface of the car park, which is a key feature within the architectural design of the hotel element and overall site. The introduction of green bridges would further enhance the character and appearance of the site. Any trees removed would be replanted elsewhere within the site. My Landscaping and Tree Officers have raised no objections subject to conditions to include landscaping, site levels and hard surfacing that would ensure that the proposal replants any trees to be removed, makes a substantial contribution to the site and overall area in amenity and biodiversity terms.

6.6. Impact on ecology – The proposal has omitted the roof top car display pods on the towers to the south-western end of the Fort Dunlop Building, where peregrine falcon nest boxes were installed as part of 2004 consent for the redevelop the Fort Dunlop Building. The City Ecologist has recommended a condition be attached requiring submission of a plan for the protection and/ or mitigation measures of peregrine falcons and their associated habitat. A further condition would also be attached for ecological enhancement strategy. I concur with this view.

6.7. Impact on residential amenity – The application site is situated within commercial area with the nearest residential properties being situated approximately 600 metres away on Kingsbury Road. Regulatory Services have raised no objections to the proposal. I concur with this view.

6.8. Impact on Flooding - There is no proposed increase of impermeable area and the proposed works are contained within the existing building or car park. The Council as Lead Local Flooding Authority has recommended conditions which require the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage scheme. I concur with this view.

Page 5 of 9 6.9. Impact on highway safety – The site accommodates 3,500 people a day and the decked car parks would continue to form an integral part of the infrastructure serving the Fort Dunlop Building. The proposed decked car park would continue to be available for permit holders or general pay and display. Transportation Development have raised no objections subject to a number of conditions including a car parking management plan. I concur with this view. The proposal would continue to promote the use of sustainable alternative transports and the shuttle bus through the Travelwise initiative. Consequently, I consider that the decked car park areas, extensions and other improvements will beneficially meet the needs of the Fort Dunlop building and any other developments within the immediate area such as Jaguar Land Rover.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The application proposes an appropriate high quality development within an employment area and complies with the Council’s urban design policies in the UDP, Draft BDP and the guidance contained within the NPPF. The proposed scheme of works is well-designed; scale, massing and appearance is considered acceptable and would accord with the general character and appearance of the locally listed building on site and the surrounding area. The proposal is also considered acceptable in highway safety and residential amenity terms. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval subject to conditions

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approved subject to conditions

1 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

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

4 Requires the prior submission of a legally protected species and habitat protection plan

5 Requires the prior submission of hard surfacing materials

6 Requires the prior submission of earthworks details

7 Requires the prior submission of level details

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

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

10 Requires the prior submission of a parking management strategy

11 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

12 Requires the submission of updated commercial travel plan details within 3 months and reviewed annually.

Page 6 of 9 13 Requires the prior submission of phasing plan for construction of the decked park areas.

14 Requires the prior submission of boundary treatment details

15 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

16 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

17 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Mohammed Akram

Page 7 of 9 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Surface car park

Figure 2: View from Vantage Way

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/09648/PA Accepted: 23/11/2015 Application Type: Full Planning Target Date: 22/02/2016 Ward: Tyburn

Former Dunlop Motorsports Site And Jaguar Land Rover West Car Park, Off Ashold Farm Road, Castle Bromwich, Birmingham, B24 9QE

Erection of two new storage and logistics buildings (Use Class B8) with associated works. Applicant: Jaguar Land Rover Ltd c/o Agent Agent: CgMs Consulting 7th Floor, 140 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5DN Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for the erection of two storage and logistics buildings (Use Class B8) with associated works on the former Dunlop Motorsport site and West car park associated with the wider Jaguar Land Rover car assembly plant.

1.2. The applicant advises that the development would result in continued significant investment and would improve existing operational efficiency within the JLR plant. Currently, a conventional manual picking facility is located in B Block, which due to its limited in size does not provide an adequate facility for the wider plant. The site has been selected as it allows for the flow of materials and vehicles with minimum disruption to the main plant situated to the east of the site.

1.3. The proposed Automated Storage and Retrieval System (ASRS) building would be sited on the West car park to the south of the application site. The ASRS building would comprise a variety of computer controlled systems for automatically placing and retrieving loads from defined storage locations. The building would provide 16,805 sq. metres of new holding and storage of materials and parts associated with the manufacturing process being undertaken at the plant. The building would provide a condensed holding space for approximately 150,000 boxes with automated cranes. The main part of the building would be 15 metres in height. The building would be stepped with the tallest element being 30 metres in height, which is necessary to allow for the installation of full height internal cranes. The internal layout would comprise a large open plan storage area with incidental support facilities such as offices and employee welfare facilities at ground floor. Mezzanine first and second floor levels would provide additional support facilities such as meeting rooms; break out areas, w/c facilities and internal plant room. There would be an integrated covered HGV canopy area measuring 1,380 sq. metres of floor space situated to the west of the ASRS building.

Page 1 of 13 1.4. The proposed Integrated Logistics Centre (ILC) is the larger of the two buildings proposed and would be constructed on the former Dunlop Motorsport buildings site and provide a sequencing centre for direct deliveries from suppliers. The proposed ILC building would have a maximum height of 17.5 metres and provide 17,076 sq. metres of floor space. The building would also incorporate 1,950 sq. metres of covered HGV loading bay to the west of the site. Internally, the ground floor would provide an open plan area with small first floor mezzanine floor area providing incidental support facilities such as offices, amenity area and internal plant room.

1.5. The external appearance would be modern functional industrial cladded buildings that reflect the applicants’ adopted corporate colours (silver and dark grey) similar to the new body shop on Chester Road. The buildings would be parapet style blocks with concealed shallow pitched roofs. There would be dark grey plinth proposed on the lower section of the building. The buildings also include glazing elements to pedestrian accesses and upper mezzanine floors. New landscaping (approximately 350 sq. metres) is also proposed to the southern part of the site adjacent to Vantage Way.

1.6. A new covered canopy would be installed and provide a link from the proposed buildings to the existing plant east of the application site. The canopy would extend to 3,100 sq. metres and would be approximately 8 metres in height.

1.7. Other minor works also includes a battery house located under an extended canopy to the east, erection of a new sub-station building, new sprinkler tank and pump house, gatehouse and the creation of new pallet park for the storage of unused pallets adjacent to Ashold Farm Road and to the north of the proposed ILC building.

1.8. The vehicular access arrangement to the site would continue to be from Ashold Farm Road and roundabout to Spitfire Road to the north (Gate 7) and Vantage Way and East Drive (Gate 5 & 6) to the south of the site. There would be a modification of the junction access onto Vantage Way, where a new junction access arrangement (Gate 6) would be provided and situated further west of the site adjacent to the Meggitt site (105 Vantage Way). Vehicles would also be able to access the proposed development via Gate 4 on the A38 Kingsbury Road. The proposed junction configuration (Gate 6) would be a right in left out priority with one lane in and one lane out for HGVs and one lane reserved primarily for the movement of finished vehicles to be despatched from the Vantage Road frontage. Internally, there would be a two-way distribution road constructed around the proposed buildings providing access for HGV’s to circulate around the site with all loading and unloading taking place on the western elevation within the new trailer park offering 50 parking bays. There would be artificial lighting proposed that would include 8 metre high columns for the safe operational use of the building and overall site.

1.9. The proposal would improve the existing operation on site and there would be no additional roles created to the existing 3,500 people employed at the site. The existing plant together with proposed storage and logistics facility would operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

1.10. The proposals incorporate the demolition of existing buildings within the application site, of which a separate application for prior approval for their demolition has been determined. The displacement of staff car parking would be provided within the proposed multi-storey car park on the former Showcase site on Kingsbury Road, which is subject to a separate application ref: 2016/00704/PA or at the Cyclone site situated further north on Chester Road.

Page 2 of 13 1.11. The following documents have been submitted in support of the proposal: • Design and Access Statement • Planning Statement • Surface Water Drainage Strategy and Addendums • Construction Traffic Management Plan • Phase 1 & 2 Environmental Site Assessment • Remediation Strategy • Arboricultural Report • Flood Risk Assessment • Updated Air Quality Assessment • Lighting Impact Assessment and Lighting Strategy • Transport Assessment • Archaeology and Heritage Assessment • Noise Impact Assessment Report • Ecology Assessment

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

1.13. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1 The application site comprises two plots of land/ buildings to the west of the main JLR plant. The former Dunlop Motorsport site is situated on Ashold Farm Road to the north and the JLR West car park is situated to the south along Vantage Way. The combined site area of both sites is 6.4 hectares. The former Dunlop Motorsport site was purchased by Jaguar Land Rover (JLR) in September 2014 and all buildings are in the process of being demolished and the site cleared. The West car park site provides 100 car sharing staff parking spaces and 180 product parking spaces. The access arrangements to the application site are currently provided from Vantage Way off East Drive to the West car park and from Ashold Farm Road to the north via a roundabout junction with Spitfire Road to the former Dunlop Motorsport site. East Drive connects to the wider highway network via a roundabout junction with the A47 Fort Parkway to the southeast of the site. Ashold Farm Road via Holly Lane or Wood Lane provides access to the Tyburn Road (A38).

2.2 The surrounding context is entirely commercial in character, comprising large purpose-built industrial/ warehouse premises, small light industrial/ warehouse/ industrial buildings, Fort Retail Park and car showrooms. To the north of the site lie the Trinity Mirror Printworks. To the east are the Tyburn Trading Estate and the Jaguar Land Rover Plant. The Fort Dunlop building to the south of the site is Category “A” Locally Listed building and provides a range of mixed uses from offices to hotel. Further to the south lie Fort Parkway and the M6 motorway. Dunlop Exhibition Centre is Category “B” Locally Listed building is situated on Wood Lane approximately 50 metres to the west of the application site. The nearest residential property is approximately 470 metres from the application site, beyond Kingsbury Road and the Birmingham and Fazeley Canal.

Location Map

3. Planning History

Page 3 of 13 3.1. Application Site

3.2. 18/01/2016 - 2015/09103/PA - Creation of car parking for vehicle storage for a temporary period of two years – Temporary approval subject to condition

3.3. 24-06-2015 – 2015/04360/PA – Application for prior notification for the proposed demolition of the Dunlop Motor Sports buildings – No prior approval required.

3.4. 18-03-2015 – 2015/00275/PA – Erection of 1000 sq. metres detached warehouse – Approved subject to conditions.

3.5. Wider JLR Site (Chester Road):

3.6. Current 2016/00372/PA - Erection of single storey extension to existing 'block L' building – Awaiting determination.

3.7. 17/10/2014 - 2014/06186/PA - Erection of canopy to northern elevation of 'B' Block – Approved subject to conditions.

3.8. 03/07/2014 - 2014/03302/PA - Non Material Amendment to approval 2013/07480/PA for minor alterations of elevations and small additional lean to build – Approved.

3.9. 19/05/2014 - 2014/01931/PA - Erection of extension to existing battery charge house – Approved subject to conditions.

3.10. 23/01/2014 - 2013/08638/PA - Application for approval of details reserved by condition no's: 1, 2, 3 & 4 attached to planning approval 2013/03767/PA – Approved.

3.11. 08/11/2013 - 2013/07480/PA - Erection of a block extension to accommodate new conveyor – Approved subject to conditions.

3.12. 25/07/2013 - 2013/03767/PA - Erection of extension and raising of the roof to the existing press shop building – Approved subject to conditions.

3.13. 04/04/2013 - 2013/01031/PA - Demolition of existing buildings and erection of a blanking press shop building – Approved subject to conditions.

3.14. 24/01/13 – 2012/07983. Demolition of existing buildings (Block E, EPS Canopy, Garage and Sports & Social Club) and erection of new Body Shop with associated landscaping and minor works. Approved subject to conditions.

3.15. 30/11/12 – 2012/07524/PA. Application for prior notification of proposed demolition. No prior approval required.

3.16. 22/11/12 – 2012/06679/PA. Relocation of panel storage to a temporary building for 5 years and relocation of forklift truck/HGV and pallet repair activities to a permanent building. Approved subject to conditions.

3.17. Cyclone:

3.18. 30/11/12 - 2012/07529/PA. Application for prior notification of proposed demolition. Prior approval required and approved.

Page 4 of 13 3.19. 08/02/13 – 2012/08341/PA. Temporary five year planning permission for employee car parking and ancillary works – Temporary Approval subject to conditions.

3.20. 27/06/2013 - 2013/03386/PA - Temporary planning permission for five years to use part of the Cyclone site for trailer parking (30 spaces) including the erection of security hut, lighting and associated ancillary works – Temporary Approval subject to conditions.

3.21. Former Showcase Cinema:

3.22. 01/03/13 – 2013/00909/PA. Application for prior notification of proposed demolition of existing cinema. No prior approval required.

3.23. 17/09/2013 - 2013/05995/PA - Formation of temporary surface car park – Temporary 5 year approval

3.24. Jaguar Land Rover Rail Head

3.25. 31/12/2015 - 2015/07730/PA - Replacement of existing and installation of single storey demountable structures to be used as gatehouse and staff welfare facility – Temporary 5 year approval

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Site and press notices displayed. Adjoining occupiers, Resident Associations, Ward Councillors and MP consulted – 3 letters of objection received from owners of Boultbee Brooks and adjoining occupiers, who object on the following grounds:

• Boultbee Construction Ltd. are freehold owners of Spitfire Road and a section of Holly Lane forming the junction with Spitfire Road • Spitfire Road and a section of Holly Lane are not adopted by the Council and are maintained by Boultbee Construction Limited on behalf of each tenant/ freehold owner at Holly Industrial Park • Concerns about the amount of traffic that the new development will bring to the private road (Spitfire Road and part of Holly Lane). • Congestion grounds as the occupants of Holly Park (Spitfire Road) have complained to landlords about JLR vehicles using Spitfire Road as a bypass to Ashold Farm Road • Boultbee Construction Ltd. do not oppose the development but request that amendments are made to the scheme to ensure that private roads are not used by vehicles associated with the development. • Current usage of JLR traffic causing damage to the road surface that will require repairs and be at the cost of Holly Park occupants. • Over-intensification of use and nothing within the plans to indicate any commitment to contribute towards the upkeep of these private roads (Spitfire Road & part of Holly Lane). • HGVs are queuing up outside and regularly blocking access to and from the car parking for units on Holly Park. • Request has been made to landlord (Boultbee Construction Ltd.) to block the access from Ashold Farm Road junction to prevent the high volume of HGV’s damaging the road. • No assessment has been done of the access from Ashold Farm Road for Gate 7, which are causing gridlock at peaks and limiting access on one end of Spitfire Road.

Page 5 of 13

4.2. Transportation Development – No objections subject to conditions to include cycle storage, vehicular visibility splays, provision of delivery and service area, pavement boundary details, parking management strategy and S.278 agreement to include reinstatement of redundant/ installation of new bellmouth access, modification to street lighting, etc.

4.3. Regulatory Services (Pollution Control) – No objections subject to condition to ensure that noise levels from all new plant satisfies the criteria recommended in the acoustic assessment carried out by Arcadis (Report no 2679811209) in support of this application.

4.4. Regulatory Services (Land Contamination) – No objections

4.5. Regulatory Services (Air Quality) – Initially raised concerns and requested further information from the applicants on the specific mitigation proposals that need to include details of the strategic route planning, proposals for the implementation of improvements to the HGV fleet to include timescales, and proposals for the increased capacity of the railhead to remove the need for HGV movements etc. An updated report was provided by the agents addressing the above concerns and Regulatory Services now raises no objections to the proposal.

4.6. Environment Agency – Initial consultation comments raised no objections subject to land contamination and surface water drainage conditions. Remediation strategy submitted to minimise pre-commencement condition. No objections subject to modified condition to ensure that if any unsuspected contamination is found, an updated report is provided.

4.7. Centro – Awaiting comments

4.8. Highways England – No objections

4.9. West Midlands Police – No objections subject to Secure by Design commercial developments initiative

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

4.11. West Midlands Fire Service – No objections

4.12. Employment Access Team – Awaiting comments

4.13. Severn Trent – No objections subject to drainage condition.

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), Loss of Industrial Land to Alternative Uses (2006), Grade “A” & “B” locally listed building

6. Planning Considerations

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

Page 6 of 13 6.2. Planning Policy – The NPPF sets out that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute towards achieving sustainable development and that at the heart of the NPPF is a presumption in favour of sustainable development. It also includes a section highlighting the Government’s commitment to building a strong and competitive economy in order to create jobs and prosperity and requires Local Planning Authorities to support business sectors (Section 1, par. 14, 18-22). The general acceptability of the proposals should be considered against the three dimensions of sustainable development, namely economic, social and environmental and that these should be considered collectively and weighed in the balance when assessing the suitability of development proposals.

6.3. The application site is designated for “Industrial Regeneration”, where land is safeguarded for predominantly industrial uses (Para. 4.24 of the UDP). Para 11.26 of the UDP outlines the fundamental importance of the employment area (termed as Bromford) within which the site is located: ‘the wedge of land bounded by the M6, Tyburn/Kingsbury Road and Chester Road is over 200 hectares in size and is one of the city’s key industrial areas where industrial regeneration will be encouraged’ under policy IR1 and that ‘Jaguar is a major employer within the area’.

6.4. Policy 7.12 and Policy TP18 of the BDP outlines the Core Employment Areas that will ‘be retained in employment use and will be the focus of economic regeneration activities’. The Castle Bromwich Jaguar Land Rover plant has been identified as being located within core employment area and the policy acknowledges the contribution of companies such as Jaguar Land Rover make in generating and developing these areas’.

6.5. Principle of use – The permitted use of the site is general industrial given its former use by Dunlop Motorsport and as an incidental car park associated with the wider Jaguar Land Rover Plant. The application site is situated within an Industrial Regeneration area within the adopted UDP and a Core Employment Area within the emerging Draft Birmingham Development Plan. The proposal would provide upgraded and more efficient storage and logistics buildings that form part of an ongoing programme of investment within the Jaguar Land Rover Plant. Although the current proposal would not directly create jobs, it would improve existing operations by maintaining 3,500 skilled jobs and apprenticeships at the site and continue to benefit the wider supply chain within the region. Consequently, the proposal would comply with aspirations laid out within the NPPF, UDP and Draft Birmingham Development Plan and is considered acceptable in principle

6.6. Design/ character and impact on visual amenity – The NPPF attaches great importance to the design of schemes and seeks to achieve high quality and inclusive design for all developments (Section 7, para. 56-68). Part of the application site is currently used as a car park and part is in the process of being cleared of former industrial buildings, with the proposal offering an opportunity to improve its appearance and the wider area. The proposed buildings are substantial structures and would be set against the southern and eastern boundaries of the site. The designs are typical of modern industrial/ warehouse buildings with the use of cladding and glazing to office and pedestrian elements that would break-up the southern elevation of the ASRS. The orientation of the buildings would result in the service yard and pallet storage yard being located to the western and northern part of the site. The design and layout of the buildings is constrained by the internal processes together with the siting of internal cranes that would be required within the ASRS building. The ILC and main part of the proposed ASRS buildings would be 15 metres and 17.5 metres in height respectively. To off-set the visual impact of the tallest part of the proposed ASRS building (30 metres) and to alleviate concerns with

Page 7 of 13 regards to massing in relation to the Fort Dunlop Building, amended plans have been provided that have sited this taller element back by a further 4 metres from the Vantage Way frontage. The break-up of cladding and different glazing would provide visual interest to the more visible elevation of the ASRS building from Vantage Way. Amended plans have also incorporated a wider landscaping area with the boundary fence siting in-bound of the landscaped area to the southern boundary along Vantage Way, which would include trees and planting that would soften and reduce the impact further. Consequently, it is considered that the design, scale and massing providing modern buildings of good quality would be appropriate in this industrial regeneration and employment area. My City Design and Landscaping Officer have raised no objections to the proposal.

6.7. Impact on residential amenity - The impact on neighbouring residential occupiers would be limited, due to the proposal being within a well-established industrial area, and over 470 metres from the nearest dwellings on the north side of Kingsbury Road. All properties immediately adjacent to the application site are industrial and commercial including the wider JLR plant and Fort Dunlop building. Regulatory Services have raised no objections subject to a condition to control noise levels of all new plant and machinery to the agreed recommendations specified within the submitted acoustic assessment report. Consequently, it is considered that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse impact on the amenities of residential occupiers within the immediate vicinity of the site.

6.8. In terms of air quality, Regulatory Services are satisfied with the methodologies and approaches used and raise no objections to the proposal.

6.9. Land contamination – Part of the site is currently used as a car park and part had formerly been used by Dunlop Motorsport as a manufacturing base for the production of tyres. A desk top study was been provided as part of the supporting submission. Upon advice received from the Environment Agency, the applicants have also updated their remediation strategy to take account of further site investigation and proposed remediation measures, including such matters as the treatment of soils, ground gas monitoring, and unexpected contamination and mitigating the risk to surface waters. This has been assessed by Regulatory Services and the Environment Agency, who are satisfied that providing the measures previously accepted for the adjoining site are carried forward to this site, that they have no objections to the proposed development subject to a condition for the implementation of the remediation strategy.

6.10. Flood risk and drainage - A Flood Risk Assessment has been submitted as part of the application as the site covers an area of approximately 6.4 hectares. The Environment Agency have raised no objections to the proposal. A Drainage Strategy together with various addendums that have been submitted. The Council as Local Lead Flooding Authority have also raised no objections subject to a number of conditions to include submission of further drainage details to minimise the risk of off-site flooding caused by surface water run-off and submission of a maintenance and management plan relating to a sustainable drainage scheme. I concur with this view.

6.11. Impact on trees and ecology - The majority of the site is industrial or car park, which is in the process of being cleared with hard standing areas remaining or likely to remain. The applicants have submitted an ecological report, assessing the development’s potential impact on protected species. The survey has shown that the site is of limited ecological value and had limited supporting value for ecologically sensitive and/or legally protected species. The City Ecologist has raised no

Page 8 of 13 objections subject to imposition of an ecological enhancement condition that would incorporate beneficial planting within the soft landscape areas.

6.12. Impact on locally listed buildings – There are two Locally Listed Buildings – the Dunlop Exhibition Centre to the west and Fort Dunlop to the south of the application site. The surrounding area is industrial in character and amended plans have been provided that have situated the taller element of the ASRS building further back by 4 metres to the northern part to minimise the impact on the setting of the Fort Dunlop Locally Listed Building. There are also no known archaeological remains within the site or within the wider study area. The Conservation and Archaeological Officer has raised no objections to the proposal.

6.13. Impact on highway safety – A Transport Assessment has been submitted in support of the application which contends that the proposed buildings would improve the efficiency of the holding and storage of materials and parts for the manufacturing process and will reduce the number of vehicle movements required within the site.

6.14. The proposal would not result in an increase of staffing levels at the site nor would it increase staff parking demand at the site. Although, it does acknowledge that the staff parking in the West Car Park would be displaced to the former Showcase site on Kingsbury Road, with corresponding parking displacement to the Cyclone site at Erdington Industrial Park. The proposal would also provide cycle parking and storage facilities for staff within the proposed buildings. Transportation Development have recommended that a car park management plan condition is attached to ensure that car sharing users are given priority parking as a sustainable travel measure for the site.

6.15. The modified access from Vantage Way (Gate 6) would be situated in close proximity to the established access to the adjoining Meggitt site (105 Vantage Way) that is situated to the west of the proposed ASRS facility. It is acknowledged that the siting of the proposed ASRS building provides no alternative options to re-site this access. Transportation Development have raised no objections subject to a number of conditions to provide details to include highway works, visibility splays etc. to ensure that the proposed modified access (Gate 6) does not undermine highway safety in particular with regards to vehicles exiting the adjoining Meggitt site.

6.16. The proposed HGV route from the application and wider site would continue to be accessed to and from Fort Parkway (A47) and Tyburn Road (A38). These “A” roads already carry significant amount of traffic including HGV’s. There would be modification to the existing access from Vantage Way (Gate 6) that would become redundant and replaced with a re-sited new access and priority junction to the south part of the site on Vantage Way frontage. This allows an access road along the perimeter of the site allowing vehicles to access the trailer park area to the western boundary of the site. The existing distribution pattern of HGV movements from Gate 5 and proposed modification to Gate 6 accessed off Vantage Way and on the East Drive and A47 roundabout would have comparable distribution to the current concentration of vehicle movements from the staff car park. There would be an increase in HGV movements at the new Gate 7 (established access to former Dunlop Motorsport site) at Ashold Farm Road. Given the former use of the Dunlop Motor Sport site, Transportation Development have raised no objections and state that the potential additional movements are unlikely to generate any highway concerns.

6.17. I note objections raised by owners and occupiers of the adjoining industrial estate (Holly Park) with regards to a right of way, future maintenance, vehicles causing

Page 9 of 13 obstruction and the use of this private central section of Spitfire Road / Holly Lane by JLR vehicles etc. These are civil matters between the applicant (JLR) and the relevant landowners/ maintainers of this private section of Holly Lane and Spitfire Road and cannot in isolation be considered as material considerations in the determination of this application. A route via Ashold Farm Road (West) and Wood Lane (North) is available as an alternative route to Tyburn Road (A38). The impact on the capacity and configuration of the Holly Lane and Wood Lane junctions with Tyburn Road likely to be similar with both junctions being traffic signal controlled and signposted as an HGV route to industrial estates. An alternative route to the south is also available from Ashold Farm Road and Wood Lane and Wingfoot Way (South) to Fort Parkway (A47).

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposal is considered to accord with the guidance contained within the NPPF, Adopted UPD and Draft BDP as it would provide an improved modern storage and logistics facility incidental to the wider Jaguar Land Rover Plant. The application site would continue to provide employment opportunities. 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 would not adversely impact upon highway safety or residential amenity. The proposal is therefore recommended for approval 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 a drainage scheme

3 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

4 Requires the implementation of a contamination remediation scheme in accordance with approved Remediation Strategy.

5 Requires the submission of cycle storage details prior to occupation

6 Requires vehicular visibility splays to be provided prior to occupation.

7 Requires the delivery and service area prior to occupation

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

9 Requires the submission of a parking management strategy prior to occupation

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

11 Requires the submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement prior to occupation

12 Requires soft landscaping area adjacent to Gate 6 to be no higher than 600mm.

Page 10 of 13 13 Requires the submission of hard and/or soft landscape details prior to occupation

14 Requires the submission of hard surfacing materials prior to occupation

15 Requires the submission of boundary treatment details prior to occupation

16 Requires the submission of a landscape management plan prior to occupation

17 Requires the prior submission of level details

18 Requires the prior submission of a sustainable drainage scheme

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

20 Requires the noise insulation/ mitigation details implemented in accordance with Noise Impact Assessment Report.

21 Requires the submission of a scheme for ecological/biodiversity/enhancement measures prior to occupation

22 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Mohammed Akram

Page 11 of 13 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Aerial view of the site

Figure 2: Internal view of site Page 12 of 13 Location Plan

Page 13 of 13

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2016/00152/PA Accepted: 08/01/2016 Application Type: Householder Target Date: 04/03/2016 Ward: Erdington

96 Orchard Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 9JD

Erection of single storey rear extension. Applicant: Mr and Mrs Alden 96 Orchard Road, Erdington, Birmingham, B24 9JD Agent: Mr John Woodcock 53 The Boulevard, Wylde Green, Sutton Coldfield, Birmingham, B73 5JB Recommendation Approve Subject To Conditions

1. Proposal

1.1. Consent is sought for a single storey rear extension.

1.2. The proposed rear extension would be 7.8m in depth, 3.4m in width and a maximum height of 4m with a mono-pitch roof design. The extension will be brick built with a tiled roof.

1.3. The application is reported to the Planning Committee as the applicant is a local Councillor.

1.4. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site consists of a terraced property with an original two storey rear- wing and front bay window. There is an existing single storey rear utility room extension with a mono-pitch roof and concrete constructed detached stores which are all to be demolished as part of the proposed works.

2.2. To the rear is a long garden area which is predominantly laid to lawn and small paved area directly adjacent the property.

2.3. The nearest affected window to the neighbouring property No. 98 Orchard Road is to ground floor rear living room window.

2.4. The neighbouring property No. 94 Orchard Road have an existing single storey rear utility extension and an attached outbuilding.

2.5. There are other single storey rear extensions visible in the surrounding area.

Page 1 of 5

2.6. Site location

3. Planning History

3.1. None.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Neighbouring properties and local ward members have been consulted for the statutory 21 days – no responses received.

5. Policy Context

5.1. The following local policies are applicable:

• Birmingham Unitary Development Plan • Draft Birmingham Development Plan • Places For Living (Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 2001) • The 45 Degree Code (Adopted Supplementary Planning Guidance 1996) • Extending your Home (Adopted Supplementary Planning Document 2007)

5.2. The following national policies are applicable:

• NPPF: National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. The principal matters for consideration are the scale and design of the proposed extension, the impact on the architectural appearance of the property, the impact on surrounding area and the impact upon neighbouring properties’ amenities.

6.2. The proposed single storey rear extension would technically breach the 45 Degree Code Policy to No. 98 Orchard Road. However, the 45 degree code allows single storey extensions at the end of a wing provided that sufficient garden area remains. In this particular case there would be more than sufficient garden remaining and the proposed single storey rear extension would not result in any significant further loss of light or outlook to this neighbouring property. The proposal complies with the 45 Degree Code to No. 94 Orchard Road.

6.3. It is acknowledged that the proposed windows in the side elevation of the extension fail to meet the required 5m for windowed elevations overlooking private amenity space. However, I consider that due to the existing relationship and context between properties and the presence of 2m boundary screening to No. 98 Orchard Road the proposal does not compromise the amenity of the neighbouring dwelling any further than existing.

6.4. The scale and design of the resulting development is in keeping with the original dwelling house and would not compromise the existing character or architectural appearance of the property. As such, the development would comply with the design principles contained with the design guide ‘Extending your Home’ Supplementary

Page 2 of 5 Planning Document. There are examples of single storey rear extensions at other dwellings within the immediate locality.

6.5. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. This application is recommended for approval because the proposal complies with objectives of the policies as set out above.

8. Recommendation

8.1. Approve subject to the following conditions

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

2 Requires that the materials used match the main building

3 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: Ricky Chima

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 2 – Rear of 96 Orchard Road

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

6 51

82 1 2 3 7

ARTHUR ROAD 4 5 41 8 6 9

Moor End Court

81 29

19 15

18 112.8m 11a 11 El Sub

1 Sta

84 43

230

110.1m

228b 228a 228d

228c

86 229

228

226

224

223 94

ORCHARD ROAD

222

108.4m

Iss 108

113

210 205

El Sub Sta

120 3

1 HEPBURN EDGE

MOOR END LANE

9 198 17

15 134

136

189 31

109.5m

Kingsbury Place

37 35

180

Page 5 of 5 Birmingham City Council

Planning Committee 18 February 2016

I submit for your consideration the attached reports for the City Centre team.

Recommendation Report No. Application No / Location / Proposal

Defer – Informal Approval 20 2015/10462/PA

Land bounded by Sheepcote Street/Broad Street/Oozells Way City Centre Birmingham B15 1AQ

Approve - Temporary 21 2015/10380/PA

Belgrave Middleway Before Horton Square Highgate Birmingham B12 0YR

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 22 2015/10381/PA

Ladywood Middleway near Five Ways Opposite Broadway City Centre Birmingham B16 8HA

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 1 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Approve - Temporary 23 2015/08913/PA

Pershore Street/Ladywell Walk Near to Bull Ring Markets City Centre Birmingham

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Approve - Temporary 24 2015/09864/PA

Outside 37-38 Horsefair (Near to Thorpe Street) City Centre Birmingham B1 1DA

Installation of double-sided digital advertising totem

Page 2 of 2 Director of Planning and Regeneration

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/10462/PA Accepted: 30/12/2015 Application Type: Variation of Condition Target Date: 30/03/2016 Ward: Ladywood

Land bounded by Sheepcote Street/Broad Street/Oozells Way, City Centre, Birmingham, B15 1AQ

Removal of Condition No. 18 (phasing of development) attached to approval 2014/09348/PA for a 22 storey residential building (C3) containing 189 apartments including ground floor restaurant and retail space (A1 and A3) and a 17 storey hotel building (C1) with ancillary retail and leisure uses, including a ground floor restaurant space (A3). The development includes part demolition of the Grade II listed 78 - 79 Broad Street and will also provide associated hard and soft landscaping, infrastructure and engineering works. Applicant: Regal (West Point) Limited Forward House, 17 High Street, Henley-in-Arden, Warwickshire, B95 5AA Agent: WYG 3rd Floor, 54 Hagley Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, B16 8PE Recommendation Approve Subject To A Section 106 Legal Agreement

1. Proposal

1.1. This application seeks to delete condition 18 attached to application 2014/09348/PA, which was granted last November. The scheme comprises two buildings, a 22 storey residential tower and a 17 storey hotel building. Condition 18 states that:

“The residential element of the scheme shall not be occupied until the hotel is occupied.”

1.2. No other changes are proposed to the scheme.

1.3. Following the grant of planning permission, the wording of this condition has caused difficulties regarding funding the scheme. The agent has indicated that whilst the development would be delivered in a comprehensive way, separate funding streams are in place for the residential and hotel elements. The condition as currently worded has caused uncertainty for those funding the project, principally to occupy the residential building in the event of delay to the completion and occupation of the hotel. A single construction contract for both elements is close to being let but cannot be completed without the funding being released.

1.4. To provide certainty regarding the comprehensive redevelopment of the site, the applicant agrees that the practical completion of the residential building would

Page 1 of 9 include the delivery of the site wide public realm works and the refurbishment of the listed Left Bank. In addition, the applicant commits that upon the practical completion of the residential works, the £750,000 S106 financial contribution (in relation to affordable housing and off-site public realm improvements) would be paid.

1.5. Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The application site covers some 0.24 hectares and is roughly triangular in shape. It is bordered by Oozells Way to the north east, Sheepcote Street to the south west and Broad Street to the south east. The site comprises previously developed land and is currently used in part for a temporary car park accessed from Sheepcote Street. There is also a large digital advertisement at the corner of Broad Street and Oozells Way.

2.2. The Left Bank building occupies a prominent position within the site at the corner of Broad Street and Sheepcote Street. The building, a former Barclays Bank, now occupied by Big Bite and Bombay Mix, is a Grade II statutorily Listed Building. It dates from 1898, by C E Bateman and is three storeys plus attic constructed in red brick and stone with a green slate tiled roof in an Arts and Crafts interpretation of the late C17 style.

2.3. Surrounding land uses comprise a mixture of hotels, apartments, offices, businesses, restaurants and bars. The site is located to the south of Brindleyplace, a large business and social hub of Birmingham, as well as adjacent to Broad Street, a predominantly social and leisure destination of the City Centre.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. 27 November 2015 Application 2014/09348/PA. Planning permission granted for the development of a 22 storey residential building (C3) containing 189 apartments including ground floor restaurant and retail space (A1 and A3) and a 17 storey hotel building (C1) with ancillary retail and leisure uses, including a ground floor restaurant space (A3). The development includes part demolition of the Grade II listed 78 - 79 Broad Street and also includes hard and soft landscaping, infrastructure and engineering works. This application is subject to a S106 legal agreement to secure financial contributions of £566,000 towards off-site affordable housing and £184,000 toward off-site public realm improvements at Centenary Square.

3.2. 27 November 2015 Application 2014/09350/PA. Listed building consent granted for demolition of rear extensions with the exception of the wing adjoining Sheepcote Street, reinstate brickwork, insertion of windows and external staircase at 78 - 79 Broad Street.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. Residents associations, local ward councillors and MP notified. Site and press notices displayed. No comments received.

5. Policy Context

Page 2 of 9 5.1. Birmingham UDP 2005 Saved Policies; Draft Birmingham Development Plan 2031; High Places SPG; Places for Living SPG; Places for All SPG; Conservation through Regeneration SPG; Car Parking Guidelines SPD; Lighting Places SPD and the National Planning Policy Framework.

5.2. 78-79 Broad Street is a Grade II Listed Building. Further along Broad Street is the Grade II Listed Royal Orthopaedic Hospital

6. Planning Considerations

6.1. In November 2015, planning consent was granted for a 22 storey residential building with ground floor restaurant and retail and a 17 storey hotel building with ancillary retail and leisure uses, including a ground floor restaurant space. The development also includes part demolition and refurbishment of the Grade II listed 78 - 79 Broad Street, together with associated hard and soft landscaping, infrastructure and engineering works. No revisions are being proposed to the scheme, so the only matter to be considered is condition 18.

6.2. Condition 18 required the residential element of the scheme not to be occupied until the hotel is occupied. The reason for the condition was that the financial appraisal submitted in support of the scheme indicated that the residential tower was more profitable than the hotel tower and therefore the scheme was assessed on the basis of the two buildings being delivered together. The condition, which was agreed with the applicant prior to determination of the application, was attached to secure the comprehensive development of the site, delivery of the public realm works and refurbishment of the listed Left Bank building.

6.3. Following the grant of planning consent, the applicant has indicated that the wording of this condition has caused difficulties regarding funding the scheme. The agent has indicated that whilst the development would be delivered in a comprehensive way, separate funding streams are in place for the residential and hotel elements. The condition as currently worded has caused uncertainty for those funding the project, principally to occupy the residential building in the event of delay to the completion and occupation of the hotel. A single construction contract for both elements is close to being let but cannot be completed without the funding being released.

6.4. I have no objection to the deletion of condition 18, subject to providing certainty regarding the comprehensive redevelopment of the site. Discussions have taken place with the applicant and they are willing to enter into a Deed of Variation to the S106 Legal Agreement to ensure:

• Practical completion of the residential element to include all works (except the hotel tower) including the residential tower, public realm works, removal of the unauthorised advertisement hoarding and refurbishment of the listed Left Bank Building.

• An undertaking that they would not seek to submit a S106 A/B application to reduce the S106 contribution of £750,000 secured toward public realm improvements and affordable housing;

• Payment of the £750,000 S106 public realm and affordable housing sums prior to first occupation of the residential building, or £100,000 if only the hotel building is constructed; and,

Page 3 of 9

• In the event that only one building is constructed, an interim landscaping scheme for the site of the second building.

6.5. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. Subject to a S106 Deed of Variation to include the additional provisions set out above, then I have no objection to deletion of the phasing condition (condition 18) attached to application 2014/09348/PA.

8. Recommendation

8.1. That consideration of application 2015/10462/PA be deferred pending the completion of a planning obligation agreement to secure the following:-

a) A financial contribution of £566,000 (index linked from 28 May 2015) towards off- site affordable housing to be paid prior to first occupation of the residential element of the scheme;

b) A financial contribution of £184,000 (index linked from 28 May 2015) toward off- site public realm improvements at Centenary Square to be paid prior to first occupation of the residential element of the scheme; or, in the event that the hotel building is occupied first, £100,000 (index linked from 28 May 2015) toward off- site public realm improvements at Centenary Square to be paid prior to first occupation of the hotel building and £84,000 (index linked from 28 May 2015) toward off-site public realm improvements at Centenary Square to be paid prior to first occupation of the residential element of the scheme;

c) The public realm works, removal of the two unauthorised adverts (one at the corner of Broad Street and Oozells Way and the second on Oozells Way near the roundabout junction with Sheepcote Street), the removal of the existing car park and refurbishment of the listed Left Bank Building be carried out prior to first occupation of any part of the development;

d) An undertaking by the applicant that they will not make a S106 A/B application to reduce the financial contribution of £750,000 secured toward public realm improvements and affordable housing; and;

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

8.2. In the absence of the suitable planning obligation agreement being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 30th March 2016 planning permission be refused for the following reason(s):

a) In the absence of any suitable legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards off site affordable housing the proposal conflicts with 5.37 A-D of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, Affordable Housing SPG and Policy TP30 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

b) In the absence of any suitable legal agreement to secure a financial contribution towards off site public open space the proposal conflicts with 3.53B of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, Public Open Space in New

Page 4 of 9 Residential Development SPD and Policy TP9 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

c) In the absence of any suitable legal agreement to a comprehensive development the proposal conflicts with 3.8 and 3.10 of the Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005, and Policy PG3 of the Draft Birmingham Plan 2031.

8.3. That the City Solicitor be authorised to prepare, seal and complete the S106 Deed of Variation.

8.4. That in the event of the planning obligation being completed to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority on or before the 30th March 2016, favourable consideration be given to this application, subject to the conditions listed below.

8.5. That no objection be raised to the stopping up of part of Oozells Way/Sheepcote Street and that the Department for Transport be requested to make an order in accordance with the provisions of Section 247 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

1 Requires the prior submission of a contaminated land verification report

2 Requires the prior submission of a contamination remediation scheme

3 Limits the hours of operation of the ground floor commercial uses 0700-midnight daily.

4 Limits delivery time of goods to or from the retail/restaurant (A1/A3) units 0700-1900 Mondays to Saturdays and 0900-1900 Sundays.

5 Limits delivery time of goods to or from the hotel 0600-1900 daily.

6 Requires the prior submission of a drainage scheme

7 Limits the noise levels for Plant and Machinery

8 Requires the prior submission of noise insulation (variable)

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

10 Requires the prior submission of a lighting scheme

11 Requires the prior submission of sample materials

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

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

14 Requires the prior submission of a CCTV scheme

15 Requires the prior submission of a noise report

16 Requires the prior submission of glazing and ventilation details

17 Requires the prior submission of extraction and odour control details

Page 5 of 9 18 Requires the prior submission and completion of works for the S278/TRO Agreement

19 Requires the applicants to join Travelwise

20 Requires the prior submission of details of a delivery vehicle management scheme

21 Requires the prior submission of cycle storage details

22 Requires the prior submission of a residential travel plan

23 Requires the prior submission of interim landscape details

24 Limits the approval to 3 years (Full)

Case Officer: David Wells

Page 6 of 9 Photo(s)

View East

Page 7 of 9

View West

Page 8 of 9 Location Plan

9 9

Hotel 8

Statue ta

143.9m 2

Eleven 10 Brindley BRUNSWICK SQUARE

Place Brindley Place

238

237 6

63 to 65

236

8 47 Hotel

PH 231

146.3m 230

Hotel

SHEEPCOTE STREET 224 to 228 to 224

Brasshouse Centre

50 Posts

ESSINGTON STREET

78 Car Pk

Hotel 219

146.6m 218 FB 217 79 FB El Sub Sta

TCB 216 104

FB PH 211 Car Pk Shelter TENNANT STREET

Car Pk

200 to 209 to 200 19 90

Shelter

Hotel 117 118

94 S

202

201 199

95 Bank

148.4m 198 to 195

Grosvenor Terrace 1

194 193

Cumberland House oof Car Park

Page 9 of 9

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/10380/PA Accepted: 24/12/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 18/02/2016 Ward: Nechells

Belgrave Middleway, Before Horton Square, Highgate, Birmingham, B12 0YR

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 within the footpath to the north of Belgrave 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 1.2 (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.

Link to Documents

2. Site & Surroundings

2.1. The proposed advertisement would be sited with a grass verge approximately 50m after the junction with Belgrage Middleway and St. Lukes Road. The advert would be positioned to the north of the eastbound carriageway of Belgrage Middleway and is adjacent to the River Rea culvert.

2.2. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location. However, there is an existing 48-sheet panel sign with a 48-sheet lightbox sign approximately 11m to the west of the proposed totem.

2.3. The asset number is 294.

Site Location

Page 1 of 5 3. Planning History

3.1. 15/10/2004 (2004/05589/PA) – Temporary 5 year permission granted for a 48-sheet panel sign with a 48-sheet lightbox sign.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

4.1. BCC Transportation - 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 (2031).

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 on the grass verge of the eastbound carriageway of Belgrage Middleway and would form a new addition in this location. 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 not 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.

6.6. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

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

Page 2 of 5

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

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: Catherine Golightly

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1:Belgrave Middleway

Figure 2: Belgrave Middleway street scene

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/10381/PA Accepted: 24/12/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 18/02/2016 Ward: Ladywood

Ladywood Middleway near Five Ways, Opposite Broadway, City Centre, Birmingham, B16 8HA

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 within the footpath to the north of Ladywood Middleway.

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 with the footpath approximately 70m after the junction with Ladywood Middleway and Friston Avenue. The advert would be positioned to the north of the eastbound carriageway of Ladywood Middleway and would be set in approximately 1m from the main carriageway.

2.2. The proposed advertisement is a new addition in this location.

2.3. The asset number is 295.

Site Location

3. Planning History

3.1. No Planning History.

Page 1 of 5 4. Consultation/PP Responses

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework, Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2031).

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 footpath to the north of the eastbound carriageway of Ladywood Middleway. 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 not impact on trees close to the site.

6.4. PUBLIC SAFETY

6.6. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

7.1. The proposed advertisement is considered to be appropriate in terms of the 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

Page 2 of 5 2 Limits the use of advert

3 Limits length of the display of advert

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: Catherine Golightly

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1: Ladywood Middleway

Figure 2: Ladywood Middleway Footpath

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

3 90

88 RUSTON STREET 17 The Unitarian

New Meeting Churc

8 4

RAWLINS STREET

15 10

7 151.2m

12 14

FRISTON AVENUE Multistorey Car Park

Broadway

LADYWOOD MIDDLEWAY 219 to 220 to 219

24 26

1 2

Garden Court

Subway

11 29

28 30 12

Club House Subway

Metropolitan House

Tunnel Subway

Five Ways

Shelter HAGLEY ROAD

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/08913/PA Accepted: 09/11/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 19/02/2016 Ward: Nechells

Pershore Street/Ladywell Walk, Near to Bull Ring Markets, City Centre, 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 digital advert to be located at the traffic island at the junction of Ladywell Walk and Pershore Street.

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. The design of the advertisement is the same as the Interconnect totems that are displayed within the City Centre.

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 advertisement would be sited on the traffic island at the corner of Ladywell Walk and Pershore Street with the indoor markets located to the east, the Arcadian Entertainment Centre to the south west and various restaurants and car parks to the north west. The surrounding area is made up of a number of bars, clubs and restaurants as well as multi-storey car parks and residential apartments.

2.2. Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. No planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 1 of 5

4.1. Transportation Development – BCC 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.

4.2. Southside Business Improvement District consulted. No comments received.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2031).

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.

AMENITY

6.2. The advert is of an acceptable scale and design, would not constitute an obtrusive feature or cause visual clutter. I therefore consider the advert would have an acceptable impact on amenity.

PUBLIC SAFETY

6.3. BCC Transportation Development raise no objection subject to safeguarding conditions. The proposed position would not conflict with pedestrian or vehicular movements and would have no adverse impact on highway safety.

Other issues

6.4. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Temporary approval subject to the following conditions:

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

3 Power Supply and Making Good of Damage

Page 2 of 5 4 Requires the scheme to be in accordance with the listed approved plans

5 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Joanne McCallion

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

M LB

TCBs 12

Car Park (below) EDGBASTON STREET

Subway

TCBs 50

Gloucester Street

Garage

St Martin's Market

10 51 to 97 to 51 Lichfield House market

Shelter

30 to 34

Multistorey Car Park 2 to 8 to 2

Bath Passage 5 26 38 to 37

WROTTESLEY STREET Car Park

TCB Dean House

16 to 18 2 to 8 to 2

111.3m 45

TCB 1

LADYWELL WALK 21 DEAN STREET 6 to 10 TCBs

l House Hotel

Car Park

Shelter

Shelter 73

75 Skating Rink The Arcadian

The Old(PH)

Fox

PERSHO 55

5 7 TREET

Page 5 of 5

Committee Date: 18/02/2016 Application Number: 2015/09864/PA Accepted: 01/12/2015 Application Type: Advertisement Target Date: 19/02/2016 Ward: Nechells

Outside 37-38 Horsefair, (near to Thorpe Street), City Centre, Birmingham, B1 1DA

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 number 37 Horse Fair between Holloway Circus Queensway and Thorp Street.

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 advertisement would be sited outside 37 Horse Fair on the pavement which is 4.7m wide. Holloway Circus Queensway is located approximately 42m to the north and the Hippodrome Theatre is located to the east. Clydesdale residential Tower and a multi-storey car park are located opposite.

2.2. Location Plan

3. Planning History

3.1. No planning history.

4. Consultation/PP Responses

Page 1 of 5 4.1. Transportation Development – BCC 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.

4.2. Southside Business Improvement District consulted. No comments received.

5. Policy Context

5.1. National Planning Policy Framework 2012, Birmingham Unitary Development Plan (2005), Draft Birmingham Development Plan (2031).

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.

AMENITY

6.2. The advert is of an acceptable scale and design, would not constitute an obtrusive feature or cause visual clutter. I therefore consider the advert would have an acceptable impact on amenity.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Other issues

6.4. The proposed development does not attract a CIL contribution.

7. Conclusion

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

8. Recommendation

8.1. Temporary approval subject to the following conditions:

1 Limits the use of advert

2 Limits length of the display of advert

3 Limits the control of the intensity of the illumination

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

Page 2 of 5

5 Limits the approval to 5 years (advert)

Case Officer: Joanne McCallion

Page 3 of 5 Photo(s)

Figure 1

Page 4 of 5 Location Plan

Page 5 of 5 BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF ECONOMY

PLANNING COMMITTEE 18 February 2016

AREA: JEWELLERY QUARTER WARD: LADYWOOD

ISSUES REPORT

SUMMARY

This report advises Members of a detailed planning application submitted on 23rd December 2015, by University College Birmingham for land at Charlotte Street, Holland Street & George Street, Jewellery Quarter which proposes demolition of 21 George Street (Former Lodge Cottrell Building) and partial demolition of all existing buildings on the site apart from the front facade walls of the James Cond building to Charlotte Street and George Street and their return onto Holland Street, to allow for the erection of University buildings (Class D1) and ancillary retail (Class A1), restaurant (Class A3), offices (Class B1), health facility (Class D1), sports hall (Class D2) uses and multi-storey car park with access from George Street. Also change of use of Holland Street from public highway to covered private University campus space and associated external alterations, provision of new pedestrian/cycleway between George Street and Holland Street on line of former Whitmore's Arm and external alterations to facade of McIntyre House on Holland Street and Camden House. The report sets out likely issues to be considered when the proposal returns to your Committee and your views on these issues and other issues that may not be included are sought.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That this report be noted.

Comments of your Committee are requested.

CONTACT OFFICER

Lesley Sheldrake City Centre Planning Management Team Tel. No. 0121-675-3768 Email: [email protected]

PURPOSE

This report is intended to give Members an early opportunity to comment on this proposal in order for negotiations with the applicants to proceed with some certainty as to the issues Members feel are particularly relevant, require amending, or any additional information that may be sought.

PLANNING COMMITTEE 18 February 2016 Application 2015/10464/PA

DISTRICT: City Centre

LOCATION: Land at Charlotte Street, Holland Street & George Street, Jewellery Quarter.

PROPOSAL: Demolition of 21 George Street (Former Lodge Cottrell Building) and partial demolition of No, 9 Charlotte Street and 12 George Street (Former James Cond Building) to allow for the erection of University buildings (Class D1) and ancillary retail (Class A1), restaurant (Class A3), offices (Class B1), health facility (Class D1), sports hall (Class D2) uses and multi-storey car park with access from George Street. Change of use of Holland Street from public highway to covered private University campus space and associated external alterations, provision of new pedestrian/cycleway between George Street and Holland Street on line of former Whitmore's Arm and external alterations to facade of McIntyre House on Holland Street and Camden House.

APPLICANT: University College Birmingham

AGENT: Savills, Innovation Court, 121 Edmund Street, Birmingham, B3 2HJ

1.0 DETAILS OF PROPOSAL:

1.1 The proposals for Phase 2 of the new UCB campus would provide 22,912sqm of new floor space within two new educational buildings (Buildings A and B) and a 234 space multi-storey car park (Building C) plus 14 surface parking spaces within the existing service yard.

1.2 Extent of Demolition

1.3 The implementation of the proposals would require demolition of the following: - buildings: • The James Cond Building apart from the front facade wall to Charlotte Street and a short return onto Holland Street and the front facade to George Street and a short return on to Holland Street. • The Lodge Cottrell building in its entirety • An existing 2 metre high wall enclosing the entrance to the Whitmore Arm • Part of the facade to the McIntyre House (where it adjoins the Lodge Cottrell building) fronting on to Holland Street.

1.4 Building A

1.5 Proposed Building A would be located on the southern side of Holland Street and would be a set between and incorporate the retained facades of the James 2 Cond building onto Charlotte Street and George Street. The new building would be 4 storeys high and accommodate lecture theatres, classrooms, staff offices, IT suite and 132 cycle spaces. At ground floor level fronting Holland Street a row of individual commercial units are proposed to provide real life “skills” training for beauty, hairdressing, bakery and sport therapy within which students will be able to experience real life interaction with customers on a supervised basis. There would also be a fine dining restaurant with (60 covers) fronting George Street also serviced by students as part of their course The main entrance into building would be from Holland Street and there would be a service/loading bay fronting to George Street. To the rear of the building, between it and Camden House to the west a landscaped courtyard is proposed including external seating, lighting and planting

1.6 Building B

1.7 This would be located on the east side of Holland Street and on the south side of George Street and would also be 4 storeys high. It would accommodate a kitchen and diner, lecture theatres, student guild, student advice centre, classrooms, and staff rooms. Part of the first floor would also accommodate a gym and changing rooms with part of the second and third floors above used as a Sports Hall. Between Building B and McIntyre House the existing landscaped courtyard would be retained. Between Building B and new Building C on George Street a new vehicle access is proposed to be used for servicing and access to courtyard parking spaces.

1.8 Buildings A and B and McIntyre House would be linked at roof level through the provision of a glazed roof canopy across Holland Street. It would have a metal work frame clad in anodised aluminium into which would be clear glazing and fixed an angle with water draining onto the roof of Building A. The canopy would project approximately 1m above the parapet on both new buildings.

1.9 Building C

1.10 Building C would be located fronting George Street between building B and the route of Whitmore Arm. The building would predominantly be used as a multi storey car park with 234 spaces but at ground floor level active frontages would be provided in the form of office space, a retail outlet for BCU School of Jewellery and a health facility. This building would be 5-storey high fronting George Street and 6-storey facing the internal courtyard although overall building heights will be below the main buildings because of the lower floor- ceiling heights required in the car park.

1.11 It is intended that the car park, together with a further 14 spaces proposed in the inner courtyard, would replace the 173 spaces currently on site plus 54 relocated spaces leased at Lionel House and 38 other spaces they have at Summer Row. Building C would also accommodate 88 cycle spaces.

1.11 Appearance and Materials

1.12 Buildings A and B will would be of brick with the elevations having a vertical emphasis by the use of recessed large metal framed windows set within a brick frame. The proposed windows would be spaced to give a regular glazing pattern but the spacing between the windows would differ with those on the south elevation of Building A being narrower than the northern elevation to take account of solar glare. On the Holland Street and George Street elevations of Building B the external treatment includes vertical metal fins to improve their environmental performance. Where the sports hall occupies Building B the external treatment would be a mix of glazed window and metal panels. At ground floor level the frontages would have shop fronts with more glazing due

3 to the active uses proposed. The roofs of Building A and B would be flat with a parapet with the space used to accommodate plant and photovoltaic panels.

1.13 Building C would also have a glazed active frontage at ground floor level, above which would be decorative dense screen formed from either cast iron or weathering steel. The screen would incorporate a design based on the decorative fanlight that exists above the entrance on the James Cond building. Relief to the facade would also be provided through the use of deep vertical fins to frame the panels.

1.14 The proposals also include the renovation of the retained facades to the James Cond building and changes to part of the façade of McIntyre House where part of the facade of the Lodge Cottrell building on site was retained on the Holland Street elevation. This has resulted in awkward junction between the two buildings and therefore it is proposed to remove the retained section of walling and replace it with new brickwork to match the rest of the McIntyre Building.

1.16 Closure of Holland Street

1.17 As part of the development, the applicant is seeking the stopping up of Holland Street as formally adopted highway and to change its use to a privately managed, covered, external space as part of University campus. All vehicle traffic would be prohibited and the 16 permit parking bays currently available along on street would be removed. It is intended that the line of the road would be retained but that it would be raised to pavement level and the existing cobbles would be cleaned and re-laid. Granite kerbs would be used to denote a nominal kerb space and the existing tarmac pavements would be replaced with brindle brick with blue brick details. Special glazed terracotta cobbles are proposed to be used to indicate crossing points and the entrance to buildings. Holland Street would become a private pedestrian only space during the day as decorative gates are proposed to be installed at either end of the street. New kerb lines would be installed along both the Charlotte Street and George Street junctions to emphasise that vehicles are not permitted entry.

1.18 It is intended that Holland Street would be gated and general public access would not be available between the hours of 08:30 and 18:30 Monday- Thursday and 08:30 and 16:30 Fridays during term time. Pedestrian access into the site would be through the McIntyre Building when the gates at each end of Holland Street are closed. Once in the site, access into Building A would be available from Holland Street and Building B from the internal courtyard. Separate accesses would be provided into the shop units created along Holland Street. The restaurant and the School of Jewellery/health facility from George Street would be accessed directly from the street.

1.19 A new route for pedestrians/cyclists would be provided along the UCB owned Whitmore Arm, which follows the line of a former canal between George Street and Charlotte Street. Currently part of the route from Charlotte Street is used by the applicants for deliveries. The proposed new link would remain a private right of way and is not being offered as adopted highway. To achieve a link between Charlotte Street and George Street existing levels would need to be raised and an existing wall on the George Street frontage would be removed. It is proposed that the route be surfaced with cobbles and a ramp and steps provided at the western end to address the difference in levels. The design of Building C includes a police office and student health area to overlook the route. Vehicles (apart from occasional maintenance vehicles) would be prevented from accessing Whitmore Arm by installing removable bollards. The House of York, which has been converted to apartments, abuts the Whitmore Arm route and uneven cobbles would be used to discourage people from walking close to its ground floor windows.

1.20 Staffing and Students

1.21 The proposals would increase the numbers of staff and students on the site. from approximately 55 (full and part time) to approximately 190 (full and part time) whilst the number of potential students on site could increase from around 2,000 to 4,500.

1.22 Link to Documents

2.0 NATURE OF SURROUNDINGS:

2.1 The application site, which lies within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area, comprises of approximately 1.4ha of land between Charlotte Street, Holland Street and George Street and surrounds the House of York (No’s 27-31 Charlotte Street) a Grade II listed building. The site is also bisected by Holland Street which is currently an adopted, cobblestoned, public highway with 16 on street permit parking bays.

2.2 The west side of the site is occupied by the James Cond building which extends along the entire Holland Street frontage with returns onto George Street to the north and Charlotte Street to the south. It was constructed in 1936-37 as a purpose built printers and is currently vacant apart from the ground floor which is used by UCB for car parking. The principal elevation of the building fronts Charlotte Street and is two storeys high with a raised basement and of red-brown brick with a neo-Classical façade unified with concrete bands above the windows at basement and first floor levels. To the rear of this façade fronting Holland Street is a long two-storey workshop range which is at a lower height due to the absence of a basement. This range is also of red brick and has a series of large recessed metal windows. On the George Street return the building dates from 1940 as was formerly a metal pressing works. It is primarily 2 storeys high, of a lighter coloured brick as has tall metal windows to the ground floor. The building has a large curved staircase projection on the corner of Holland Street which includes glass bricks giving an Art Deco appearance.

2.3 On the east side of Holland Street and north boundary fronting George Street lies the Lodge Cottrell building which is now vacant. It is two and three storey high of dark red/brown bricks and was constructed in 1929 for an electrical engineering company of the same name. The principal elevation of the building faces onto George Street and is set back from the road rather than to the back- of-pavement. The building is arranged symmetrically, reflecting a neo-Classical design. The return range fronting Holland Street is of a similar appearance but without the entrance. Part of the Lodge Cottrell building fronting Holland Street has already been demolished to facilitate the development of phase 1 of the applicant’s new campus building known as McIntyre House. An element of the original façade wall was retained to provide a continuous frontage to Holland Street and enclose a courtyard but now provides a rather awkward junction with the new building.

2.4 The application site also includes a cleared plot now used for car parking at 23- 26 George Street and the route of the former Whitmore Arm which forms the eastern boundary of the site. This was formerly known as Miss Colmore’s Canal and was a historic canal arm dating from 1809 but was in filled between 1927-1955. Currently service vehicle access is available along part of this link via a one-way system to and from Charlotte Street adjacent to the House of York. The remaining section is currently disused as it is approximately 1m below street level and the George Street frontage is set behind a 2m high brick wall.

2.5 The surrounding area is characterised by a variety of residential and commercial buildings. Opposite the site on George Street the Newhall Works, a four storey grade II listed building that has been converted into apartments. Adjacent to this are other apartment buildings at 69-73 George Street, 50 George Street, 40-43 George Street. There is also a 2 storey building in office use at 47-49 George Street. Adjacent to the east boundary of the site are Nos. 27 and 28 George Street, grade II listed buildings, known as the Broughton Works and Crosby Court, used as offices and a surface car park forming part of the Perry Beeches Academy School.

2.6 The southern site boundaries adjoin the UCB owned McIntyre House and wrap around the House of York, a grade II listed three storey brick building converted into apartments. On the opposite side of Charlotte Street are surface car parks, a vacant three storey building and a block of 5 storey apartments known as Casper House. The west boundary adjoins taller buildings fronting Parade including the four storeys HSBC building known as Camden House which backs on to the application site and is owned by the applicants. The rear courtyard of this building is proposed to be improved as part of the development proposals.

2.7 Site Location

3.0 RELEVANT PLANNING HISTORY:

3.1 There is no relevant planning history on the application site but there have been applications as detailed below for adjacent land owned by the applicant on which phase 1 of the new UCB campus (McIntyre House) has been developed.

3.2 19/5/11 - 2011/00670/PA – Conservation consent granted for demolition of existing building on the corner of Charlotte Street and Holland Street, 23-26 George Street and outbuildings to the rear.

3.3 19/5/11 - 2011/00669/PA - Planning permission granted for erection of four- storey Learning and Resource Centre, upgrading of access road from Charlotte Street, creation of a service and delivery area and external landscaping.

4.0 CONSULTATIONS / PP RESPONSES:

4.1 Widespread public consultation is underway with local businesses and residents, residents associations, local ward councillors and the Jewellery Quarter Development Trust. Site and press notices have also been displayed. Consultations have also been undertaken with Council departments, statutory consultees and other interested parties. The pre application proposals were reported to CHP on 14 September 2015 following a site visit and the current application proposals are due to be considered at CHP on 8 February 2016. Pre application proposals were also presented to CABE in October 2015.

4.2 The applicants have undertaken a series of consultations with interested parties including to Historic England, Civic Society, Victorian Society, the Twentieth Century Society and Jewellery Quarter Development Trust. A public consultation exhibition was also held on 17 September 2015 when 363 letters advising of the event were issued to nearby residents/occupiers and an advertisement placed in the Birmingham Post. A summary of comments received to date follows:-

4.3 Historic England- Object to this application in its current form and recommend that a revised scheme is sought that reduces the quantum of demolition and

6 makes amendments to the height and design of some elements of new build. They do not support the proposed demolition of the greater part of the very fine buildings in this section of the Jewellery Quarter and consider it will cause harm to the heritage assets. They comment that their concerns relate to the impact on the significance of the designated Conservation Area and the listed buildings as follows:-

4.4 Demolition of buildings: The amount of demolition is of concern. There are very good buildings lining George Street, Holland Street and Charlotte Street, with fine detailing and intact features, that contribute to the significance of the conservation area and their removal would represent substantial harm to this heritage asset. They consider the James Cond Building is in a classic Art Deco style and appears remarkably intact. The retention of the front section of it onto Charlotte Street is positive but they are disappointed that only the retention of the facade is proposed. They recommend that the entire front block be retained and integrated into new development. With regard to the section of the James Cond building onto George Street they also consider it is of a of very high quality and should be retained in its entirety, at least as to its external form and appearance. They consider its curved staircase bay, the three-storey entrance bay, the series of blocks with strong two-storey elevations, combine to make an architecturally-robust statement that gives a very successful corner-sited building. Only the facade is proposed for retention which they consider involves too much loss of very positive elements in the conservation area. They also recommend the retention of the 'James Cond' sign.

4.5 With regard to the former workshop range of the James Cond building fronting Holland Street they regret that this could not be integrated into the new development. However if a greater quantum of historic fabric retained overall they could accept the demolition of this part. In relation to the Lodge Cottrell Building they comment that this is also a positive element in the conservation area and its proposed loss is regrettable.

4.6 Closure of Holland Street: Comment that Holland Street appears on the 1810 Kempson map of Birmingham and was laid out on the regular grid that characterised the development of the new suburb of what is now the Jewellery Quarter, north and west of St Paul’s Square. It is one of the few streets in the area laid with cobbles, and is a positive element in the Conservation Area and enhances its significance. Historic England does not see how the closure of it would preserve or enhance the conservation area, or better reveal its significance. The creation of a ‘secure’ campus should be managed within the buildings themselves and their internal spaces, whether roofed or open.

4.7 Covering over Holland Street: Comment that this represents a major change and is out of character with the Jewellery Quarter. However it does have resonances with the covering over of spaces in the courtyards/rears of manufactories in the Jewellery Quarter using lightweight metal roofs with glazing and could be a revitalising feature enhancing the conservation area and better revealing its significance. Therefore Historic England would be prepared to accept this feature but not as an argument to demolish the historic architecture along this street or to homogenise it. Both sides of the canopy would not have to be the same height and it does not also need to cover the whole length of the street. They do not find the detailed design satisfactory.

4.8 New build: Consider that that the new build proposed in the centre along Holland Street does not conform to Conservation Area’s design guidance. However this might be balanced against the retention of the historic buildings and that subsidiarity might be attained through a recessive treatment of the new build, if not through size and scale. The dominance of the Newhall Works on George Street, described in 1915 as the ‘largest pin factory in the world’,

7 terminating the view northwest out of Holland Street, and significant in views along George Street, should be kept in mind and the scale of any new build should not undermine this. It is a Grade II listed building and this site forms part of its setting. They consider the scale of the infill architecture is too high and domineering and given the quantum of demolition of historic architecture around it and is likely to cause harm to the Newhall Works. Historic England also considers the architecture of the new build along George Street to be too tall and likely to cause harm to the Newhall Works.

4.9 Car park on George Street: Although this is close to the listed buildings at Nos. 27 and 29 George Street Historic England do not object to its proposed scale as now revised and its proposed exterior treatment.

4.10 Re-opening of the Whitmore Arm: Note that levels are proposed to be raised, and therefore more detail is required on its junction with the listed building. If it is to be treated as a public benefit this should be based on it being open to the public.

4.11 Effect on Heritage Assets: Advice 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. The onus is therefore on the decision maker to rigorously test the necessity of any harmful works. The authority should seek to improve proposals so that they avoid or minimise harm to the significance of designated heritage assets and look for opportunities for new development to enhance or better reveal their significance. Visual appearance and the architecture of individual buildings are very important factors. If a proposal cannot be amended to avoid all harm, then if the proposal would lead to substantial harm to a heritage asset, consent should be refused, unless it can be demonstrated that the substantial harm or loss is necessary to achieve substantial public benefits that outweigh that harm or loss. Historic England do not consider that the demolition and facade retention of elements make a positive contribution to the conservation area and to the setting of other designated heritage assets and are appropriate ways of conserving the assets. They find that the proposed scheme will neither enhance nor better reveal the significance of the conservation area and that instead it will cause substantial harm to it.

4.12 Lead Drainage Authority - Requests further information as they consider that within the documents provided there are a number of inconsistencies, but otherwise recommend that a drainage condition be imposed requiring the prior submission of a Sustainable Drainage Operation and Maintenance Plan.

4.13 SevernTrent Water – No objection subject to a drainage condition being imposed.

4.14 West Midlands Fire Service – No Objection

4.15 Conservation and Heritage Panel - The pre application proposals were presented to the panel at their meeting on 14 September 2015 and followed a site visit. The panel made the following comments:- • Supported the principal of the proposed use of the site and welcomed the proposal to open up the Whitmore Arm to public access. • The principal of the part closing and covering of Holland Street also raised no particular concerns.

8 • The panel noted there were no final designs for the site and were mindful of the potential for the proposed scheme to impact upon the townscape and character of the Jewellery Quarter. • Felt that the existing buildings proposed to be lost were of quality and part of the 20th century development of the Jewellery Quarter and this character should not be lost by the proposed redevelopment. • Considered that the Lodge Cottrell building contributed to the townscape as much as the James Cond buildings and options to retain it should be explored.

4.16 CABE -The pre application proposals were presented to the Design Council Design review on 5 October 2015. The panel considered that the scale and massing of the development appeared appropriate, but there are significant design issues that needed to be resolved, particularly the integration with the historical buildings retained on site and the sustainability strategy. They were not convinced about privatising Holland Street and the principle of giving up an adopted road in exchange for one that is not adopted. They felt that if this is the only option in order to create a specific campus design within the historical urban setting, it should be progressed only with robust conditions, including a requirement that both Holland Street and Whitmore’s Arm should be retained in perpetuity as public routes with a covenant determining this. The areas of concern were-

4.17 Holland Street- Privatising Holland Street is not advisable and it should be retained in perpetuity as public route with a covenant to preserve public access. It was not clear how visitors and students will perceive that they are entering the campus. There should be a stronger sense of arrival, such as moving the gates closer to the street ends and making them more visible when approaching the site.

4.18 Whitmore’s Arm - That opening Whitmore’s Arm to the public as an unadopted road would be an adequate substitute for Holland Street. Had concerns about the safety issues arising from the lack of activities and natural surveillance, exacerbated by the height of the buildings overshadowing the space and the car parks on the northern side.

4.19 Canopy - That the design of the high level canopy over Holland Street appeared overly complex and repetitive, missing the opportunity to create more of a feature for the area. Considered the configuration chosen was likely to affect the amount of daylight in Holland Street, impacting negatively on the adjoining ground floor rooms. Were concerned about how it will perform in the medium and long term, including the cleaning and maintenance strategy. Recommended performing wind tunnel testing of the canopied space to assess comfort and safety for pedestrians

4.20 Building A – Considered that retaining the two corner blocks of the James Cond building facing George Street and Charlotte Street helps preserve the character of the street, however the interface of building A with the James Cond building on Charlotte Street was not convincing. Recommended further work to the transition in height between the proposed and existing buildings and their detailing. Felt the main entrance of the building was not clearly defined and the design does not appear flexible to adapt to future learning needs. The quality of learning spaces was of particular concern, because of the environmental performance of the building, including daylight levels and the lack of fenestration onto the internal courtyard, north-facing teaching rooms and overheating on the south and west front. Suggest considering utilising the roof terraces.

9 4.21 Buildings B and C - Demolishing the Lodge Cottrell building and the historic elements along the northern side of Holland Street is regretted although the siting of Building B and C on the pavement line, reinforcing the historic street line of George Street, is positive. The amount of car parking is significant given the intended modal shift towards sustainable transport options. Its design and its metal cladding respond well to the context, but question the height of the building. Recommend reviewing the purpose of the building and ensuring the building can adapt to changing user requirements in the long term.

4.23 Jewellery Quarter Development Trust – Object to the proposals as they currently stand on the following grounds:-. • The massing of Building B on George St hugely unbalances the street. Would like to see this lowered by a storey to avoid a detrimental effect on the streetscape. Suggest the loss of space is re-provided toward the middle of the site (adjacent Phase 1) by adding a 5th storey, set back from George St. • Building B and C do not appear to line up with back of footpath according to the ground floor plan. This is not acceptable and is in direct contravention of the CA Management Plan. • The Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Design Guide requires the design to consider street hierarchy, typically giving corner buildings more prominence and also to consider hierarchy within building plots. A lower building on George St gives great scope to enhance the corner on to Holland St. • The George St elevations feel very 2-dimensional and could benefit from more depth, which would also help vary the roofline. • The ‘New James Cond’ building on Holland St should relate better to the two ‘bookends’. • One of our greatest concerns is the view south-west along George St (image below). The Multi Storey Car Park (MSCP) will be highly visible and will not be covered by future development. This elevation needs significant articulation and the JQ Design Guide should be used as inspiration. • Although appreciate that the height of the MSCP has been reduced it would be an exception in the JQ and therefore its design should be outstanding. Consider that the cladding proposed is interesting and must not be value-engineered out. • Consider that the approval of this scheme must be linked to the restoration or sale of UCB’s derelict sites across the JQ, notably the nurses’ accommodation on Ludgate Hill. It is inconceivable that these highly valued buildings are left to deteriorate further whilst new development takes place elsewhere.

4.24 However the JQ Development Trust Advice that they do support the principle of the development, its uses, the proposed floor space, the use of use of Holland St as a “Skills St, the opening of the Whitmore Arm as a high quality public thoroughfare and the landscaping scheme. They would like to see retention of the Holland St cobbles, a commitment to installing blue brick paviors to the public footpaths and the provision of facilities and activities that the local residential and business community can benefit from such as the use of the sports facilities out of hours. In conclusion they comment that although they object to the proposals as they current stand their objections could be overcome if there was there was – • A commitment to the sale/renovation of the nurses’ accommodation on Ludgate Hill. • Reduction in the height of Building B on George St. • An improvement to Building B and C to better reflect the hierarchies described in the CAMP and Design Guide, and improve the view of the MSCP down George St. • Building B & C were located to the back of the footpath

4.25 The Victorian Society – Comment that whist they support the general principle of the proposed scheme and the opening up of the Whitmore Arm they object to the proposals on the grounds that they are unconvinced by the need for the glazed covering of Holland Street. They comment that the street currently represents an increasingly rare example of a street paved with setts in the Jewellery Quarter, and has great historic character, which also enhances the setting of the listed buildings within the views into George Street at the north end. There are no examples of covered streets or public walkways in the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area (unlike the arcades in the city centre, for instance), and we regard the proposed glass covering of Holland Street as unnecessarily intrusive. In our view it will have a negative impact on the character and appearance of the conservation area, and goes against the guidance on views and street hierarchy as stated in the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Design Guide, adopted by the City Council as supplementary planning guidance in 2005. We are also unconvinced by the need to close the street as a public highway as proposed.

4.26 The Victorian Society also objects to the loss of the Lodge Cottrell Building to the corner of Holland Street and George Street. They consider that although this building is of a later period than our sphere of interest, in our view it currently contributes positively to the historic industrial character of this part of the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area. They therefore wish to see it retained and adapted, particularly bearing in mind the proposed treatment of the adjacent James Cond Building to retain the principal facades. We are not persuaded by the argument that the Lodge Cottrell Building should be replaced as it lies back from the street. Whilst new buildings would indeed be expected to maintain the building line in accordance with the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Design Guide, there are many examples of historic buildings throughout the conservation area which are set back from the street frontages for a variety of reasons.

4.27 PP Responses - Letters have been received from 25 local residents/businesses some of which object to the proposals as a whole and others consider the development has some merits but object to some aspects of the proposals. The objections include the following grounds- • The proposals are contrary to the conservation area designation and status of the site. • Strongly object to closing Holland Street to vehicles. It is critical for people wishing to get to Newhall Street in the direction of the city centre. The "Paradise" project already causes access problems in the area. • It is monstrous that UCB are now proposing to own Holland Street and are planning to pedestrianize it and then block the general public from using it. What is to stop UCB closing the road for longer hours or permanently? • Holland Street should not be closed off, even during the day, to the local community. If the public right of way is removed the alternative of walking down the Parade/A457 dual carriageway potentially exposes pedestrians to risk from traffic accidents, pollution and crime. • Holland Street should not be lost to the public. It is a rare example of a street paved with setts/cobbles and a real asset to the local area. • The loss of on street parking spaces on Holland Street will have an adverse effect for residents, local businesses, and visitors. • Object to the canopy across Holland Street. • Oppose the demolition of the Lodge Cottrell building which a significant building is providing an insight into the recent industrial history of Birmingham. • The frontage of the old factory buildings should be kept rather than tearing them down. Other developments have melded well with the industrial past. At larger structure could be built behind them. 11 • The height of the new buildings is out of character with the current buildings in the Conservation Area and will dominate the remaining industrial heritage buildings close by. • Object to height and location of Building B as its footprint is being brought forward closer to the Newhall Works building. The height will swamp buildings in the area, in particular the Newhall Works building which is a grade 2 listed building and will be hidden from view. • The scale and massing of the new buildings on George Street is overbearing, out of scale with its surroundings which include a number of listed buildings • Adversely affect the setting of adjacent listed buildings • The design of the new buildings by virtue of their height, mass, materials lack of variation in the roof line are not in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. Heights should to lowered to that of the existing buildings. • Will have a significant detrimental impact on the light and outlook from neighbouring flats, cause a loss of privacy, a more claustrophobic feel and have a negative effect on the quality of life. Natural light is already being restricted for many residents occupying ground/1st floor flats. • Loss of sun light/ outlook/privacy to adjacent residential properties and their external terraces. • The proposed building heights are contrary to the vision for the Jewellery Quarter put forward in the Big City Plan which states that in sensitive areas heights and massing will be carefully controlled and restricted. • The re-routing of traffic along Whitmore Arm would cause disturbance, noise and security issues to residents of York House. • Opening Whitmore Arm would be contrary to the planning conditions imposed by the Council for Phase 1 which restrict access to occasional deliveries to safeguard the amenities of York House residents. • Extending the route of the Whitmore Arm will pose a serious threat to the security and privacy of the ground floor of the Broughton Works. • Do not see the need for a multi storey car park given the emphasis and availability of public transport, pedestrian access and cycle access. • Building a car park this big will only result in more traffic thus going against the councils plans to reduce traffic in the City centre. • There are already other car parks within walking distance of the site including the NCP car park at George Street with around 528 spaces. Adding another car park within the area is unnecessary. • The additional traffic trying to enter/exit George Street will cause major delays, backlogs and have a severe impact on traffic movements around the surrounding area. It would also be a safety issue for nearby Perry Beeches School. Any proposals for the site should address the current congestion and traffic issues in George Street. • Without a new car park, the development could be less intrusive. • The multi storey car park is too high and large and will dominate Broughton Works and obscure most of the aspect on its southern side. • Insufficient consideration has been given to the design of the side elevation of the multi storey car park and its setting adjacent to several listed buildings. The materials proposed are not suited to this sensitive infill street frontage. • The area has been blighted by demolitions and construction projects for over two years. Consideration should be given to the right of residents to have a relatively undisrupted life not further excessive disruption. • Concerned the existing buildings contain asbestos • Loss of property values • Request that the committee view the site.

4.28 Some of the representations received also request conditions to ensure- 12 • Strict limits are imposed on working hours and to stop lorries parking outside resident’s homes and causing general disturbance. • Access to Holland Street remains open during the construction work • Local residents have spaces in the car park • The cobblestones in Holland Street are retained. • That the health facility provides medical services like a doctor and nurse for the local community • The roof spaces are not used as external terraces. • That the Sports Hall offers subsidised admission for local residents to make it a community access point

5.0 POLICY CONTEXT:

5.1 National Planning Policy Framework; Birmingham Unitary Development Plan 2005; Draft Birmingham Plan 2031; The Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan, Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Design Guide, Conservation Through Regeneration SPD; Places for All SPG; Car Parking Guidelines SPD.

5.2 The site is within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area and adjacent to a number of Grade II listed buildings including the House of York on Charlotte Street and No’s 27 (Broughton Works) and 28 George Street (Globe Foundry). On the opposite side of George Street is Newhall Works which is also listed Grade II.

6.0 ISSUES:

6.1 Issue 1 - Land Use Policy

6.2 The UDP in para 4.55 recognises the need for a skilled workforce and the invaluable contribution that the city universities play in helping to achieve this. Proposals for the expansion and improvement of universities are therefore supported in principle and encouraged subject to the other policies within the plan. The specific UDP policies relating to the Jewellery Quarter propose an urban village to encourage the regeneration of the area and support the traditional industrial base. New development should be sensitive to existing uses and buildings and consistent with the requirements of the conservation area. In the submitted BDP policy GA1.3 promotes development which supports and strengthens the character of the area and for the Jewellery Quarter. The aspiration is to produce an urban village and introduce an appropriate mix of uses.

6.3 The Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Plan (JQCACAMP) identifies this part of Holland Street/Charlotte Street as being within the "St Paul’s Canal Corridor" of the Jewellery Quarter. It requires new development to not normally exceed 4 storeys, maintain historic street frontage lines, historic street pattern and plot boundaries. The plan, form and elevational treatment and materials should complement the historic and architectural character of the conservation area.

6.4 The application site adjoins McIntyre House which forms Phase 1 of the new UCB campus as approved under application 2011/00669/PA. The phase 1 proposals were accompanied by a master plan showing the current application site would development to provide additional educational facilities as well as a student accommodation block and a 250 space multi storey car park. The car park would compensate for the loss of existing spaces on the site and in the vicinity. At the planning committee in May 2011 it was considered that the proposed use for educational purposes was acceptable in this location and in accordance with policy particularly as the immediate vicinity contains a mix of 13 commercial, residential and light industrial buildings as well a number of vacant buildings and sites. It will however be noted that a number of objections have been received to the multi storey car park which question its need.

The Committee may wish to comment on the land use proposed.

6.5 Issue 2 – Demolition

6.6 As the application site is in a conservation area, the statutory requirement is to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of the conservation area. Para 3.27 of the UDP seeks to ensure that developments preserve or enhance the character appearance of Conservation Areas and the demolition of buildings which make a positive contribution to the area will generally be resisted with consent for demolition only being granted where replacement buildings benefit the character or appearance of the area. The Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area Appraisal and Management plan states that demolition of buildings will not normally be permitted and there is a presumption against alterations to buildings which adversely affect their character or that of the conservation area.

6.7 The NPPF requires the conservation of heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and in considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight is to be given to the asset’s conservation. It requires an applicant to describe the significance of any heritage assets affected and in support of the application a Built Heritage Assessment has been submitted. This comments that none of the buildings within site are either statutorily or locally listed and are considered to be of no more than localised significance to the character and appearance of the area. The report considers the Charlotte Street frontage to the James Cond building being of most value and the Lodge Cottrell building to be of low value. It concludes that keeping the facades of the James Cond building results in the retention of the most important features of the building and those elements that make the most contribution to the character of the conservation area.

6.8 It will be noted that Historic England considers that the amount of demolition is of concern and more of the James Cond building should be kept. They are also concerned about the loss of the workshop range on Holland Street and the loss of the Lodge Cottrell building but would have fewer objections to this element of the proposals if more of the James Cond building was retained. CHP also felt that the existing buildings were of quality and part of the 20th century development of the Jewellery Quarter and should be retained including the Lodge Cottrell building as do a number of local residents.

The Committee may wish to comment on the extent of demolition proposed.

6.9 Issue 3 - Building Heights and Designs

6.10 The UDP requires development in the heart of the Jewellery Quarter to be sensitive to existing uses and buildings and consistent with the requirements of the conservation area and states that buildings to be generally 2-3 storeys. Replacement buildings are required to benefit the character or appearance of the area and generally respect the character of existing architecture, scale, materials. The setting of listed buildings should also be preserved or enhanced. The Jewellery Quarter Character Appraisal and Management Plan also requires the design of new development to respect the scale, form and density of development and states that building heights should generally respect the height of buildings within the locality and normally limited to four storeys. The Jewellery Quarter Design Guide also outlines principles for good design in the

14 Jewellery Quarter including guidance on scale, form, grain, hierarchy and materials.

6.11 There is also a statutory requirement to have special regard to the desirability of preserving listed buildings and their settings and to pay special attention to the desirability of preserving or enhancing the character or appearance of conservation areas. The NPPF requires new development within conservation areas and within the setting of heritage assets to enhance or better reveal their significance and decisions should address the integration of new development into the historic environment.

6.12 Proposed new buildings A and B are 4 storeys in height which is the same as the phase 1 UCB development at McIntyre House. Building C fronting George Street is slightly lower although it rises in height to the equilivant of 4 storeys to the rear. Building heights in the immediate area vary from 2-5 storeys and the development would adjoin the retain facades of the James Cond building which are 2 and 3 storeys high.

6.13 Concerns have been raised about the proposed building heights and the integration of the new building to the lower retained facades of the James Cond building. Objections have also been raised to the increased building heights proposed on the site and the impact this would have on adjacent listed buildings and on the residential amenities of occupants on the apartment developments in the vicinity. In terms of design the issues are whether the proposed elevational treatment and materials reflect the Jewellery Quarter Design guidance and are appropriate for the conservation area.

The Committee may wish to comment on the height and design of the buildings and their impact on the adjacent buildings and the Conservation Area

6.14 Issue 4 – Closure of Holland Street

6.15 The application proposes that there would be a change of use of Holland Street from formally adopted highway to a privately managed, covered and gated external space. It would become part of the University campus to ensure the safety of students as the new facilities would provide vocational education to students from the age of 14 as well as vulnerable adults. The applicants advise that under the provisions of the Education Act 2002 they are required to provide a safe environment in which students can learn including and that it is incumbent on them to assesses all potential risks to students and take measures to mitigate, minimise and prevent them occurring. This includes providing a safe and secure environment within which to teach by regulating those who have access to the teaching facilities and excluding or minimising access by others. They consider this is best achieved through providing a secure site and regulated access.

6.16 It is therefore proposed that Holland Street would be closed at all times for vehicle traffic and would not be available for pedestrians/cyclists between the hours of 08:30 and 18:30 Monday-Thursday and 08:30 and 16:30 Fridays during UCB term time which covers 36 weeks of the year. During this time an alternative route for pedestrians/cyclists would be made available from opening a route along the Whitmore Arm although this would be a private route and not adoptable highway.

6.16 In addition as part of the desire to create a secure campus and provide greater utilisation of Holland Street for student use it is proposed to erect a high level canopy across Holland Street. This would be open ended and attached to supports approximately 1 metre above the above the roof of buildings A and B and McIntyre House.

6.17 Objections have been raised regarding the loss of Holland Street as public highway, its closure to vehicles and the loss of the existing on street permit car parking spaces. The principle of covering the street and the design and appearance of the canopy has also attracted some criticism. Whilst there is some support for the establishment of an alternative route for cyclists/pedestrians between George Street and Charlotte Street objections have been raised to it being an un-adopted private route and the impact the use of this route could have on occupiers of the adjacent listed buildings.

The Committee may wish to comment on the proposed closure of Holland Street, the canopy and the provision of the route along the Whitmore Arm.

6.18 Issue 5 – Provision of the multi storey car park

6.19 The application includes the provision of a multi storey car park with 234 spaces. This would be in the form of 4 floors of parking above ground floor retail uses fronting George Street and 5 floors of parking above ground floor space at the rear adjacent to the service courtyard and Whitmore Arm. It is proposed that the car park together with a further 14 spaces proposed in the inner courtyard would replace the 173 spaces currently on application site, a 54 spaces the applicants currently lease at Lionel House and a further 38 spaces they have at Summer Row.

6.20 The proposal to provide a multi storey car park on the application site has been the subject of much discussion with the applicants. The Jewellery Quarter Design Guide states that in new development car parking should be accommodated below ground wherever possible or in small enclosed rear yards. It should be integrated into development to create the least impact on the character of the area. The applicants originally proposed to provide about 500 spaces on the site within a multi storey building however this has been reduced by about 50% through negotiations. None the less a large multi storey building would still be required on the site to accommodate car parking predominantly for staff.

6.21 A number of the representations received question the need for a multi storey car park given the sustainable centre location of the site and the availability of public transport, pedestrian access and cycle access. Comments have also been received advising that there are already other car parks within walking distance of the site including the NCP car park at George Street with around 528 spaces and that the additional traffic trying to enter/exit George Street will cause traffic issues and disturbance to local residents, movements around the surrounding area. It would also be a safety issue for nearby Perry Beeches School. Other objectors consider that without a new car park, the development could be less intrusive.

6.22 The applicants point out that the City Council’s SPD which sets out parking standards has a maximum provision of 1 space per 4 staff and 1 space per 30 students for Higher and Further Education facilities. Bases on the existing and proposed numbers of staff and students at UCB which are 700 staff and 13,000 students would result in a maximum figure of 608 spaces and that they are well below this. The application also includes a draft travel plan to encourage the use of sustainable travel modes and the applicants are already affiliated to the Council’s Travelwise scheme.

The Committee may wish to comment on the proposal to provide a multi storey car park on the site

6.23 Issue 6 – Section 106 Offer

6.24 When considering most major planning applications for developments within the Jewellery Quarter Conservation Area contributions are often sought towards public realm improvements. These are often then used to re surface public footways in the Jewellery Quarter with blue brick. In other instances developments have includes include public realm improvements around the perimeter of the site again resurfacing existing footways.

6.25 Although this application includes proposals to resurface the existing tarmac footways on Holland Street and to upgrade the route of the Whitmore Arm to providing cobbles, a ramp and steps these are proposed to be private routes rather than public highway. No improvements to the public realm are proposed in connection with this application and no off site contribution is being offered.

6.26 In connection with the phase 1 development the footway adjacent to the McIntyre House on Charlotte Street was resurfaced with blue bricks along the extent of the site frontage. It may therefore be considered appropriate to request the developer to undertake further public realm on the site frontages or to provide an off-site contribution.

The Committee may wish to comment on whether there should be a Section 106 offer to contribute towards off site public realm improvements or that the developer should undertake such works in the vicinity of the site.

17 Photo(s)

Figure 1: View from Charlotte Street showing phase 1 McIntyre House with James Cond building beyond

Figure 2: View down Holland Street from Charlotte Street 18

Figure 3: View showing Lodge Cottrell Building wing proposed for demolition and its relationship to McIntyre House

Figure 4: View showing James Cond building wing proposed for demolition

Figure 5: View from George Street showing Lodge Cottrell building proposed for demolition

Figure 6: View of George Street showing James Cond building and listed Newhall Works

Figure 7: View from Charlotte Street into Whitmore Arm showing relationship with listed House of York

Figure 8: View of proposed Whitmore Arm link from George Street showing relationship with listed Broughton Works

Location Plan

22 Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 18 February 2016

Appeal Decisions Received from the Planning Inspectorate in January 2016

CATEGORY ADDRESS USE DECISION TYPE PROCEDURE

Erection of a detached 94 Sandford Road, single-storey building at Written Enforcement Dismissed Enf Moseley the rear of 96 Sandford Representations Road. 2014/0278/ENF

Erection of single-storey Alowed 352 Moseley Road, Written Enforcement rear extension. (see note 1 Enf Balsall Heath Representations 2015/0202/ENF attached)

2 Broomdene Erection of two-storey side Written Householder Dismissed Delegated Avenue, Hodge Hill extension. 2015/05239/PA Representations

Retention of single-storey 72 Hartfield Crescent, Written Householder rear extension. Dismissed Delegated Acocks Green Representations 2015/04185/PA

Erection of 2 dwelling 5 Ellerton Road, houses with associated Written Residential Land Adjacent, Dismissed Delegated parking and landscaping. Representations Kingstanding 2015/03085/PA

Erection of one dwelling 48 Cartwright Road, house and installation of Written Residential Land Adjacent, Dismissed Delegated footway crossing. Representations Sutton Coldfield 2015/02692/PA

Retention of single-storey extension and change of 76 Wrentham Street, Written Other use to a Sheesha Lounge Dismissed Delegated Nechells Representations (Sui Generis). 2015/01213/PA

Removal of Condition 1 attached to planning Maypole Service approval 2013/07002/PA Allowed Station, 171-173 Written Other to allow 24 hour opening (see note 2 Delegated Maypole Lane, Kings Representations of petrol station and attached) Heath associated shop. 2015/04126/PA

Page 1 of 2 Birmingham City Council Planning Committee 18 February 2016

Appeal Decisions Received from the Planning Inspectorate in January 2016

CATEGORY ADDRESS USE DECISION TYPE PROCEDURE

Minor Material Amendment to planning permission Dismissed 124 Billesley Lane, 2014/03677/PA for Written Other (see note 3 Delegated Moseley increase in height and Representations attached) changes to roof shape and inclusion of third bedroom to Flat 2. 2015/04843/PA

Total - 9 Decisions: 7 Dismissed (78%), 2 Allowed

Cumulative total from 1 April 2015 - 92 Decisions: 72 Dismissed (78%), 18 Allowed, 2 Part Allowed

Page 2 of 2 Notes relating to appeal decisions received in January 2016

Note 1 (352 Moseley Road)

Enforcement Notice issued because: 1) It appears to the Council that the above breach of planning control has occurred within the last four years and 2) The design and materials of the unauthorised single-storey rear extension are out of keeping with the design, character and appearance of the existing property and the area in general.

Appeal allowed because the Inspector concluded that the appellant’s evidence is sufficiently precise and unambiguous to demonstrate that, on the balance of probabilities, the extension was substantially completed four years before the enforcement notice was issued.

Note 2: (Maypole Service Station)

Application refused because the proposed 24 hour commercial operations at the site would give rise to an adverse impact on neighbouring residential amenity, by virtue of noise and general disturbance.

Appeal allowed because the Inspector considered that a new condition restricting the timing of deliveries to 0700 hours - 2100 hours daily, together with other measures would be likely to significantly reduce and manage noise within the site during the night. Therefore, subject to the compliance of all other conditions and taking account of the improvements made by the appellant, the Inspector concluded that the removal of condition 1 would not cause unacceptable levels of noise and disturbance or result in material harm to the living conditions of occupiers of neighbouring properties.

Note 3 (124 Billesley Lane)

The appellant’s application for an award of costs was refused. BIRMINGHAM CITY COUNCIL

Appendix

REPORT OF DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND REGENERATION

PLANNING COMMITTEE 18th February 2016

Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy

1. Subject and Brief Summary of Proposals

1.1 The Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) are consulting on proposed changes to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The proposed changes all relate to housing policy and support the government’s agenda for increasing housing delivery.

2. Recommendations

The letter appended to this report is sent to the DCLG as the City Council’s response to the consultation.

3. Contact Officer

Paul Williams Principal Planning Officer Strategic Planning Planning and Regeneration Tel: 0121 675 9269 Email: [email protected]

4.0 Background

4.1 The consultation paper “Proposed changes to national planning policy” was published by DCLG on 7th December 2015. The consultation runs until Monday 22nd February 2016. The consultation proposes changes to the NPPF. The proposed changes all relate to housing policy and support the government’s agenda for increasing housing delivery and increasing home ownership. Some of the proposals have been the subject of previous consultations, others are new.

5.0 Summary of Proposals

5.1 Affordable Housing - The proposal is to amend the definition of affordable housing so that it includes a wider range of products. There is an emphasis on affordable home ownership and products which would enable people to access home ownership. More innovative rental products are also proposed. It would no longer be necessary for the housing to remain affordable in perpetuity or to have recycled subsidy.

5.2 Increasing Residential Density around Commuter Hubs - The proposal is that local planning authorities, in both plan making and in taking planning decisions, should seek higher density development around commuter hubs. Commuter hubs are defined as a rail, tube or tram interchanges where people can alight and continue their journey on public transport, or where there is a frequent service (every 15 minutes) that stops. It is not envisaged that the policy would be prescriptive by setting a minimum density requirement; rather, density ranges would be decided locally but it gives an example of uplifting density from 34 to 40 dwellings per hectare.

5.3 Supporting New Settlements - The proposal is to make national policy more supportive of new settlements. Local authorities should work proactively with developers coming forward with proposals for new settlements.

5.4 Supporting Housing Development on Brownfield Land and Small Sites - The proposal is to encourage the effective use of brownfield land. Local authorities would establish registers of brownfield land suitable for housing use. All sites on the register would have permission in principle for new homes. Authorities would be able to set targets for development on brownfield land.

The same approach (permission in principle for new homes) would apply to all sites (not just brownfield) of less than 10 dwellings so long as they are within existing settlement boundaries and schemes are well designed. There is no requirement to maintain a small sites register. Residential garden land would continue to be protected.

5.5 Ensuring that Housing is Delivered on Land Allocated in Plans - It is proposed to identify under-delivery through a ‘housing delivery test’ which compares a local plan’s housing requirement with net completions. Where under delivery is identified over a sustained period the local authority will have to take action which could include the identification of additional sites, a full or partial plan review or a targeted policy review.

5.6 Starter Homes – Unviable and Underused Commercial and Employment Land - The proposal is to ensure that unviable or underused commercial and employment land is released under an exceptions policy for starter homes. The intention is to amend paragraph 22 of the NPPF to make it clear that unviable or underused employment land should be released unless there are compelling reasons why it should be retained for employment use. Plans should adopt a policy setting out how long employment land will be protected if it is not in use.

The proposal extends the exceptions policy for starter homes to incorporate unviable or underused retail, leisure and non-residential institutional uses (such as Health and education). The NPPF will be amended to make it clear that planning permission can only be rejected if there are overriding design, infrastructure or environmental considerations, such as flooding, which cannot be mitigated.

5.7 Encouraging Starter Homes within Mixed Use Commercial Developments - The proposal is to encourage starter homes within existing centres in commercial units which have been unlet for a ‘reasonable’ period of time and there is little likelihood of them being let for commercial use.

5.8 Encouraging Starter Homes in Rural Areas - The proposal is to permit starter homes to be built on rural exceptions sites. They would be subject to the same resale limits as other starter homes but the local authority could, exceptionally, require a local connection test.

5.9 Enabling Communities to Identify Opportunities for Starter Homes - The proposal is to allow Neighbourhood Plans to allocate appropriate small-scale sites within the Green Belt specifically for starter homes.

5.10 Brownfield Land in the Green Belt - The proposal is to allow the development of brownfield land within the Green Belt in the same way as other brownfield land so long as it contributes to the delivery of starter homes (note: it does not say exclusively for starter homes). Paragraph 89 of the NPPF (on the impact on the openness of the Green Belt) would be amended so development on brownfield land within the Green Belt would only be considered inappropriate where the harm to openness was substantial.

6.0 Key Matters for Consideration

6.1 These proposed revisions to the NPPF are driven by the Government’s current policy priority to increase housing delivery and in particular to increase the number of starter homes. As a result there is a risk of this issue being considered in isolation and for there to be unintended impacts on the delivery of other policy priorities – for example economic restructuring and growth, and public health. It would have been preferable for a broader review of the NPPF to have been undertaken, which provided the opportunity for a more balanced approach to be taken.

6.2 That said, it must also be acknowledged that there is an urgent need to increase housing delivery, and a number of the proposals contained in the consultation paper will be helpful in assisting this. However the impact of many of the proposals seems likely to be limited and in some cases any benefits may well be offset by adverse consequences.

6.3 A detailed response, following the format of the Consultation Paper, is set out in the appendix to this report. Since this is quite lengthy, some of the key points are summarised below: • Expanding the range of affordable tenures to include starter homes may well be helpful, but it is essential that decisions on the mix of affordable housing to be provided in individual cases is based on evidence of local housing needs and not simply driven by a national priority to increase the number of starter homes. The proposal will not increase the number of affordable homes overall so an increase in starter homes will be at the expense of affordable rented housing.

• The proposals for higher densities around commuter hubs are welcomed. It is agreed that the NPPF should not be prescriptive on the issue of densities, but the figures referred to in the Consultation Paper lack ambition.

• The inclusion in the NPPF of references to the potential of new settlements to help deliver housing needs is welcome – but should also refer to other approaches such as urban extensions and expanded settlements which may also be appropriate. It would also be helpful to include a reference to the need for green belt reviews in circumstances (such as the West Midlands) where no other options are available.

• Brownfield registers are supported – and the decision not to require the production of Local Development Orders is welcomed. However it is not considered that there should be a general presumption in favour of brownfield development outside urban areas.

• The proposal to extend the presumption in favour of development to all small sites within settlements is not supported. It would potentially put at risk valuable areas of open space, and would be difficult to apply in practice.

• Housing delivery should be monitored against the housing trajectory set in the Local Plan. A review should be triggered if delivery falls more than 10% below the cumulative target at any point after three years – but it should not automatically be assumed that the response to this should be to release more sites.

• Local Plans should, as required by the NPPF, assess objectively requirements for employment and commercial land and land identified to meet these requirements should be protected from other forms of development. Other former employment land should be retained for employment purposes where it is not a non-conforming use and where evidence indicates that there is a continuing demand for its use for employment. The length of time a site has been vacant should not be used as an indicator that the site is no longer required without other supporting evidence.

• The inclusion in the NPPF of a reference to the potential for housing to be delivered through mixed use schemes is welcome.

• Any proposal to allow starter homes on brownfield sites in the green belt should be limited to small sites.

• It does not appear that there would be a need for any revisions to the BDP as a result of these proposed changes – but some of the proposals (such as brownfield land registers) will take time to implement.

7.0 Conclusions

7.1 The draft response is set out at in the appendix to this report.

8.0 Financial Implications

8.1 None identified.

9.0 Implications for Policy Priorities

9.1 None identified.

10.0 Implications for Equalities

10.1 No significant direct impacts have been identified. However the proposals are likely to have the effect of reducing the resources available for affordable rented housing and will impact on groups who rely on this form of housing.

11.0 Background Papers

1. DCLG Consultation paper

______

Waheed Nazir

Director of Planning and Regeneration APPENDIX

Planning and Regeneration PO Box 28, Birmingham B1 1TU

21st February 2016

Planning Policy Consultation Team Department for Communities and Local Government 3rd floor Fry Building 2 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DF

Dear Sir/Madam

Consultation on proposed changes to national planning policy

Thank you for consulting the City Council on the above.

The Council acknowledges that there is an urgent need to increase housing delivery, and support the government’s intentions in proposing measures seeking to facilitate this. A number of the proposals contained in the consultation paper will be helpful in this respect; however the impact of some of the proposals may well be offset by adverse consequences.

The proposed revisions to the NPPF are driven by the policy priority to increase housing delivery and in particular to increase the number of starter homes. As a result there is a risk of this issue being considered in isolation and for there to be unintended impacts on the delivery of other policy priorities – for example economic restructuring and growth. For this reason the Council consider that some caution should be exercised when finalising the proposals and that the potential consequences of specific proposals are fully examined.

The City Council’s response to each of the questions in your consultation paper is set out below:

Q1. Do you have any comments or suggestions about the proposal to amend the definition of affordable housing in national planning policy to include a wider range of low cost home ownership options?

The City Council accept that the range of affordable housing tenures could be expanded and that ‘new’ tenures based on home ownership could be introduced.

However, the scale of the affordable housing shortage is great and the resources available to address it are limited, so it is important that when additional affordable housing is delivered it is of a tenure that meets local needs, whether this is an existing ‘rented’ tenure, a new ‘ownership’ tenure or a mix of both. In some areas house prices are sufficiently low to enable first time buyers to access the housing market with little difficulty, while in others there may already be a sufficient supply of affordable rented housing. The NPPF should therefore require that, in negotiating affordable housing contributions, local authorities should plan to meet identified local housing needs and should seek the appropriate tenures of affordable housing to achieve this.

It would also be helpful for the NPPF to specify the affordable tenures and set out the characteristics that define each of the tenures. This would greatly assist the local authority when undertaking an affordable housing needs assessment (and demonstrating need for the various tenures) and to enable consistent monitoring at both local and national level.

This proposal will not impact on the number of affordable dwellings being delivered overall but will result in a reduction in the amount of rented affordable housing being provided, potentially reducing the ability of those in the greatest need at the bottom of the housing ladder to access suitable housing. Ensuring that the tenures provided reflect local need will help to minimise this impact. The provision of affordable housing in the form of starter homes, irrespective of local need, could impact on development plan strategies which aim to create sustainable, balanced communities.

It is concerning that the affordable tenures which lead to home ownership will be lost to the affordable stock after a period of time but the City Council accept that the ability to sell on at market value will be necessary if the initial owner is not to become ‘trapped’ in the property and be unable to move up the housing ladder at a later date due to the price gap created when passing on the subsidy.

Where the new affordable tenures are not subject to ‘in perpetuity’ restrictions the homes will be lost to the affordable housing stock after a relatively short period of time, just five years in the case of starter homes. Given that these homes will be ‘affordable’ for such a short time, consideration should be given to bringing ‘non perpetuity’ affordable homes within the remit of the Community Infrastructure Levy in order to ensure that they fully contribute to the infrastructure requirements of the development.

Q2. Do you have any views on the implications of the proposed change to the definition of affordable housing on people with protected characteristics as defined in the Equalities Act 2010? What evidence do you have on this matter?

The Council has no specific comments on this, but as noted in response to Question 1, the effect of introducing home ownership affordable tenures will be to reduce the resources available for rented affordable housing.

On page 12 the Equalities Assessment suggests that 1.4 to 1.8 starter homes could be provided for every 1 affordable rented property. If so this would mean that the total number of ‘affordable’ homes delivered through S106 could potentially be increased. However the level of provision that the city council seeks to negotiate is set in the development plan as a percentage of units so whilst the proposal would reduce the cost to the developer it would not increase the number of affordable homes being delivered. Increased delivery could only be achieved through a modification to the plan, which would need to be based on updated evidence regarding need. This would take time and resources to complete, so this is not likely to be a benefit in the short to medium term.

Q3. Do you agree with the Government’s definition of commuter hub? If not, what changes do you consider are required?

The Council welcomes this addition to the NPPF. Increasing densities around commuter hubs is supported and is already reflected in the Council’s planning policies and this change should assist the Council in applying this policy.

Part B of the definition appears overly constrained by restricting it to “a place”. A frequent bus or tram service running every 15 minutes is likely to be along an arterial route into a town or city centre thereby creating a linear zone of high accessibility rather than a circular hub around a particular place. Part B of the definition may be better phrased as ‘high density public transport corridors connecting to a commuter hub’.

Q4. Do you have any further suggestions for proposals to support higher density development around commuter hubs through the planning system?

The Council has no further suggestions at this stage. However the application of this policy should also recognise the need to ensure that high density hubs such as stations are provided with adequate car and cycle parking facilities.

Q5. Do you agree that the Government should not introduce a minimum level of residential densities in national policy for areas around commuter hubs? If not, why not?

It is accepted that the same density would not be appropriate everywhere and that it would be wrong for the NPPF to be prescriptive on this point. The density that could be applied in a commuter hub in a large urban area may not be appropriate in a market town or a smaller settlement in a rural area on a commuter rail link. However it might be helpful for the NPPF to indicate the scale of the uplift that should be provided – e.g. it could suggest that densities around commuter hubs should be at least 20% above the standard density requirement for the area.

It should be noted that Birmingham already expects densities well above those referred to in the consultation paper. It is important that the NPPF sets high aspirations on this issue if it is to avoid inadvertently undermining policies that are already being applied.

Q6. Do you consider that national planning policy should provide greater policy support for new settlements in meeting development needs? If not, why not?

Planning policy rightly emphasises the importance of brownfield development in meeting housing requirements. However the reality is that in some areas there is insufficient brownfield land to meet objectively assessed needs. In the West Midlands for example this is the case in both Birmingham and Coventry.

In these circumstances there are a number of potential policy responses – for example urban extensions, new settlements, extended settlements or a combination of these. The need for these approaches to be considered is something that could usefully be highlighted in the NPPF – but it would be wrong for the NPPF to give preference to one approach over others, since the most sustainable approach will depend on local circumstances and should be agreed through local plans and/or broader agreements reached through the Duty to Co-operate where more than one LPA is involved.

In some cases these policy responses will require a green belt review to be undertaken. The NPPF should explicitly recognise this and should require LPAs to undertake such reviews in circumstances where the evidence demonstrates that it is not possible to meet objectively assessed development needs without green belt development.

Q7. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of brownfield land for housing? If not, why not and are there any unintended impacts that we should take into account?

The Council supports the re-use of brownfield sites as a priority. The Council also supports the idea of brownfield housing land registers, providing that this is integrated with and does not duplicate the existing SHLAA requirements, and the Council welcomes the fact that there is no longer an intention to require the preparation of Local Development Orders for such sites.

In the context of Birmingham, the Council has no objection to there being a presumption in favour of brownfield redevelopment, subject to compliance with relevant Local Plan policies, including policies which seek to ensure that objectively assessed requirements for employment and other commercial uses are also met.

A presumption in favour of brownfield development outside urban areas needs to be considered carefully. Many brownfield sites are poorly located in relation to jobs, services and transport infrastructure with the result that their development would generate high volumes of car traffic and long commutes. This is not necessarily a sustainable outcome and so brownfield sites should only be considered as suitable for sustainable development if they have good access to infrastructure and jobs.

Q8. Do you consider that it would be beneficial to strengthen policy on development of small sites for housing? If not, why not? How could the change impact on the calculation of the local planning authorities’ five-year land supply?

This suggestion is not supported.

This policy would apply to greenfield sites other than residential gardens. In the context of Birmingham this is likely to mean areas of incidental open space, children’s’ play areas, parts of playing fields and sports pitches, allotments, amenity land, bowling greens and pub and commercial gardens. These are all facilities that are valuable in terms of the health and well-being of the population and which are often highly valued by local people. In many cases they are also areas that are important from a biodiversity/ecological perspective.

Clearly there are examples of small areas of open space which are not of any intrinsic value and such sites do come forward for development as ‘windfalls’ from time to time. Existing policies already allow for this to happen. The introduction of a presumption in favour of the development of all small greenfield sites would put at risk many open space sites of local significance and is not justified. It would also conflict with other aspects of government policy – in particular public health policies designed to reduce obesity, which seek to promote better provision of open space.

Q9. Do you agree with the Government proposal to define a small site as a site of less than 10 units? If not, what other definition do you consider is appropriate, and why?

There are significant practical difficulties in achieving a workable definition.

If the definition is to be based on the number of units that can be accommodated it should be explicit how the site size will be determined, otherwise there will be uncertainty as to whether the site could accommodate more than 9 dwellings or not. If this is open to debate it would defeat the object of speeding up the delivery of housing.

Potentially the density policy in the adopted plan for the area could be used to establish the site size. In Birmingham’s case the minimum densities are 100 dwellings per hectare (dph) in the city centre, 50 dph in transport hubs and 40 dph elsewhere which world mean that small sites were 0.09 ha, 0.18 ha and 0.23ha respectively.

However, often proposals are brought forward (as windfalls) on very small sites and deliver significantly more housing than the minimum specified in the policy. There are individual sites of 0.09 ha or less in Birmingham that have delivered over 100 dwellings. This proposal carries the risk that the potential of sites is not maximised and that schemes of under 10 dwellings are developed on sites which could deliver far more housing.

Q10. Do you consider that national planning policy should set out that local planning authorities should put in place a specific positive local policy for assessing applications for development on small sites not allocated in the Local Plan?

A specific policy for assessing small unallocated sites is not necessary. Although the city Council seek to identify as many development opportunities as possible it is inevitable that with an urban area of 22,000 ha there will be a steady stream of new sites becoming available. Such sites come forward as windfall sites. The importance of windfall sites is acknowledged and the City Council have a long track record in delivering housing on windfall sites where they are appropriate for the use proposed.

Q11. We would welcome your views on how best to implement the housing delivery test, and in particular: • What do you consider should be the baseline against which to monitor delivery of new housing? • What should constitute significant under-delivery, and over what time period? • What steps do you think should be taken in response to significant under-delivery? • How do you see this approach working when the housing policies in the Local Plan are not up-to-date?

Local Plans are expected to establish in policy a housing trajectory setting out the planned delivery of new housing over the plan period. The figures in such policies should set the baseline against which new housing should be delivered and are the appropriate figures to use for monitoring purposes.

Many factors can influence housing delivery in the short-term and variation, either above or below, the figures set in the trajectory on a year on year basis is therefore to be expected. Under-delivery will only be an issue if it persists over several years, and if the shortfall is significant in the context of the planned target. A review of the planning and delivery strategy should not therefore be required until at least three years from adoption of the plan. Thereafter it is suggested that a review should be triggered if delivery falls to 10% or more below the cumulative target set in the trajectory at any point.

In some cases the appropriate response to a shortfall in delivery may be to identify additional development opportunities but this is not necessarily the case. If a local authority has successfully maintained a 5-year supply of housing land for example but delivery has still fallen short of the requirement it is far from clear that identifying additional sites will solve the problem. Other issues, such as delays in delivering essential infrastructure, the need for interventions to help bring forward brownfield development opportunities or the need to reconsider what may be an unrealistic target will also need to be considered.

Housing policies in Local Plans are likely to become out-of-date either because there are significant changes in household projections, there is significant variation from the planned housing trajectory, or the plan period has less than ten years to run. In any of these circumstances a review of the plan should be triggered.

Q12. What would be the impact of a housing delivery test on development activity?

Because of the time-lags involved, in the short-term such a test is unlikely to have any meaningful effect. However in the medium to long-term it could help to ensure that housing delivery and housing needs are better aligned.

Measures to help speed up local plan processes and review processes in particular would be helpful in this respect. However it appears inevitable that review processes that require the allocation of additional greenfield sites for housing will be controversial and are likely to take 2 to 3 years to complete.

Q13. What evidence would you suggest could be used to justify retention of land for commercial or similar use? Should there be a fixed time limit on land retention for commercial use?

It is recognised that there is no benefit in former employment land being retained for potential employment use when there is no realistic prospect that this will happen in practice. However it is also important to recognise that the NPPF requires local planning authorities to plan to meet all objectively assessed requirements for development, including requirements for employment, retail and commercial development as well as requirements for housing. In a major urban area like Birmingham the majority of employment and commercial sites will come forward through the recycling and redevelopment of former employment land. The process of recycling such sites can be challenging and can take many years to complete. It is important that the planning system provides certainty regarding the future of these sites to assist this process.

Planning policy therefore needs to ensure that an adequate supply of such sites is retained for the long term, while providing for the flexibility for sites which are not required or are no longer suitable for employment to be made available for alternative uses.

In order to achieve this local plan policies need to identify employment land needs (as required by the NPPF) and to identify sufficient sites or sufficient core employment areas to enable these requirements to be met. Once such sites and locations have been identified, it will be appropriate for the planning system to prevent them from being developed for other uses.

Vacant sites outside these identified locations should be considered for alternative uses such as starter housing, and there should be a presumption in favour of this where either:

• The site is a non-conforming use and is no longer suitable for employment development. • The site has been actively marketed for employment use at an appropriate value for a minimum of two years and no suitable interest has been shown. It should be for the landowner/developer to demonstrate this.

Q14. Do you consider that the starter homes exception site policy should be extended to unviable or underused retail, leisure and non-residential institutional brownfield land?

The City Council would have no objection to this, subject to the caveats set out in response to the previous question.

However vacant former health and education uses are already included in the Council’s identified housing supply so in practice this is unlikely to generate any significant additional supply. Policy should also recognise that in the case of larger sites, while a significant proportion of starter homes may be required, it will usually be appropriate for mixed use redevelopment to take place, incorporating a range of uses (potentially including other forms of housing) in order to create balanced communities.

Q15. Do you support the proposal to strengthen the starter homes exception site policy? If not, why not?

The inclusion of greater clarity on this issue may well be helpful. Any clarification should however be clear that refusal will be justified in cases where proposals conflict with the policies of an adopted Local Plan.

Q16. Should starter homes form a significant element of any housing component within mixed use developments and converted unlet commercial units?

The City Council pioneered the inclusion of a residential element within mixed use redevelopments in the 1980s and 1990s and has been successful in delivering many such schemes. The Council continues to promote this approach. There would be no objection to the NPPF expressing support for the principle of this. However it would not be helpful for national policy to attempt to be prescriptive in relation to the proportion or type of housing that should be provided since this will inevitably vary from scheme to scheme depending on circumstances.

Since any housing proposals contained within mixed use schemes would be subject to affordable housing policies, the Council considers that it would be unnecessary to make reference to starter homes in this context.

The Council would not support a blanket provision enabling the conversion of vacant commercial units to housing. While this may be appropriate in some circumstances, there may also be occasions where there would be adverse impacts on neighbouring units still in commercial use, or potential conflicts between uses. For example, conversion of ground floor units in shopping centres may create dead frontage reducing the overall attractiveness of the centre.

Q17. Should rural exception sites be used to deliver starter homes in rural areas? If so, should local planning authorities have the flexibility to require local connection tests?

No comment. The city does not have a rural area.

Q18. Are there any other policy approaches to delivering starter homes in rural areas that you would support?

No comment. The city does not have a rural area.

Q19. Should local communities have the opportunity to allocate sites for small scale starter home developments in their Green Belt through neighbourhood plans?

Whilst this proposal is unlikely to be an issue in Birmingham, if the NPPF was to be amended to enable local communities to allocate land in Neighbourhood Plans the Council’s view is that the sites should not be restricted to starter homes but should encompass all tenures of affordable housing, and that sites should be subject to a sustainability appraisal to ensure the most appropriate, least damaging option is selected.

However the benefits of this approach in terms of additional housing delivery appear to be limited. Allowing development in the Green Belt is likely to be divisive and controversial within local communities even where there is a majority in favour. Production of Neighbourhood plans could well become much more contentious for what looks like a very small increase in housing supply.

Q20. Should planning policy be amended to allow redevelopment of brownfield sites for starter homes through a more flexible approach to assessing the impact on openness?

This is unlikely to be a significant issue in Birmingham, where there is relatively little Green Belt. However it should be noted that the City Council has already promoted the development of brownfield land within Birmingham’s green belt for development for both employment and housing purposes through the development plan process. In both cases the sites in question were previously used for sewage treatment purposes. This indicates that it is perfectly possible for brownfield land within the green belt to be brought forward for development where there is a requirement for this without the need for a change to national policy.

Green Belt areas sometimes contain large brownfield sites, such as former airfields, mines, power stations or operational land such as sewage works. Such sites may not be well-located in relation to existing infrastructure or employment, and may be valuable from other perspectives (such as biodiversity). Care needs to be taken to ensure that any policy revision does not have the unintended consequence of creating a preference for the development of such sites when they may not be the most sustainable option.

One option would be specify the maximum size of site which the policy would apply to and confirm that sites above the threshold would still be subject to a Green Belt review.

As it stands it is unclear from the consultation document whether the sites would be developed exclusively for starter homes or whether an element of starter homes would be required on the site. This should be clarified.

Q21. We would welcome your views on our proposed transitional arrangements.

The acknowledgement that it is not intended for these policy proposals to slow down the preparation of existing Local Plans, nor require Local Plans now in the examination process to be revisited is welcomed.

The Council does not consider that the proposals in relation to affordable housing would require a review of the Birmingham Development Plan. However in cases where a review is required the Council considers that it will require significantly longer than 6 to 9 months to complete such a review in line with the regulations.

More generally, the proposals will place extra duties on local authorities which are already under pressure and it will take time to implement some of the proposals. For instance, from a Birmingham perspective, establishing a brownfield register in city with an urban area of 22,000 hectares will not be straight forward. A realistic view needs to be taken of the time that it will take to complete this.

Q22. What are your views on the assumptions and data sources set out in this document to estimate the impact of the proposed changes? Is there any other evidence which you think we need to consider?

No comment.

Q23. Have you any other views on the implications of our proposed changes to national planning policy on people with protected characteristics as defined in the Equalities Act 2010? What evidence do you have on this matter?

No comment.

Once again, thank you for consulting the City Council.

Yours sincerely

Waheed Nazir Director of Planning and Regeneration [email protected]